annual report to the congress for 1979 - ota archive

Annual Report to the Congress for 1979

March 1980

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 052-003-00742-8

CONTENTS

SectionI. Statements by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board

and the Director of OTA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II. Summaries of OTA Reports Completed in 1979 . . . . . . . . . .

III. Work in Progress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV. Other Services for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V. Organization and Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendixes:A. Summary Report of Advisory Council Activities. . . . . . . . . . .B. Work in Progress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. List of Published OTA Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D. List of Advisors and Panel Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E. Technology Assessment Act of 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

39

315361

6970717799

Section I

STATEMENTS BY THECHAIRMAN ANDVICE CHAIRMAN OFTHE BOARD AND THEDIRECTOR OF OTA

Section ISTATEMENTS BY THE CHAIRMAN ANDVICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND THEDIRECTOR OF OTA

Chairman’s Statement—Congressman Morris K. Udall

During my tenure on the Board, I have en-joyed watching OTA develop into an effectivesupport agency of Congress—one whose adviceis sought and conclusions are heeded. As a resultof OTA’s success, Congress now has an all-im-portant in-house capability to apply independentanalysis to complex policy issues involving tech-nology. OTA provides Congress with a uniqueand flexible mechanism to reach out and enlistthe technical assistance and advice of experts inall sectors of our Nation. In performing this job,OTA receives the respect of the Members ofCongress, and the increased interest of congres-sional committees in obtaining OTA’s assistancein evaluating complicated technological issues.

OTA’s bicameral and bipartisan Board of Di-rectors strives to ensure that the type and qualityof work that emerges from OTA fully merits theCongress’ trust and the taxpayer’s investment. Iam pleased to report for the Board our satisfac-tion with the year now past and our confidence inOTA’s continued service in the year ahead.

I have been privileged to have SenatorStevens of Alaska serve as Vice Chairman of theBoard. His support and wisdom have assisted usin achieving many of the Board’s goals through-out the year.

We were very fortunate to see Dr. FrederickC. Robbins elected Chairman of the TechnologyAssessment Advisory Council with Dr. JeromeWeisner as Vice Chairman. In having such distin-guished experts to lead our Council, men de-voted to the service of Congress and the country,TAAC is in capable hands. We deeply appreciatetheir continued commitment.

In June 1979, Dr. John H. Gibbons was ap-pointed Director of OTA. I am grateful that we

were able to attract to this position a man of hisdemonstrated leadership, scientific contributions,and nationally recognized expertise on energyand environmental matters. He has brought toOTA a positive, stabilizing influence, and I lookforward to having him at OTA’s helm as it helpsCongress sort out and face up to the technologi-cal issues before the country.

Under Dr. Gibbons’ direction, OTA has ac-complished much. It presented testimony beforenumerous committees throughout the year andpublished 26 reports and other work in 1979. Weare confident that OTA will continue its finerecord of producing high-quality studies in amanner which is responsive to the needs of itsmany clients in Congress. While the comprehen-sive OTA reports continue to provide the basisfor OTA’s advice and assistance to Congress,much value is also derived from such work prod-ucts of OTA staff as special memoranda, brief-ings, and testimony. These daily, largely unseen,activities continue to help Congress make betterdecisions and anticipate issues sooner than mightotherwise be possible.

I would also like to extend the gratitude of theBoard to Daniel De Simone, Deputy Director,who so ably and willingly served as Acting Direc-tor during our selection process. We commendhim for his professional achievements and energyin OTA’s behalf.

I am proud to serve as Chairman of the OTABoard and look forward with much enthusiasmto the challenges facing us during the 1980’s. Inthis complex world, we continue to need carefuland objective analysis of the untold technologicalimpacts facing us; and it appears that OTA is theinstitution to answer the call.

3

4 ● Annual Report to the Congress for 1979

Vice Chairman’s Statement—Senator Ted Stevens

As Vice Chairman, I had the honor to workwith the skilled and knowledgeable members ofthe Technology Assessment Board in 1979. It ismy belief that during the year the Board took im-portant steps to improve its working relationshipwith OTA, and I look forward to the continuationof this valuable work in the second session ofCongress.

1979 was a tumultuous year for OTA. Gover-nor Russell W. Peterson, its second Director, re-signed in March, and his successor, Dr. John H.Gibbons, had only been at work a short timewhen he had to deal with a budget crisis which, incombination with other internal problems, threat-ened to seriously impair OTA’s ability to serveCongress. I believe that the worst of these prob-lems is now behind us, and I am encouraged bythe efforts being made to prevent similar prob-lems from developing in the future. OTA’s re-sources are too valuable and limited to waste inunproductive controversy.

Working closely with Dr. Gibbons, the Boardrevised its operations in 1979. The Director’sability to develop proposals for the Board, to re-spond to short-term congressional requests, andto convey completed assessments to requestersin a timely fashion was enhanced. In addition,new procedures were implemented to ensure

that the Board would obtain the information itneeded to set policy and oversee operations.

As Chairman, Congressman Udall of Arizonagave essential guidance to the Board throughoutthe year. His firm leadership, combined with hisconcern for the views of other members of theBoard, made the Board’s fine work possible. Itwas a pleasure to serve with him.

Many interesting issues will be coming upbefore the Board in the second session. Theterms of four members of the Technology As-sessment Advisory Council will be up, and theBoard will select new members and review theoperations of the Council. More efforts will bemade to streamline OTA operations. Most im-portantly, as the backlog of old assessments is re-duced, there will be more opportunities to con-sider new proposals.

In conclusion, I would like to welcome Dr.John Gibbons. In the short time he has been atOTA, our new Director has demonstrated genu-ine desire and ability to work with Congress. Hehas made great strides in improving budgetingand planning procedures. I am certain that OTAwill continue to benefit from Dr. Gibbons’ leader-ship. We will all work to improve OTA’s alreadyimpressive record.

Director’s Statement—John H. Gibbons

OTA’s role is to serve Congress by doing ob- capabilities, productivity, and dedication ofjective, nonpartisan, comprehensive analyses of OTA’s staff and with the respect and interestnational issues that involve technology. OTA OTA commands among knowledgeable peopledoes that job by linking congressional needs to across the country. It is indeed a privilege to havethe best expertise that exists anywhere in the been chosen to lead this effort.country. Information drawn from those experts(typically in industry, academia, labor, and publicinterest groups) is further analyzed and integratedat OTA into forms appropriate to the needs ofCongress. Thus, OTA’S staff must be flexible,analytic, and attuned to working with a broadvariety of people.

During 1979, OTA not only completed manyformal assessments, but also spent considerabletime and effort in translating, summarizing, andcommunicating the results to meet various specif-ic needs of Congress. One new form of publica-tion, the “technical memorandum, ” was intro-duced to enable us to extract elements of an

Since arriving in June to succeed Dr. Peter- ongoing assessment and deliver the informationson, I constantly have been impressed with the to Congress in time for use in legislative deci-

Section /–Statements by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board and the Director of OTA ● 5

sions. OTA also was called on with increasing fre-quency to provide testimony, especially with re-spect to energy issues.

As we pause to consider the status and out-look for science and technology and attendantimpacts on our society, it is clear that “interestingtimes” lie ahead of us. (An old Chinese cursegoes something like this: “May you live in inter-esting times.”) The decade of the 1980’s willsurely witness major changes in energy, telecom-munications, genetic engineering, and the like.Exciting new options will become available to ap-ply human ingenuity through technological andinstitutional innovations to improve the lot ofhumankind.

At the same time that major technological ad-

vances can help us achieve our aspirations theycan also frustrate them. One person has aptly de-scribed nuclear energy as providing simultane-ously the promises of heaven and the perils ofhell. Advances in computers and telecommuni-cations can open new vistas in improved produc-tivity of people and resources, but they can alsolead to new arms races, invasions of privacy, andthe displacement of traditional jobs.

OTA’s role is to help Congress and the Ameri-can people understand a little better and a littlesooner the dynamics of technology in our soci-ety. We look forward to another interesting year,sobered by events of the recent past, but confi-dent that ingenuity can productively influenceour collective social choices.

OTA Director’s Swearing-In Ceremony

(Above) Dr. Gibbons being sworn in by OTA BoardChairman Rep. Morris K. Udall, as Mike McNulty,

Congressman Udall’s staff counsel, holds the HolyBible. TAB Members, Representatives John W. Wydler

(left) and John D. Dingell are in the foreground.(Top right) Chairman Udall and Dr. Gibbons. (Lower right)

Dr. Gibbons chatting with Dr. Alexander Hollaender,Member of the National Academy of Sciences


Congressional, Industry, and Academia Interactions

(Left to right) J. Fred Bucy (TAAC); Congressman ClarenceE. Miller (TAB); former OTA Director Russell W. Peterson,Jerome Wiesner (TAAC); and Senator Edward M. Kennedy

(TAB) in discussion following the joint meeting Solar Power Satellite Panelist’s Meeting

OTA Automobile R&D Seminar—Panel participantsconducting a meeting on 1 of the 3 days that the seminarwas held. (Left to right) Julius Harwood, Ford Motor Co.;

Merton Flemings, M.I.T.; Bob Maxwell, OTA TransportationProgram Manager; Robert Shuck, Republic Steel

(Left to right) Congressman Tom Harkin, Iowa;Senator Howard Cannon, Nevada; and Eric Willis,OTA Division Director for Science, Information,

and Transportation participating in OTA’sAutomobile R&D Seminar

Photo credits, Vicki Sibley

Section II

SUMMARIES OFOTACOM

REPORTSPLETED IN 1979

The assessments carried out by OTA cover a wide spectrum of majorissues before Congress and the country and examine a broad range of policyoptions and their potential impacts. To provide examples of the breadth anddepth of OTA’s work, summaries of reports published by the Office in 1979are presented in this section.

The reader is cautioned that these are summaries of reports. They do notcover the full range of options considered or all of the findings presented inany individual report.

materials andenergy from

Pest ManagementStrategies

in Crop Protection

SELECTEDTOPICS

IN FEDERALHEALTH

STATISTICS

Technology Assessment ofTechnology Assessment of

■

Section IISUMMARIES OF OTA REPORTSCOMPLETED IN 1979

Access Across FederalLands in Alaska

Rarely has the conflict between resource de-velopment and protection of the natural environ-

ment been more severe

Analysis of Laws Governing than in Alaska. The larg-Access Across Federal Lands est State is a treasury of

Access across federally owned lands in Alaskais one of the keys to developing mineral andother natural resources in the State. The debatecenters on how much mineral development is tobe carried out and what is required to protectAmerica’s last virgin environment from such de-velopment. Resolution may require a combina-tion of several access options—a combinationthat could be determined on the basis of prioritiesCongress establishes for the use and preservationof these lands.

OTA conducted a comprehensive analysis ofFederal laws, regulations, and policies that cur-rently affect access across federally owned landsto non-Federal lands (including State, Native, orprivate lands). OTA’s report focuses on Federalland management laws, and particularly on thoserelating to access in Alaska.

Based on information about the location ofmineral deposits, projected landownership pat-terns, and transportation availability, it was foundthat the need for rights-of-way is a localized prob-lem that is likely to occur infrequently. However,if mineral resources on State, Native, or privatelyowned lands are to be developed in isolated re-gions of Alaska, access across Federal landwould be required.

Under existing Federal land management lawsand policies, access is available across most unitsof the public lands and national forests, exceptdesignated wilderness and wilderness studyareas. Access across units of the national wildliferefuge systems is allowed if it does not pose athreat to protected wildlife. Because of the highdegree of protective management affordedparks, wild and scenic rivers, and wildernessareas, use of these lands for access to non-Fed-eral areas or for transportation routes is strictlylimited. In park and refuge wilderness areas, anact of Congress would be required to allow anysignificant access. In all systems, but particularlythe more protective, the availability of accessmay well turn on the factual issue of whetheralternative routes or means of access exist.

In providing access across federally ownedlands, Congress could: 1) apply existing accessprovisions to Alaska lands; 2) defer action on ac-cess until mineral or transportation studies arecompleted; 3) provide limited right-of-way au-thority for access to non-Federal lands, or pro-vide for land exchanges or realinement of bor-ders to accommodate access needs; 4) authorizerights-of-way for future transportation systems,designate specific corridors, or establish a newFederal-State commission to review proposedrights-of-way; or 5) protect Alaska lands overand above existing statutes by requiring specificcongressional approval for access use.

9

10 . Annual Report to the Congress for 1979

The Future Use andCharacteristics of Automobiles

If chronic worldwide oil shortages do not inter-vene, projections show that cars will continue to

TR—

dominate personal trav-el in the United Statesthrough the year 2000.Cars provide a degree ofcomfort, convenience,and personal mobilityunparalleled in history,and make a major con-tribution to the U.S.economy. The 100 mil-lion private cars now ac-count for more than 90percent of personal trav-

el. But their use also helps consume dwindling

world oil supplies, pollute the atmosphere, con-gest roads, and kill thousands and injure millionsannually.

A shift from petroleum to other energy sourcesfor cars will be necessary sooner or later. Can-didates include oil shale, tar sands, gasohol, coalliquids, and electricity from coal, nuclear, or solarenergy generating plants. At the present time, allof these alternatives cost more than petroleum,and it is not certain which will prove to be techni-cally or economically best. At least one or twodecades will be needed to switch cars from petro-leum to alternate energy sources, a process thatmight be aided by more R&D, tax incentives, orsubsidies.

Meanwhile, current Federal programs to re-duce gasoline use can keep total consumption ator slightly below present levels. Further reduc-

Section II–Sumrnaries of OTA Reports Completed in 1979 ● 11

Photo credit U.S. Department o! Transportation

. . . automobiles will continue to be the dominant mode ofpersonal transportation through the year 2000 . . .

tions can be achieved through smaller and lighterweight cars, requiring new cars to average 35miles per gallon by 2000, and more fuel-efficientengines such as turbines or diesels. Increased gastaxes and/or price deregulation would reducedemand, but a several-fold overall price increasewould be needed to cut the number of milesdriven by 20 to 25 percent.

While auto emissions nationwide are expectedto drop sharply from 1975 levels, air quality inmany urban areas will be little better by 2000than it is now because of more cars and con-gested streets as well as pollution from othersources. Tightening new car emission standardswould be costly and reduce auto pollution onlymarginally. More effective measures might in-clude a nationwide program to inspect and main-tain emission control devices, restrict cars in spe-cific areas at certain times, and encourage devel-opment of electrically powered cars.

Although the rate of traffic fatalities per miledriven has been cut by nearly 40 percent since1966, there will be more deaths, injuries, andproperty damage per year by 2000 than there arenow as more people drive more cars more miles.Safety could be further enhanced by strict en-forcement of the 55-mph speed limit and pro-

grams to reduce drunk driving, improve occu-pant restraints, and build more crashworthy carsand roads. As a first step, the Federal Govern-ment might establish stringent and quantitativesafety goals.

The entire automobile system will continue tocost governments, manufacturers, and consum-ers more—costs the Federal Government may becalled on to help defray. State and local govern-ments may need assistance to repair deteriorat-ing roads. Similarly, tax incentives might help theauto and fuel industries meet Federal energy,safety, and environmental standards. Measuresthat might assist automobile owners include na-tional no-fault insurance, regulation of repairpractices to keep costs down, and incentives tomanufacturers to build more durable and main-tainable cars.

The Future Use andCharacteristics of Automobiles:

Public Participation

Americans want a transportation policy, not a“car v. transit” policy. Policy should emphasizemobility, not automobility. Popular suppositionto the contrary, the American public is not havinga “love affair” with the car, rather they “love” themobility afforded by automobiles. Mobility is aright of the citizenry, not a privilege. These aresome of the views expressed by 1,300 citizenswho took part in a nationwide public participationprogram conducted in conjunction with an OTAassessment of “Changes in the Future Use andCharacteristics of the Automobile TransportationSystem.”

The participants did not limit their commentsto automobiles; they were concerned with per-sonal transportation as a whole. They saw cost asa main constraint to mobility at the householdlevel. At the national level, roadway mainte-nance and repair were seen as the main transpor-tation costs for the future. Most of the participantsviewed further major road construction in theUnited States as unnecessary.

The “energy crisis” was described as a politicaldilemma, not a true resource shortage. Conser-

Photo credits Bob Dunsmore and Vicki Sibley

Involving the public— citizens from the east to west coastsprovided valuable input to the public participation process

vation is needed, but the Federal Governmentmust provide the impetus, probably through reg-ulations, participants said. They emphasized theneed to develop alternative fuels and more fuel-efficient modes and devices.

Environmental protection was seen to beneeded, particularly in the areas of air quality,noise, and land use. Existing environmental leg-islation should be better enforced, and thereshould be “more room for local initiative” in deal-ing with environmental problems, participantsstated.

Drivers were described as the chief automobilesafety problem, although road and vehicle im-provements were judged necessary and desir-able. Uniformity of traffic regulations and strictenforcement throughout the country werestressed. The majority of the participants favoredthe 55-mph speed limit, but they were divided

over the issue of federally mandated occupantrestraint systems, such as seatbelts.

Mobility problems, such as providing transpor-tation for the handicapped and elderly, are insti-tutional, rather than technical, according to theparticipants. The Federal Government’s credibil-ity — on the energy supply situation, for exam-ple—is low, and its management record poor,was a commonly expressed view. On the otherhand, many participants described industry as“manipulative of public attitudes, ” “profit mon-gering,” and “slow in innovation. ”

When asked how they would design the per-sonal transportation system of the future, thecomposite response was:

●

●

●

●

Adequate mobility for everyone at afford-able costs.A multifaceted system, not heavily domi-nated by one mode.Well-coordinated intermodal connections.Energy-efficient, nonpolluting, quiet, com-fortable, accessible, safe, and durablemodes.

The Direct Use of Coal

Coal is the only domestic fuel whose use canbe greatly expanded with current economics and

TheDirect Use of Coal

technology, and knownresources. However, noother energy sourceevokes such memoriesof environmental andsocial damage. Whilemany of these problemshave been addressed, anumber of uncertaintiesremain about both coal’srate of growth and re-sulting impacts. If re-quired for national ener-

gy purposes, coal production and combustioncould be as much as tripled by 2000 without re-laxation of environmental, safety, and healthstandards. However, demand is unlikely to growat such a pace as long as other fuels are available.

Section H-Summaries of OTA Reports Completed in 1979 ● 13

Present or pending measures to mitigate coal’sadverse impacts need not directly impede its use,but they will add to its cost and reduce its com-petitiveness. For example, reducing sulfur emis-sions may add a half cent to each kilowatthourproduced. Policies aimed at increasing coal’s useto reduce dependence on other fuels (e.g., im-ported oil and nuclear power) must therefore in-volve cost incentives. Technological develop-ments would also allow smaller users (industrialand residential) to turn to coal. Inadequate trans-portation systems, Federal leasing policies, publicopposition, or labor disputes could become sup-ply constraints if policy initiatives lead to a triplingor even greater growth rate of demand.

If coal again becomes the preeminent energysource, it will be in a vastly different manner thanbefore. Recently enacted Federal and State lawsand regulations, combined with new technologyto prevent pollution, restore strip-mined land,

and improve mine and health conditions, shouldprevent a repeat of at least the worst of coal’spast impacts—soot-laden cities, scarred land-scapes, ruined waterways, and frequent acci-dents and disease among miners. The key tominimizing coal’s negative impacts lies with strictenforcement of current standards. However,some may be found to be inadequate when gapsin our information are filled.

Three major environmental uncertainties re-main. Carbon dioxide, produced when fossilfuels are burned, could cause significant changesin climate. If so, massive increases in coal usemay be unacceptable. Second, exposure to lowlevels of coal-related air pollutants may lead tothousands of premature deaths annually. Finally,acid rain appears to result from air emissions andcan cause significant ecological damage. Theseconcerns are the subject of much scientific dis-pute and warrant further study.

Coalfields of the Conterminous United StatesNORTH WESTERN

Fr

GREEN RIVERBASIN

Anthracite and semianthracite l \— “

Low-volatile bituminous coal

Medium- and high-volatilebituminous-coal

Subbituminous coatO 200 400 600 KILOMETRES

Lignite

SOURCE P Averitt, Coal Resources of the United States, Jan 1, 1974. U S Geological Survey Bull , 1412, at 5 (1975)

59-297 0 - 80 - 2


Fatal accidents in mines have dropped dramat-ically since safety laws were enacted in 1969, butthe rate of disabling injuries suffered by minershas not declined. As many as 42,000 minerscould suffer serious injury annually by 2000. Res-piratory diseases (collectively known as “black-lung” disease) are expected to become less prev-alent, but the rate of illness is uncertain becausethe adequacy of current dust standards and thedegree of compliance with them are not known.

Coal will also have significant impacts on thecommunities where it is mined. Increased under-ground production in Appalachia may require adoubling of the number of miners by 2000, whichwill further press areas already strained by dec-ades of poverty and inadequate municipal serv-ices. Rapid growth of production in the West willcreate several dozen “boom towns, ” but thenumber of people involved will be less than in theEast.

Residential Energy Conservation

Careful use of current technologies can cutenergy use in new and existing homes and apart-

ments by 50 percent ormore with no loss in per-sonal comfort or changein lifestyle. The equiv-alent of 19 billion to 29billion barrels of oilcould be saved by 2000if people invested intheir homes to the pointof maximum dollar sav-ing. Thus, conservationcan effectively combatboth rising energy costsand fuel scarcity.

Apparently in response to rising energy prices,Americans have reduced the annual growth ratefor residential energy use from 4.6 percent in the1960’s to 2.6 percent in the 1970’s. This changehas been accomplished through better energyhabits, and other improvements that makehomes more energy efficient. Residential energyuse can be kept at or slightly below current levelsover the next two decades if conservation im-provements continue.

o

Air Leakage Test Results for Average Homeof 1,780 Sq. Ft.

(50 homes tested by Texas Power& Light Co.)

Wall outletsSoleplate 20%

25°%

ther - 3°/0

14%

Range vent -570

Exteriorwindows

120/0

Recessedspot lights

5%

Bath vent - 10/~

Exterior doors - 50/.

Sliding glass door - 20/’

Dryer vent - 3°/0Fireplace- 5%

SOURCE: “Reprinted with permission from the American Society of Heating,Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

Although requiring an initial investment, con-servation will help hold down utility and fuel oilbills. The amount of energy and money saveddepends on the skill and ingenuity of homeown-ers, remodelers, and builders. In some newhouses, an investment of $1,500 to $2,000could reduce the size of the heating and coolingsystems required, thus actually lowering the firstcost of the house. Substantial savings can also beaccomplished in the Nation’s 80 million existingresidences. For low-income families living insubstandard housing, the best approach appearsto be subsidizing energy efficiency by upgradingthe quality of their housing.

The amount of energy used in a given homedepends to a large extent on the attitudes,choices, and behavior of its occupants. Studiesshow that consumers are motivated more by adesire to save money than by appeals for per-sonal sacrifice, which may be counterproductive.Simply making more specific information avail-able on how energy and money can be savedwould help tremendously. One way would be tohave trained inspectors point out to people howmuch energy their homes use. Surveys also showthat consumers trust information from State andlocal authorities and community groups morethan that from the Federal Government or largeenergy companies.

Section II– Summaries of OTA Reports Completed in 1979 . 15

While a variety of Federal programs and incen-tives already encourage home energy savings,more could be done. Building codes and per-formance standards can be tightened to encour-age the already clear effort of the industry tomake homes more energy efficient. Federalhome loan and mortgage guarantee programscan induce lenders to review energy costs withprospective buyers. Improved conservation infederally owned and subsidized housing could setan example. expand the market for conservationproducts, and improve the comfort of residents.To be effective, Federal programs need to beflexible to meet local requirements and variationsin climate.

Improving home energy efficiency does haveeconomic, environmental, and institutional im-pacts. For instance, conservation redirects mon-ey from fuel to goods, thus increasing employ-ment. As homes become tighter, they requireproper ventilation, without heat loss, to eliminatepotentially dangerous concentrations of pollut-ants inside the house.

Much of the responsibility for making conser-vation work will fall on State and local govern-ments, which need technical assistance and train-ing programs as well as flexible guidelines fromthe Federal Government.

Management of Fuel and NonfuelMinerals in Federal Land

The Federal Government owns about 30 per-cent of the land in the United States, almost all of

it located in areas in theWest and in Alaska thathave been and are ex-pected to remain majorsources of both fuel andnonfuel minerals. How-ever, large tracts ofFederal land have beenmade unavailable formining in recent yearsby Congress and the ex-ecutive branch to pro-tect wildlife, scenic

areas, petroleum reserves, and recreational

areas, among others. These withdrawals couldcause mineral production to decline in another10 to 20 years.

These withdrawals and other restrictions onmining activity in Federal lands have been inresponse to the fact that mineral rights, once ob-tained, take precedence over all other land val-ues. Current law lacks incentives or other mecha-nisms to ensure a balance between mineral andnonmineral values at each stage of mining fromexploration through production. Also, those whoexplore for and develop minerals are not re-quired to pay for most damage to surface land ornon mineral resources.

Enacted piecemeal over more than a century,Federal laws pertaining to mining and mineralsare ill-suited for modern mining operations aswell as for multiple-use concepts of Federallands. They contain significant gaps in coverage,treat physically similar lands or mineral depositsdifferently. contain provisions that unnecessarilyadd to the cost and uncertainty of mining, andimpede exploration for and production of morethan one mineral. Access to Federal land for min-ing, as well as continued tenure once access hasbeen obtained, are likewise uncertain. Further,the conditions under which tenure is granted areinsufficient to ensure diligent mining activity.

Responsibility for mining and mineral leasing issplit among various Federal departments andagencies. This split impedes efficient, integratedmanagement of both mineral and nonmineral re-sources. For example, the agency responsible formanaging surface lands often lacks authority tocontrol the surface impacts of mining. On theother hand, the present division of authority be-tween the Federal and State governments seemsto be working well, although further improve-ments would be helpful.

Although designed to enable mineral-produc-ing States to cope with the social and economicimpacts of mining, Federal mineral revenues aremade available to the States without their havingto make any show of need. These revenues haverarely been used to mitigate the social and eco-nomic impacts of mining. The States’ own pow-ers to tax minerals are sufficient to deal with min-ing’s impacts. Most States have not created

16 ● Annual Report to the Congress/or 1979

Principal Federal Landholdings in 1976

SOURCE U.S Geological Survey. Special Maps Branch, 1977Note: Alaska IS shown here at a reduced scale

mechanisms to ensure that their mineral-derivedrevenue reaches those areas that need it in atimely manner, particularly during the prepro-duction stages. Some State taxes are so high asto inhibit mining and cause inefficient use of min-eral and nonmineral resources in areas wheremining occurs.

A number of options are available to Congressto coordinate mining with other land values, toimprove the division of management responsibili-ty for Federal lands, and to encourage efficientmining activities. These range from maintainingthe status quo, to making moderate or majorchanges in each existing mineral law, or to com-prehensive revisions of existing managementsystems.

Includes areas of interspersed ownershipcontaining at least 25-percent Federal land.

The Effects of Nuclear War

The effects of a nuclear war that can be an-ticipated but cannot be calculated are at least as

TheEffects ofNuclear War

destruction caused by

Important as those thatanalysts a t t empt toquantify. Moreover,there are very large un-certainties regarding theeffects that are calcu-lated. Nuclear weaponsare usually described bythe damage they can in-flict even in the mostunfavorable circum -stances. In fact , thecasualties and economica nuclear attack would

Section n-Summaries of OTA Reports Completed in 1979 . 17

probably be farhave indicated.

In the periodtions could get

greater than most prior estimates

following a nuclear attack, condi-worse before they started to get

better. The Nation would be far weaker—eco-nomically, socially, and politically—than a cal-culation of its assets would seem to indicate. Peo-ple could live off prewar supplies and habits forawhile, but patterns of behavior would bechanged by worsening shortages and the enor-mous psychological shock a nuclear war wouldproduce. A failure to achieve economic viability(production equaling consumption) before stocksran out would cause many additional deaths, and

further economic, social, and political deteriora-tion.

A large-scale nuclear exchange between theUnited States and the Soviet Union could killmore than 250 million people in those two coun-tries alone. The numbers killed in the first fewdays would depend on the exact number of nu-clear weapons used and places of detonation, thetime of year, extent of warning, and the weather.U.S. deaths would probably range between 70million and 160 million, while Soviet deathswould be between 50 million and 100 million.Many “survivors” would die later from starvation,exposure, or disease, particularly in areas wherethe immediate deaths were relatively low.

Thermonuclear ground burstPhoto credit U S Department of Energy


A “limited” nuclear exchange would haveenormous impact as well, even if there were noescalation. An exchange limited to 10 MIRVedmissiles aimed at oil refineries, for example,could kill 5 million Americans and destroy 64percent of the U.S. refining capacity and 73 per-cent of the Soviet capacity. An attack directedsolely at missile silos could kill as many as 20million Americans. Despite the deaths and de-struction of such attacks, their consequencesmight be endurable and economic recovery pos-sible since they would be on a scale with previouswars and epidemics.

Major differences between the United Statesand the Soviet Union affect their relative vulner-ability to nuclear attacks. People in the UnitedStates are more exposed than those in the SovietUnion because the latter are more dispersed geo-graphically, and because U.S. weapons are gen-erally smaller than their Soviet counterparts. Fur-ther, the Soviet political system is better able tomaintain tight control in emergencies. However,the U.S. economy appears to be less vulnerablethan that of the Soviet Union, both because it isbigger and better to begin with, and becauseAmericans are more accustomed to decentral-ization.

Nuclear war is deterred by the certainty of itsenormous effects, and by the uncertainty aboutjust what those effects would be. Even a limitednuclear war could be expected to kill millions ofpeople and inflict damage on a scale unprece-dented in U.S. history, while a large-scale nucle-ar exchange would be a calamity unknown tohuman history. Because the economic, social,and political effects are literally incalculable, nogovernment could predict with confidence whatthe consequences of even a limited nuclear at-tack would be.

