annual report to the congress for 1981

8/14/2019 Annual Report to the Congress for 1981

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annual-report-to-the-congress-for-1981 1/110

Annual Report to the Congress for 1981

March 1982



Section Page

I. Statements by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board, TAAC Chairman, and the Director of OTA. . . . . . . 1

H . Year in Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

III. Work in Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

IV. Organization and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Appendixes

A. List of Advisors and Panel Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

B. O T A A c t – P u b l i c La w 9 2 -4 8 4 . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 0 3



Sect ionCha i rman

I . -Sta tements by theand Vic e Chai rman o f

t he Board, TAAC Chai rm an, and

t he Di rec t or o f OTA

CHAIRMAN’S STATEMEMT-

SENATOR TED STEVENS

During 1981 the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) providedtechnical analysis of a variety of topics emphasizing its role as“shared staff’ to Congress. The Office released studies on issues rang-ing from agriculture, to MX basing, to applied genetics, in addition toconducting economic analysis of the steel, electronic, and automotive

world markets.The wid e range of expertise available on the staff of OTA allows it to

provide technical assistance to a diverse group of committee staffsand Senate and House offices with varying interests and needs.

Congress, like the rest of the Federal Government, is being pressedto do more with less. Congress must examine more issues with evengreater scrutiny at the same time the resources available to do so be-come scarcer. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly important thatresearch on complex technical questions facing Congress be coor-dinated among the various committees and between the two cham-bers.

The Office of Technology Assessment has been successful in ac-complishing this goal, thus avoiding duplication of efforts. It has alsobeen able to provide Congress with a support staff well versed in tech-nical matters.

Congress will face a number of intricate and complicated issues thisyear requiring OTA’S expertise and technical capabilities. I look forOTA to be involved in a number of the major issues ahead.



2 q Annual Report to the Congress for 1981

VICE CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT-

CONGRESSMAN MORRIS K. UDALL

OTA was established because Congress realized that technology-re-lated issues were assuming increasing importance in congressional

deliberations. In 1981, it was evident that technology was the key todealing with a whole host of major national needs including:

q upgrading our national defense;q reducing our dependence on foreign oil;

q conquering heart disease and cancer;. boosting the productivity of our workers; and even. providing an adequate supply of water to the West.

In all these areas, it is vital that Members of Congress have an ade-quate understanding of the hazards and potential of technology, if weare to grapple effectively with the problems. Members, of course, can-not possibly be familiar with all the latest scientific advances and their

implications for public policy—thus, the need for OTA. Over the lastfew years in particular, OTA has compiled an impressive record of ac-complishment. It has produced a virtual library of authoritative, rele-vant, and viable studies of some of the most perplexing problems thatthe Government has had to face.

It is perhaps worth recalling how difficult an assignment was givento this new agency. OTA was to be a part of Congress, overseen by acongressional board and servicing congressional committees; yet itwas also to be nonpartisan, objective, and technically expert enoughto command the respect of the professional scientific community.OTA’S expertise was to cover the entire span of the physical, biologi-cal, and social sciences. It was not simply to analyze complex scien-

tific and technological issues confronting Congress—a difficultenough task. OTA was to help Congress anticipate issues that werenot yet on the legislative agenda. It was to assess the full range of im-plications of technological change—economic, technical, social, envi-ronmental, political, military, health, etc.—as appropriate. It was to doall this in a manner that would fit congressional timetables and com-mittee jurisdictions. This is a very tall order, indeed. What is remark-able is the extent to which OTA is now fulfilling its mandate.

I look forward to working with Chairman Ted Stevens in buildingon this record of accomplishment in the year ahead.



Sect ion l—Statements q 3

TAAC CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT-

CHARLES N. KI MBALL

A major function of OTA is the transfer of technical knowledgefrom the scientific community to Congress. This is a vital and com-

plex task. No person, even with advanced technical training, can hopeto keep abreast of the significant advances in science and technologywhich have implications for public policy. If Congress is to continueto fulfill its responsibilities to lead this Nation, it must have accurateaccess to the issues presented by scientific and technological change.

OTA performs this role and performs it well. In addition to its owncompetent staff it draws on experts in the corporate, university, andpublic sector communities through project advisory panels, work-shops, consultants, reviewers, and contractors. The result is a unique-ly comprehensive network of expertise available to help Congress dealwith issues as complex and different as, for example, nuclear wastedisposal or the international competitiveness of the U.S. electronics

industry.

Such technology also flows the other way. OTA reports have be-come highly valued in the private sector for their authority and utility.Issues that are of concern to Congress are also of wide interest outsidethe Federal Government. The extensive sale through the GovernmentPrinting Office and commercial reprinting of OTA reports is but oneindicator of how valuable this agency has become both to Congressand to society as a whole.



DIRECTOR’S STATEMENT-J OHN H . GIBBONS

The range of services to Congress provided by OTA during 1981 re-flects its broad charter to provide Congress with analyses of the impli-

cations—direct and indirect—of science and technology for currentlegislative issues as well as long-term national problems. A few high-lights are given in the following paragraphs. A more complete ac-counting of OTA’S products and services is provided later in thisreport.

OTA was asked to provide Congress with an assessment of optionsfor MX Missile Basing. A wide variety of basing schemes was iden-tified and systematically compared to disclose the several advan-tages and disadvantages associated with each. Projections weremade of both the Soviet threat and foreseeable improvements inU.S. technology for the time period when MX would be operational.The resulting comparison showed that all available basing optionshave one or more serious drawbacks. This work was widely used inthe legislative and executive branches during the year and