Federal Health Statistics

The number and types of Federal data systemsfor health statistics have increased dramatically in

SELECTEDTOPICS

IN FEDERALHEALTH

STATISTICS

recent years as anoutgrowth of the ex-panded Governmentrole in health care. In-deed, virtually everynew Federal programpertaining to heal thneeds da ta . Hence ,there has been a rapidproliferation of dataprojects that relate tospecif ic heal th pro-grams.

The fast growth of Federal statistical projectshas led to problems of fragmentation, overlap,and duplication. Data systems cannot be easilyadapted to issues that cut across jurisdictional re-sponsibilities because they are dispersed amongdifferent health programs. The number of healthdata projects has exacerbated the decentraliza-tion of Federal health statistics, thereby makingplanning and coordination difficult. Too muchdata are collected on some subjects, too little onothers. The inability to link and integrate diversedata files for analyses that require more than onedata source makes it difficult to assess programachievements or compare results. Also, dataprojects designed for specific health programsoften do not meet the needs of all potential users.

Most data on health are collected by the De-partment of Health, Education, and Welfare(HEW), principally by its Public Health Serviceand the Health Care Financing Administration.The Public Health Service alone operated 153data projects in 1977—a one-quarter increaseover the previous year. Another 13 projects were

Section 11– Summaries of OTA Reports Completed in 1979 ● 19

run by the Health Care Financing Administra-tion. The total cost of Federal health statistics infiscal year 1977 has been estimated at $100 mil-lion. These estimates are probably low, however.because many projects go unreported.

Congress usually does not assess the impact ofdata requirements mandated by its laws. A singlestatutory requirement may necessitate a numberof costly data projects involving many respond-ents. However, an agency's resources and inter-nal priorities, rather than legislation, often deter-mine the scope of its data collection activities.

Lacking an overarching set of principles andobjectives for health statistics, the Federal Gov-ernment needs a coherent policy for coordinatinghealth data systems. An administrative unit couldbe created to coordinate the collection of healthdata. If created, it should have sufficient authorityto plan data systems. improve the collection ofinformation, and ensure that potential users haveaccess to data. A number of offices within HEWcould provide this function. although additionalstaff and money would be needed to carry it out.The fundamental requirement in assigning ad-ministrat ive responsibi l i ty is an unambiguousmandate to manage health statistics.

As part of the study of Federal health statistics.OTA compiled a directory of laws that authorizeHEW to collect health data. The directory pro-vides a listing of existing statutes that can be re-ferred to by Congress before passing new lawsthat require collecting health data. [t can alsoassist executive agencies plan and coordinatedata projects for health.

Drugs in Livestock Feed

For the past three decades. drugs have rou-tinely been added to livestock feeds to promote

I

animal growth, makefeed more efficient. andprevent disease. Fortypercent of the antibacte-rial drugs (antibioticsplus chemicals with simi-lar actions) made in theUnited States are usedin animal feeds or foro t h e r n o n h u m a n p u r -poses. Also, most of themeat produced in theUnited States has been

fattened with the aid of drugs

Animals given certain antibacterial in concen-trations lower than those used to treat diseasehave been found to gain weight faster and withless feed than animals not given those drugs.Low levels of antibacterial apparently promotegrowth and feed efficiency through the preven-tion of disease or direct metabolic effects. In addi-tion, other drugs. such as the synthetic hormonediethylstilbestrol (DES). are used to promotegrowth either as feed additives or as implantsunder the animal’s skin.

However. widespread concern has been ex-pressed about the potential health effects fromthis use of drugs. First. evidence indicates thatdisease-causing bacteria now resist many anti-bacterial drugs, including penicillin and tetracy-cline. Second, use of these antibacterial in ani-mals may contribute to their declining effective-


ness in humans. Third, some drugs used to pro-mote animal growth, particularly DES and fura-zolidone, an antibacterial drug, have been shownto cause cancer in humans and/or animals.

It is the widespread, continuous use of lowdoses of antibacterial that favors the growth ofdrug-resistant bacteria. Resistance can be trans-ferred from one type of bacteria to another, fromanimal to human bacteria, and from one antibac-terial drug to another. As a result, drugs used totreat human illness lose their effectiveness. How-ever, the amount of drug resistance attributableto antibacterial used in animal feed cannot bemeasured precisely. In addition, residues ofdrugs used to promote livestock growth may per-sist in retail meat products, where some couldcause cancer when consumed by humans. Theextent of the risk is unclear because scientists lackdefinitive methods to translate laboratory resultsinto the number of people who might contractcancer.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hasproposed to ban DES and the nitrofurans, to limitpenicillin to treatment of known diseases, and torestrict tetracycline to such treatment if alter-natives are available to promote growth and feedefficiency. In fact, FDA-approved alternatives formost of these drugs are already available. Therisk of illness to humans posed by continued useof antibacterial, as well as the degree and eco-nomic impact of decreased meat production thatwould occur from restricting or banning thesedrugs, cannot be measured precisely.

In addressing the problem of drugs in livestockfeed, Congress could: 1) allow FDA to regulatedrug use, subject to congressional oversight; 2)require FDA to make economic as well as scien-tific assessments of benefits and risks; 3) modifythe special approach required for cancer-causingdrugs; 4) require FDA to decrease the use of anti-bacterial in humans and livestock feed; and/or5) require that in the future only those drugs thathave proven more effective than those now inuse be approved.

Materials and Energy FromMunicipal Waste

Americans now generate more than 135 mil-lion tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) every

year. Its disposal is agrowing problem inthose areas of the coun-try where traditionalmethods such as opendumping, landfill, un-controlled incineration,and ocean burial are tooexpensive or environ-mentally unacceptable.

Yet, these wastescontain materials whoseuse would help con-

serve resources. MSW includes more than two-thirds of the national consumption of paper andof glass, over one-fifth of the aluminum, andnearly one-eighth of the iron and steel. Recyclingthese materials requires less total energy thandoes the use of new resources. If the combustibleportion of MSW were burned, the energy pro-duced would be equivalent to almost 2 percent ofthe Nation’s annual energy use.

Nearly all the materials recovered for recyclingfrom MSW today have been kept separate asthey were generated (“source separation”).Source separation programs can produce sizablerevenues and energy savings, but have a limitedeffect on the total solid waste stream. Dependingon local conditions, a combination of source sep-aration and centralized resource recovery (seebelow) may be an optimal approach from an eco-nomic point of view.

Materials can also be recovered by separatingmixed wastes in a central facility. A limitednumber of commercial technologies are availablefor producing energy and recovering materials insuch a system. Other technologies are in the de-velopmental stage. Because costs are frequently

Section n-Summaries o/OTA Reports Completed in 1979 ● 21

higher than revenues, resource recovery has thegreatest economic potential where both alter-native disposal methods and energy prices arehigh, such as in the urban Northeast. Relativelysmall plants appear more economical and easierto provide than larger ones. The Federal Govern-ment could help overcome the risks of resourcerecovery by funding basic research and a limitednumber of demonstration projects.

Potential markets exceed anticipated recoverythrough 1995 for iron and steel, aluminum,paper, and energy. Glass markets are developingrapidly. However, the prices users will pay andthe quality they demand could be barriers to saleof large amounts of recovered resources.

A Federal product charge or a Federal recy-cling allowance could lead to greater recyclingand lower waste generation, but pose administra-tive difficulties. Repeal of virgin material tax pref-erences, adjustment of railroad freight rates forscrap, a severance tax, and Federal procurementof recycled materials would be less effective. Ad-ditional Federal support for R&D on uses of re-covered resources would be useful; developmentof specifications for trade in recovered materialsneeds only limited additional Federal help.

Federal beverage container deposit legislationwould save energy; reduce materials use, solidwaste generation, and littering; and protect theenvironment. It would lead to a net increase inemployment, but with a loss of existing jobs in thematerials and container industries. Brewers andbottlers would experience higher operating costs,but lower container costs. Wholesalers’ and re-tailers’ costs would increase. It is not clearwhether net costs or consumer prices of beer andsoft drinks would increase or decrease.

Open Shelf-Life Dating of Food

Concerned that the food they buy is not alwaysfresh or nutritious, consumers have advocated in

recent years that sellersclearly state on foodpackages the dates bywhich a given itemshould be sold or eaten.Referred to as “openshelf-life dating, ” thistechnique theoreticallycould help increase con-sumer confidence in thefreshness of food, en-courage better handlingof food products by re-

tailers, and reduce nutrient loss. To aid with in-ventory control, the food industry now usescoded dates that consumers cannot understand.

Three types of dates could be placed on foodpackages: the date of packaging, the date bywhich products should be sold, and/or the dateby which they should be used. While providinglittle information to consumers, the “pack date” isthe easiest and least expensive for the food in-dustry to adopt. The “sell-by date” provides re-tailers greater control over their inventory, butdoes not tell consumers when food should be ei-ther eaten or discarded. The “best-if-used-bydate” gives consumers the most relevant infor-mation, but would be the most costly to imple-ment and difficult to scientifically verify. No con-sensus exists on which type, or combination, ofdates would be best.

Currently, nobody knows whether open datingwould improve the freshness of foods being sold.Foods are classed as perishable, semiperishable,and long shelf life. Scientific data are adequate to


determine freshness dates for some foods, main-ly perishables, but not for all. Food quality is af-fected by a number of factors, including tempera-ture, humidity, light, and time. Some foods spoilor lose their freshness faster than others; somechange appearance with time, but remain nutri-tious.

Even though no Federal law mandates it, 21States and the District of Columbia have adoptedsome form of open dating. These systems as wellas the voluntary ones put into effect by the indus-try vary widely as to the foods to be dated, whatdates are used, and what those dates mean. Thislack of a uniform dating system leaves consumersconfused. More needs to be known about the ef-fects of dating systems now in use.

Nobody knows exactly how much open datingwould cost. OTA estimates the cost to producersof establishing open dates at about $100,000 foreach perishable food product and $200,000 forthose that remain fresh longer. This startup pluscontinuing costs might add from one-tenth of acent to 1 cent to the price of a package on thestore shelf. More data are needed to determinethe costs of dating specific products.

In addressing the issue of food dating, Con-gress could: 1) take no action, thus allowing thepresent voluntary system to continue; 2) establisha mandatory system that would specify opendates; or 3) adopt a mix of voluntary and manda-tory systems, in which the Federal Governmentdevelops guidelines for dating, but allows proces-sors greater flexibility to determine dates andminimize costs. A mandatory system would pro-duce greater uniformity, but would be more dif-ficult and expensive to implement. A mixed sys-tem could provide for uniformity and allow in-dustry to decide whether to open date products.The procedure could be varied for different foodcategories—mandatory dates for perishables andmixed for all others, for example.

Railroad Safety:U.S.-Canadian Comparison

A comparative analysis of U.S. and Canadianrailroad derailments, fatalities, and safety prac-

tices indicates manysimilarities and somesignificant differencesbetween the two sys-tems. The differencesresult primarily from thelarger size and complex-ity of the U.S. system.

The U.S. fatality ratefor the 1966-76 periodwas an average of 48percent higher than thatof Canada. This large

difference, especially at grade crossings andamong trespassers, seems to reflect the higherlevel of U.S. exposure to rail hazards that occursbecause the U.S. population and rail system areconsiderably larger than Canada’s.

While derailment rates vary widely amongU.S. carriers, the average derailment rates forthe nine largest (in ton-miles) U.S. carriers weresimilar to those of the Canadian railroads for1976 and 1977. However, the average derail-ment rates for the second 10 U.S. railroads aresignificantly higher than the rates for the Cana-dian railroads for those same years. The financialpicture of some U.S. railroads may give rise totheir significant derailment rates. Derailments inthe United States are continuing to increase,while derailments in Canada have stabilized ordeclined slightly. The continued rise, particularlyamong carriers below the top 10, in U.S. derail-ments appears to result from increased axle load-ings on freight equipment and deferred mainte-nance. U.S. derailment rates will probably con-tinue to increase until the economic condition ofsome railroads improves. In both countries lessthan 2 percent of rail-related fatalities occur inderailments.

Section n-Summaries of OTA Reports Completed in 1979 ● 23

The National Transportation Act of 1967 inCanada changed its Government’s economicpolicy toward transportation modes. As a result,railroads gained greater control over their ratestructure. Although no direct correlation could bedrawn between this change in economic policyand rail safety in Canada, the change may influ-ence rail safety.

Several Canadian approaches to rail safetymay be of interest in the United States. These in-clude:

●

●

●

●

●

●

emphasis by railroad management on safetyaccountability, and adoption of a systematicapproach to safety;creation of a no-fault system of insurancecompensation for work-related injuries;use of risk analysis in inspections and in al-location of grade-crossings funds;Government use of stop orders rather thanmonetary fines as a means of enforcingsafety standards;use of a standard Hazardous InformationEmergency Response form; andencouragement of a nonadversarial rela-tionship between labor and management inthe formulation of safety programs.

A Review of Selected FederalVaccine and Immunization Policies

Since 1967, the number of active vaccinemanufacturers has declined 50 percent, and the

number of licensed vac-

A REVIEWOF SELECTED

FEDERALVACCINE AND

IMMUNIZATIONPOLICIES

cine products has de-clined 60 percent. Foreach of 19 types of li-censed vaccines, includ-ing poliovirus vaccine,the United States is de-pendent on a s ingleAmerican pharmaceuti-cal company. Some in-vestigators believe thedecline in vaccine man-ufacturers and products

is partly the result of Federal policies.

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of newlydeveloped vaccines, the Federal Government re-lies heavily on data collected from premarketingclinical trials. Government evaluations based onsuch data can be less than comprehensive. TheGovernment does not require anyone to collectpostmarketing data regarding adverse reactionsto licensed vaccines.

Medicare cannot pay for vaccinations to pre-vent infectious diseases, although it does payfor the treatment of such diseases. Thus, Medi-care cannot pay for the use of pneumococcalvaccine, even though the Federal Governmentspent $6.5 million to help develop this vaccineand approved its use among the elderly. Accord-ing to OTA’s cost-effective analysis, vaccinationagainst pneumococcal pneumonia would bemore cost-effective among the elderly thanamong any other age group, and for all agegroups would yield health benefits that cannot beobtained from treatment.

Liability problems may be eroding the commit-ments of vaccine manufacturers, Congress, andState health departments to public immunizationprograms. Some courts have ruled that the vac-cine manufacturer should compensate injuredvaccinees because: 1) the manufacturer was bestable to pay and 2) no other applicable compensa-tion mechanism existed in society. In order towarn potential vaccinees about possible vaccineside effects, HEW has developed informed con-sent forms and guidelines to be used by State andlocal participants in federally sponsored immuni-zation programs. If HEW and the vaccine manu-facturers successfully discharge their “duty towarn” obligations, however, then injured vacci-nees may have no legal recourse to compensa-tion.

Some actions Congress could take to help en-sure the Federal Government’s promotion of safeand effective vaccines include: 1) establishing aninteragency body to review comprehensively allFederal policies that affect vaccine development,evaluation, and use; 2) authorizing the FederalGovernment either to produce or subsidize theproduction of selected vaccines; 3) requiring the


Government to monitor actively adverse reac-tions to licensed vaccines; 4) amending the Medi-care law to permit Federal reimbursement forvaccinations among the elderly; and 5) develop-ing a Federal program for compensating vac-cinees who are seriously injured in public immu-nization programs.

Conservation of Metals

The United States has experienced shortagesin critical metals in recent years and become in-

creasingly dependent onforeign sources of sup-ply. The United Statesnow imports 50 percentor more of such metalsas aluminum, chromi-um, manganese, andtungsten. By cutting thelarge amounts of loss orwaste of metals alongthe materials cycle—from mining of ore toproduct disposal–the

United States could ease both shortages and thedependency on imports.

Of all the options for cutting metals waste,product recycling—the remanufacturing, reuse,and repair of end products—offers the greatestleverage for saving materials and energy nowwasted. Product recycling could save 30 percentor more of the copper, aluminum, iron, and steelnow lost. Environmental impacts associated withmining and manufacturing would also be re-duced. Product recycling already exists in suchareas as auto parts, furniture, typewriters, andaircraft. However, product recycling is currentlyfar below its potential.

The major barrier to more widespread productrecycling is economic. To be economically attrac-

tive, used products must usually be reworked orremanufactured at a cost that will permit a resaleprice significantly lower than that of new prod-ucts. Products for which recycling is likely to beeconomic are those with higher initial costs,whose appearance or styling is of secondary im-portance, that can be recycled on a production-line basis, and for which there is a steady, largesupply of products for remanufacture. Other ma-jor barriers to increased product recycling are thelack of established industries to collect, remanu-facture, and resell the product, and the prefer-ence of consumers for new products.

Product recycling could be encouraged by avariety of means, including increasing public con-fidence in recycled products, providing fundingto establish a scrap inventory, providing loans toestablish an aftermarket business, and encourag-ing product leasing. Increased use of recycledproducts could have the short-term effect of re-ducing net jobs and replacing unskilled jobs withthose requiring somewhat greater skill. However,the long-term impact would likely be to increaseconsumer buying power and net jobs.

The substitution of less critical metals or non-metals is another important option for saving se-lected metals. However, several major impedi-ments must be overcome. First, a successful sub-stitution can often take years to implement. Sec-ond, many products are manufactured with ahighly specialized production process that is cost-ly to change. Third, every substitution involves arisk that will add to the product cost. One optionto encourage substitution would be GovernmentR&D to develop practical substitutes for selectedmetals, with particular emphasis on high-volumeusage, nonmetallic coatings for corrosion andwear resistance, and inherently nonrecyclableuses. This option could also encourage privatesector R&D.

Section n-Summaries of OTA Reports Completed in 1979 ● 25

Computer Technology inMedical Education and Assessment

This background report describes the use ofcomputer technology across a variety of medical

education, practice, andevaluation activities andsummarizes some of thechanges that computers

COMPUTERTECHNOLOGY will bring to medicine.

IN MEDICALEDUCATION AND There have been dra-

ASSESSMENT matic reductions in thesize and costs of com-puters. At the sameBACKGROUND REPORT time, advances in med-icine have led to a vir-

‘=-h tual information explo-sion, making the con-

temporary medical care system more complex,more information-dependent, and more technol-ogy-oriented. Computers can add to the increas-ing complexity of medicine as well as assist in ef -forts to more effectively understand, employ,and manage the information and array of tech-nologies used in health care. They have rapidlybecome integral to teaching and testing in manyof our medical schools and have assumed grow-ing importance in patient care, in epidemiologicand clinical research, and in medical adminis-tration.

Thus, computers are rapidly changing the na-ture and function of medical education and prac-tice and the ways in which performance is eval-uated. This led to self-paced, independent studyprograms in the pre-clinical years of medicalschool, specialty certification examinations whichcan reflect the patient-physician encounter moreaccurately than written examinations, and com-puterized data bases which can improve the phy-sician’s diagnostic and therapeutic skills.

The implications arising out of these medicaluses of computer technology include changes in

the method and content of physician education,improved methods of measuring and validatingthe quality of medical care, and more individual-ized testing of physician performance. Individual-ized testing will accelerate already existing trendsto assess competence only in limited areas, whichin turn will raise questions concerning whetherphysicians should have licenses limited to theirspecialties and concerning the relationships be-tween State licensing boards and the private spe-cialty boards in regulating physician practices.

Pest Management Strategiesin Crop Protection

A sharp step-up in the current slow shift to in-tegrated pest management (1PM) for major U.S.

agricultural crops cancut pesticide use by asmuch as 75 percent in

Pest Management some cases, reduce pre-Strategies harvest pest-caused

in Crop Protection losses by 50 percent,and save a significantamount of the one-third

‘ - of the wor ld ’ s po ten t i a lfood harvest that is lostto all pests. (The pestsinclude noxious anddamaging organisms

such as insects, mites, nematodes, plant patho-gens, weeds, and vertebrates. Pesticides includeinsecticides, miticides, nematicides, herbicides,and fungicides. )

1PM involves the coordinated use of a varietyof control tactics to prevent economic losses frompest damage while minimizing hazards to hu-mans, animals, plants, and the environment.1PM is the most promising approach to U.S. cropprotection over the next 15 years. The interna-tional implementation of 1PM requires systemsthat are adopted to local agricultural conditions,


social customs, political structures, and economicsystems.

U.S. crops have become increasingly vulner-able to pest damage. The present limited numberof pest control tactics within the categories ofchemical, cultural, plant resistance, and biolog-ical are neither completely effective nor univer-sally applicable. The intensive use of only one ortwo of these tactics can create hazards to humanand environmental health and increase pest re-sistance to controls. Therefore, American agricul-ture is gradually shifting to 1PM strategies, whichapply the most broadly effective combination ofavailable methods to particular pest problems.However, technological and administrative ob-stacles block rapid development and use.

Among the obstacles to rapid adoption of 1PMstrategies are:

● inadequate knowledge in basic biology, in-teractions of crop pests, and the economicsof pest management,

● the lack of an adequate system for dissem-inating the information needed to make

●

●

●

a shortage of trained personnel to conductresearch, develop 1PM programs, and deliv-er the needed information,the lack of coordination and cooperationamong Federal and State agencies, andthe lack of a clear and common commit-ment to and agenda for future 1PM activitiesby agencies involved in the funding of re-search and extension activities, the regula-tion of pesticide use, and the marketing offarm products.

The basic option before Congress is whether ornot to commit the additional resources needed tospeed up the current evolutionary movementtoward adopting 1PM crop protection systems.Congress can: 1) support the status quo for U.S.pest control which, although including 1PM, con-tinues to rely heavily on chemicals or 2) developa strategy for accelerating the shift to 1PM. With amodest increase in resources, 1PM could replacemost unilateral pest control programs over thenext 20 to 30 years. With a major effort to re-move the obstacles to 1PM, the shift could bemade within 15 years.

sound pest management decisions,

Technology and East-West TradeVolume of Pesticides Used on U.S. Farms

Mil. Ibs. (active ingredients)400

300

200

100

01966 1971 1976

Although Western technology contained in ci-vilian products sold to the Soviet Union has con-

tributed to its militarypotential, it is unlikelythat any unilateral action

Technology and East-West Trade of the’ United States

could have prevented

have some military use.U.S. export controls do*~-+-sa good job of preventing

the transfer of primarily military technologies tothe Communist world, ‘but a conclusive determi-nation of the degree of military risk entailed in thesale of these so-called “dual-use” technologies isprobably impossible. Existing multilateral ar-

SOURCE Adapted from 1978 Handbook of Agricultural Charts, USDA Agri-culture Handbook #551

rangements designed to minimize that risk workreasonably well.

Section II–Summaries of OTA Reports Completed in 1979 ● 27

These are among the conclusions of a newOTA report Technology and East-West Trade.The report looks not only at the military, but alsothe political and economic costs and benefits tothe United States of trading-especially in tech-nology —with the Communist world. It reviewsthe controversy over whether such trade can orshould be used to obtain foreign policy leverage.It also examines the East-West trade policies offour of America’s major allies—West Germany,France, Great Britain, and Japan—and findsthem significantly different from that of theUnited States. Finally, it provides background in-formation on existing U.S. export policies andregulations, and on the use which Communistnations have made of Western technology.

Trade with the Communist world plays a rela-tively small part in U.S. foreign trade. The ab-solute value of Communist trade with Westernnations is low and the United States has capturedonly a minor share of that limited market. Thepolicy most likely to increase the U.S. share oftrade with Eastern-bloc countries is the extensionof official credits to those Communist nations cur-rently ineligible for them. In the long run, how-ever, dramatic growth in the total volume of East-West trade is contingent on an increase in theability of the East to export to the West.

East-West trade has always been economicallymore important for Western Europe and Japanthan for the United States. While our allies do notdeny the basic necessity of withholding items ofdirect military relevance from Communist na-tions, they generally do not share the concernsexpressed in the United States over the political,military, and strategic implications of transferringdual-use technologies. In Japan, West Germany,France, and Great Britain, the sale of technologyis seen as primarily an economic issue and anyuse of export controls for political purposes islargely eschewed.

Because of its position of leadership in a num-ber of technologies of critical military significance,the United States may legitimately feel it has aspecial responsibility to ensure their safekeeping.If it can play this role with intelligence and integri-ty, the United States may be able to initiate andmaintain a strong and unified Western-bloc posi-tion on the transfer of military technologies.

U.S.-Eastern* Trade, 1972-78**

Billions of dollars

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978

U.S. exports:Billions of dollars

1

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978

U.S. imports:Billions of dollars

2 ‘—— U.S. imports — Nonagricultural Agricultural

1

01972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978

● Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland,Romania, U. S. S. R., and PRC.

● ● 1978 trade estimated imports do not include U.S. importsof nonmonetary gold from U.S.S.R.

SOURCE Selected Trade and Economic Data for the Centrally PlannedEconomies, U S. Department of Commerce, 1979

However, the United States is not the sole sourceof most of the dual-use technologies desired byCommunist nations and this foreign availabilityconstrains its unilateral influence over their trans-fer.

In sum, it appears most unlikely that actionstaken by the United States alone could lead to:1) a dramatic increase in our trade with the East,2) a dramatic decrease in the military risks associ-ated with existing trade, or 3) a significant reduc-tion in the technologies the East can purchase,given the existing attitudes of other Western na-tions.


Environmental Contaminants in Food

Environmental contaminants in food have be-come a nationwide problem. Between 1968 and

1978, according to anOTA survey, 243 food-contamination incidentswere reported in thiscountry. (Environmen-tal contaminants includeorganic chemicals, met-als and their derivatives,and radioactive sub-stances, that inadver-tently enter the humanfood supply throughagriculture, mining, in-

dustrial operations, or energy production.)

Although the United States has escaped masspoisonings such as have occurred in other in-dustrialized nations, nearly all U.S. residentscarry detectable residues of some environmentalcontaminant in their bodies. Studies indicate thatsome contaminants present at low levels in U.S.food cause physiological changes in humans, butthe long-term significance of these changes is un-certain. Between 1968 and 1978, at least $282million in food was lost to contamination. Thisconservative estimate only includes 30 percent ofthe known incidents and ignores hidden costssuch as medical expenses and lost workdays.

Although the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos-metic Act (FFDCA) contains no specific provi-sions for environmental contaminants, FDA hasset permissible levels (either “action levels” or“tolerances”) for all known contaminants. FDArelies on informal action levels more than formaltolerances because tolerances can only be set

through complex, time-consuming procedures.FDA is not required to review these informaljudgments, nor to commission new toxicologicalstudies even when available data are inadequate.When setting regulations FDA attempts to bal-ance the cost of the food lost against the degreeof public health protection gained.

Federal and State monitoring of food is primar-ily regulatory, designed to ensure that environ-mental contaminants do not exceed prescribedaction levels or tolerances. Consequently, con-tamination involving unregulated substances israrely identified before it becomes a major prob-lem. None of the major environmental contami-nation incidents in this country (PBB, PCB, ke-pone, and mercury) were initially discovered byongoing monitoring programs. In each case, ac-tual human or animal poisonings—either athome or abroad—alerted authorities to the dan-ger.

Managing contamination incidents can be dif-ficult because the Federal and State agencies in-volved sometimes do not coordinate their activ-ities. Efforts are hindered further by the complex-ity of the American food system and the rapiditywith which food is moved through the system.

In light of these findings, Congress could: 1) al-low the present system to continue; 2) amendFFDCA to require the establishment of toler-ances, simplify administrative proceduresthrough which tolerances are set, clarify theweight economic criteria can have, and/or grantFDA authority to set regional tolerances; 3) es-tablish a national monitoring system to detect un-regulated chemicals in food; and/or 4) designatea lead agency to establish a center to orchestratethe delivery of Federal assistance to affectedareas.

Section IllWORK IN PROGRESS

OTA’s work is structured along three broad divisional lines: energy, ma-terials, and international security; health and life sciences; and science, infor-mation, and transportation. Within those broad divisions, OTA conductsstudies in energy, international security and commerce, materials, food andrenewable resources, genetics and population, health, telecommunicationand information systems, oceans, R&D priorities and policies, space technol-ogy, and transportation.

More than 57 projects were in progress during the year, including 22 newstudies.

In this section, the broad concerns and current work of each OTA pro-gram are described.

Section IllWORK IN PROGRESS

ENERGY, MATERIALS, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION

Energy

During 1979, the Nation experienced painfulreminders that the energy crisis remains asthreatening as ever. The gasoline shortages, arapid rise in petroleum prices, and new questionsabout the safety of nuclear power were severejolts to the Nation’s well-being. Even though ourenergy demand growth had slowed considerablysince the 1973 oil embargo, we were still danger-ously dependent on imported petroleum, andthe experience of the last half of 1979 showedjust how foolhardy this dependence is. To dealwith this problem, Congress and the Presidentinitiated several strong measures centeringaround two approaches. The first involved pro-duction of synthetic fuels with proposed targetsranging from several hundred thousand to over 2million barrels of oil equivalent per day by 1990.The second was an expanded conservation ef-fort, particularly for residential and commercialbuildings. There was general agreement aboutthe need for these measures, but considerabledebate developed about their nature and thebalance between the two approaches. In addi-tion, other issues concerning the future of nuclearpower, the potential contribution of solar energy,and the availability and price of conventionalpetroleum resources absorbed considerable con-gressional attention.

OTA was able to provide substantial assistanceto Congress as it addressed these issues. TheOTA report on residential energy conservationand subsequent analysis provided the basis formany of the conservation initiatives before Con-gress, and for efforts to determine a rationalbalance between conservation and productionapproaches. In addition, OTA’s work on coaland biomass, particularly gasohol, aided con-gressional consideration of the issues surround-ing these fuel sources. These studies form part ofthe effort the Energy Program initiated in 1975 tobuild a sound understanding of the major energysupply and demand technologies and their impli-

Program

cations for society. OTA has been able to drawon this basic groundwork to meet immediate con-gressional needs through testimony and othershort-term responses to critical energy policyquestions.

Currently, the Energy Program is shifting theemphasis of its work from individual supply anddemand technologies to more comprehensiveenergy issues. Foremost among these new effortsis the alternative energy futures study which isexploring the various energy paths the Nationmight take. In the coming year, the Energy Pro-gram will examine issues concerning energy andthe cities, energy policy perspectives, globaltrends in energy supply and demand, decentral-ized electric energy systems, and industrial en-ergy use as part of the energy futures study. Inaddition, the Program will continue work on spe-cific technologies by examining synthetic fuels fortransportation and solar power satellite systems.Finally, reports will be completed this year on as-sessments of energy from biological processesand liquefied natural gas policy.

Alternative Energy Futures

The debate over America’s energy policy in-creasingly revolves around the nature of Amer-ican society in the future. Advocates of varyingpolicy choices argue that their choices will pro-vide the best economic situation, the maximumamount of individual freedom and choice, themost desirable environment, and the strongestnational security position. Although Congressdoes not explicitly act to “choose” a future, theseries of incremental actions taken on variousbills and proposals do, in the aggregate, movethe country closer to, or farther from, differentalternative futures.

OTA was asked to evaluate different combina-tions of energy supply and demand which areoften proposed as possible and desirable. The re-

31


quest (signed by 54 Members of the House andSenate) asked that the Office analyze variouslevels of energy consumption and fuel mixes(high-demand high-coal, low-demand high-so-lar, etc.) and identify the likely impacts of thosecombinations on the country.

After initial work on the comprehensive ap-proach, a decision was made, reinforced bybudgetary and related constraints, to begin thework through a set of closely related projects.Each study will be complete in itself, but will formpart of a base for an overall analysis to be com-pleted in fiscal year 1981 or later. Those studiesare as follows:

1.

2.

3.

Industrial Energy Conservation—A newlook at the macroeconomic relationshipsbetween industrial production, energy con-sumption, and gross national product. In-dustry has actually cut gross energy con-sumption over the past 5 years, while in-creasing product output. How has this beenpossible, and can this trend be expected tocontinue? One or two of the most energy-intensive industries will be examined indetail.Energy in the City —This study will focus onthe various options for providing energy inthe city in the future: improved conser-vation, transition to renewable, differingforms of decisionmaking and management.The impacts of the energy choices, and ofthe financing mechanisms selected to imple-ment them, will be analyzed for their likelyimpact on the shape of cities, as comparedto suburban and rural systems. Substantialemphasis will be placed on social and insti-tutional barriers to implementation.Energy Policy Forum —A careful analysis ofthe major differences and agreements char-acterizing the energy debate at this time,and the evolution of these views over thedecade of the 1970’s. Principal areas of dif-ference over fact and impact will be identi-fied, thus suggesting research priorities andhelping to determine which portions of thedebate hinge on philosophical differencesthat are not likely to be resolved. This proj-ect will be completed by a series of work-shops, interviews, and in-house analyses.

Energy From Biological Processes

In the search for domestic, renewable sourcesof energy, many experts see a potential for ob-taining energy from plants and from plant andanimal wastes. Commonly referred to as bio-mass, these biological processes represent a re-newable source of solid, liquid, and gaseous fuelsas well as of chemical feedstocks. On balance,biomass may be less polluting than domestic fos-sil fuels. In addition, biomass has the potential forcontributing to energy self-sufficiency in agricul-ture and in the forest products industries, and ap-pears to be especially appropriate for developingcountries.

Although the resource base for biomass is the-oretically very large, there are many establishednonenergy demands for those resources. The re-source base can be expanded by altering forestand agricultural management, by exploiting mar-ginal lands with specially adapted plants, and bycultivating aquatic plants. There are, however,many practical problems associated with such anexpansion of the resource base.

At the request of the Senate Committee onCommerce, Science, and Transportation, OTAis analyzing the potential for and impacts of bio-mass energy. This project will describe in detailthe conversion processes that could becomecommercial in the near term, analyze policies foraccelerating commercialization and their implica-tions, and examine R&D needs for longer termconversion processes. The economics and netenergy balances of selected conversion processeswill be investigated, particularly for the produc-tion of liquid fuels. OTA also is examining theend uses of biomass-derived fuels and chemicals.The possible uses of liquids and the technical,economic, environmental, and systems tradeoffsbetween possible uses will be emphasized.

In connection with this investigation of liquidfuels from biomass, OTA has carried out an ex-tensive analysis of alcohol fuels from agriculturalproducts and processing wastes. The results ofthis analysis are presented in a technical memo-randum on gasohol in response to congressionalinterest in synthetic fuels.

Finally, because little is known about the envi-ronmental and social impacts of developing bio-

Section III– Work in Progress ● 33

mass energy sources, OTA will summarize thestate-of-the-art knowledge and lay the ground-work for anyone planning to assess these im-pacts. This assessment is scheduled for comple-tion early in 1980.

Decentralized Electric EnergyGeneration Systems

The possibility of using solar energy in all itsdirect and indirect forms and the rapidly escalat-ing economic and environmental costs of largeenergy facilities have stimulated considerable in-terest in small, decentralized energy systems. Inparticular, problems faced by the electric utilityindustry, such as rapidly rising capital costs, longleadtimes for construction, and difficulty in find-ing suitable sites, make the introduction of decen-tralized electric energy systems appear attractive.Last year, Congress provided for the establish-ment of rules encouraging decentralized electricenergy systems in the Public Utility RegulatoryPolicies Act.

This study, requested by the House Commit-tee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, willexamine the role that small energy conversionequipment could play in meeting the country’sneeds for electric energy. It will review the eco-nomic, environmental, social, and institutionalconsequences of decentralized electric systems,and their effect on the electric utility industry.Finally, it will analyze policy options that Con-gress may wish to consider.

The assessment will begin by examining thetechnical features of decentralized systems usinga variety of small electric-generating equipment.Then, employing models developed for the earli-er OTA study on onsite solar systems, the assess-ment will analyze the economic and technical ef-fects of such systems on utilities. Concurrently,changes in utility structure will be evaluated onthe basis of planning and decision models. Final-ly, a series of issues about the effects on society(e.g., employment, risks, etc.) of decentralizedsystems will be examined, including public per-ception of small-scale, onsite energy facilities.The study is scheduled for completion in the latesummer of 1980.

Global Energy Trends

Energy shortages and high prices will createserious economic and political difficulties duringthe next three decades. As a result, the SenateForeign Relations Committee requested thatOTA perform an assessment of the future energysituation to determine the effects of these possi-ble shortages and high prices and the foreignpolicy options that are available to the UnitedStates to mitigate these negative effects.

This study is proceeding in two stages. The firststage assesses future global energy supplies andthe construction of credible scenarios governingfuture energy supplies and demands. Because ofits central importance, future world petroleumavailability is being assessed first. The preliminaryresults of this study have been used as a basis forOTA testimony before the House Select Com-mittee on Intelligence. The second stage of thisstudy, to be carried out primarily by the Interna-tional Security and Commerce Program, will ex-amine the implications of these scenarios on theUnited States and the world. This analysis willcover the economic, political, and national secu-rity impacts of these scenarios. U.S. foreign poli-cy responses, including U.S. assistance in energytechnologies to other nations, will be analyzed.

An analysis of world oil-production prospectswill be completed in the spring of 1980.

Liquefied Natural Gas

Public debate has focused on both safety andeconomic aspects of liquefied natural gas (LNG)imports. An OTA report, Transportation of Liq-uefied Natural Gas, published in September1977, describes the technology, reviews criticallythe physical and institutional components of theLNG import system, and explores public aware-ness and concerns.

Partly in response to questions raised in thatstudy, the Senate Committee on Finance re-quested OTA to examine LNG import policy inthe context of other energy alternatives, with em-phasis on economic costs and benefits. The re-quest arrived after President Carter, through theNational Energy Plan, had relaxed a policy of the


previous administration to limit LNG imports,and after the General Accounting Office (GAO)had suggested in a report to Congress that thisnew policy required reevaluation and further im-provement, essentially because insufficient ra-tionale appeared in the plan.

In response to the Senate Finance Commit-tee’s inquiry, this assessment mainly looks at theeconomic and energy supply implications of thetechnology. Safety of LNG facilities has been ex-cluded from the study, in order not to duplicatethe recent effort of GAO.

The purpose of the project is to aid Congressand Federal and State regulatory bodies in estab-lishing or reevaluating the circumstances underwhich LNG imports are in the public interest.Seven separate but related analytical tasks con-tribute to meeting the objective:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

a compilation of the history of GovernmentLNG import policy;a review of U.S. gas demand projectionsunder alternative price and policy assump-tions;a survey of North American gas and oil re-source estimates;an investigation into the availability and costof LNG in world markets;a description of the cost and structure ofLNG import projects, including financingand the distribution of risk among the publicand other participants;an analysis of the distribution of costs andbenefits of imported LNG in domestic gasmarkets; and,a brief discussion of the broader social andenvironmental impacts of LNG imports.

The report is scheduled for completion in early1980.

Solar Power Satellites

Solar power satellites are viewed as the mostpromising solar source of baseload electricity byproponents, while opponents believe that theirdevelopment would be a huge waste of FederalR&D money. While expenditures on the concepthave thus far totaled less than $25 million, sev-eral estimates place development and demon-stration costs in the $40 billion to $80 billion

range. The potential impacts of these satellitesystems on the environment and on society arethe object of considerable debate as is the ulti-mate cost of the energy produced. There is con-siderable congressional support for a more ag-gressive approach to investigation and develop-ment of the concept (the House passed a bill lastyear to initiate a 5-year program expected to cost$275 million).

A number of very different concepts for solarpower satellites have been proposed. The mostfamiliar would place giant arrays of photovoltaiccells in orbit to convert sunlight to electricity andtransmit it to Earth by a microwave beam. Otherconcepts include the use of giant orbiting reflec-tors to create solar farms on Earth where sunlightwould be available around the clock, or the useof sunlight to directly excite a laser that wouldbeam energy to Earth. The concepts are techni-cally diverse and may have significantly differenteconomic prospects. Perhaps equally important,their environmental and institutional impacts,which are likely to influence public acceptability,would be substantially different.

This study will address key uncertainties in abalanced treatment of both positive and negativeimpacts of proposed satellite power systems. Ma-jor topic areas will include: 1) the feasibility andcost of alternative satellite systems; 2) factorsaffecting public and institutional acceptance ofthese systems; and 3) the energy systems contextwithin which development and implementationof satellite power systems must be viewed. With-in these categories, particular attention will bedevoted to the health effects of microwave radia-tion, the implications of highly centralizedelectric-generation systems, the expanded role ofthe Federal Government in energy productionthat may be required, and the implications fornational security and international relations.Strengths, weaknesses, and uncertainties associ-ated with solar satellite concepts will be con-trasted with those of other future energy sourcessuch as nuclear fusion and terrestrial photovol-taics.

The study was requested by the Chairman andranking minority members of the House Commit-tee on Science and Technology and its Subcom-

Section 111– Work in Progress . 35

mittee on Space Science and Applications. Com-pletion is scheduled for the fall of 1980.

Synthetic Fuels for Transportation

The U.S. automotive transportationbecoming increasingly dependent on

system isimported

petroleum. The rapidly escalating cost of im-ported oil and the apparent willingness of someoil producers to use oil as a political weapon havecreated a strong concern both for the U.S. econ-omy and for our continued freedom from outsidecoercion. The manufacture of synthetic fuels andthe improved efficiency of the automobile aretwo major pathways for reducing U.S. oil de-pendence and its effects.

The Energy Program is cooperating with theTransportation Program in a study of syntheticfuel production, automotive fuel-efficiency im-provements, and the tradeoffs between them.The Energy Program will be responsible for theportion of the study dealing with synfuels. A ma-jor purpose of the study will be to examine thetotal costs and benefits of synfuels, including thecosts and benefits of moving synfuels into the

marketplace (refining and distributing them aswell as adapting the automobile to use them, ifnecessary). OTA will also carefully examine thetime necessary to develop a synfuels industryunder different deployment conditions, and willattempt to determine what additional costs wouldhave to be borne if an emergency deploymentschedule were adopted. This analysis should es-tablish the possibilities for using a synfuels com-mercialization capability as an emergency “es-cape valve” to combat the effects of an externallyimposed oil shortage. Finally, OTA will attemptto identify those critical issues that must be re-solved before the next major steps towards com-mercialization are made, and to identify instanceswhere the current Federal program may fail to re-solve these issues in time.

This assessment has been requested by theSenate Committee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation. The House Committees on Sci-ence and Technology and on Interstate and For-eign Commerce have also expressed strong in-terest. Completion is scheduled for the late fall of1980.

International Security and Commerce Program

It is becoming increasingly evident that interna-tional interdependence is no longer just a slogan,but a reality. A wide range of the U.S. nationalgoals can only be achieved with the cooperationof other nations, while other goals may involveconflicts of interest with foreign countries. In theinternational arena, U.S. technology has longrepresented a particular area of strength, and wehave grown accustomed to relying on superiortechnology to help us in achieving both economicand military strength. Technology should remaina distinctive U.S. asset in the future as well, butonly if it is used wisely in the pursuit of nationalobjectives. The International Security and Com-merce Program assists Congress in a variety ofareas where the appropriate national policy is indoubt because of questions regarding the impactof either U.S. or foreign advances in technology.

One such area is the international competitive-ness of U.S. industry. Is the United States mov-

ing into a period in which key industries dependon exports for their survival, while some keyproducts are imported because U.S. manufactur-ers can no longer compete? If so, what conse-quences can be hoped for, or feared? Is a moreexplicit national strategy appropriate, or feasible?A closely related question is that of technologytransfer. How is technology transferred from theUnited States to other countries? What factorsdetermine whether imported technology is effi-ciently used? Under what circumstances is tech-nology transfer good or bad for the UnitedStates? Answers to questions such as these donot emerge reliably from theoretical analysis; in-stead, it is necessary to look closely at the detailsof a variety of specific cases. In 1979, the Pro-gram completed an assessment of technologyand East-West trade. An ongoing assessment ad-dresses the international competitiveness of theU.S. electronics industry. Future efforts will in-clude other cases of competitiveness (probably


the aircraft industry, and a comparison across in-dustries) and of technology transfer (such astechnology transfer to the oil-rich nations of theMiddle East, and the effects of relocation of U.S.industries to areas overseas where labor ischeaper).

Another such area is the technology of nation-al security, including both the effects of weaponstechnology and the technological considerationsinvolved in arms limitation. In 1979 an assess-ment of the effects of nuclear war was com-pleted, and we expect to initiate further projectsduring 1980.

The Program is conducting a joint effort withthe Energy Program to assess the implicationsof global trends in energy supply and demand.Based on work done in the Energy Program onpetroleum supply, an assessment is planned for1980 on the range of ways in which energy issuescan affect East-West relations, and on the policyproblems and options to be expected as a result.

The International Competitivenessof the U.S. Electronics Industry

While there are many factors other than tech-nology which affect the competitiveness of theU.S. electronics industry, it is assumed that therelative sophistication and appropriateness of thetechnologies employed (both in end productsand in manufacturing processes) will have a ma-jor impact, and that there are significant U.S.Government policy choices which in turn will af-fect the level of technology. This assessment,undertaken at the request of the Senate Commit-tee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation;the House Committee on Ways and Means; andthe Joint Economic Committee, addresses thetechnology issues affecting competitiveness in anindustry that has been marked by a very high rateof innovation and by extremely sophisticatedtechnologies. It is of interest not only for its ownsake, but because of the strategic role that elec-tronics are expected to play in the future of other

industries. A companion study on the competi-tiveness of the U.S. steel industry is being carriedout by the Materials Program.

The assessment addresses three sectors of theelectronics industry: consumer electronics, inwhich the U.S. industry producing color televi-sion receivers has lost much of its market to Japa-nese manufacturers; semiconductor devices (no-tably integrated circuits), in which U.S. industryholds a strong competitive position, but is undera fierce challenge; and computers, in which U.S.industry is presently leading the world, but wherefuture challenges are to be expected. The assess-ment will focus on those determinants of techno-logical competitiveness that appear to be suscep-tible to modification by governmental action, andinvolves comparison of U.S. and Japanese prac-tices and considerable attention to some sectorsof Western European industry. The assessment isscheduled for completion in mid-1980.

Taggants in Explosives

This assessment responds to a request fromthe Senate Governmental Affairs Committee toassess a proposal to add substances to commer-cial explosives that would permit detection of theexplosives by suitable sensing machines (so-called detection taggants) or identification of thebatch of explosives involved in a bombingthrough so-called identification taggants retrievedfrom the debris. When hearings were held on thisprospect, the assertions about the technologiesinvolved from executive branch sources (whofavor it) and industry sources (who oppose it)were so completely in disagreement that noreliable conclusions could be drawn. The requestis being met by the Program because experts andlaboratories who normally work for the militaryprovide a source of unbiased expertise regardingexplosives. The assessment addresses the safetyof taggants, their probable costs, and their prob-able utility to law enforcement. The assessment isscheduled for completion early in 1980.


Materials

The industrial base of a modern technologicalsociety requires a vast array of raw materials ofmany different types. The importance of mate-rials to our society is suggested by the fact thatannual consumption of minerals in the UnitedStates is about 40,000 lbs per person. Societyuses materials through what is called the materi-als cycle. The cycle starts with extraction of min-erals or harvesting of renewable resources suchas wood, proceeds through processing and end-product manufacture to use of the product by theconsumer, followed by disposal of the product,and, in some cases, by reuse or remanufacturingof the product or recycling of the material.

At every stage of this cycle, the ways in whichmaterials are handled are affected in complexand interlocking ways by institutional, economic,environmental, and technical factors. For exam-ple, the exploration, development, and produc-tion of a significant fraction of our minerals andtimber are governed by the Federal land manage-ment laws and regulations; the degree to whichmaterials are recycled after use depends partly onthe relative costs of virgin and recycled materialsand these costs partly depend, in turn, on institu-tional and technical factors; environmental con-cerns are leading to more stringent and costlycontrols on operations at all stages of the materi-als cycle from extraction through waste disposal;and new technology has simultaneously openedup hitherto untouched areas for exploration, de-velopment, and production, and helped to miti-gate at least some of the associated impacts onthe environment.

The Program has two ongoing projects relatedto extraction (oil shale and Federal coal leasing)and one ongoing project related to processing(impact of technology on the competitiveness ofthe U.S. steel industry). The new projects startedin 1980 will probably be concerned with technol-

Program

ogies for efficient and environmentally soundprocessing and manufacture.

Oil Shale Technology

At the request of the Senate Committee onEnergy and Natural Resources, OTA is studyingthe history, status, and possible futures of effortsto develop the oil shale of the Western UnitedStates. The Committee’s letter of request calledfor a complete assessment of shale oil recoverytechnology in general and of the current Federalprototype oil shale leasing program in particular.

U.S. dependence on foreign sources of liquidfuel has increased significantly since the 1973-74oil embargo and price increases. In 1978, theUnited States imported nearly 45 percent of itspetroleum at prices five to six times higher thanthey were in 1972, and prices have risen dra-matically since the end of 1978. Short-term reli-ability of imported-oil supplies is uncertain, asexemplified by the problems in Iran. Long-termreliability is also questionable, as worldwide oilproduction may peak within the next few dec-ades. In the United States, oil reserves have beendeclining for several years.

The richest oil shale deposits in the WesternUnited States are those of the Green River for-mation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. TheGreen River shales contain the largest singledeposit of hydrocarbon materials in the world,but only a small portion of the total resourcecould be recovered by existing technologies. Ithas been estimated that about 190 billion barrelsof shale oil could be recovered from the GreenRiver deposits with existing technology, but theprofitability of recovery is clouded by numeroustechnical, environmental, and economic uncer-tainties. These resources, if recovered, couldsupply a l-million-barrel-per-day oil shale indus-try for over 500 years.


In its assessment of oil shale technology, OTAwill place emphasis on identifying the remainingtechnical, economic, and environmental uncer-tainties connected with commercial oil shaledevelopment and evaluating how these uncer-tainties could be resolved. OTA will formulateseveral scenarios for oil shale development,from “no additional Government involvement”to “Government-assisted accelerated massivedevelopment .“ A range of financial and institu-tional incentives for each scenario will be ana-lyzed for their effectiveness in achieving suchaims as encouraging oil shale development,minimizing cost to the Treasury, and maximizingmanagerial efficiency. The likely environmental,socioeconomic, and water availability impacts foreach scenario will be identified. Completion isscheduled for early 1980.

Impact of Technology on theCompetitiveness of the U.S. Steel Industry

A growing number of people have becomeconcerned that the U.S. steel industry has lost itsability to compete with foreign steel producers,both in domestic and world markets.

At the request of the House Committee onWays and Means, OTA is analyzing the roleplayed by technology in the fate of the U.S. steelindustry and in steel manufacture around theworld. This assessment will examine the kinds oftechnologies now available worldwide and at-tempt to anticipate those that may be availableduring the next few decades.

For the purposes of this study, the steel indus-try is not being treated as a single entity. Rather,three major elements of the industry are beingtreated separately: integrated carbon steelmak-ing, non-integrated carbon steelmaking (includ-ing “mini-mills”), and alloy/specialty companies.Each category presents unique opportunities andproblems for study.

The study is examining ways in which re-search, development, and demonstration of newsteelmaking techniques are now conducted in theUnited States and by our major competitors. It isalso exploring the incentives and barriers to theintroduction of new technologies. The impacts ofa variety of Federal programs and regulations (in-

cluding labor regulations, environmental con-trols, and health and safety regulations) are alsobeing explored. A broad range of possible legisla-tive solutions to problems identified will be pre-sented and their impact assessed. Completion isscheduled for early 1980.

Federal Coal Development

The administration’s National Energy Plan callsfor expanded domestic coal production to offsetthe rising prices and uncertain availability of otherfossil fuels. Over one-half of the Nation’s coalreserves are found in the Western States. TheFederal Government owns approximately two-thirds of these Western coal reserves. In 1974, anestimated 15 billion tons of Federal reserves wereunder lease, seemingly more than enough tomeet future demand; yet less than 50 million tonsof coal per year were produced from theseleases. To meet the projected goal of 1.2 billiontons of coal in 1985, domestic coal productionmust increase nearly 80 percent over 1976levels. Production goals for Federal leases call fora sixfold increase to approximately 300 milliontons per year in 1985. Recent uncertainties aboutthe role of nuclear power and increased interestin large synthetic fuel production may further in-crease the demand for coal.

The low-production figures for Federal coalleases raises uncertainties that some leases wouldnot begin production in time to meet future coaldemand. In 1973, in response to charges ofspeculation and mismanagement, the Depart-ment of the Interior imposed a moratorium onfurther leasing. The coal industry advocates in-creased Federal leasing to meet projected 1985production goals.

The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of1975, Public Law 94-377, revised the leasingsystem and required that most existing leasesbegin production by 1986 under threat of cancel-lation.

Section 10 of Public Law 94-377 directedOTA to conduct an analysis of all outstandingFederal coal development rights, which includeover 500 leases and 200 preference-right leaseapplications in effect in August 1976. This assess-ment will analyze all mining activities on Federal

Section III - Work in Progress . 39

leases, determine the present and potential value examine the feasibility of using deep-mining tech-of the outstanding coal development rights, esti- nology in leased areas. Completion is scheduledmate revenues to the Federal Government, and for early 1981.

SCIENCE, INFORMATION, AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION

Telecommunication and Information Systems Program

Telecommunication and information systemstechnologies are rapidly advancing and becom-ing more integrated. New facilities are being es-tablished, new services are being planned and of-fered, and new enterprises are emerging in theUnited States and abroad. Governments are tak-ing increased interest in the social and institu-tional implications of the new technologies. Gov-ernmental and industrial reorganizations are oc-curring, new legislation is being proposed andadopted, and relevant international norms arebeing formulated in global and regional forums.

Because of the unprecedented growth in newtelecommunication systems investment, and theexpanding impacts on society of emerging na-tional information systems, several committees ofCongress consider it essential to assess the devel-oping technologies and their broad societal im-pacts. The Telecommunication and InformationSystems Program comprises two core projects,one on national information systems and theother on telecommunication systems. They arebeing conducted on a coordinated basis.

National Information Systems

The project on societal impacts of national in-formation systems was initiated in fiscal year1978 to explore the issues and impacts of threebroadly representative information systems–theFederal Bureau of Investigation’s National CrimeInformation Center and its Computerized Crimi-nal History Program, the role of the U.S. PostalService in electronic message systems, and theimpacts of emerging electronic funds transfer sys-tems. Using these case studies, issues and im-pacts generic to comparable national informationsystems will be assessed.

Previously available only at relatively highcosts, computers are now available in drastically

reduced sizes, at dramatically reduced prices,and with greatly enhanced speed and capability.In this “the information age,” our greatly im-proved capacity for generation and disseminationof information should be for the benefit of all, butthere is presently little understanding of how na-tional information systems affect society. Theycould bring enhanced convenience and efficiencyto many services and functions of society such asmail, criminal justice, research, education, andmarketing, and to personal services such asbanking and shopping. However, their use couldresult in the deprivation of individual rights andcivil liberties and could have unanticipated im-pacts on areas such as: employment patterns;choices in the free market; national security; in-ternational data flow; and the infrastructures ofproviders, users, and regulators of informationservices.

The information systems study is designed toassess these impacts and to define policy options.Impacts and issues raised by the three in-depthcase studies will be analyzed for any general con-clusions that might help Congress in its efforts toshape a coherent national policy on informationsystems.

This assessment was requested by the HouseCommittees on Post Office and Civil Service andon the Judiciary and the Senate Committee onthe Judiciary. A report is expected in early 1980on the implications of the National Crime In-formation Center and the Computerized Crimi-nal Histories Program. Other aspects of the studyare expected to be reported on in the spring of1980.

Telecommunication Systems

The assessment of telecommunication sys-tems, which was begun during early fiscal year


1979, will identify and analyze new technologiesand emerging services, take into account theregulatory and institutional aspects of the Com-munications Act of 1934, project the rate andscope of system and service growth, and explorealternative national policy frameworks for thetelecommunication sector.

Telecommunication technology has been in aperiod of revolutionary change since the mid-1960’s, and the end of new system and serviceinnovations is not in sight. Computers, satellites,optical fibers, cable TV, and many other devel-opments have been added to the repertoire ofavailable electrical and radio technologies forcommunication at a distance (i. e., telecommuni-cation). As new systems and services becomeeconomic, as new competing forces emerge inthe marketplace, it is both timely and necessaryto assess the technological changes and their im-pacts, including the underlying national policieswhich need review and assessment.

This study explores alternative choices of fu-ture national policies affecting industry structure,Government structure, and the role and conse-quences of competition in telecommunicationservices. It will also assess the underlying eco-nomic and social relationships. The focus will beon technologies and the effect of industrial insti-tutions and Government regulation and policy ontheir development, introduction, manufacture,availability, cost, and use.

Requested by the Senate Committees onCommerce, Science, and Transportation and onthe Judiciary, this assessment is scheduled forcompletion in the spring of 1980.

Applications of Technology in Space

An assessment of applications of technology inspace was initiated at the request of the SenateCommittee on Commerce, Science, and Trans-portation.

In order for OTA to properly advise Congressregarding the merits of a given application ofspace technology, it is necessary to compare thecosts, benefits, and risks of the space approachwith competing nonspace approaches. In the ab-sence of such a comparative approach, it will be-come increasingly difficult for Congress to pro-vide oversight of executive branch programs or toprovide leadership in areas of perceived short-comings or opportunities. Accordingly, assess-ments of applications of space technology arebeing addressed in the context of the specificapplication (e.g., energy, telecommunication,oceans). These specific applications will be ex-plored within a broader national space policy op-tions review and a consolidated study will be pre-pared.

A contract study on the institutional options forthe national space program has been initiatedwhich develops a range of scenarios for futurespace activities and the institutional options ap-propriate for them.

All the evolving space studies explore the ade-quacy of the space technology base and evaluatethe possible needs for large space structures andfor improvements in space transportation in thecontext of alternate applications and policy.

Transportation Program

Of major concern to Congress is the ability ofthe transportation system in the United States toprovide fast, efficient, and inexpensive mobilityfor people and goods. Transportation industrieshave had to contend with increasing economic,operational, environmental, and safety problemsin recent years. In addition, there are a numberof factors, growing in importance, which mayforce a change of transportation policies in order

to modify the system and the manner in which itis operated. These include:

● the almost complete dependence of thetransportation system on petroleum in anera where dependence on imports must bereduced, and where supplies are dependenton the political stability of the Middle East;

● the rising percentage of the overall system

Section ill–Work in Progress ● 41

cost represented by the cost of petroleumfuel;

● the physical deterioration of roadbeds andequipment at a more rapid rate than that ofinvestment in their replacement; and

. the increasing cost of operating transpor-tation systems –both public and private,freight and passenger—because productivi-ty has not kept pace with demand for trans-portation services.

Since transportation supplies society with mo-bility for people and the wide range of goods andservices needed, a degradation in the transporta-tion system could significantly effect the characterand lifestyle of society in the future.

In 1980, congressional interest will probablycontinue to focus on the influence of the cost andavailability of petroleum and its effect on thetransportation system, the deterioration of road-beds and equipment, and the inability of theexisting system (based on yesterday’s technol-ogy) to meet the economic, environmental, andsocial needs of the future.

The Program will center its efforts on theeffects of technological development in the areasof:

●

●

●

goods movement —rail and truck systems—to improve service and reduce costs;reduction of the dependence on petroleumthrough the development of electrical pro-pulsion and energy distribution systems;andurban transportation —evaluation of alter-natives to the automobile to reduce petro-leum consumption, emissions, and conges-tion.

Automotive Fuel-Efficiency R&D andAlternative Energy Sources

The study will examine new or improved tech-nologies for possible use in automobiles andtrucks during the period 1985-2010 that wouldcontribute to greater fuel economy. Included inthis study will be an examination of the prospectsfor widespread introduction of electric and hybridvehicles.

A second part, conducted in parallel by theEnergy Program, will examine the potential forproducing fuels from sources other than conven-tional petroleum obtained from primary and sec-ondary recovery from domestic oilfields. The re-source base for these alternate fuels and the tech-nologies and time needed to produce them willbe reviewed. In addition, the study will determinethe economic and environmental costs of pro-duction and assess the fuels’ potential contribu-tion to the Nation’s energy supply.

The results of these two lines of investigationwill then be merged, to assess expected benefitsand costs of each as near- and far-term solutionsto the problems of dependency on importedpetroleum. The cost and time needed to achieveincreased automotive fuel economy will be com-pared with that of the development of alternativemotor fuels.

One of the initial activities of this assessmentwas a 3-day workshop held in September 1979to which automotive experts from industry anduniversities in the United States, West Germany,and Japan were invited to review the potentialfor fuel-efficiency improvements in engines andvehicle systems, materials, electronics, and elec-tric and hybrid vehicles. A report on this work-shop was published in the latter part of 1979.

Impact of Advanced Air TransportTechnology

Acting on a request by the House Science andTechnology Committee and the Senate Com-merce, Science, and Transportation Committee,this study was initiated in late 1979. The assess-ment examines the economic, energy, environ-mental, safety, and societal impacts of advancesin the technology of transport aircraft of all types,both passenger and cargo. It also examines thepotential impacts of the expected growth in airtraffic for the next several decades and considersvarious options that may be appropriate for bothmanaging and financing new aircraft which maysatisfy the expected growth. An important por-tion of the assessment is the role of the FederalGovernment in R&D in aeronautics and civilaviation technology. The study is scheduled forcompletion in the spring of 1980.


Airport and Air Traffic Control System

One project under consideration for initiationin 1980 and completion in 1981 is an assessmentto identify and analyze the airport and terminalarea capacity problem for the Nation and the

associated public investment decisions. Thisassessment will include an examination of the air-port access problems and air traffic control and ofalternative ways of alleviating these problems offuture air travel.

Oceans Program

Recent years have brought an increasedawareness of the impact of the oceans on thewell-being of humankind—the oceans’ potentialas a source of food, fuel, and hard minerals; theiruse as avenues of world commerce and com-munications; and their role in man’s search forknowledge about his resources and environment.At the same time, we are beginning to under-stand that, although the oceans are vast, they arenot inviolate to the interventions of man. Muchmore needs to be understood about the effects ofsuch occurrences as oilspills, overfishing, the dis-charge of toxic substances, and the role of theoceans in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentra-tions.

The United States, with a heavy marine in-terest, predicates its policies on facts derived fromcomprehensive ocean research. This effort is be-coming increasingly more expensive as demandsbecome more extensive. As a result, the job ofCongress in determining the most effective allo-cation of Federal resources, both financial and in-stitutional, has become more difficult and morecritical.

To assist Congress in its deliberations in suchmatters, the Oceans Program focuses on a broadrange of issues encompassing the uses and quali-ty of the oceans and the systems deployed on orin the oceans or along their shores. The Programis particularly concerned with examining possiblefuture uses of the oceans.

Radioactive Waste Managementand Disposal

Although the United States is more than threedecades into the nuclear age, nearly all of thehigh-level radioactive waste generated by weap-ons manufacture and by the operation of com-mercial nuclear powerplants is still in temporary

storage. Continued delay in developing and im-plementing a radioactive waste disposal systemmight significantly limit the future use of nuclearpower, whereas hasty action, if it were to lead toserious mistakes, might undermine public confi-dence in the Federal Government’s ability to dis-pose safely of radioactive waste. While manytechnological solutions to the problem have beenproposed, experience has shown that considera-tions focused solely on the technology are notenough.

A clear understanding of the problem of man-aging radioactive waste from its generation tofinal disposal requires comprehensive analysis ofthe interactive relationships among possible stor-age and disposal technologies, transportationsystems, regulatory considerations, and Federal,State, and local jurisdictional prerogatives. TheOTA study uses systems analysis techniques toevaluate a range of strategies for developing anddeploying a commercial high-level radioactivewaste disposal system. The study is intended toprovide a framework not only for synthesizing ex-isting information about proposed technologicaloptions for dealing with radioactive waste, butalso for examining the interrelationships betweentechnical and nontechnical considerations.

This study was requested by the House Com-mittees on International Relations, on MerchantMarine and Fisheries, and on Science and Tech-nology, and the Senate Committees on Com-merce, Science, and Transportation and on En-ergy and Natural Resources, as well as the Na-tional Ocean Policy Study. The project is ex-pected to be completed in the summer of 1980.

Ocean Research Assessment

This study examines future needs and capabil-ities of technologies used to conduct oceano-


graphic research supported by Federal funds.The request from the Senate Commerce Com-mittee said it would like to know how the FederalGovernment is using the equipment it has andhow it is preparing for future uses. The Commit-tee also would like to know if our capabilities willmeet the most urgent national needs; if there areopportunities for improvements in technology ormanagement, or for savings in money; and if bet-ter, more efficient systems could be developed.

The study will evaluate the technologiesused by the Federal Government in ocean re-search: ships, submersibles, aircraft, satellites,unmanned platforms such as buoys—and theequipment used to make scientific measure-ments. Eight Federal agencies have major ac-tivities in ocean research: the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, the Navy, theNational Science Foundation, the National Aero-nautics and Space Administration, the CoastGuard, the Environmental Protection Agency,the Department of the Interior (U.S. GeologicalSurvey and the Bureau of Land Management),and the Department of Energy. The total Federalocean program costs over $1 billion a year and alarge portion is spent on the technology to be ad-dressed by this study.

A principal objective of this study will be toprovide Congress with a comprehensive viewand a coherent structure for evaluating the manynew plans, proposed programs, and funding re-quests for ocean research. In addition, it is ex-pected to present options for providing technicalcapabilities to conduct ocean research and morecost-effective methods for coordinating or con-solidating Federal activities.

Several categories of ocean research effortsare directed towards addressing major nationalproblems. These problems reflect the growingneed not only for management of ocean activitiesand resources, but also for improved ocean re-search technology. Congress has recognized andresponded to these problems through legislationestablishing mandates for specific types of moni-toring and research. Four research areas, whichthis study will examine to identify technologicalneeds, are: weather and climate, marine pollu-tion, ocean minerals and energy sources, andfisheries (and other living resources). The study is

scheduled for completion in the summer of1980.

Fresh water Resources Management,Planning, and Policy

The study, “Freshwater Resources Manage-ment, Planning, and Policy: An Assessment ofModels and Predictive Methods, ” will summarizethe numerous current and proposed models andpredictive methods in the water resources fieldand determine their effectiveness as decision-making tools. As the Nation’s water problemsbecome more complex, the often conflicting ad-vice presented to Congress by the Federal agen-cies, advocacy groups, and expert witnesses is in-creasingly difficult to evaluate. Often this adviceis based on the results of computer models andpredictive methods of unknown quality or effec-tiveness. The critical need for an examination ofthe merits and disadvantages of the range ofavailable techniques has been expressed in testi-mony before Congress by many distinguishedpanels of experts considering future water re-search priorities. OTA will advise Congress onthe current and future capability of these tools tosupply needed analyses to water resource man-agers, planners, and policy makers.

Specifically, the credibility and efficacy of ma-jor waste resource models will be examined inthree broad subject areas: physical-ecological,socioeconomic, and integrative. Physical-eco-logical models are concerned with water supplyprediction, the movement of materials throughthe environment, and effects on living systems.Topics in the socioeconomic category include fu-ture water use predictions, economic evaluation,and risk analysis of flood and drought. Integrativemethods are a combination of the physical-eco-logical and socioeconomic approaches. For in-stance, integrative methods may be used to de-termine areawide development policies in water-sport regions of the country. The assessment willalso identify legal and institutional barriers to im-plementation, future research needs, and possi-ble Federal Government roles.

This assessment was requested by the HouseInterior and Insular Affairs Committee, and wasendorsed by the House Science and TechnologyCommittee and the Senate Energy and NaturalResources Committee. The study is scheduledfor completion in the late summer of 1980.


National R&D Priorities and Policies Program

The National R&D Priorities and Policies Pro-gram assists congressional deliberations address-ing the use of science and technology to achievenational goals. More specifically, the Programprovides analytical support to Congress in deal-ing with broad cross-cutting issues stemmingfrom or common to several technologies as op-posed to assessing an individual technology.

Technological Innovation and Health,Safety, and Environmental Regulation

This assessment was requested by the SenateCommittee on Commerce, Science, and Trans-portation as part of the Committee’s review ofFederal policies affecting industrial innovation.

The issues addressed are:

1. whether regulation is effective or not intapping the innovative resources of the pri-vate sector to reach health, safety, and en-vironmental objectives, e.g., safer chem-icals and nonpolluting industrial processes;and

2. whether, for a given level of protection,regulation creates unnecessary barriers forinnovations to meet market demands.

The latter issue is important because innovation isa major source of economic growth, increasedproductivity, and exports.

This assessment will ascertain whether existingregulatory policies create problems, as definedhere, and, if so, develop alternative policies fordealing with them.

To derive practical policy consequences fromsuch a broad subject, the assessment has beenorganized around three sectoral studies:

1.

2.

3.

effects of product regulation on innovationin pesticides and chemicals;effects of emission, safety, and fuel econ-omy regulations on innovation in the auto-motive industry; andeffects of regulation to control air and waterpollution on innovation in industrial proc-esses.

In addition, the effects of regulation on in-dicators of aggregate economic performance—gross national product, productivity, etc.—will beexamined in order to formulate the issue ofregulation’s effect on future economic vitalitythrough its effects on innovation. An analyticframework of alternative regulatory mechanismswill also be developed to delineate the role of in-novation concerns in the broader range of con-cerns that determine the selection and implemen-tation of regulatory programs. The study isscheduled for completion in the summer of1980.

An Assessment of Technology forLocal Development

The study was requested by the House Com-mittee on Science and Technology and theHouse Select Committee on Population. It isconcerned with those technologies that are de-signed to:

1. help meet tasks or needs as identified by thelocal community, and

2. utilize to the greatest degree possible renew-able resources.

The study will assess the availability, feasibility,and impacts of several such technologies, the in-stitutional supports necessary to develop and ap-ply them. It will weigh the impacts, both positiveand negative, of these technologies.

The project is based on case studies of specifictechnology areas and applications. It also in-cludes a study of the history of Federal interest inappropriate technology to date; a study of rele-vant Federal, State, and local policies; and astudy of the financing mechanisms which encour-age or hinder the use of those technologies. Thestudy is scheduled for completion in the spring of1980.

The Impact of Inflation on theFederal R&D Investment

The United States will invest $31.2 billion inR&D activities in fiscal year 1980 to support themissions of various executive agencies, to ad-

Section 111– Work in Progress ● 45

vance our knowledge of basic science, and tostimulate innovation. In April 1979 the HouseScience and Technology Committee held hear-ings to review the Federal R&D budget. Their in-quiry found little agreement on how inflationshould be treated in the Federal R&D budgetprocess and conflicting practices in accounting forinflation in budgeting for R&D among the ex-ecutive agencies. The Committee’s appraisal ofthe Federal R&D investment was hampered by alack of understanding of how inflation affects theNation’s R&D efforts.

The OTA study will assist the House Scienceand Technology Committee in its appraisal of the

Federal R&D investment by providing the Com-mittee an understanding of:

● the response of the Federal R&D budgetprocess to inflation, and

● the impact of inflation on the performers offederally funded R&D.

The project will be conducted in two paralleltasks. Task 1 will establish an understanding ofthe differences and similarities among the execu-tive agencies in dealing with inflation in theirR&D budget processes and Task 2 will addressthe question of the consequences of inflation forthe performers of federally funded R&D. Thestudy is scheduled for completion in early 1980.

HEALTH AND LIFE SCIENCES DIVISION

Food and Renewable Resources Program

As with energy and many other naturalresources, until recently Americans took forgranted that our supply of renewable resources—foods, soils, forests, water, and wildlife—was in-exhaustible. But no resource is immune to themounting pressures of our modern age; it is pos-sible to stress even these self-renewing resources.With this in mind, and with growing congression-al interest in renewable natural resources, OTA’sFood Program broadened its scope and in Aprilbecame the Food and Renewable Resources Pro-gram.

Food is a major concern. In today’s world of 4billion people, perhaps as many as 10 percentare suffering from malnutrition and, in somecases, starvation. And the global population willrise to 6 billion by the year 2000. Consequently,world food demands will continue to rise. Howcan technology contribute to the solution of foodproblems?

Economic and environmental pressures in theUnited States are affecting the nature of our agri-cultural base. We are losing some of our best soilsto unacceptable rates of erosion. Competing usestax our water resource, and affect its availabilityand quality. What are the new technologies thatcan help us sustain the land’s natural productivi-ty, and maintain water quality?

To provide Congress with information onthese and other related problems, the Programidentifies current and emerging technology issuesthat affect the U.S. and world food and renew-able resources situation as well as issues affectingthe renewable natural resource base.

The food studies are organized around threefunctional areas: 1) production including all re-sources required to produce agricultural productsand get them to the farm gate; 2) marketing, con-sisting of processing, wholesaling, and retailing;and 3) consumption and nutrition, both in andout of the home.

Future renewable natural resource studies willfall into one or more of the following categories:land and soils; forests and other vegetation;ground and surface water; wildlife; and the inter-relationships of these and how they might bemaintained, restored, or improved through wiseapplication of technology.

Impact of Technology on Productivityof the Land

This assessment is concerned with the sustain-ability of the primary productivity of our land.

Were it not for technological advances, worldagriculture would never have been able to keep

59-297 0 - 80 - 4


pace with world population growth thus far.Historically, U.S. technology, in particular, hashad a pronounced positive impact on increasingthe productivity of croplands and grasslands. Ourdependence on a continuing supply of renewablenatural resources and on maintaining stable eco-logical systems from which the resources aredrawn is emerging as a key element in our coun-try’s future. Now, however, there is increasingevidence showing that parts of the naturalbiological and physical systems are being over-burdened by human activities and that the land’sproductivity is in jeopardy.

The land productivity study will focus on thepresent use of technologies and their beneficialand adverse effects, and on emerging and newtechnologies that might be used to offset ad-verse effects derived from some present technol-ogies. The assessment will include an evaluationof: 1) the adequacy of present data on our land’sproductivity and gaps in our knowledge baseand 2) new or emerging technologies that mayhave potential for restoring, maintaining, and im-proving land productivity, especially croplandsand rangelands. Selected case studies will be pre-pared that show how society is affected directlyand indirectly as the land’s ecological systems arealtered through applications of technology.

This study was initiated in November 1979and was requested by the Senate Committee onEnvironment and Public Works. Expressions ofsupport were received from the House Commit-tee on Agriculture, the Senate Committee onAppropriations, and the Subcommittee on Parks,Recreation, and Natural Resources of the SenateCommittee on Energy and Natural Resources,and is scheduled for completion in late 1980.

U.S. Food and Agricultural Research

The success of U.S. food and agriculture in-dustries has been based on an ever-increasinguse of new technologies. However, the effec-tiveness of these technologies and/or their devel-opment seems to be decreasing at a time whenareas requiring research are expanding and theintensity of some traditional problems, such assoil erosion, is increasing. The principal creatorsof new food and agriculture technologies in theUnited States are Agricultural Research, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA); State agri-cultural experiment stations (SAES) of land-grant universities; and private food- and agricul-ture-oriented industries. Historically, USDA hasbeen more concerned with problems of nationaland regional importance, and SAES with prob-lems of a local and state nature. Yet often USDAand SAES work on problems that seem indistin-guishable. In addition, the administration has at-tempted to reduce funding in certain areas in thehope that the private sector will provide theneeded research.

Congress and others have shown concernover how research priorities are developed andhow time and funds are allocated among variousresearch activities, as well as over what appearsto be a lack of overall research planning especial-ly at the top levels of administration. These con-cerns have prompted numerous studies, butnone has addressed specifically what needs arebest addressed by what research branch. Whichresearch problems should be dealt with at the na-tional, regional, or local level has never beendetermined on a scientific basis. Moreover, theroles of the various actors—Federal agencies,State experiment stations, and private industry–are not well-defined.

This assessment will: 1) examine the scientificbase for establishing national, regional, and localresearch problems; 2) identify the role of Federal,State, and private research institutions in devel-oping technologies for solving national, regional,State, or local problems; 3) evaluate methods bywhich the expertise and interests of the Federal,State, and private research organizations can beused in a cooperative manner to identify priorityresearch areas and the role of each actor in solv-ing these priority problems; 4) update evalua-tions of the adequacy of present research effortsas related to research priorities for basic, applied,and developmental research; and 5) evaluatepublic policy options for Congress that will max-imize our research potential.

The Senate Committees on Appropriationsand on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry haverequested this assessment. In addition, theHouse Agriculture Subcommittee on DepartmentInvestigations, Oversight, and Research has en-dorsed this request. The assessment is scheduledfor completion in the spring of 1981.


Genetics and Population Program

The Genetics and Population Program wascreated to accommodate the increasing interestin these subjects in recent years. Interest in genet-ics arises from greatly expanded understandingof, and emerging capability for, altering or affec-ting, the inherited characteristics of man, ani-mals, and plants. The term “genetics” is usedbroadly and includes related biological technol-ogies such as in vitro fertilization and artificial in-semination. The importance of these emergingtechnologies is illustrated by the concern of thescientific community and the public over researchwith recombinant DNA which led to develop-ment of the National Institutes of Health guide-lines, the increasing use of procedures to detectgenetic defects, and the recent successful humanin vitro fertilization.

Rapidly growing population is a major factorinfluencing the quality of life everywhere. Worldpopulation did not reach 2 billion until 1930, butonly 45 more years were required to double it.Such rapid growth has placed great stress on theEarth and its resources as well as on economicand political stability, especially in those develop-ing countries where population growth rates arehighest. Increasing recognition of the importanceof the rights of individuals both to have childrenand to choose their number and spacing isillustrated by rising support for family-planningprograms over the last 25 years. Prior to 1965only a few third-world countries officially sup-ported family planning whereas by 1979 all but afew third-world countries had developed suchpolicies.

Two assessments are underway: one on theimpacts of applied genetics; the other on technol-ogy and world population. Both subjects are ofunusual interest because of the central impor-tance of many of the issues they raise to individ-ual and societal values, attitudes, and beliefs.

Impacts of Applied Genetics

This assessment is concerned with nonhumanapplications of genetic technologies. It is ex-pected that a subsequent study will be proposedto the Board for assessment of applications of ge-netic technologies to humans.

To date the Federal Government has been pri-marily concerned with one technology, recombi-nant DNA, and one issue, containment of newand possibly harmful organisms. Little attentionhas been given to other technologies, such as cellfusion, or to other issues, such as costs and bene-fits and social and ethical questions.

This assessment is concerned with a range oftechnologies and their application to animals,plants, and micro-organisms (single-cell prepara-tions). Single-cell applications are an especiallyrapidly growing area and the study will look atthe use of such preparations to produce chemi-cals, pharmaceuticals, and food products. Someexamples of issues to be considered include:

●

●

●

●

the potential of genetic technologies toproduce plants resistant to environmentalstress;the relationship between Government regu-lation of research, freedom of scientific in-quiry, and public risk;ownership of new life forms with commer-cial value, incentives for R&D, and distribu-tion of benefits; andthe potential contribution of genetically en-gineered organisms to easing energy andresource shortages and, more generally, todeveloping a sustainable society.

For each application, the state of the art will bedescribed and alternatives to genetic approacheswill be identified and characterized. Factors likelyto promote or impede further development of ge-netic technologies will be described. The environ-mental, political, and social impacts of the tech-nologies will be analyzed and appropriate policyoptions discussed.

The assessment is of interest to Senate andHouse committees with responsibility for agricul-ture, commerce, health, science and technology,and judicial issues. Expressions of support for thestudy were received from the House Committeeon Interstate and Foreign Commerce and theSenate Committee on Human Resources. Con-gressional interest in this subject as an OTA as-sessment area dates back to September 1976when 36 House Members requested an assess-


ment of recombinant DNA technologies. Theassessment is scheduled for completion in theautumn of 1980.

Technology and World Population

This study, initiated in June 1979, will exam-ine the causes and consequences of world popu-lation growth, with special attention to planned-birth technologies, national governmental ac-tions, and U.S. international assistance.

The status of scientific understanding of thephysiology of human reproduction and the char-acteristics of technologies to alleviate infertilityand to control the number and spacing of birthswill be described. Of particular concern are thecultural factors affecting acceptability and use ofthese technologies throughout the world duringthe period 1960-80. New technologies whichcould reach the market during the period1980-2000 will be identified and characterized,and a comparison of the consequences of worldpopulation growth during 1980-2000 and be-yond under different assumptions about popula-tion planning and growth will be prepared. Policyissues that national governments may face indealing with population growth during this sametime period will be identified, and a researchagenda will be prepared.

This study is primarily concerned with the lessdeveloped countries where infertility is often fre-

quent and where, at the same time, populationproblems associated with fertility are particularlyacute. For this reason, and because of the wideinterest in world population, special attention hasbeen given to development of advisory mecha-nisms for this assessment. In addition to a 17-member advisory panel to provide general over-sight and review of the project, two other groupshave been organized. A world roster of approxi-mately 100 experts, half from less developedcountries, will review and critique project prod-ucts before the same products are reviewed bythe advisory panel. A liaison group with repre-sentatives from executive branch agencies andnational and international organizations in thepopulation field has also been formed. Thisgroup will help the OTA staff and the advisorypanel keep abreast of the many activities under-way in the population field.

Congressional interest in domestic and inter-national population issues is shown by the largenumber of population-related bills and resolu-tions introduced each session and the number ofcommittees having jurisdiction in population-re-lated areas. Fifteen standing committees in theHouse and Senate have population policy re-sponsibilities during the 96th Congress. Issues tobe taken up in this assessment are of particular in-terest to two of the committees: House ForeignAffairs and Senate Foreign Relations, which havewritten letters of support for this study. Comple-tion is scheduled for late 1980.

Health Program

The value placed on health by the American The Health Program assists Congress by: 1)people is reflected in the large number of Federal examining the Federal role in anticipating andpolicies designed to assure health. Many of these managing domestic and international impacts ofpolicies directly address issues of health-related health-related technology; 2) identifying andtechnology; a great many others indirectly affect highlighting the social, political, economic, andthe development and use of such technology. As ethical concerns surrounding the developmenta result, the Federal Government has become and use of medical technology; 3) examining evi-deeply involved in every aspect of medical tech- dence of the benefits and risks of particular medi-nology—from R&D to regulating its spread into cal technologies; and 4) assessing the conse-widespread use, from assessing its effects to en- quences of Federal policies involving the provi-couraging abandonment of unsafe or obsolescent sion of and payment for particular medical tech-technologies. In turn, medical technology and its nologies.effects exert considerable influence on the Feder- The work of the Health Program up to nowal Government in areas such as fiscal policy. has focused on two areas: 1) methods of eval-

Section III– Work in Progress . 49

uating clinical medical technologies and 2) eval-uation of computers in health care. However, al-though health may be viewed as being deter-mined by four factors (genetics, personal behav-ior, environment, and health care), those twoissues related almost exclusively to only one ofthe four—health care. The area of genetics is theresponsibility of another OTA program, but littlework has been done by OTA in the other twoareas. Because of this fact, in 1978 it was de-cided to initiate studies concerning health and thephysical environment. The first study is examin-ing cancer and the environment. In addition, theHealth Program is working with other programson aspects of their assessments where health ef-fects may be an important factor. For example,the Program has taken responsibility for develop-ing information on the health effects of synfuelprograms as part of an assessment being carriedout by the Materials Program.

Cost= Effectiveness ofMedical Technologies

Increased use of medical technologies are aprime factor in rapidly rising health care costs andthese costs consume an increasingly greatershare of the country’s resources. Answers needto be found to questions on the relative contribu-tion or benefit of the various medical technol-ogies, whether they are drugs, devices, surgicalprocedures, or systems technologies? Are theresources spent on health care being allocated inthe most rational manner? Does the patient haveany voice in the spending decision?

Cost-effectiveness analysis is often suggestedas a way to help allocate health resources morerationally. Such analysis compares the costs ofalternate ways of attaining specified goals orresults. There is growing pressure to make cost-effectiveness a prime consideration in decidingwhether to adopt particular medical technol-ogies.

This assessment, requested by the SenateCommittees on Labor and Human Resourcesand on Finance, is examining the social costs andbenefits of potentially widespread use of cost-ef-fectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis inhealth care decisionmaking. In addition to areport addressing the above issues and setting

out policy options, the assessment will produce amethodology and literature review; a report of aninternational comparison of use of cost-effective-ness analysis and other mechanisms for manag-ing medical technology; and about 20 casestudies of specific medical technologies. Theassessment is expected to be completed in latespring of 1980.

Technologies for Forecasting PhysicianSupply and Requirements

Reauthorization of the Health ProfessionsEducational Assistance Act is scheduled for1980. Essentially, the Act reflects Congress’ pol-icies toward medical and other health professionseducation support and toward identifying andaddressing the problem of rural and urban areasthat lack adequate medical care. Forecasts offuture requirements for physicians in the UnitedStates are needed by Congress to help determineits policies in the next decade.

Estimates of the distribution of physicians byspecialty and geographic location, as well as ag-gregate numbers, are necessary for this task.Several models have been developed and usedto predict both the supply of and requirementsfor physicians. However, these forecasting meth-ods can yield very different estimates, and con-siderable debate surrounds the interpretation ofthese results, leaving Congress in doubt abouttheir implications.

Consequently, the Senate Committee onLabor and Human Resources and its Subcom-mittee on Health and Scientific Research have re-quested assistance in interpreting different fore-casts of physicians’ supply and requirements.The House Committee on Interstate and ForeignCommerce and its Subcommittee on Health andthe Environment have also expressed support forthe request.

The assessment will consist of three tasks:

1.

2.

Specification of forecasting models. Explicitassumptions used in the models, as well asthe results, will be compared in a quick ref-erence format.Technical review of models. The results ofeach model will be compared to ascertainthe relative importance and weighting of


3.

model components and underlying as-sumptions.Implications of predictive models. The im-plications for policy of relying on differentmodels will be considered. The effects ofchanging the assumptions underlying theestimates for the aggregate number, thenumber of primary care physicians, and thegeographic distribution of physicians will beanalyzed.

The assessment is expected to be completed inthe spring of 1980.

Technologies for Determining CancerRisks From the Environment

Prevention of cancer has become a prominentaspect of public health thinking during the past20 years. Reducing exposure to agents thatcause cancer requires the identification of causa-tive agents, assessment of their potency, and lo-cation of sites of exposure. In addition, regula-tions to reduce exposure must be politically andsocially acceptable.

The assessment will include the followingparts:

● Assessment of the estimates of cancer riskfrom different exposures. Estimates of thepercentage of cancers caused by environ-mental factors vary widely: the most com-monly quoted range between 60 and 90percent. Different data sources and differentmethods for making projections have pro-duced divergent estimates for the risk fromeach component of human environment—the air and water, the workplace, radiation,personal habits, and diet. The data sources,the methods, and the use of the estimates inpublic policy discussions and decisionmak-ing will be examined and compared.

●

●

●

Assessment of cancer-testing technologies.Technologies used by the Federal Govern-ment and the private sector for the identifi-cation of carcinogenic chemicals will be ana-lyzed. Recent initiatives and alterations inthe carcinogen-testing policies of the Fed-eral Government, and heightened interestin short-term tests for carcinogenicity makethis study particularly timely.Assessment of extrapolation techniques.Carcinogenic chemicals are tested in ani-mals and lower life forms. The assessmentwill analyze existing and potential methodsthat may be used to translate test results intoestimates of potential human hazard. Issuesand controversies regarding these methodswill be examined.What is “unreasonable risk?” If science wereperfect, and society knew that a chemicalcaused a number of cancers, society mightstill have a problem. If the chemical is essen-tial and, at the same time, a risk, whatshould society do? The Federal Insecticide,Rodenticide, and Fungicide Act as well asthe Toxic Substances Control Act requirethat the Administrator of EPA decide achemical is an unreasonable risk beforemoving against it. Unreasonable risk can bedefined from a number of perspectives in-cluding public health, legal, economic, andethical. Comparing, contrasting, and merg-ing these views will provide a useful founda-tion for policy decisions about risk.

The House Subcommittee on Health and theEnvironment and the Senate Subcommittee onHealth and Scientific Research sent letters of en-dorsement for the assessment. The Senate Com-mittees on Commerce, Science, and Transporta-tion and on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestryhave also expressed support. The assessment isexpected to be completed in late 1980.

Section IVOTHER SERVICESFOR CONGRESS

In addition to major assessments, OTA provides a wide variety of specialresponses to congressional needs, including testimony, briefings, technicalmemoranda on current issues, workshops, and responses by phone or mail torequests for specific information.

This sect ion describes some of these short-term responses.

Section IVOTHER SERVICES FOR CONGRESS

Through its comprehensive, long-term assess-ments of some of the most enduring and compli-cated issues facing the country, OTA has—dur-ing its 5 years as an operating agency—built up abroad base of expertise and information which ittaps for a range of special responses to currentcongressional needs. For example, because ofthe knowledge it had acquired through specificassessments, OTA was called on to testify morethan 20 times before congressional committees in1979. Reflecting the fact that energy was amongthe most dominant congressional concerns, OTAtestified 15 times on energy issues alone.

OTA’s special responses to congressionalneeds fall into three basic categories:

1.

2.

3.

Spinoff studies in which OTA draws onknowledge and insight derived from earlieror ongoing major assessments. These maytake such forms as congressional testi-mony, brief technical memoranda (rela-tively short analyses on specific subjectscovered in larger assessments), or staffbriefings.In-process reports, which draw on specificelements of an ongoing study. Often along-term study can be organized into aseries of tasks, each of which can consti-tute an interim output useful to Congress.Generally these responses take the form ofa technical memorandum.OTA also provides limited services inwhich the Office serves as an arbitrator orexpert witness concerning technical mat-ters on which conflicting testimony hasbeen presented to Congress.

The technical memorandum is a new form ofcommunication with Congress, initiated in 1979,in an effort to make the results of OTA’s longerand larger studies available in a more timelyfashion. OTA issued two technical memorandain 1979: Gasohol and the Benefits of IncreasedUse of Continuous Casting by the U.S. Steel In-dustry.

Gasohol

In October 1979, OTA delivered a 71-pagetechnical memorandum on Gasohol to request-ers, Senators Wendell Ford and Frank Church,both members of committees and chairmen ofsubcommittees with gasohol responsibilities. Thismemorandum was an interim product of theOTA Energy From Biological Processes reportscheduled for delivery to Congress in early 1980.(Gasohol is a mixture of one part ethanol, com-monly known as “grain alcohol” or beveragealcohol, and nine parts unleaded gasoline. )

The gasohol memorandum looks at the poten-tial for gasohol and the major technical, econom-ic, environmental, and social factors involved.

Some of its key points are:

●

●

In the 1980’s, OTA estimates that 1 billionto 2 billion gallons Of ethanol per year (10billion to 20 billion gallons of gasohol,enough ethanol to displace 1 to 2 percent ofthe current gasoline consumption of 110 bil-lion gallons per year) can be produced with-out a significant impact on food prices. Per-haps more can be produced, but it is notknown how much new cropland can actual-ly be brought into production without inflat-ing farm commodity prices.

In the 1990’s, the land available for theproduction of crops for uses other thanfood, feed, and fiber is likely to drop. Main-taining a large fuel ethanol industry (severalbillion gallons per year) will probably requireshifting to grasses, crop residues, wood,and municipal solid waste as feedstocks.The effectiveness of gasohol as a substitutefor premium fuel (oil and natural gas) de-pends on: 1) the fuel used at the distilleryand 2) whether the ethanol is used as an oc-tane booster. If distilleries are fueled withcoal or solar energy (including biomass) andthe octane of the gasoline blended to gaso-hol is lowered to exactly compensate for

53


ethanol’s octane-boosting effect, then near-ly 1 gallon of gasoline and natural gas ener-gy equivalent is displaced by each gallon ofethanol used (i. e., for every 10 gallons ofgasohol), On the other hand, if the ethanolis produced in an energy-inefficient distilleryfueled with oil or natural gas, and the etha-nol is used to produce a fuel of higher oc-tane than would otherwise have been pro-duced, then the use of gasohol could resultin an increased consumption of oil and theenergy equivalent to natural gas.

● Depending on the method of financing, dis-tilleries should be able to sell ethanol (from$2.50/bu. corn) at between $0.91 and$1.11 per gallon plus delivery (currently$0.10 to $0.30 per gallon for service sta-tions outside the distillery’s immediatelocale). With the current Federal subsidy at$0.04 per gallon of gasohol–$16.80 perbarrel of ethanol—gasohol is competitivewith gasoline at today’s ethanol productioncosts and gasoline prices.

● The environmental effects of producing gas-ohol feedstocks are those associated withconventional farming: increased soil erosionand pollution of ground water with nutri-ents, pesticides, and herbicides. However,these impacts may be magnified since theaverage quality of marginal cropland is lessthan that of current cropland. The environ-mental impacts of a 50-million-gallon-per-year coal-fired distillery would be similar tothose of a 50 MW coal-fired electric-gener-ating plant. The effects on automotive emis-sions of using gasohol are mixed and can-not be unambiguously classified as good orbad.

● If the demand for fuel ethanol increasesbeyond the supply of feedstocks, competi-tion between energy and food uses of landcould result in more rapidly rising foodprices and, eventually, more rapidly risingland prices. Low- and middle-incomegroups would bear the greatest share ofthese costs because food and fuel costs area greater portion of their expenses. Further-more, historic experience indicates that ris-ing land prices would absorb much of thefarmer’s profit.

If market imbalances are avoided, theoverall social and economic impacts of fuelethanol production could be positive. On-farm and distillery employment could helpto stabilize those rural communities thatare currently experiencing unemploymentproblems.

Benefits of Increased Use ofContinuous Steel Casting by the

U.S. Steel Industry

In October 1979, OTA delivered a technicalmemorandum on the Benefits of Increased Useof Continuous Steel Casting by the U.S. Steel In-dustry to requesters, Senator John Heinz; Repre-sentative Joseph M. Gaydas, Chairman of theCongressional Steel Caucus; and RepresentativeCharles A. Vanik, Chairman of the Subcommit-tee on Trade of the House Committee on Waysand Means. This memorandum was an interimproduct of the U.S. industrial competitivenessproject. (Continuous casting is the use of anopen-ended mold to cast an indefinite length ofsolid steel; it is a one-step technology whichreplaces a much more complex process. )

The memorandum first describes continuouscasting, contrasting it with the older ingot castingprocess. It then explains the advantages of thecontinuous casting process, contrasts the rate ofadoption of this technology in the U.S. steel in-dustry with that in foreign steel industries, andexamines the level of continuous casting that theUnited States might reach in 1990. The factorsthat have constrained the greater adoption ofcontinuous casting in the United States are brieflydiscussed and the economic costs and benefits ofconverting existing capacity to this new processare analyzed.

The memorandum does not discuss the moreadvanced technologies for steelmaking thatwould be applicable only in the longer term. Nordoes it analyze congressional policy options thatcould help the U.S. steel industry to improve itstechnical and economic performance, Theseanalyses will appear in the complete steel assess-ment.

Section IV– Other Services/or Congress . 55

Some of the key points of the memorandumare:

●

●

●

For integrated steelmaker, the most impor-tant technological change in prospect overthe next 10 years is the greater adoption ofcontinuous casting. Continuous casting isthe preferred choice in new steelmakingplants, although there are still some types ofsteels that have not been converted fromthe older ingot casting method to continu-ous casting.The U.S. steel industry has fallen behindalmost all other steel industries in the adop-tion of continuous casting although theprocess saves energy, produces less scrap,boosts labor productivity, and increases do-mestic steelmaking capacities. For example,in 1978 the Japanese made about 50 per-cent of their steel by the continuous castingmethod, the European community 29 per-cent, and the United States only 14 per-cent.OTA’s analysis indicates that the overalleconomic benefits of continuous casting jus-tify its greater adoption. A key question ishow much continuous casting could andshould be adopted by the U.S. steel indus-try, and in what time frame? OTA’s conclu-sion is that to achieve a minimum of costand technological competitiveness with for-eign producers, 50-percent continuous cast-ing for the whole industry is needed by1990. This goal of 50-percent continuouscasting appears feasible. However, eventhough returns on investments could be ap-proximately 20 percent or greater, there isprobably insufficient capital now and in theforeseeable future, given present price lev-els, import levels, and Government poli-cies, to finance the achievement of thisgoal.

Workshop on R&D andAuto Fuel Efficiency

In September 1979, OTA conducted a 3-dayworkshop on the needs and opportunities forR&D in auto fuel efficiency. Jointly sponsoredwith the Senate Commerce and House Science

and Technology Committees, this workshopbrought together some of the most knowledge-able technical people from this country andabroad to look at the prospects for technologicalimprovement in six basic areas of auto engineer-ing and to assess the comparative advantagesand disadvantages of those prospects.

The Health Program:An Example of InteractionsBetween OTA and Congress

A complete description of all the short-term in-teractions between OTA and Congress would beboth long and repetitive. The following profile ofthe interactions between the Health Programpeople and Congress during 1979 is presented asa typical example of the interactions all OTA pro-grams have with Congress.

Briefings, Testimony

The Health Program maintains close relation-ships with four committees of Congress: SenateCommittee on Labor and Human Resources,Senate Committee on Finance, House Interstateand Foreign Commerce Committee, and HouseWays and Means Committee. These four com-mittees have jurisdiction over the major healthcare and public health programs, including all ofthose in the Department of Health, Education,and Welfare (HEW). Program staff membersmeet with staff of these committees periodicallyto discuss present and emerging issues and futurelegislative concerns. During 1979, the HealthProgram staff held 11 formal meetings with com-mittee staff.

At the completion of each health project, thestaff of the four committees is offered a formalbriefing.

In the planning of the assessment of technol-ogies for determining cancer risk from the envi-ronment, in addition to the four committees listedabove, the following committees were visited:House Science and Technology; Senate Agricul-ture, Nutrition, and Forestry; Senate Commerce,Science, and Transportation; and Senate Envi-ronment and Public Works. All of these commit-tees are kept informed about progress in thestudy .


On March 12, staff from the Health Programbriefed Congressman Andrew McGuire and hisstaff, at their request, on issues concerning healthpromotion and disease prevention.

On March 16, staff discussed toxic chemicalsand problems of their disposal with CongressmanBlanchard and his staff, at the Congressman’s re-quest.

On April 4, staff of the technologies for deter-mining cancer risk from the environment assess-ment testified in hearings before the Subcom-mittee on Investigations of the House Committeeon Post Office and Civil Service.

Staff of several committees expressed interestin an update of the 1978 CT scanner report,covering the areas of distribution of CT scannersand Federal policies toward scanners.

Finally, the Program has continual informalcontact with congressional staff. These focusprimarily on issues concerning medical technol-ogy and cancer causation. For example, whenthe Nobel prize was awarded to the developers ofthe CT scanner, several congressional staff calledto learn more about the scanner. In addition,whenever a Congressman makes a speech orfloor statement indicating interest in an areaunder study by OTA, the Health Program staffprovides it.

The Program also attempts to maintain closeliaison with its “sister” congressional agencies.Program staff contact the Congressional BudgetOffice (CBO), the Congressional Research Serv-ice (CRS), and the General Accounting Office(GAO) at the onset of any assessment to shareinformation and to ensure cooperation. Programstaff meet periodically (about once every monthor two) with GAO staff to discuss projects under-way and future plans.

Workshops

As part of the development of a case study ofthe cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy, twoworkshops were held to identify central issues inthe current debate about mental health servicesand to ensure balanced treatment of the currentstate of research. In addition to outside experts, anumber of congressional staff participated invarious aspects of the workshops (from the

Senate Committee on Finance, the House In-terstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, theHouse Select Committee on Aging, GAO, andCBO). Workshop panelists reached consensuson a number of issues, including the importanceof establishing the cost-effectiveness of psycho-therapies and whether it is possible to do so,given particular mental health problems andtherapies.

Other Activities

The Health Program manager has had ongo-ing contacts with the Director of the Health PolicyForum, a privately funded educational seminarfor Washington, D. C., health policy makers, in-cluding congressional staff.

A senior program member has participated forthe past year in a program on pharmaceuticalR&D. Administered by the Institute for Alter-native Futures. The program involves a series ofseminars for congressional staff.

In addition, the Health Program maintainsclose contact with other agencies and programsthat may present information to Congress inareas of our expertise. In particular, the Programhas assisted the Institute of Medicine in develop-ing its own activities in medical technology andconsulted with a number of HEW agencies andcommissions on issues concerned with medicaltechnology.

Other Special Responses

Following is a small sample of special OTAcongressional interactions, other than testimony,during 1979:

Briefings

●

●

For members of the Congressional Steel Cau-cus, Representative Adam Benjamin, Jr.,Senator John Heinz, and several other inter-ested committees and members on the OTAassessment, “The Impact of Technology onthe Competitiveness of the U.S. Steel Indus-try. ”For staff of the Senate Banking Committee onthe OTA study, “Technology and East-WestTrade.”

Section IV–Other Services for Congress . 57

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

For staff in the Speaker’s Office on the statusand prospects of oil shale.For several House committee staff memberson the OTA study, “Environmental Contami-nants in Food .“For several Senate and House committeechairmen and their staffs on the OTA assess-ment, “Technology and World Population .“For Senate and House health staff on the vac-cine report.For several Senate and House committeechairmen and their staff on the OTA assess-ment, “Impacts of Applied Genetics. ”For counsel of the House Subcommittee onOversight and Investigations which is conduct-ing hearings on polychorinated biphenyl con-tamination, on the “Environmental Contam-inants in Food” assessment.For the Chairman of the Subcommittee onScience, Research, and Technology, HouseCommittee on Science and Technology on thetelecommunications study.For Senate Committee on Government Oper-ations staff concerning administration-pro-posed Institute for Scientific and TechnologicalCooperation (ISTC).For Congressional Clearing House on the Fu-ture, Management of Technology in a Demo-cratic Society.For the Chairman of the Subcommittee onScience, Research, and Technology, HouseCommittee on Science and Technology, onuse of telecommunication technologies for de-velopment.

Other Interactions

● Provided substantial parts of a CRS studyon “Satellite Communications: Technological

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

System and Services for Developing Coun-tries” prepared for the Chairman of the Sub-committee on Science, Research, and Tech-nology, House Committee on Science andTechnology.Prepared a summary of issues on syntheticfuels for the Senate Budget Committee whichwas subsequently requested by other congres-sional committees and members.Began work on a paper on oil shale for useduring the current congressional deliberationson synthetic fuels.Convened a task force of specialists in andoutside of OTA to review and comment onspecific problems highlighted by the SenateJudiciary Committee in connection with theFederal Bureau of Investigation’s procurementof a front-end processor for the computerizedfiles of the National Crime Information Center.Results of the task force evaluation were sentby letter to the Chairman, Senate JudiciaryCommittee.Provided an analysis of the proposed ISTC tothe staffs of the Senate Foreign Relations andCommerce Committees. The paper derivedfrom work OTA had underway concerningNorth-South technology transfer.Convened a workshop on solar power satellitesystems to aid the House Science and Tech-nology Committee in developing questions forhearings on relevent legislation as well as tohelp to plan OTA’s assessment on this topic.Prepared a note on the potential for energysavings by small business at the request of theSenate Select Committee on Small Business.Participated in a symposium on gasohol spon-sored by staff of the House Agriculture Com-mittee.

Section V

ORGANIZATIONAND OPERATIONS

Section VORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS

Created by the Technology Assessment Act of1972 (86 Stat. 797), OTA is a part of and is re-sponsible to the legislative branch of the FederalGovernment. OTA received funding in Novem-ber 1973 and began operations as the secondsession of the 93rd Congress convened in Janu-ary 1974.

The Act provides for a bipartisan Congres-sional Board, a Director, Deputy Director, andsuch other employees and consultants as may benecessary to conduct the Office’s work.

The Congressional Board is made up of sixSenators, appointed by the President pro tem-pore of the Senate, and six Representatives, ap-pointed by the Speaker of the House, evenlydivided by party. In 1979, Congressman MorrisUdall, D-Arizona, and Senator Ted Stevens. R-Alaska, served as the Chairman and Vice Chair-man, respectively, of the Board. The two postsalternate between the Senate and House witheach Congress. The Board members from eachHouse select their respective officer.

The Congressional Board sets the policies ofthe Office and is the sole and exclusive body gov-erning OTA. The Board appoints the Director,who is OTA’s chief executive officer, and heserves as a nonvoting member of the board.

The Act also calls for a Technology Assess-ment Advisory Council comprising of 10 publicmembers eminent in scientific, technological, andeducational fields, the Comptroller General ofthe United States, and the Director of the Con-gressional Research Service of the Library ofCongress. The Advisory Council advises theBoard and the Director on such matters as thebalance, comprehensiveness, and quality ofOTA’s work, and the extent to which OTAutilizes resources outside Government.

In providing assistance to Congress, OTA isto: identify existing or probable impacts of tech-nology or technological programs; where pos-sible, ascertain cause-and-effect relationships ofthe applications of technology; identify alter-native technological methods of implementingspecific actions; identify alternative programs for

achieving requisite goals; estimate and comparethe impacts of alternative methods and pro-grams; present findings of completed analyses tothe appropriate legislative authorities: identifyareas where additional research or data collectionis required to provide support for assessments;and undertake such additional associated activ-ities as may be directed.

Initiation, Processing, and Flowof Assessments

OTA’s primary function is to provide congres-sional committees with assessments or studiesthat identify the range of probable consequences,social as well as physical, of policy alternatives af-fecting the uses of technology. Requests for OTAassessments may be initiated by:

●

●

●

the Chairman of any standing, special,select, or joint committee of Congress, act-ing alone, at the request of the ranking mi-nority member, or a majority of the commit-tee members;the OTA Board; orthe OTA Director, in consultation with theBoard.

The authorization of specific assessment proj-ects and the allocation of funds for their perform-ance is the responsibility of the OTA Board. TheBoard early established priority areas of study,and approves individual assessment projectswithin those areas. To facilitate these decisions,the Board considers recommendations and plansdeveloped by OTA staff, and applies the follow-ing general selection criteria developed in consul-tation with the Advisory Council:

●

●

●

Is this now or likely to become a major na-tional issue?Can OTA make a unique contribution, orcould the requested activity be done effec-tively by the requesting committee oranother agency of Congress?How significant are the costs and benefits tosociety of the various policy options in-

61

59-297 0 - 80 - 5


●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

volved, and how will they be distributedamong various impacted groups?Is the technological impact irreversible?How imminent is the impact?Is there sufficient available knowledge toassess the technology and its conse-quences?Is the assessment of manageable scope—can it be bounded within reasonable limits?What will be the cost of the assessment?How much time will be required to do theassessment?What is the likelihood of congressional ac-tion in response to this assessment?Would this assessment complement or de-tract from other OTA projects?

Assessment reports emerge from the com-bined effort of a staff with appropriate expertise,citizen advisory panels of experts, consultants,contractors, and other congressional informationagencies. A particular assessment project may in-volve exploratory meetings, workshops of advi-sory panels, staff analyses, and consultantstudies.

Different approaches are used. The methodemployed, personnel involved, and the skillstapped depend on the technology under study,the requesting client, the nature of the issues atstake, and the time available for and the settingof the project. Required to consider the needs ofCongress, the vast range of technological issues,and the resources available for a study, OTA re-mains flexible in its assessment methods.

All OTA assessments strive to be objective,fair, nonpartisan, and authoritative. They mustalso be timely so as to meet congressional sched-ules.

Organizational Structure

The Office is organized into three operatingdivisions, each headed by an assistant director.The three divisions are Energy, Materials, and In-ternational Security; Health and Life Sciences;and Science, Information, and Transportation.They encompass assessments grouped in theareas of energy, food and renewable resources,genetics and population, health, materials, inter-

national security and commerce, oceans, R&Dpriorities and policies, telecommunication and in-formation systems, and transportation. A chartdetailing OTA’s organizational structure accom-panies this section.

Staff professionals represent a wide range ofdisciplines and backgrounds, including the phys-ical, biological, and environmental sciences, en-gineering, social sciences, law, and public admin-istration. Professionals from executive branchagencies, detailed to OTA on a temporary basis,and participants in several congressional fellow-ship programs also contribute to the work of theOffice.

Public Participation

OTA makes a serious and systematic effort toensure that the views of the public are fairly re-flected in each of its assessments.

The involvement of a broad spectrum of thepublic informs and improves OTA’s work byhelping eliminate bias, introducing new or littleunderstood points of view, and identifying anyimportant contrasts between the perspectives oftechnically trained experts and lay citizens.

OTA uses a number of methods for involvingthe public. Members of advisory panels andworkshops represent diverse viewpoints and po-litical positions. Interviews and surveys are some-times conducted. Formal and informal publicmeetings are held. A major effort is made to ob-tain public comments and review of draft docu-ments as work continues. All or any of thesemethods may be used in any study; the topic it-self defines the appropriate choices. The crucialelement is that the method be truly participatory,so that a real exchange of views can occur.

Information Services

An information services staff, which maintainsan in-house library of books, reports, journals,and other materials on science, technology, andrelated areas, supports OTA activities. The li-brary serves as a liaison to the Library of Con-gress as well as to other libraries and organiza-tions in order to meet the information needs ofthe OTA staff.

Section V–Organization and Operations ● 63

Office of Technology AssessmentOrganizational Structure

CongressionalTechnology Assessment Board

AdvisoryDirector Council

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Deputy Director

supportServices

Energy, Materials and InternationalSecurity DivisionAssistant Director

Health and Life Sciences DivisionAssistant Director

Science, Information, and TransportationDivision

Assistant Director

Current awareness tools and computerized lit- OTA staff, and other information pertinent to theerature search services, the latter providing ac- work of the Office.cess to more than 150 data bases, - provide-staff The library is available to members of the gen-members with an extensive array of informationservices. The library also maintains a collection of era] public who have a specific interest in technol-

background materials on the OTA history and ogy assessment or in the work of the Office.

legislation, speeches and testimony given by


Organizational Roster of OTA Staff as of December 1979

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORJohn H. Gibbons, DirectorSue Bachtel, Executive AssistantDaniel De Simone, Deputy DirectorMarion Fitzhugh, Deputy’s AssistantJohn Burns, Senior EditorDebra Datcher, SecretaryPatricia Halley, Receptionist/Corres. Controller

Liaison Office

Liaison Officer, TAB/TAAC (vacant)Eugenia Ufholz, Assistant to Liaison Officer

Personnel Office

Evelyn Davis, Personnel OfficerDale Donahue, Personnel SpecialistKatherene Mason, Personnel Specialist

Medical Services

Rose McNair, Resident Nurse*

Public Communications Office

John Burns, Acting Public Communications OfficerVicki L. Sibley, Press Officer

ADMINISTRATION

Thomas P. McGurn, Administrative OfficerAlban Landry, Asst. Administrative OfficerSusan Carhart, Contract SpecialistLola Craw, Asst. to Administrative OfficerTom Jennings, Senior AnalystLynne P. Pietz, Director, Contracts& Legal ServicesRichard Tyler, Contract SpecialistGeneva Watkins, Administrative SpecialistAnn Woodbridge, Assistant Controller

Information Services

Martha Dexter, LibrarianSuzanne Boisclair, Library TechnicianMarian Ulincy, Assistant Librarian

‘Detailed from the Attending Physician’s Off Ice, U S Capitol

ENERGY, MATERIALS, ANDINTERNATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION

Lionel S. Johns, Assistant DirectorLinda Riddiough, Division AssistantMarvin Ott, Associate

Energy Program

Richard Rowberg, Program ManagerThomas Bull, Project DirectorClark Bullard, Senior AnalystDavid Claridge, Senior AnalystAlan Crane, Project DirectorJ. Bradford Hollomon, Project DirectorLisa Jacobson, Administrative AssistantNancy Naismith, Project DirectorStephen Plotkin, Senior AnalystLillian Quigg, SecretaryJenifer Robison, AnalystJoanne Seder, Research AssistantRichard Thoreson, AnalystFrank Tugwell, Senior AnalystYvonne White, SecretaryRay Williamson, OTA Fellow

Publishing Office

John C. Holmes, Publishing OfficerKathie S. Boss, Assistant Printing SpecialistJoanne Heming, Printing Specialist

International Security & Commerce Program

Peter Sharfman, Program ManagerJohn Alic, Senior AnalystRonnie Lee Goldberg, Project DirectorHelena Hassell, SecretaryDorothy Richroath, Editorial AssistantJacqueline Robinson, Administrative Assistant

Materials Program

Audrey Buyrn, Program ManagerPatricia Canavan, SecretaryWilliam E. Davis, Project DirectorCarol Drohan, Administrative AssistantJoel Hirschhorn, Project DirectorKaren Larsen, AnalystPatricia Poulton, AnalystPhillip Robinson, Senior AnalystFrank Wobber, Project Director

Section V–Organization and Operations . 65

HEALTH AND LIFE SCIENCES DIVISION

Joyce Lashof, Assistant DirectorOgechee Koffler, Division Assistant

Food and Renewable Resources Program

Walter E. Parham, Program ManagerPhyllis Balan, Administrative AssistantChristine Elfring, OTA FellowElizabeth Galloway, SecretaryMichael Phillips, Project DirectorBruce A. Ross-Sheriff, Project DirectorRobert L. Smith, Jr., Research AssistantCatherine Woteki, Project Director

Genetics and Population Program

Gretchen Kolsrud, Program ManagerMarya Breznay, Administrative AssistantLawrence Burton, AnalystSusan Clymer, SecretaryLeslie Corsa, Project DirectorZsolt Harsanyi, Project DirectorEmiline Ott, Senior Analyst

Health Program

H. David Banta, Program ManagerClyde Behney, Project DirectorVirginia Cwalina, Administrative AssistantPamela Doty, OTA FellowShirley Gayheart, SecretaryMichael Gough, Project DirectorNancy Kenney, SecretaryBryan Luce, Senior AnalystLawrence Miike, Project DirectorMichael A. Riddiough, Senior AnalystLeonard Saxe, OTA Fellow

SCIENCE, INFORMATION, ANDTRANSPORTATION DIVISION

Eric H. Willis, Assistant DirectorDoris Smith, Division AssistantSamuel Hale, Executive Assistant

Telecommunication and InformationSystems Program

Stephen Doyle, Program ManagerRaymond Crowell, Project DirectorElizabeth Emanuel, Administrative AssistantMarcia MacNaughton, Senior AnalystTeri Miles, SecretaryWladimir Naleszkiewicz, AssociateZalman Shave]], Senior AnalystFrederick Wood, Project Director

Oceans Program

Robert Niblock, Program ManagerPrudence Adler, AnalystKathleen Beil, Administrative AssistantJunior Bridge, Senior AnalystThomas Cotton, Project DirectorRobert Friedman, Project DirectorLinda Garcia, AnalystCarolyn Gilmore, SecretaryNancy Ikeda, Research AssistantPeter Johnson, Project DirectorBennett L. Silverstein, Project DirectorLucia Turnbull, Analyst

National R&D Priorities & Policies Program

Robert F. Daly, Program ManagerScott Finer, AnalystWilliam Mills, Senior AssociateLeslie Sederlund, Research AssistantMichaela Walsh, Project DirectorJohn Young, Project Director

Transportation Program

Robert Maxwell, Program ManagerYupo Chan, OTA FellowLee Dickinson, Project DirectorLarry L. Jenney, Project DirectorJacqueline Mulder, SecretaryPaula Walden, Administrative AssistantJerry Ward, Senior AssociateRichard Willow, Associate

APPENDIXES

Appendix A—Summary Report of Advisory Council Activities

Appendix B—Work in Progress

Appendix C— List of Published OTA Reports

Appendix D— List of Advisors and Panel Members

Appendix E—Technology Assessment Act of 1972

Appendix A

Summary Report of Advisory Council Activities

Frederick C. Robbins, Chairman

During this year, the Council spent consider-able time discussing the quality of the product ofOTA. In general, we were pleased with the quali-ty of OTA’s studies given the level of maturityand budget. Since the value of the Office to Con-gress depends on the objectivity and scientific ac-curacy of its work, we recommend that qualitycontrol receive the highest priority within theOffice.

At the last meeting of the year, the Councilproposed several recommendations for improv-ing the service OTA offers the congressionalcommunity.

●

●

●

We feel that “sole source” contracts should,in certain circumstances, be utilized since itappears that this process is the most expedi-tious and effective way to obtain a highquality of performance.We suggest that OTA might hold occasionalcolloquia with business, academic, andother institutional representatives in order toacquaint them with the vitality and originali-ty of OTA’s work.In recent years, the Council has lost some ofits sense of involvement. It is felt that amore active relationship and frequent con-tact with the Technology Assessment Boardmight improve its effectiveness. We arelooking forward to scheduling several jointBoard/ Council meetings in the year ahead.

The Council wishes to express its confidencethat the actions the new Director, John H. Gib-bons, has taken and the procedures he has im-plemented to improve the management of theOffice clearly reflect sound management prac-tices.

Dr. Gibbons has also been effectively coordi-nating the work of the Office with the GeneralAccounting Office (GAO), the Congressional Re-search Service (CRS), and the CongressionalBudget Office (CBO). We believe that overlap isminimal, and that what overlap does occur isprobably defensible. These efforts by the Directorshould not be allowed to lapse. This coordinationdoes appear to be enhanced by the presence ofGilbert Gude, Director of CRS and Elmer Staats,Director of GAO on the Council, and we believeit would be further benefited by the presence ofAlice Rivlin, Director of CBO.

OTA has been a bold experiment, attemptingto provide Congress with future-oriented anal-yses employing the best scientific and technicalexpertise in the country. The Council finds thatthe Office, in its ability to assess the long-term im-pacts of technologies and their real and potentialthreats to the social fabric, offers an indispensableand unique resource for the U.S. Congress. Themission of OTA is important and it deserves ourvigorous support.

69

Appendix B

Work in Progress

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.30.31.

Alternative Energy FuturesEnergy From Biological ProcessesDecentralized Electric Energy Generation SystemsGlobal Energy TrendsLiquefied Natural GasSolar Power SatellitesSynthetic Fuels for TransportationThe International Competitiveness of the U.S. Electronics IndustryTaggants in ExplosivesOil Shale TechnologyImpact of Technology on the Competitiveness of the U.S. Steel IndustryFederal Coal DevelopmentNational Information SystemsTelecommunication SystemsAutomotive Fuel-Efficiency R&D and Alternative Energy SourcesImpact of Advanced Air Transport TechnologyAirport and Air Traffic Control SystemApplications of Technology in SpaceRadioactive Waste Management and DisposalOcean Research AssessmentFreshwater Resources Management, Planning and PolicyTechnological Innovation and Health, Safety, and Environmental RegulationAn Assessment of Technology for Local DevelopmentThe Impact of Inflation on the Federal R&D InvestmentImpact of Technology on Productivity of the LandU.S. Food and Agricultural ResearchImpacts of Applied GeneticsTechnology and World PopulationCost-Effectiveness of Medical TechnologiesTechnologies for Forecasting Physician Supply and RequirementsTechnologies for Determining Cancer Risks From the Environment

70

Appendix C

List of Published OTA Reports

Available through:

U S Government National TechnicalPrinting Office Information Service

Stock Number Price Stock Number Price

1. OTA-A-1

2. OTA-A-2

3. OTA-H-3

4. OTA-M-4

5. OTA-T-5

6. (1)

7. (2)

8. OTA-A-6

9. OTA-O-7

10. OTA-T-8

11. OTA-O-9

12. (3)

13. OTA-T-10

14. OTA-T-11

15. OTA-E-12

16. OTA-E-13

17. OTA-T-14

18. OTA-T-15

19. OTA-T-16

Annual Report to the Congress, March 15, 1974.

Technology Assessment Activities of the NationalScience Foundation, June 12 and 13, 1974. (Hearingsbefore the OTA Congressional Board.)

Drug Bioequivalence, July 1974.

Requirements for Fulfilling a National MaterialsPolicy, August 1974.

Automobile Collision Data: An Assessment of Needsand Methods of Acquisition.

“An Analysis of the Department of the Interior’s Pro-posed Acceleration of Development of Oil and Gas on theOuter Continental Shelf, March 1975. ’

An Analysis Identifying Issues in the Fiscal Year 1976ERDA Budget, March 1975.2


An Analysis of the Feasibility of Separating ExplorationFrom Production of Oil and Gas on the OuterContinental Shelf, May 1975.

Automated Guideway Transit: An Assessment of PRTand Other New Systems, June 1975.

Oil Transportation by Tankers: An Analysis of MarinePollution and Safety Measures, July 1975.

Analyses of Effects of Limited Nuclear Warfare,September 1975.3

The Financial Viability of Conrail, September 1975.

A Review of Alternative Approaches to Federal Fundingof Rail Rehabilitation, September 1975.

An Analysis of the ERDA Plan and Program,October 1975.

An Analysis of the Impacts of the Projected Natural GasCurtailments for the Winter 1975-76, November 1975.

A Review of National Railroad Issues, December 1975.

Energy, the Economy, and Mass Transit, December 1975.

An Assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit,February 1976.

Volume 1: Summary,

052-070 -03050-3

052-003 -00095-4

052-002 -00020-6

052-070-03091-7

052-010 -00457-3

052-003 -00124-1

052-003 -00132-2

052-003 -00133-1

$1.15

$2.80

$3.65

$2.80

$3.85

$1.70

$2.00

$1.80

PB 246191 $6.00

PB 248382 $3.50

PB 244862 $8.00

PB 250631 $13.00

PB 244861 $15.00

PB 252202 $6.00

PB 244863 $9.00

PB 244833 $7.00

PB 248381 $3.50

PB 244854 $20.00

PB 244457 $17.00

PB 250630 $8.00

PB 250632 $8.00

PB 250636 $18.00

PB 250623 $6.00

PB 250622 $9.00

PB 250624 $11.00

PB 253679 $8.00

71


Available through—.- —..

U S Government National TechnicalPrinting Office Information Service— — — — — — — — . — - — . — — — ——

Price Stock-Number Price

20. OTA-T-17

21. OTA-T-18

22. OTA-T-19

23. OTA-T-20

24. OTA-T-21

25. OTA-T-22

26. OTA-T-23

27. OTA-T-24

28. OTA-T-25

29. OTA-T-26

30. OTA-T-27

31. OTA-E-28

32. OTA-F-29

33. OTA-T-30

34. OTA-A-31

35. OTA-E-32

36. OTA-T-33

37. OTA-H-34

38. OTA-F-35

39. OTA-M-36

40. OTA-O-37

41. OTA-O-38

42. OTA-O-39

43. OTA-M-40

Volume 2: Atlanta Case Study.

Volume 3: Boston Case Study.

Volume 4: Chicago Case Study.

Volume 5: Denver Case Study.

Volume 6: Los Angeles Case Study.

Volume 7: Minneapolis-St. Paul Case Study.

Volume 8: San Francisco Case Study.

Volume 9: Seattle Case Study.

Volume 10: Washington, D.C. Case Study.

Volume 11: Technical Report.

Volume 12: Bibliography.

Comparative Analysis of the 1976 ERDA Plan andProgram, May 1976.

OTA Board Hearings. Food Information Hearings. (SeeOTA-F-35.)

Automatic Train Control in Rail Rapid Transit,May 1976.


A Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEnvironmental Research Outlook FY 1976 Through1980, August 1976.

The Feasibility and Value of Broadband Communicationsin Rural Areas: A Preliminary Evaluation, April 1976.

Development of Medical Technology: Opportunities forAssessment, August 1976.

Food Information Systems: Summary and Analysis,August 1976.

An Assessment of Alternative Stockpiling Policies,August 1976.

Coastal Effects of Offshore Energy Systems,November 1976.

Volume II– Working Papers.

Coastal Effects of Offshore Energy Systems (Pamphlet),December 1976.

An Assessment of Information Systems CapabilitiesRequired to Support U.S. Materials Policy Decisions,January 1977.

052-003 -00138-1

052-003 -00140-4

052-003 -00141-1

052-003 -00143-8

052-003 -00145-4

052-003 -00146-2

052-003 -00148-9

052-003 -00149-7

052-003 -00136-5

052-070 -03404-1

052-070 -03479-3

052-003 -00217-5

052-003 -00230-2

052-003 -00245-1

052-003 -00246-9

052-003 -00263-9

$1.15

$1.15

$ .95

$1.05

$1.45

$ .85

$1.35

$1.15

$1.05

$2.80

$3.15

$1.80

$3.10

$4.45

$12.00

$3.25

PB 253680 $6,00

PB 253681 $6.00

PB 253682 $7.00

PB 253683 $6.00

PB 253684 $7.00

PB 253685 $6.00

PB 253686 $7.00

PB 253687 $6.00

PB 253688 $6.00

PB 253641 $12.00

PB 253642 $10.00

PB 254794 $13.00

PB 258171 $21.00

PB 254738 $14.00

PB 253989 $9.00

PB 258191 $9.00

PB 258095 $18.00

PB 258117 $9.00

PB 258172 $9.00

PB 273191 $17.00

PB 274033 $16.00

PB 274034 $27.50

PB 273462 $14.00

Appendix C–List of Published OTA Reports . 73

Available through

U S Government National Technical

Printing Office Information Service


44. OTA-X-41

45. OTA-X-42

46, OTA-TCI-43

47. OTA-M-44

48. (4)

49. OTA-O-45

50. OTA-O-46

51. OTA-F-47

52. OTA-E-48

53. OTA-F-49

54. OTA-E-50

55. OTA-E-51

56. OTA-A-52

57, OTA-O-53

58 OTA-M-54

59 OTA-H-55

60, OTA-H-56

61 OTA-E-57

62 OTA-P-58

63 OTA-E-59

64. OTA-E-60

65 OTA-T-61

Technology Assessment Activities in the Industrial,Academic, and Governmental Communities (Hearingsbefore the OTA Congressional Board), December 1976.

Technology Assessment in Business and Government:Summary and Analysis, January 1977.

A Preliminary Analysis of the IRS Tax AdministrationSystem, March 1977.

Engineering Implications of Chronic MaterialsScarcity, April 1977.

General Issues in Elementary and Secondary Education(Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Elementary,Secondary, and Vocational Education), May 10, 11,1977.4

Establishing a 200-Mile Fisheries Zone, June 1977.

Volume II— Working Papers.

Perspectives on Federal Retail Food Grading,June 1977,

Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards, June 1977.5

Organizing and Financing Basic Research toIncrease Food Production, June 1977.

Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards—Appendixes.Volume IVolume II

Analysis of the Proposed National Energy Plan,August 1977.

Annual Report, March 15, 1977.

Transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas,September 1977.

Brochure: Oil Shale Technology,6

Cancer Testing Technology and Saccharin,October 1977

Policy Implications of Medical Information Systems.November 1977,

Gas Potential From Devonian Shales of theAppalachian Basin, November 1977.

OTA Publications Listing, July 1979. ’

Enhanced Oil Recovery Potential in the United States,January 1978

A Technology Assessment on Coal Slurry Pipelines,March 1978,

An Evaluation of Railroad Safety. May 1978,

052-003 -00295-7

052-003 -00306-6

052-003 -00344-9

052-003 -00380-5

052-003 -00384-8

052-003 -00398-8

052-003 -00420-8

052-003 -00432-1

052-003 -00436-4

052-003 -00471-2

052-003 -00496-8

052-003 -00500-0

052-003 -00503-4

052-003 -00523-9

052-003 -00533-6

$3.50 PB 273435 $20.00

$1 .00 PB 273164 $6 .00

PB 273143 $12.00

$3.50 PB273 193 $18.00

$2.40 PB 273578 $10.00

PB 273579 $20.00

$2.10 PB273 163 $8.00

PB 275843 $15.00

$1 .60 PB 273182 $6 .00

PB 275844 $28.00PB 275845 $27,00

$4.00 PB 273148 $14.00

$ 2 5 0 P B 2 7 3 1 8 9 $ 9 0 0

$2 .50 PB 273486 $9 .00

$3.25 PB 273499 $1000

$ 2 5 0 PB 274857 $7 .00

$ 2 5 0 P B 2 7 4 8 5 6 $ 8 0 0

$4.25 PB 276594 $14.00

$3.25 PB278 675 $1100

$4.25 PB 281 169 $1300


66. OTA-O-62

67. OTA-O-63

68. OTA-T-64

69. OTA-R-65

70. OTA-E-66

71. OTA-T-67

72. OTA-A-68

73. OTA-M-69

74. OTA-R-70

75. OTA-R-71

76. OTA-H-72

77. OTA-R-73

78. OTA-F-74

79. OTA-H-75

80. OTA-M-76

81. OTA-E-77

82. OTA-R-78

83. OTA-F-79

84. OTA-I-80

85. OTA-P-81

86. OTA-M-82

Available through:



Renewable Ocean Energy Sources: Part 1, OceanThermal Energy Conversion, May 1978.

Working Papers: Renewable Ocean Energy Sources:Part 1, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, May 1978.

Working Papers: An Evaluation of Railroad Safety,May 1978.

Application of R&Din the Civil Sector, June 1978.

Volume I: Application of Solar Technology toToday’s Energy Needs, June 1978.

Brochure–The Automobile: It’s Driving Us ToThink, August 1978.’

Annual Report to the Congress, August 1978.

Working Papers: Volume II, Materials and EnergyFrom Municipal Waste, July 1978.

The Role of Demonstrations in Federal R&D Policy,July 1978.

Impact of a Department of Education on FederalScience and Technology Activities, August 1978.

Policy Implications of the Computed Tomography(CT) Scanner, August 1978.

Government Involvement in the Innovation Process—A Contractor’s Report, August 1978.

Nutrition Research Alternatives, September 1978.

Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies,September 1978.

Volume II: Working Papers, Analysis of Laws GoverningAccess Across Federal Lands: Options for Access inAlaska, September 1978.

Volume 11: Application of Solar Technology to Today’sEnergy Needs, September 1978.

The Health of the Scientific and Technical Enterprise,October 1978.

Emerging Food Marketing Technologies, October 1978.

A Preliminary Assessment of the National CrimeInformation Center and the Computerized CriminalHistory System, December 1978.

OTA Priorities 1979, January 1979.’

Volume 1: Analysis of Laws Governing Access AcrossFederal Lands: Options for Access in Alaska, February1979.

052-003 -00536-1

052-003 -00545-0

052-003 -00539-5

052-003 -00553-1

052-003 -00557-3

052-003 -00573-5

052-003 -00565-4

052-003 -00593-9

052-003 -00608-1

052-003 -00609-1

052-003 -00612-0

052-003 -00621-9

052-003 -00647-2

$2.10 PB 283104 $6.00

PB 283103 $10.00

PB 283209 $10.00

$2 .30 PB 283035 $6 .00

$8.50 PB 283770 $25.00

$2 .75 PB 284942 $8 .00

PB 300848 $26.00

$2 .50 PB 284387 $7 .00

$2.30 PB286 525 $7.00

$4.00 PB 284872 $12.00

PB 286545 $7.00

PB 289825 $8.00

$3.25 PB 286929 $10.00

PB 296558 $17.00

$8.75 PB 289762 $34.48

$1 .20 PB 291770 $5 .00

$2 .75 PB 291039 $8 .00

$2 .75 PB 291845 $8 .00

PB 291997 $7.00

$4.50 PB 293982 $15.00

Appendix C–List of Published OTA Reports ● 75

Available through


Stock Number Price Stock Number Price—

87. OTA-T-83

88. OTA-T-84

89. OTA-A-85

90. OTA-E-86

91. OTA-E-87

92. OTA-M-88

93. OTA-NS-89

84. OTA-H-90

95, OTA-F-91

96, OTA-E-92

97. OTA-M-93

98, OTA-F-94

99 OTA-T-95

100. OTA-H-96

101. OTA-BR-H-1

102. OTA-M-97

103. OTA-F-98

104. OTA-F-99

105. OTA-TM-E- 1

106. OTA-T-1OO

Volume 1: Summary and Findings, TechnologyAssessment of Changes in the Future Use andCharacteristics of the Automobile Transportation System,February 1979.

Volume 11: Technical Report, Technology Assessment ofChanges in the Future Use and Characteristics of theAutomobile Transportation System, February 1979.

Annual Report to the Congress for 1978, March 1979.

The Direct Use of Coal–Prospects and Problems ofProduction and Combustion, April 1979.

Volume II: Working Papers, Residential EnergyConservation, April 1979.

Management of Fuel and Nonfuel Minerals in FederalLand, April 1979.

The Effects of Nuclear War, May 1979.

Selected Topics in Federal Health Statistics, June 1979.

Drugs in Livestock Feed, June 1979.

Volume 1: Residential Energy Conservation, July 1979.

Volume I: Materials and Energy From MunicipalWaste–Resource Recovery and Recycling From MunicipalSolid Waste and Beverage Container Deposit Legislation,July 1979.

Open Shelf-Life Dating of Food, August 1979.

Railroad Safety: U.S.-Canadian Comparison, August1979.

A Review of Selected Federal Vaccine and Immunization

Policies: Based on Case Studies of PneumococcalVaccine, September 1979.

Computer Technology in Medical Education andAssessment, September 19797

Technical Options for Conservation of Metals: CaseStudies of Selected Metals and Products, September 1979.

Volume l–Summary, Pest Management Strategies,September 1979.

Volume 11– Working Papers. Pest Management Strategies,September 1979.

Gasohol, September 1979.’

Volume 111: Public Participation, Technology Assessmentof Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of theAutomobile Transportation System, September 1979,

052-003 -00649-9

052-003 -00650-2

052-003 -00652-9

052-003 -00664-2

052-003 -00667-7

052-003 -00668-5

052-003 -00683-9

052-003 -00685-5

052-003 -00691-0

052-003 -00692-8

052-003 -00694-4

052-003 -00697-9

052-003 -00701-1

052-003 -00704-5

052-003 -00705-3

052-003 -00708-8

052-003 -00709-6

052-003 -00706-1

052-003 -00710-0

$2.50

$8.00

$3.00

$7.00

$6.25

$475

$5.50

$3.50

$7.00

$600

$4.00

$4.00

$5.50

$4.75

$4.25

$4.50

$10.00

$3.50

$3.50

PB 293645 $6.00

PB 293646 $20.00

PB 293088 $9.00

PB 295797 $22.00

PB 301200 $29.00

PB 295788 $22.00

PB 296946 $11,00

PB 298449 $13,00

PB 298450 $7.00

PB 298410 $19.00

PB 300849 $16.00

PB 101629 $9.00

PB 301397 $8.00

PB 116106 $13.00

PB 102528 $10.00

PB 102619 $10.00

PB 120025 $10.00

PB 120017 $36.80

PB 105885 $8.00

Available through

U S G o v e r n m e n t - National TechnicalPrinting Off Ice Information Service

Stock Number Price Stock Number Price—

107. OTA-TM-KC-2 Benefits of Increased Use of Continuous Casting by the 052-003 -00713-4 $2 .00 PB 104904 $6 .00

108. OTA-ISC-101

109. OTA-F- 102

110. OTA-F-103

111. OTA-PC-

112. OTA-PC-

04

05

U.S. Steel Industry, October 1979.’

Technology and East-West Trade, November 1979. 052-003 -00723-1 $7.00 PB 119381 $16.00

Environmental Contaminants in Food–Summary,December 1979.’

Environmental Contaminants in Food, December 1979. 052-003 -00724-0 $5.50

OTA–What It Is, What It Does, How It Works, December1979.’

Current Assessment Activities, January 1980.’

“Included m appendix in publication OTA-O-7‘Pubhshed as Committee Pmt. Senate CommMee on Commerce‘Published as Joint Commttee Pnrrt, House Committee on Saence and Technology, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affam, and Joint Committee on Atomic Energy‘Pubhshed as Committee Pmt. Senate Foreign Relations Committee‘Published as Committee Print, House Committee on Education and Labor‘Praeger Pubhshmg Company has reprinted the OTA report that was onglrrally printed at the Government Prmtmg Offwe Price $21 50. hardcover Please direct all purchase orders to

HoIt, Rinehart and Winston. 383 Mad]son Avenue, New York, N Y 100176Avadable at no charge from OTA Pubhshmg OffIce, Tele (202) 224-8996‘Pubhshed as a background paper, which IS a document that contains information beheved to be useful to various parties The Information undergwds formal OTA assessments or IS an out

come of internal exploratory planmng and evaluation The material IS usually not of )mmedlate POIICY lntere~ such as IS contained m an OTA report or technical memorandum. nor does II present options for Congress to consider

‘Pubhshed as a technical memorandum, which IS Issued by OTA on spec]flc sub]ects analyzed m recent OTA reports or on pro]ects presently !n process at OTA Technical memoranda areIssued at the request of Members of Congress who are engaged m committee Ieglslatlve actions wh!ch are expected to be resolved before OTA completes Its assessment

Appendix D

List of Advisors and Panel Members

ENERGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Milton Katz, ChairmanDirector, International Legal Studies, Harvard Law School

Thomas G. AyersPresident and Chairman of the BoardCommonwealth Edison Company(Resigned)

Kenneth E. BouldingInstitute of Behavioral ScienceUniversity of Colorado

Eugene G. FubiniFubini Consultants, Ltd.(Resigned)

Wassily LeontiefDepartment of EconomicsNew York University

George E. MuellerPresident and Chairman of the BoardSystems Development Corporation

Gerard Pie]PublisherScientific American

(Resigned)

John M. LeathersExecutive Vice PresidentDow Chemical USA

●

Direct Utilization of CoalAdvisory Panel

Harry Perry, ChairmanResources for the Future, Inc.

Mike ClarkBeckley, W. Va.

David ComeyExecutive DirectorCitizens for a Better Environment(Deceased)

A. W. DeurbrouckCoal Preparation and Analysis

LaboratoryDepartment of Energy

Michael EnziMayorCity of Gillette, Wyoming

Don GasperDirector, Economic StudiesConsolidation Coal Co.

W. L. JohnsEngineering DepartmentE. I. du Pent de Nemours & Co.

Lorin KerrDirector, Department of

Occupational HealthUnited Mine Workers of America

George LandAMAX Coal Corporation

Ed LightWest Virginia Citizens Action Group

Robert LundbergCommonwealth Edison

Paul MartinkaMorristown, N.J.

David MastbaumStaff CounselEnvironmental Defense Fund

Ralph PerhacProgram ManagerElectric Power Research Institute

Michael RieberDepartment of Mines and Geological

EngineeringUniversity of Arizona

Steve ShapiroPresident, UMWA LocalNew Hall, W. Va.

Ronald SurdamProfessor, Geology DepartmentUniversity of Wyoming

Joanna UnderwoodExecutive DirectorINFORM

John RedmondExecutive Vice President (Retired)Shell Oil Company

John C. SawhillPresidentNew York University(Resigned)

Chauncey StarrPresidentElectric Power Research Institute

Joseph YancikNational Coal Association

Residential Energy ConservationAdvisory Panel

John Gibbons, ChairmanDirector, Environment CenterUniversity of Tennessee(Resigned)

John R. AndrewsPrivate ArchitectWashington, D.C.

Robert E. AshburnManager, Economic Research

DepartmentLong Island Lighting Company

Edward BerlinLeva, Hawes, Symington, Martin

& Oppenheimer

Ellen BermanDirector, Energy Policy ProjectConsumer Federation of AmericaJoel DarmstadterSenior Research AssociateResources for the Future, Inc.

77


Sherman B. GivenPresidentMorley Construction Company

Donald HoltzmanPresidentHoltzman Petroleum Company

William KonyhaUnited Brotherhood of Joiners

and Carpenters

William B. MooreVice President, OperationsGulf Reston, Inc.

Donald NavarreVice President, MarketingWashington Natural Gas Company

Harold OlinDirector, Construction ResearchU.S. League of Savings Associations

David RickeltonConsulting Engineer

Andrew SansomDeputy Director, Energy InstituteUniversity of Houston

Samuel StewartCarlsen Company

Grant ThompsonConservation Foundation

Energy From Biological ProcessesAdvisory Panel

Thomas Ratchford, ChairmanAssociate Executive DirectorAmerican Association for the

Advancement of Science

Henry ArtEnvironmental StudiesUniversity of California at Santa Barbara

Stanley BarberDepartment of AgronomyPurdue University

John BenemannVacaville, Calif.

Paul Bente, Jr.Executive DirectorThe Bio-Energy Council

Calvin BurwellOak Ridge National Laboratory

Robert HirschEXXON Research and Engineering

Company

Robert HodamHodam AssociatesSacramento, Calif.

Kip HewlettGeorgia Pacific

Ralph KeinkerMonsanto Company

Dean KlecknerPresident, Iowa Farm

Bureau Federation

Kevin MarkeyFriends of the Earth

Jacques MaroniEnergy Planning ManagerFord Motor Company

Michael NeushulMarine Science InstituteUniversity of California at

Santa Barbara

William SchellerDepartment of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Nebraska

Kenneth SmithOffice of Appropriate TechnologyState of California

Wallace TynerDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsPurdue University

Liquefied Natural Gas (AEF)Advisory Panel

Jerome E. Hass, ChairmanGraduate School of Business and

Public AdministrationCornell University

Seth BorgosDirector of ResearchACORN

Irvin C. Bupp, Jr.Graduate School of Business

AdministrationHarvard University

George CaramerosChairmanEl Paso LNG Company

Melvin A. ConantConant and Associates, Ltd.

James C. CruseVice PresidentPolicy and AnalysisU.S. Export-Import Bank

Todd M. DoscherDepartment of Petroleum EngineeringUniversity of Southern California

Michael R. EatonSierra Club

Bruce M. HannonDirector, Energy Research GroupUniversity of Illinois

Michael HoganE. J. Rager & Associates

Max M. LevyVice PresidentColumbia LNG Corporation

William R. RobertsonExecutive Secretary-TreasurerLos Angeles CountyFederation of Labor

Robert L. SolomonAssistant DirectorCalifornia Energy Resources

Conservation & DevelopmentCommission

Macauley WhitingThe Dow Chemical Company

Solar Power Satellite Policy IssuesAdvisory Panel

John P. Schaefer, ChairmanPresidentUniversity of Arizona

Paul CraigProfessor of Applied ScienceUniversity of California at Davis

Eilene GallowayPrivate ConsultantWashington, D.C.

Karl GawellBarboursville, Va.

Peter GlaserVice PresidentArthur D. Little, Inc.

Jerry GreyAdministrator for Public PolicyAmerican Institute of Aeronautics

and Astronautics

Grant HansenPresident, SDC Systems GroupSDC Corporation

Appendix D–List of Advisors and Panel Members . 79

Russell (Deek) Hensley John J. Sheehan Frank von Hippel

Vice President–Technology Legislative Director Senior Research Physicist

Diversified Business Division United Steelworkers of America Center for Energy and EnvironmentalAetna Life and Casualty Robert Uhrig

Studies

Maureen Lamb Vice President, Advanced Systems andPrinceton University

Annapolis, Md. Technology

J. C. RandolphFlorida Power and Light

Director, Environmental ProgramsSchool of Public and Environmental

AffairsIndiana University

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

Charles WarrenAttorneySacramento, Calif.

AND COMMERCE

Nuclear War Effects Advisory Panel

David Saxon, ChairmanPresidentUniversity of California

Donald BrennanDirector of National Security StudiesHudson Institute, Inc.

Charles CooperDepartment of BiologySan Diego State University

Russell Dougherty, GeneralU.S. Air Force (Retired)

Sidney DrellDeputy Director, ProfessorLinear AcceleratorStanford University

Richard GarwinIBM FellowIBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center

Gene La RocqueRear Admiral, USN (Retired)DirectorCenter for Defense Information

Cecil LeithDirector of A.A.P.D.National Center for Atmospheric

Research

J. David LinebaughU.S. Foreign Service (Retired)

J. Carson MarkLos Alamos Laboratory

James NeelUniversity of Michigan Medical School

Jack RuinaDepartment of Electrical EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Harriet ScottSelf-employed

Huston SmithSchool of ReligionSyracuse University

John SteinbrunerDirector of Foreign PolicyThe Brookings Institution

Jeremy StoneDirectorFederation of American Scientists

Hilary WhitakerDirectorEmergency Preparedness ProjectNational Governors Association

East-West Technology TransferAdvisory Panel

McGeorge Bundy, ChairmanNew York University

lgor BirmanConsultant on Soviet Economics

Morris BornsteinDepartment of EconomicsUniversity of Michigan

Lawrence J. BrainardVice PresidentBankers Trust

Jonathan G. BungeKeck, Mahin, and Cate

Daniel DruckerCollege of EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign

M. W. DuncanPresidentExport Programs, Inc.

Pat FeltesNational International Relations

CommitteeLeague of Woman Voters

Thomas FingarU.S.-China Relations ProgramStanford University

Frederick J. FleronDepartment of Political ScienceState University of New York

at Buffalo

Henry ForrestSenior Vice PresidentControl Data Corporation

Elizabeth JaegerAFL-CIO

Rhoda H. KarpatkinExecutive DirectorConsumers Union of the United States,

Inc.

Jan M. LodalExecutive Vice PresidentAmerican Management Systems, Inc.

J. Ray PacePresidentBaker World Trade, Inc.

Charles PhippsCorporate DevelopmentTexas Instruments, Inc.

Gertrude E. SchroederDepartment of EconomicsUniversity of Virginia

David D. SmithVice PresidentEastern European OperationsLevi-Strauss, Inc.

Seymour WeissSy Corporation


Taggants Advisory Panel

Sanford Kadish, ChairmanDean, School of LawUniversity of California at Berkeley

Tom AshwoodAir Line Pilots Association

Jerome S. BrewerPresidentJ. S. Brewer& Associates, Inc.

Charles E. CalfeeSpecial AgentFederal Bureau of Investigation

Michael ClancyProgram DirectorU.S. Conference of Mayors

Robert DimockMine ManagerUtah Copper DivisionKennecott Copper

Ernest H. EvansResearch AssociateThe Brookings Institution

Henry EyringDepartment of ChemistryUniversity of Utah

Eugene H. EysterLos Alamos Scientific Lab

Rona M. FieldsConsultant in PsychologyAlexandria, Va.

Gary L. HendricksonDane County Sheriff’s DepartmentMadison, Wis.

Robert E. HodgdenPresidentPowder Co. Inc., and Pyrodex Corp.

Neal KnoxExecutive DirectorNational Rifle AssociationInstitute for Legislative Action

Lynn LimmerDirector, Department of Public SafetyDallas-Fort Worth Airport

Alexander v. d. LuftDirectorE. 1. du Pent de Nemours & Co.

Lewis T. MarksVice President, OperationsAtlas Powder Co.

Hugh M. McGowanSupervisor Bomb SquadNew York, NY.

William T. PoeSupervisor, Explosives & Firearms

Control UnitLouisiana State Police

Theodore J. SullivanNaval Surface Weapons Center

Robert W. van DolahPrivate ConsultantPittsburgh, Pa.

Charles O. WilliamsOlin Corporation

Electronics Advisory Panel

Katherine Seelman, ChairpersonNational Council of ChurchesDivision of Church& Society

Jack C. ActonStaff Executive, Sector PlanningGeneral Electric Company

Steve BeckmanResearch AssociateInternational Union of Electrical,

Radio & Machine Workers

A. Terry BrixMarket CoordinatorBattelle-Northwest Laboratories

Richard P. CaseDirector of Technical OperationsSystems Products DivisionIBM Corporation

Ruth Schwartz CowanAssociate Professor of HistoryState University of New York at

Stony Brook

William Kay DairiesExecutive Vice PresidentAmerican Retail Federation

Leonard DietchVice President, Product DevelopmentZenith Radio Corporation

Isaiah FrankWilliam Clayton Professor of

International EconomicsJohns Hopkins University

F. Willard Griffith IIChairman and CEOGC International

Robert R. JohnsonVice President, EngineeringBurroughs Corporation

Richard A. KraftPresidentMatsushita Industrial Co.

E. Floyd KvammeVice President and General ManagerSemiconductor DivisionNational Semiconductor Corporation

Geraldine McArdleBoard MemberConsumer Federation of America

Charles PhippsAssistant Vice President, Corporate

DevelopmentTexas Instruments, Inc.

K. M. PooleHead, Integrated Circuit Planning

DepartmentBell Telephone Laboratories

Benjamin M. RosenVice PresidentMorgan Stanley & Co., Inc.

Kate WilhelmAuthor

Robert B. WoodDirector of ResearchInternational Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers

Michael Y. YoshinoProfessor of Business AdministrationHarvard Business School


MATERIALS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

James Boyd, ChairmanPrivate Consultant

Earl H. BeistlineDean, School of Mineral IndustryUniversity of Alaska

Seymour L. BlumVice President-Program DevelopmentNorthern Energy Corporation

Lynton K. CaldwellDepartment of Political ScienceIndiana University

Robert L. CobleDepartment of MetallurgyMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Lloyd M. CookeVice ChairmanEconomic Development Council of

New York City, Inc.

Frank FernbachRetired Assistant to the PresidentUnited Steelworkers of America

James H. GaryChemical and Petroleum Refining Dept.Colorado School of Mines

Edwin A. GeePresidentInternational Paper Company

Bruce HannonDirector, Energy Research GroupUniversity of Illinois

Julius HarwoodDirector, Materials Sciences LaboratoryFord Motor Company

Franklin P. HuddleSenior SpecialistCongressional Research Service

Elburt F. OsbornDistinguished ProfessorCarnegie Institution of Washington

Richard B. PriestAssistant National ManagerMerchandise Development and

Testing LaboratoriesSears, Roebuck & Company

Nathan E. PromiselExecutive Director EmeritusNational Materials Advisory BoardNational Academy of Sciences

Lois SharpeEnvironmental CoordinatorLeague of Women Voters Education

Fund

Raymond L. SmithPresidentMichigan Technological University

Simon D. StraussVice ChairmanASARCO, Inc.

George A. WatsonExecutive DirectorFerroalloys Association

Materials and Energy FromMunicipal Waste Advisory Panel

Lois Sharpe, ChairmanEnvironmental CoordinatorLeague of Women Voters Education

Fund

James Boyd, ex officioPrivate Consultant

Frank FernbachRetired Assistant to the PresidentUnited Steelworkers of America

Bruce HannonDirector, Energy Research GroupUniversity of Illinois

Talbot PageCalifornia Institute of TechnologyEnvironmental Quality Laboratory

Simon StraussVice ChairmanASARCO, Inc.

Management of Fuel and NonfuelMinerals in Federal Land

Advisory Panel

Elburt Osborn, ChairmanDistinguished ProfessorCarnegie Institution of Washington

Walter AckermanAdministrator, Land Quality DivisionDepartment of Environmental QualityState of Wyoming

Earl BeistlineDean, School of Mineral IndustryUniversity of Alaska


Marion ClawsonConsultantResources for the Future, Inc.

John McCombSierra Club

Leo MillerVice PresidentMinerals Exploration DivisionTexasgulf, Inc.

Analysis of Laws GoverningAccess Across Federal Lands

Advisory Panel

Earl Beistline, ChairmanDean, School of Mineral IndustryUniversity of Alaska

Roger AllingtonLand and Engineering OfficerSealaska Corporation


Charles ClusenConservation DirectorSierra Club

John KatzChief Counsel, Federal-State Land Use

Planning Commission for Alaska

Elburt OsbornDistinguished ProfessorCarnegie Institution of Washington

Technical Options for Conservationof Materials Advisory Panel

Nathan E. Promise], ChairmanExecutive Director EmeritusNational Materials Advisory BoardNational Academy of Sciences

Seymour BlumVice President-Program DevelopmentNorthern Energy Corporation


Edwin GeePresident, International Paper


Farno L. GreenExecutive EngineerManufacturing DevelopmentGeneral Motors Company

Julius HarwoodDirectorMaterials Sciences Lab.Ford Motor Company

Paul LermanAssociate ProfessorFairleigh Dickinson University

Richard PriestAssistant National ManagerMerchandise Development & Testing

LaboratoriesSears, Roebuck & Company

Oil Shale Advisory Panel

James H. Gary, ChairmanChemical and Petroleum Refining Dept.Colorado School of Mines

William BrennanRancher


Roland FischerSecretary/EngineerColorado River Water Conservation

District

John D. HaunDepartment of GeologyColorado School of Mines

Carolyn A. JohnsonPublic Lands Institute

Sidney Kate]]College of Mineral& Energy ResourcesWest Virginia University

Estella LeopoldDirector, Quaternary Research CenterUniversity of Washington

Charles H. Prien ●

Senior Research FellowUniversity of Denver Research Institute

John F. RedmondPrivate Consultant

Richard D. RidleyVice President for MarketingOccidental Oil Shale, Inc.

Raymond L. SmithPresidentMichigan Technological University

Thomas W. Ten EyckVice President for Community,

Government, and Public AffairsRio Blanco Oil Shale Project

Wallace TynerDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsPurdue University

Glen D. WeaverDepartment of EconomicsColorado State University

Federal Coal LeasingAdvisory Panel

Lynton Caldwell, ChairmanDepartment of Political ScienceIndiana University


Thomas FrancePrivate Consultant

James R. JonesDirector of Environmental QualityPeabody Coal Company

Robert LangPlant Science DivisionUniversity of Wyoming

Jonathan LashSenior Project AttorneyNatural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Alfred Petrick, Jr.Petrick Associates

Jack SimonDirectorIllinois State Geological Survey

Gary TabakAssistant ManagerWestern Fuels Association, Inc.

Joseph YancikVice PresidentResearch & Technical ServicesNational Coal Association

Impact of Technology onthe Competitiveness of the U.S.

Steel Industry AssessmentAdvisory Panel

Gordon Geiger, ChairmanProfessor and HeadDepartment of Metallurgical EngineeringUniversity of Arizona

Edmund AyoubResearch DirectorUnited Steelworkers of America

Howard O. BeaverPresidentCarpenter Technology Corporation

James CannonResearch DirectorCitizens for a Better Environment

Robert W. CrandallSenior FellowThe Brookings Institution

Milton DeanerVice President, EngineeringNational Steel Corporation

Stewart G. FletcherSenior Vice PresidentAmerican Iron and Steel Institute

William B. HudsonExecutive Vice President, Planning

and DevelopmentThe McKee Corporation

Robert R. IrvingSenior Technical EditorIron Age Magazine

F. Kenneth IversonPresident, NUCOR Corporation

Betty JardineLeague of Women Voters

Ruth MacklinThe Hastings Center

Peter F. MarcusFirst Vice President and DirectorPaine, Webber, Mitchell, Hutchins, Inc.

Mary Ann RitterManager, Purchasing, Forward

Planning, and ResearchGeneral Motors Corporation

Roger E. ShieldsVice President, International Economics

DepartmentChemical Bank

Edward A. StantonDirector, Human Development-social

ActionDiocese of Youngstown Catholic

Charities

Caroline WareNational Consumers League

“Deceased, April 1979

Appendix D–List of Advisors and Panel Members ● 83

FOOD AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Martin E. Abel, ChairmanSenior Vice President, Schnittker Associates (Resigned)

Johanna Dwyer, Vice ChairmanDirector, Frances Stern Nutrition Center

New England Medical Center

David CallCollege of Agriculture and Life SciencesCornell University(Resigned)

Cy CarpenterPresidentMinnesota Farmers Union

Eliot ColemanDirector, Coolidge Center for

the Study of Agriculture

Almeta Edwards FlemingTeacher CoordinatorFlorence, S. C., School District

Lorne GreeneChairman, American Freedom From

Hunger Foundation

Richard L. HallVice President, Science and TechnologyMcCormick & Company, Inc.

Laura HeuserAgricultural Council of America

Arnold MayerLegislative RepresentativeAmalgamated Meat Cutters and

Butcher Workmen of North America

Max MilnerExecutive OfficerAmerican Institute of Nutrition

Robert O. NesheimVice President, Science and TechnologyThe Quaker Oats Company

Kathleen O’ReillyDirectorConsumer Federation of America

R. Dennis RouseDean, School of AgricultureAuburn University

Lauren SethAgricultural Consultant(Resigned)

Thomas SporlederProfessor of Agricultural EconomicsTexas A&M University

Sylvan WittwerDirector and Assistant DeanCollege of Agriculture and

Natural ResourcesMichigan State University

Global Food FuturesAdvisory Panel

Martin E. AbelSenior Vice PresidentSchnittker Associates

Howard BaumannVice PresidentScience and TechnologyThe Pillsbury Company

Paul BenteExecutive DirectorBioenergy Council

C. O. ChichesterThe Nutrition Foundation, Inc.

Milo CoxSchool of Renewable Natural ResourcesUniversity of Arizona

Johanna DwyerDirectorFrances Stern Nutrition CenterNew England Medical Center

Norge JeromeAssociate Professor of Community

HealthUniversity of Kansas Medical Center

Omer KelleyAgriculture Consultant

Mihajlo D. MesarovicDepartment of Systems EngineeringCase Western Reserve University

Peter OranDeputy Director, International Food

Policy Research Institute

Dan PadbergHead, Department of Agricultural

EconomicsUniversity of Illinois

Nevin ScrimshawHead, Department of Nutrition and

Food SciencesMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Walter W. WilcoxAgriculture Consultant

Beverly WinikoffPopulation Council

Sylvan WittwerDirector and Assistant DeanCollege of Agriculture and Natural

ResourcesMichigan State University

Pest Management StrategiesAdvisory Group

R. Dennis Rouse, ChairmanDean, School of AgricultureDirector, Agricultural Experiment StationAuburn University

Perry AdkissonDepartment of EntomologyTexas A&M University

Phillip AlampiSecretary of AgricultureState of New Jersey

J. Lawrence AppleAssistant DirectorAgricultural Experiment StationNorth Carolina State University

O. C. BurnsideAgricultural Experiment StationUniversity of Nebraska


Brian CroftEntomology DepartmentMichigan State University

John C. DaviesDepartment of Epidemiology and

Public HealthUniversity of Miami School of Medicine

Boysie E. DayAgricultural Experiment StationUniversity of California

W. E. FryDepartment of Plant PathologyCornell University

Maureen HinkleEnvironmental Defense Fund

Paul HochDirector, Richmond Research CenterStauffer Chemical Company

Donald M. HuberDepartment of Botany and

Plant PathologyPurdue University

Marion MosesEnvironmental Sciences LaboratoryMount Sinai School of Medicine

John ReeseFarmerAlexandria, Ohio

Ray F. SmithDepartment of Entomological SciencesUniversity of California

Peter SullivanResearch SpecialistNational Wildlife Federation

John ThomasDepartment of EntomologyTexas A&M University

H. David ThurstonDepartment of Plant PathologyCornell University

Samuel TurnipseedDepartment of Entomology and

Economic ZoologyEdisto Experiment StationClemson University

Pest Management StrategiesNational Constraints

Work Group

Edward H. Glass, ChairmanHead, Department of EntomologyNew York State Agricultural Experiment

StationCornell University

Don AndersonPresidentTexas Pest Management Association

Edwin A. CrosbySenior Vice PresidentNational Food Producers Association

Lynn DavisCooperative Extension ServiceUniversity of Georgia

Robert E. HammanManager, Government RelationsCIBA-GEIGY Corporation

Blanche HaningDepartment of Plant PathologyInterdepartmental Pest Management

ProgramNorth Carolina State University

Bruce HawleyAssistant Director, National AffairsAmerican Farm Bureau Federation

Maureen HinkleEnvironmental Defense Fund

Ellery KnakeDepartment of AgronomyUniversity of Illinois

L. D. NewsonDepartment of EntomologyLouisiana State University

Earle S. RaunPresidentPest Management Consultants

John SiddallVice President, Scientific AffairsZoecon Corporation

Jerry WeekmanSpecialist in ChargeEntomology ExtensionNorth Carolina State University

Pest Management StrategiesGreat Plains Wheat BeltRegional Work Group

O. C. Burnside, ChairmanProfessor, Agricultural Experiment

StationDepartment of AgronomyUniversity of Nebraska

William Baxter, Ben ScholeGame and Parks CommissionLincoln, Nebr.

Charles R. FensterCrop Production SpecialistUniversity of Nebraska

Jimmy HatchettEntomologist, USDADepartment of EntomologyKansas State University

Glenn HelmersDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of Nebraska

Elmer G. HeyneDepartment of AgronomyKansas State University

John B. RowellResearch LeaderCereal Rust LaboratoryUniversity of Minnesota

Pest Management StrategiesCentral Corn Belt Regional

Work Group

Donald D. Huber, ChairmanAssociate Professor, Department of

Botany and Plant PathologyPurdue University

Samuel R. AldrichAssistant DirectorIllinois Agricultural Experiment StationUniversity of Illinois, Urbana

Michael BoosalisChairman, Department of Plant

PathologyUniversity of Nebraska

Eileen ChoffnesCitizens for Better Environment

Vivan JenningsExtension Weed Control SpecialistDepartment of Botany and Plant

PathologyIowa State University

William H. LuckmannHead, Section of Economic

Entomology, Natural History SurveyHead, Section of Agricultural

EntomologyUniversity of Illinois, Urbana

Charles R. TaylorAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsTexas A&M University

Frank T. TurpinAssociate Professor of EntomologyPurdue University

Herman WarrenDepartment of Botany and Plant

PathologyPurdue University

Appendix D – List of Advisors and Panel Members ● 85

Marcus ZuberDepartment of AgronomyUniversity of Missouri

Pest Management StrategiesNorthern Deciduous Tree-Fruits

Regional Work Group

Brian Croft, ChairmanProfessor, Entomology DepartmentMichigan State University

J. L. AndersonDepartment of Plant ScienceUtah State University

Donald ElfvingPomology DepartmentCornell University

John GilpatrickDepartment of Plant PathologyNew York State Agricultural

Experiment StationStanley C. HoytTree Fruit Research CenterWenatchee, Wash.

Richard NortonFarm and Home CenterSpencerport, N.Y.

Sherman ThompsonDepartment of Plant PathologyUniversity of California, Berkeley

Pest Management StrategiesNortheastern PotatoesRegional Work Group

W. E. Fry, ChairmanAssociate Professor, Department of

Plant PathologyCornell University

H. D. Thurston, Co-ChairmanProfessor, Department of Plant

PathologyCornell University

Karen CatheyNorthern Maine Regional Planning

Commission

Fred HolbrookNew England Plant, Soil, and

Water LaboratoryUniversity of Maine

Tom LyonsEnvironmental Management BureauNew York State Office of Parks

and Recreation

Joe B. SieczkaVegetable Crops DepartmentCornell University

Dwayne SmithExtension EconomistCooperative Extension ServicePresque Isle, Maine

Robert SweerVegetable Crops DepartmentCornell University

Pest Management StrategiesCalifornia VegetablesRegional Work Group

Boysie E. Day, ChairmanProfessor, Agricultural Experiment

StationDepartment of Plant PathologyUniversity of California, Berkeley

Raymond C. GroganDepartment of Plant PathologyUniversity of California, Davis

Lyn HawkinsEconomic Entomologist1PM UnitCalifornia Department of Food

and Agriculture

W. Harry LangeDepartment of EntomologyUniversity of California, Davis

Oscar A. LorenzChairman, Department of Vegetable

CropsUniversity of California, Davis

Gordon RoweGiannini Foundation of Agricultural

EconomicsUniversity of California, Berkeley

Lari SheehanInterjurisdictional Liaison OfficerIntegrated Planning OfficeCounty of San Diego. California

Pest Management StrategiesSoybeans in the Southeast

Regional Work Group

Samuel Turnipseed, ChairmanDepartment of Entomology and

Economic ZoologyEdisto Experiment StationClemson University

Paul BackmanDepartment of Botany and MicrobiologyAuburn University

Gerald CarlsonDepartment of Economics and BusinessNorth Carolina State University

Jacqueline E. JacobsExecutive DirectorSouth Carolina Wildlife Federation

Jim JonesDepartment of Agricultural EngineeringUniversity of Florida

Stephen LewisDepartment of Plant PathologyClemson University

L. D. NewsomDepartment of EntomologyLouisiana State University

Harold WalkerDepartment of Agronomy and SoilsAuburn University

Pest Management StrategiesCotton and Sorghum Pests in Texas

Regional Work Group

John G. Thomas, ChairmanDepartment of EntomologyTexas A&M University

Luther S. BirdDepartment of Plant SciencesTexas A&M University

James R. CateDepartment of EntomologyTexas A&M UniversityGuy L. CurryDepartment of Industrial EngineeringTexas A&M University

Richard A. FredricksonDepartment of Plant SciencesTexas A&M University

Raymond E. FrisbieDepartment of EntomologyTexas A&M University

Albert W. HartstackCotton Pest Control and

Methods Research GroupSEA-Research, USDATexas A&M University

Martin HeilmanSoil ScientistUSDA Soil and Water Conservation

Research


John A. JackmanDepartment of EntomologyTexas A&M University

Ronald D. LacewellResource EconomicsTexas A&M University

Stuart D. LydaDepartment of Plant SciencesTexas A&M University

Robert B. MetzerDepartment of Soil and Crop SciencesTexas A&M University

G. Alvie NilesDepartment of Soil and Crop SciencesTexas A&M University

Rupert D. PalmerDepartment of Soil and Crop SciencesTexas A&M University

Dan PustejovskyBlackland Farm Service CompanyHillsboro, Tex.

Don R. RummelAgricultural Experiment StationTexas A&M University

Winfield L. SterlingDepartment of EntomologyTexas A&M University

C. Robert TaylorDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsTexas A&M University

George L. TeetesDepartment of EntomologyTexas A&M University

J. Knox WalkerDepartment of EntomologyTexas A&M University

Allen F. WieseWeed ControlTexas A&M University

Lambert H. WilkesDepartment of Agricultural EngineeringTexas A&M University

Drugs in Livestock FeedAdvisory Panel

Lauren Seth, ChairmanAgriculture Consultant

H. R. BirdProfessor of Poultry ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin

David ClaysonDeputy Director, Eppley Institute

for Research on Cancer andAllied Diseases

W. W. CochraneProfessor of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of Minnesota

Ruth DesmondPresidentAmerican Federation of Homemakers

Charles M. DobbinsAssociate DeanCollege of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of Georgia

S. T. DontaDirector of Infectious Disease ServicesUniversity of Iowa Medical School

C. M. HardinDirector of ResearchRalston-Purina Feed Company

Kenneth MonfortChairman of the BoardMonfort of Colorado

Sheldon MurphyProfessor and DirectorDivision of ToxicologyUniversity of Texas

Pauline PaulActing HeadFood and NutritionUniversity of Illinois

Virgil RosendalePresidentPork Producers Council

James S. TurnerCodirectorConsumer Action for Improved Drugs

Environmental MonitoringAdvisory Panel

Raymond AllredDirectorEnvironmental Conservation ResearchContinental Oil Company

Richard AndersonChairman, Statistics DepartmentUniversity of Kentucky

John BourkeDirector, Analytical DivisionFood Science DepartmentCornell University

Vaughan BowenSenior ScientistWoods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Shirley BriggsExecutive DirectorRachel Carson Trust for the

Living Environment, Inc.

Leon ChesninProfessor, Department of AgronomyUniversity of Nebraska

William CooperProfessor, Department of ZoologyCollege of Natural ScienceMichigan State University

John DaviesChairman, Department of Entomology

and Public HealthSchool of MedicineUniversity of Miami

Blake EarlyLegislative DirectorEnvironmental Action, Inc.

Edward ElkinsDirector, Chemistry DivisionWashington Research LaboratoryNational Food Processors Association

Ronald J. HingleAdministrator, Food and Drug

Control UnitBureau of Environmental ServicesOffice of Health Services and

Environmental QualityState of Louisiana

S. Roy KoirtyohannEnvironmental Trace Substances CenterUniversity of Missouri

Charles KristerRetired ManagerBiochemical DepartmentE. 1. du Pent de Nemours & Co.

John LaseterDirectorCenter for Bio-Organic StudiesUniversity of New Orleans

John MartinDirectorMoss Landing Marine Laboratories

Rebecca SharitzAssociate Research ProfessorSavannah River Ecology LaboratoryUniversity of Georgia


Gerald WardProfessorDepartment of Animal ScienceColorado State University

Environmental ToleranceAdvisory Panel

James AndersonManager for Material SafetyAllied Chemical CorporationLouise BurkeExecutive DirectorConsumer Council of Virginia

FoundationConsumer Council of Virginia, Inc.Kenneth CrumpDepartment of Mathematics and

StatisticsLouisiana Tech University

Donald EppAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Agricultural Economics

and Rural SociologyPennsylvania State University

Frederick HalbertDairy FarmerDelton, Mich.

Joseph HighlandChairman, Toxic Chemicals ProgramEnvironmental Defense Fund

Robert JacksonAssistant State Health CommissionerDirector, Office of Health Protection and

Environmental ManagementHealth DepartmentCommonwealth of Virginia

Kazuo K. KimuraSchool of MedicineWright State University

Marvin LegatorDirector, Division of Environmental

ToxicologyDepartment of Preventive Medicine and

Community HealthUniversity of Texas Medical Branch

David LindsayTechnical SecretarySteering Group on Food SurveillanceMinistry of Agriculture, Fisheries,

and FoodLondon, EnglandRoy MartinDirectorScience & TechnologyNational Fisheries Institute, Inc.

Richard MerrillProfessorSchool of LawUniversity of VirginiaJoseph RosenDepartment of Food ScienceRutgers University

John RustProfessor EmeritusPharmacology/RadiologyUniversity of Chicago

Gary Van GelderCollege of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of Missouri

John Van RyzinThe RAND Corporation

George WhiteheadDeputy Director for Consumer AffairsDepartment of AgricultureState of Michigan

Open Shelf-Life Dating of FoodAdvisory Panel

Jane AndersonDirector of Consumer AffairsAmerican Meat Institute

Jules BauermanDirector of Food TechnologyH. W. Longacre, Inc.

Lowrie M. BeachamSpecial Advisor to the PresidentNational Food Processors Association

John BennettChief, Weights & Measures DivisionDepartment of Consumer ProtectionState of Connecticut

Judy Braiman-LipsonPresidentEmpire State Consumers Association

Chambers BrysonChief, Food and Drug SectionDepartment of HealthState of CaliforniaMahlon BurnetteDirector of Scientific AffairsGrocery Manufacturers of AmericaCarl D’Alessandro, ex officioAssistant to the AdministratorFood Safety and Quality ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture

John DeMossExecutive DirectorVirginia Food Dealers Association

John FarquharVice President, Education and

TechnologyFood Marketing Institute

G. William FouseChief, Division of Milk SanitationBureau of Foods and ChemistryDepartment of AgricultureCommonwealth of Pennsylvania

Edward HeffronChief, Food Inspection DivisionDepartment of AgricultureState of MichiganHerman KammermanDirector, Office of Consumer AffairsCleveland, Ohio

James Kirk, ChairmanDepartment of Food Science and

Human NutritionUniversity of Florida

Gary KushnerAttorney at LawLeighton, Conklin, and Lemov

Theodore LabuzaProfessor, Department of Food Science

and NutritionUniversity of Minnesota

Amihud KramerProfessor, Department of HorticultureUniversity of Maryland

Darryl LundProfessor, Department of Food ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin

Roy MartinDirector of Science and TechnologyNational Fisheries Institute

Stan McHughVice PresidentAmerican Bakeries Company

George MichaelDirector, Division of Food and DrugsDepartment of Public HealthCommonwealth of Massachusetts

Sharon MorgansternAssistant to the PresidentNational American Wholesale Grocers

AssociationJeffrey Odum, ex officioStaff Assistant, Committee on Laws

and RegulationsNational Conference on Weights&

MeasuresNational Bureau of Standards


Daniel Padberg Morton ShaevelChairman, Department of Agricultural

EconomicsUniversity of Illinois

Taylor Quinn, ex officioAssociate Director of ComplianceBureau of FoodsFood and Drug Administration

Austin RhoadesAdministrative AssistantMilk Industry Foundation and

International Association ofIce Cream Manufacturers

Impacts of Applied GeneticsNon-Human Applications

Advisory Panel

J. E. Legates, ChairmanDean, School of Agriculture and

Life SciencesNorth Carolina State University

Ronald E. CapeCetus Corporation

Peter S. CarlsonMichigan State University

Nina V. FedoroffDepartment of EmbryologyCarnegie Institution of Washington

G. June GoodfieldThe Rockefeller University

Harold P. GreenThe National Law CenterThe George Washington University

Halsted R. HolmanStanford University Medical School

M. Sylvia KrekelHealth and Safety OfficeOil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers

International Union

Oliver E. Nelson, Jr.Laboratory of GeneticsUniversity of Wisconsin

David PimentalDepartment of EntomologyCornell University

Vice President for Research andDevelopment

Freezer Queen Foods, Inc.

Gary SmithProfessor, Department of Animal

ScienceTexas A&M University

Jeri Smith-FornaraArizona Consumers Council

Thomas SporlederProfessor, Department of Agricultural

EconomicsTexas A&M University

GENETICS AND POPULATION

Robert WeaverDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsPennsylvania State University

James A. WrightPioneer Hi-Bred InternationalPlant Breeding Division

Norton D. ZinderThe Rockefeller University

Population Advisory Panel

Leona BaumgartnerMartha’s Vineyard, Mass.

Wilbur J. CohenSchool of EducationUniversity of Michigan

Cyril CrockerHoward University School of Medicine

Arthur DyckHarvard Divinity School

Julia HendersonWarwick, N.Y.

William N. Hubbard, Jr.PresidentThe Upjohn Company

Snehendu B. KarSchool of Public HealthUniversity of California

Nathan KeyfitzHarvard University Center for

Population Studies

Joe SuiterAssistant SupervisorDairy and Food DivisionState of Washington

Dale WatsonVice President for Produce

MerchandisingGreat A&P Tea Company

Ruth YannattaCalifornia Citizens Action Group

Philip R. LeeDirector, Health Policy ProgramSchool of MedicineUniversity of California

Marjory MecklenburgPresidentAmerican Citizens Concerned for Life

Deborah OakleySchool of NursingUniversity of Michigan

Kenneth J. RyanBoston Hospital for Women

Nafis SadikUnited Nations Fund for Population

Activities

Susan ScrimshawSchool of Public HealthUniversity of California

Carol TauerDepartment of Philosophy

College of St. Catherine

Faye WattletonPresidentPlanned Parenthood Federation of

America


HEALTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Frederick Robbins, ChairmanDean, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University

Stuart H. AltmanDean, Florence Heller SchoolBrandeis University

Robert M. BallSenior ScholarInstitute of Medicine

National Academy of Sciences

Bernard BarberProfessorDepartment of SociologyColumbia University{Term ended 7/79)

Lewis ButlerHealth Policy ProgramUniversity of California

Kurt DeuschleProfessorMount Sinai School of Medicine

Zita FearonConsumer Commission on the

Accreditation of Health Services, Inc.

Melvin GlasserDirectorSocial Security DepartmentUnited Auto Workers of America

Patricia KingProfessorGeorgetown Law Center

Sidney LeeAssociate DeanCommunity MedicineMcGill University

Mark LepperVice President for inter-lnstiutional

AffairsRush-Presbyterian Medical SchoolSt. Luke’s Medical Center

C. Frederick MostellerProfessor and ChairmanDepartment of StatisticsHarvard University

Rashi FeinProfessorCenter for Community Health and

Medical CareHarvard Medical School

Cost-Effectiveness of MedicalTechnologies Advisory Panel

John R. Hogness, ChairmanPresidentAssociation for Academic Health Centers

Stuart H. AltmanDean, Florence Heller SchoolBrandeis University

James L. BenningtonChairman, Department of Anatomic

Pathology and Clinical LaboratoriesChildren’s Hospital in San FranciscoClinical AssociateProfessor of PathologyUniversity of California. San Francisco

John ChaseAssociate Dean for Clinical AffairsUniversity of Washington School of

Medicine

Joseph FletcherVisiting ScholarMedical EthicsSchool of MedicineUniversity of Virginia

Clark C. HavighurstProfessor of LawSchool of LawDuke University

Sheldon LeonardManager, Regulatory AffairsGeneral Electric Company

Barbara J. McNeilDepartment of RadiologyPeter Bent Brightam HospitalRobert H. MoserExecutive Vice PresidentAmerican College of Physicians

Beverlee MyersDirectorDepartment of Health ServicesState of California

Helen E. NelsonPresidentConsumers Research Foundation(Term ended 7/79)

Mitchell RabkinGeneral DirectorBeth Israel Hospital

Charles A. SandersGeneral DirectorThe Massachusetts General Hospital(Term ended 7/79)Kerr L. WhiteDeputy Director, Health SciencesRockefeller Foundation

C. Frederick MostellerProfessor and ChairmanDepartment of StatisticsHarvard University

Robert M. SigmondAdvisor in Hospital AffairsBlue Cross of Greater Philadelphia

Jane Sisk WillemsVA ScholarVeterans Administration

Psychotherapy ReviewAdvisory Panel

Jerome FrankProfessor Emeritus of PsychiatryPhipps ClinicJohns Hopkins Hospital


Donal KleinNew York State Psychiatric Institute

Beverly LongNational Mental Health Association

Thomas McGuireAssistant Professor of EconomicsDepartment of EconomicsBoston University

Morris ParloffChief, Psychotherapy and Behavioral

Intervention SectionNational Institute of Mental Health

Hans StruppDepartment of PsychologyVanderbilt University

Gary VandenBosAdministrative OfficerMental Health PolicyAmerican Psychological Association

Carcinogenesis Advisory Panel

Norton Nelson, ChairmanProfessor, Department of Environmental

MedicineNew York University Medical School

David AxelrodCommissioner of HealthNew York State Department of Health

Peter A. A. BerleButzel and KassNew York, N.Y.

Theodore L. CairnsE. 1. du Pent de Nemours & Co.(Retired)

Paul F. Deisler, Jr.Vice President, Health, Safety,

and EnvironmentShell Oil Company

George S. DominguezDirector, Government RelationsHealth and EnvironmentCIBA-GEIGY Corporation

A. Myrick FreemanDepartment of EconomicsBowdoin College

Robert H. HarrisEnvironmental Defense Fund(Resigned)

Priscilla W. LawsDickinson College

Michael WrightSafety and Health DepartmentUnited Steel Workers of America

Mark LepperVice President for EvaluationRush-Presbyterian Medical SchoolSt. Luke’s Medical Center

Brian MacMahonHarvard School of Public Health

Elizabeth C. MillerMcCardle Laboratory for Cancer

ResearchUniversity of Wisconsin(Resigned)

Robert A. NealDirector of Center in Environmental

ToxicologyVanderbilt University School of Medicine

Vaun A. NewillResearch & Environmental Health

DivisionEXXON Corporation

William J. NicholsonEnvironmental Sciences LaboratoryMount Sinai School of Medicine

R. Talbot PageCalifornia Institute of Technology

Margaret SeminarioIndustrial Hygenist–AFL/CIODepartment of Occupational Safety

and Health

Alice S. WhittemoreDivision of EpidemiologyStanford University School of Medicine

Technologies for EstimatingPhysician Supply and Requirements

Advisory Panel

E. Harvey Estes, ChairmanDepartment of Community and Family

MedicineDuke University School of Medicine

E. B. CampbellExecutive Vice PresidentLane College

Kurt DeuschleProfessorMount Sinai School of Medicine

M a r g a r e t G o r d o n Carnegie Council on Higher Education

Jack HadleyUrban Institute

John HatchSchool of Biomedical EducationCity College of New York

Lauren LeRoySenior AnalystHealth Policy ProgramUniversity of California

Charles LewisDepartment of MedicineUCLA School of Medicine

Beverlee MyersDirectorDepartment of Health ServicesState of California

Ted PhillipsAssociate Dean for Academic AffairsSchool of MedicineUniversity of Washington

Jane RecordSenior EconomistKaiser FoundaitonHealth Services Research Center

Uwe ReinhardtWoodrow Wilson SchoolPrinceton University

Alvin TarlovDepartment of MedicineUniversity of Chicago

John WennbergDepartment of Community MedicineDartmouth College


NATIONAL R&D PRIORITIES AND POLICIES

National LaboratoriesAdvisory Panel

Leo Goldberg, ChairmanDirector, AmericasKitt Peak National Observatory

Preston T. BankstonDeputy DirectorOffice of Science and TechnologyMississippi Fuel & Energy

Management Commission

Richard S. BerryProfessorFearle Chemistry LaboratoryUniversity of Chicago

Lewis M. BranscombVice President & Chief ScientistIBM Corporation

Harvey BrooksBenjamin Pierce Professor of

Technology and Public PolicyAiken Computation LabHarvard University

Solomon J. BuchsbaumExecutive Vice PresidentCustomer SystemsBell Telephone Laboratories

Robert A. CharpiePresidentCabot Corporation

Donald W. CollierSenior Vice PresidentCorporate StrategyBorg-Warner Corporation

Martin GolandPresidentSouthwest Research Institute

Jerry GreyPrivate Consultant

Donald F. HornigDirector, Interdisciplinary Programs in

Public HealthHarvard University

Richard M. KrauseDirectorNational Institute of Allergy and

Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of Health

Claire NaderPrivate Consultant

Technological Innovation andHealth, Safety, and Environmental

Regulation Advisory Panel

Donald F. Hornig, ChairmanDirector, Interdisciplinary Programs in

Public HealthHarvard School of Public Health

John R. BartlitState ChairmanNew Mexico Citizens for Clean Air

& Water

Joseph B. BidwellExecutive DirectorGeneral Motors Research Laboratory

John R. BlizzardManager, Government AffairsCorning Glass CorporationVice Chairman, Environmental Industry

Council

Robert M. CollinsPresident & Chairman of the BoardCobe Laboratories, Inc.

David J. FogartySenior Vice PresidentSouthern California Edison Company

Victor H. FrankelDepartment of OrthopedicsUniversity of Washington

Herbert I. FusfeldDirector, Center for Science &

Technology PolicyGraduate School of Public

AdministrationNew York University

R. Eugene GoodsonDirector, Institute for Interdisciplinary

Engineering StudiesPurdue University

Peter Barton HuttCovington and Burling

Joseph T. LingVice President for Environmental

Engineering and Pollution Control3M Company

Claire NaderPrivate Consultant

Roger G. NellDirector, Division of Humanities

and Social SciencesCalifornia Institute of Technology

Frederick J. RarigVice President and Associate

General CounselRohm and Haas Company

Russell E. TrainPresidentWorld Wildlife Fund, Inc.

Charles H. TupperDirector, Safety DepartmentInternational Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers

Jacqueline WarrenEnvironmental Defense Fund

James W. YoungManager of Regulatory AffairsZoecon Corporation

Technology for Local DevelopmentAdvisory Panel

Roger BlobaumPresidentRoger Blobaum and Associates

George BurrillCo-DirectorCenter for Studies in Food Self-

Sufficiency

Patricia ClohertyPresidentTessler & Cloherty, Inc.

John HammockExecutive DirectorACCION International

Mary HoughtonExecutive Vice PresidentSouth Shore National Bank

Byron KennardCommunity Organizer

David LawrenceChairman of the Executive CommitteeBoettcher & Company

William NicosonCounsel

Lynn PrestonActing Head, Problem Analysis GroupNational Science Foundation

Lola RedfordPresidentConsumer Action Now


Constantine Safilios-RothschildProfessor of Human DevelopmentPennsylvania State University

Steve SerflingPresidentSolar AquaSystems, Inc.

Martha StuartPresidentMartha Stuart Communications, Inc.

Dan TesslerChairmanTessler & Cloherty, Inc.Richard P. TaubAssociate Professor & Chairman of

Public AffairsUniversity of ChicagoSean Wellesley-MillerAssistant Professor of Environmental

ControlMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Appropriate Technology Task Force

Lola Redford, ChairpersonPresidentConsumer Action Now

Tom BenderFreelance Writer, Energy & Technology

Robert S. BrowneDirector, President of the BoardBlack Economic Research Center

Disposal of Nuclear WastesAdvisory Panel

Hans Frauenfelder, ChairmanDepartment of PhysicsUniversity of Illinois

Seymour Abraham sonDepartment of ZoologyUniversity of Wisconsin

Kenneth BouldingProfessorAmerican Association for the

Advancement of Science

Frank CollinsOil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers

International Union

Floyd CullerPresidentElectric Power Research Institute

Wilson ClarkEnergy AdvisorThe Governor’s OfficeState of California

Kye CochranCoordinatorAlternative Energy Resources

Organization

John ColeAuthor & Contributing Editor

Cecil E. Cook, Jr.Senior AssociateInter-Culture Associates

Nicholas Georgescu-RoegenDistinguished Professor EmeritusVanderbilt University

Jerome GoldsteinEditor and PublisherThe J. G. Press, inc.Hazel Henderson, ex officioMember, Technology Assessment

Advisory Council of OTA

Karl HessAuthor, Community Technology

(Harper & Row)

Joyce A. HughesProfessor of LawNorthwestern University School of Law

Byron Kennard, ex officioCommunity Organizer

OCEANS

J. William FutrellSchool of LawUniversity of Georgia

Edward GoldbergProfessorScripps Institute of OceanographyUniversity of California

William W. HambletonDirectorKansas Geological SurveyThe University of Kansas

G. W. HardiggVice President and General ManagerAdvanced Power Systems DivisionsWestinghouse Electric Corporation

Harriet KeyserlingMember of the HouseState of South Carolina

Elizabeth KingmanConsultant in Energy Communication

Merle Lefkoff, ex officioSenior PartnerEplan, Roark, Lefkoff and Allen (ERLA)

Arthur S. Obermayer, ex officioPresident, Chairman of the BoardMOLECULON Research Corporation

Thomas SheridanProfessor of Engineering and Applied

PsychologyMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Henryk SkolimowskiProfessor of PhilosophyDepartment of HumanitiesCollege of EngineeringUniversity of Michigan

Barry SteinPresidentGoodmeasure, Inc.

Charles B. TisdaleFederal CoordinatorCities in Schools Program

Nancy Jack ToddCo-DirectorThe New Alchemy Institute

Terry LashStaff ScientistNatural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Kai LeeInstitute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of Washington

Jean MalchonPinellas County CommissionerState of Florida

Peter MontagueCenter for Environmental StudiesPrinceton University

Glen PaulsonVice President for ScienceNational Audubon Society


Howard Raiffa William A. ThomasProfessor, John F. Kennedy School American Bar Foundation

of GovernmentHarvard Business School

Mason Willrich

Harvard UniversityVice President, Corporate PlanningPacific Gas & Electric Company

TELECOMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION

Telecommunication Advisory Panel

Richard B. Marsten, ChairmanProfessor of EngineeringThe City College of the City University

of New York

L. E. AdamsExecutive Vice PresidentArmed Forces Communications and

Electronics Association

Roger C. AudeExecutive OfficerInternational Communications

Association

Ruth BakerAttorney at LawCohn & Marks Law Firm

K. Woodward BenekertChairman of the Board of the

U.S. Transmission SystemsInternational Telephone & Telegraph

Corporation

A. G. W. “Jack” BiddlePresidentComputers & Communications Industry

Association

James B. BooeAssistant to the PresidentCommunications Workers of America

Kurt BorchardtHarvard Program on Information

Resources PolicyHarvard University

Warren BrarenAssociate DirectorConsumers Union

Willard T. CarletonDepartment of FinanceUniversity of North Carolina

Joseph V. CharykPresidentCommunications Satellite Corporation

Harry DannalsPresidentAmerican Radio Relay League

Lee L. DavenportVice President, Chief ScientistGeneral Telephone & Electronic

Corporation

Francis DeRosaVice PresidentGeneral Counsel, Law and Regulatory

Affairs

William D. EnglishVice PresidentSatellite Business Systems

James FellowPresidentNational Association of Educational

Broadcasting

Emanuel FthenakisPresidentAmerican Satellite Corporation

George GraySpecial Representative for

Government RelationsNational Association of Broadcasters

Jerry GreyAdministrator for Public PolicyAmerican Institute of Aeronautics and

Astronautics

Walter R. HinchmanWalter Hinchman Associate, Inc.

Edward W. Hummers, Jr.PresidentFederal Communications Bar

Association

Manley IrwinProfessorWhittemore School of Business

and EconomicsUniversity of New Hampshire

Charles P. JohnsonVice PresidentIDCMAGeneral Data Communications

Industries, Inc.

Jack KinnStaff DirectorInstitute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers

Donald WodrichDirector, Rockwell international

Waste ProgramRichland National Laboratory

SYSTEMS

Lane KirklandPresidentAmerican Federation of Labor&

Congress of Industrial Organizations

Jo Ann KlimschotResearch AssociateCommon Cause

Arthur KorffDirector of Cable Television DepartmentInternational Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers

Norman LernerPresidentTranscom Inc.

Richard LongExecutive DirectorNorth American Telephone Association

George MansurPresidentAeronautical Radio, Inc.

Donald C. MatthewsGeneral ExecutiveOffice of CommunicationsTelecommunications Consumer

CoalitionUnited Church of Christ

Billy B. OliverVice President, Engineering PlanningAT&T Long Lines Department

Billy B. OxleySenior Vice President for DistributionNational Public Radio

Edward W. Page, ex officioDepartment of-Computer ScienceClemson University

George E. PickettExecutive Vice PresidentUSITA

Russell PipeTranslational Data Report

Ithiel De Sola PoolDepartment of Political ScienceMassachusetts Institute of Technology


Paul ReardonDeputy DirectorEconomic Policy CenterChamber of Commerce of the U.S.

Michael RidderAssociation PresidentCommodity News Service

Bert RobertsSenior Vice PresidentMCI Telecommunications Corporation

Lawrence RobertsPresidentTelenet Communications Corporation

Robert L. SchmidtPresidentNational Cable Television Association

John ShattuckDirectorAmerican Civil Liberties Union

Samuel SimonExecutive DirectorNational Citizens Committee for

Broadcasting

Larry SingerAttorney at LawFager & Singer

John SodolskiVice PresidentElectronics Industry Association

Rein hard StammingerPresidentFuture Systems, Inc.

Bernard StrassburgPrivate Consultant

Robert SutliffRepresentative for the Governor’s Office

of New YorkChief Systems PlannerNew York Public Service Commission

Harry M. TrebingDirectorInstitute of Public UtilitiesGraduate School of Business

AdministrationMichigan State University

Carver L. WashburnVice President for Business

DevelopmentWestern Union Corporation

Ron WheatleyComputer and Business Equipment

Manufacturers Association

Val J. WilliamsPresidentNational Association of Business

and Educational Radio

Lee WingExecutive DirectorNorth Carolina Agency for Public

TelecommunicationDepartment of Administration

Elizabeth L. YoungPresidentPublic Service Satellite Consortium

Telecommunication TechnologiesSpecial Panel

Edward W. Page, ChairmanDepartment of Computer ScienceClemson University

Paul BaranCabledata Associates

John ClarkDirector, Space Applications and

TechnologyRCA Corporation

Douglas CrombieDirectorInstitute for Telecommunication

Sciences/NTIAU.S. Department of Commerce

Burton I. EdelsonVice President of Systems TechnologyCOMSAT Corporation

Robert K. GeigerDirector, DevelopmentMartin-Marietta Aerospace

Dean GilletteExecutive DirectorBell Telephone Laboratories

Richard G. GouldPresidentTelecommunication Systems

Richard MarstenProfessor of EngineeringThe City College of the City University of

New York

Gregory E. MastersonAssistant Technical DirectorComputer SystemsITT, Telecommunications Technology

Center

Al PaladinoDeputy Director, TOTCGTE Laboratories

Wilbur PritchardPresidentSatellite Systems Engineering, Inc.

Joe SobalaNASA Headquarters

David L. SolomonDeputy Assistant, Technical Policy &

OperationsOffice of the Secretary of Defense

Harry J. TalberthGroup LeaderCommunications EngineeringThe MITRE Corporation

National Information SystemsOverall Advisory Panel

Sysan Nycum, ChairpersonAttorney at LawChickening & Gregory

Roy AmaraPresidentInstitute for the Future

Paul BaranPresidentCabledata Associates

Kent ColtonGraduate School of ManagementInstitute of Government ServiceBrigham Young University

Donald DunnEngineering-Economic Systems

DepartmentStanford University

Lawrence J. GervaisNational Vice PresidentAmerican Postal Workers UnionAFL-CIO

Maurice W. GreggSenior Vice President, FinanceThe Gap Stores, Inc.

Jeremiah GutmanAttorney at LawLevy, Gutman, Goldberg& Kaplan

J. Robert HarcharikPresidentTYMNET, Inc.

Appendix D – List of Advisors and Panel Members ● 95

Rob KlingDepartment of Information and

Computer ScienceUniversity of California, Irvine

John C. LeGatesDirector, Program on Information

Resources PolicyHarvard University

Henry LucasComputer Applications and information

Systems DepartmentGraduate School of Business

AdministrationNew York University

Daniel McCrackenPresidentAssociation for Computing Machinery

Arthur S. MillerProfessor Emeritus of LawThe National Law CenterGeorge Washington University

Sharon NelsonAttorney at LawConsumers Union

Phil NyborgComputer and Communications

Industry Association

Russell PipeTranslational Data Report

Ithiel De Sola PoolDepartment of Political ScienceMassachusetts Institute of Technology

James RuleDepartment of SociologyState University of New York

Richard M. SchmidtAmerican Society of Newspaper Editors

Robert P. SmithResearch & Development DepartmentU.S. Postal Service

Sherry TurkleSchool of Humanities and Social

SciencesMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Ron UhligManager, Business & Services PlanningBell Northern Research Lab

Jacques ValleePresidentINFOMEDIA

Carl VorlanderExecutive DirectorNational Association of State

Information Systems

Fred W. Warden

Director, Telecommunication RelationsIBM

Willis WareThe RAND Corporation

Iram WeinsteinSystem Planning Corporation

Alan F. WestinGraduate Faculties for Political ScienceColumbia University

Electronic Funds TransferAdvisory Panel

Kent Colton, ChairmanGraduate School of ManagementInstitute of Government ServiceBrigham Young University

Wayne BoucherCenter for Futures ResearchGradute School of Business

AdministrationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaRoland R. Eppley, Jr.PresidentEastern States Bank Card Association

John FisherSenior Vice PresidentFirst Bank Group of Ohio, Inc.

Maurice W. GreggSenior Vice President, FinanceThe Gap Stores, Inc.

Jeremiah GutmanAttorney at LawLevy, Gutman, Goldberg& Kaplan

Jerry HoganConsumer Federation of America

Michael LevineCiti-Bank

Allen LipisPresidentElectronic Banking Incorporated

John McDonnell, Jr.Eastern Regional ManagerTYMNET, Inc.

Susan NycumAttorney at LawChickening & Gregory

William RileyGrand Island, Nebr.


Jerry SvigalsIBM

Willis WareThe RAND Corporation

Bob ZimmerCounselElectronic Money Council

National Information SystemsTechnology Advisory Panel

Paul Baran, ChairmanPresidentCabledata Associates

Craig FieldsSenior Program MangerARPA

Dean GilletteExecutive DirectorSystems Research DivisionBell Telephone Laboratories

Vico HenriquesCBEMA

Lance HoffmanDepartment of Electrical, Engineering,

and Computer ScienceSchool of Engineering and Applied

ScienceThe George Washington University

Kas KalbaPresidentKalba Bowen Associates, Inc.

Daniel McCrackenPresidentAssociation for Computing Machinery

Theodore MyerSenior ScientistBolt, Beranek and Newman

Phil NyborgComputer and Communications

industry Association

Dorm B. ParkerSenior Management Systems ConsultantSRI International

Ron UhligManager, Business & Services PlanningBell Northern Research Labs

Frederic WithingtonArthur D. Little, Inc.

Paul G. ZurkowskiPresidentInformation Industry Association


National Crime Information CenterAdvisory Panel

Arthur S. Miller, ChairmanProfessor Emeritus of LawThe National Law CenterThe George Washington University

Gerald Caplan, Vice ChairmanThe National Law CenterThe George Washington University

Joe ArmstrongArmstrong Associates

Jerry BermanLegislative CounselAmerican Civil Liberties UnionWashington Office

Robert GallatiCollege of Criminal JusticeNortheastern University

Automobile Assessment AdvisoryPanel

R. Eugene Goodson, ChairmanInstitute for Interdisciplinary

Engineering StudiesPurdue University

William G. AgnewTechnical DirectorGeneral Motors Research

Laboratories

Leo BlatzExecutive OfficerESSO Inter-America, Inc.

John J. ByrneChairman of the BoardGEICO and Affiliates

B. J. CampbellHighway Safety Research CenterUniversity of North Carolina(Resigned)

Anne P. CarterDepartment of EconomicsBrandeis University(Resigned)

Frank W. Davis, Jr.Transportation CenterUniversity of Tennesee

Lance HoffmanDepartment of Electrical, Engineering,

and Computer ScienceSchool of Engineering and Applied

ScienceThe George Washington University

John KennedyScientists Institute for Public InformationSteve KolodneyExecutive DirectorSEARCH Group, Inc.

Barry MahoneyVERA Institute of JusticeInner London Probation and After-Care

Service

Jeffrey A. MeldmanSloan School of ManagementMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Arthur R. MillerThe Law SchoolHarvard University

TRANSPORTATION

Clarence Ditlow, IIICenter for Auto Safety(Resigned)

Lament EltingeDirector of ResearchEaton Corporation Research Center

Norman EmersonExecutive Assistant to the MayorCity of Los Angeles

William Haddon, Jr.PresidentInsurance Institute for Highway Safety(Resigned)

Kent JoscelynHighway Safety Research InstituteUniversity of Michigan

Joshua MenkesNational Science Foundation

Wilfred OwenThe Brookings Institution

Archie H. RichardsonPresidentAuto Owners Action Council

Angela RooneyUpper Northeast Coordinating Council

J. Francis PohlhausCounselNational Association for the

Advancement of Colored People


Richard M. SchmidtAmerican Society of Newspaper Editors

Carl VorlanderExecutive DirectorNational Association for State

information SystemsIram WeinsteinSystem Planning CorporationElyce ZenoffThe National Law CenterThe George Washington University

Richard H. ShacksonAssistant DirectorTransportation Energy Conservation

Policy

S. Fred SingerProfessor of Environmental SciencesUniversity of Virginia

Lawrence J. WhiteCouncil of Economic AdvisorsExecutive Office Building of the White

House

Howard YoungUnited Auto Workers

Advanced Group Rapid TransitAdvisory Panel

Michael A. Powills, Jr., ChairmanSenior Vice PresidentBarton -Aschman Associates, Inc.

J. Edward AndersonDirector of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of Minnesota

Robert A. BurcoPresidentPublic Policy Research Associates

Appendix D–List of Advisors and Panel Member ● 97

Catherine BurkeSchool of Public AdministrationUniversity of Southern California

Lawrence DallamDirector of Transportation PlanningTwin Cities Metropolitan Council

Julie H. HooverManager of the Planning DivisionParsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, and

Douglas

George KramblesExecutive DirectorChicago Transit Authority

Robert A. MakofskiApplied Physics LaboratoryThe Johns Hopkins University

Impact of Advanced Air TransportTechnology Advisory Panel

Robert W. Simpson, ChairmanDirector, Flight Transportation

LaboratoryMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Jane H. BartlettPresidentArlington League of Women Voters

Ray E. BatesVice PresidentDouglas Aircraft Company

Norman BradburnNational Opinion Research Center

Frederick BradleyVice PresidentCitibank, N.A.

John G. BorgerVice President of EngineeringPan American World Airways, Inc.

Secor D. BrowneSecor D. Browne Associates. Inc.

F. A. ClevelandVice President, EngineeringLockheed Corporation

Elwood T. DriverVice ChairmanNational Transportation Safety Board

James C. FletcherBurroughs Corporation

William K. ReillyPresidentConservation Foundation

Harold J. SalfenExecutive DirectorAirline Passengers Assoc., Inc.

Robert W. SimpsonDirector, Flight Transportation


David S. StemplerAirline Passengers Association, Inc.

Janet St. MarkPresidentSMS Associates

John WildExecutive DirectorNational Transportation Policy Study

Commission

Holden W. WithingtonVice President, EngineeringBoeing Commercial Airplane Company

Michael YarymovychVice President, EngineeringRockwell internationalObservers:

Charles R. FosterAssociate Administrator for Aviation

AdministrationFederal Aviation AdministrationJames J. KramerAssociate Administrator for Aeronautics

and Space TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space

Administration

Advanced High-Speed AircraftWorking Group

Richard AlpaghChief, Nonhighway Transportation

BranchDepartment of Energy

Jane H. BartlettPresidentArlington League of Women Voters

Frederick BradleyVice PresidentCitibank, N.A.

Richard D. FitzsimmonsDirector, Advanced Program PlanningDouglas Aircraft Company

Jack 1. HopeGeneral Manager, International Engine

GroupGeneral Electric Company

William SensPratt and Whitney Engine Company

Armand SigallaChief, Technology Preliminary DesignBoeing Commercial Airplane Company

John WeslerActing Director for Environment and

EnergyFederal Aviation Administration

Bruce R. WrightLockheed California Company

Finance and Program AlternativesWorking Group

Jane BartlettPresidentArlington League of Women Voters

Charles L. BlakeChief, Airport GroupFederal Aviation Administration

Fredrick BradleyVice PresidentCitibank N.A.

Secor D. BrowneSecor D. Browne Associates, Inc.

Richard D. FitzsimmonsDirector, Advanced Program PlanningDouglas Aircraft Company

Jack I. HopeGeneral Manager, International Engine

GroupGeneral Electric Company

William SensPratt and Whitney Engine Company

Armand SigallaChief, Technology Preliminary DesignBoeing Commercial Airplane Company

Robert W. SimpsonDirector, Flight Transportation



Barney VierlingRetired, Formerly with the U.S. SST

Program Manager

John WeslerActing Director for Environment and

EnergyFederal Aviation Administration


Low-Density Working Group

Raymond A. AusrotasFlight Transportation LaboratoryMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyJane H. BartlettPresidentArlington League of Women VotersDavid BrewsterBabcock and Schmid Associates, Inc.Tulinda DeeganDirector, Government RelationsCommuter Airlines Association of

AmericaMarcy FannonRetired, Formerly Vice PresidentEastern Airlines

Joseph M. FugerePresidentPilgrim Airlines

Stanley GreenGeneral Aviation Manufacturers

Association

Harry W. JohnsonGeneral Aviation OfficeNASA Headquarters

Adib KanafaniInstitute of Transportation StudiesUniversity of California


Janet St. MarkPresidentSMS Associates, Inc.

Shirley YbarraSmat, Heiliesen, and Eichner

Air Cargo Working Group

Keith G. BradyManager, Innovative Concepts

DevelopmentBoeing Commercial Airplane Company

Douglas A. FisherAssistant General ManagerEmery Air Freight

Joel H. FisherDirector and Washington CounselSeaboard World Airlines

E. R. HichensManager, Traffic SystemsSears Roebuck and Company

William H. KuhlmanDouglas Aircraft Company

Dennis J. MarshallManager, Development and Operation

EngineeringFederal Express Corporation

William T. MikolowskyManager, Operation Research

DepartmentLockheed Georgia Company

George A. PasquetScott Air Force BaseWilliam F. PieperDirector, Technology DevelopmentFlying Tiger LineRay SiewertTechnical Specialist for Aeronautical

TechnologyPentagon

Nawal K. TanejaMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Matthew M. WinstonNASA Langley Research Center

Shirley YbarraSimat, Helliesen, and Eichner

Appendix E

Technology Assessment Act of 1972Public Law 92-484

92nd Congress , H. R. 10243O c t o b e r 1 3 , 1 9 7 2

99

To estabUsh an Offi<.'e of Technology Assessment for the Cong1'(>8al 8S an aid In the identiflcatIon and consIderation of existing and probable Impacts of tet-hnological application; to amend the ~ational SeienCt' Foundation Act of 1950; and for other purpo8(>8,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Repruentati1Je8 01 tM United State8 of America in OongreBB Q,88embled, That this Act may he 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 sociatJ environment.

(b) Therefore, it is essential that, to the fullest extent possible, the l"onsequences of technological R.'pplications be anticipated, understood, and considered in determinatJon of public pdicy on existing and t>merging nationul problems.

(c) The Con~ress further finds that: (1) the Fedeml a~ncies presently responsible directly to the

('on,,-ess are not designed to provide the legislative branch with adequate and timely information. independently develo~, .. elatin~! to the potential impact of technolo,ocal applications, and

(2) the present mechanisms of the Congress do not and are not. designed to provide the legislative brunch with such information.

(d) Accordingly, it is necessary for the Ccngress tc:r-( 1) equip itself with new and effective means for securing

competent. unbiased information concerning the physical, biolelZ'icai, economic. sociul, nnd politicnJ etfe<>ts of such applications; nnd

(~) utilize this information, whenever nppropriate, as one faetcl' in the legislative assessment of matteI'S pending before the Congress. pnrti('u~nrly in those insflmces where the Federal Government muy be cnlled upon to consider support for. or managemrllt ol'l'ellulntion of. technologicnl applications.

.~TAIU,ISH )fENT OF Tin: U.·.·ICF. OF TECHNOI.OGY ASSESSMENT

~;.:('. ;{. (a) In a("('ordanct' with tht> findin~ and declaration of purpoSt' in St'ction ~. ther't' is ht'l't'by cf't'ated the Office of Technology Assessment (hereinafter referred to as the "Office") which shall be within and l'esJ)onsible to the legislative branch of th ... Government.

(b) Tht> Office shall consist of a Tt-ehnology ASlWssment Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Bonrd") which shall formulate and pmmulgate tht' policies of the Office, and a Director who shall carry uut such policit>s and administel' the operations of the Office. .

(c) The basic function of the Office shall bE' to provide early indications of the pr-obable beneficial and adverse impacts of the applications of tt'Chnology and to develop other coordinawinformation which may assist tht> Conlll'ess. Tn ('arryinll ont such function, the Offict> shall :

(1) identify existing' OJ' pmhahlp impa('ts of tt>('hn 01 010.':" or tt>('hnolo,ncal programs;

86 STAT. 797

Teohnology ASBesl!llllent Aot of 1972.

T eohno logy Assessment Board.

Duties.

Inro!mationgaval lability.

81 Stat. 5-4.

Henbershlp.

Vaoanoies.

Cha.lnnan andvloe ohal man.

O c t o b e r 1 3 , 1 9 7 2 - 3 -

Meetings.

Subpena.

Appointment.

Compensation.

83 Stat. 863.

Employmentrestriotion.

Contracts.

86 STAT. 800

80 Stat. 499;83 Stat, 190.

Recordkeeping

P u b . L a w 9 2 - 4 8 4 - 4 - O c t o b e r 1 3 , 1 9 7 2

Agenoycooperation.

Personneldetail.

Membership.

October 13, 1972 - 5 - Pub. Law 92-484 86 STAT. 801

D u t i e s .

Chairman andVice Chairman.

Term ofoffice.

Travel expenses.

80 Stat. 498;83 Stat. 190.5 USC 5701.

Compensation.

o

06 STAT. 802P u b . L a w 9 2 - 4 8 4 . 6 - O c t o b e r 1 3 , 1 9 7 2

COORDINATION WITH THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Pub. Law 92-484 86 STAT, 803

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: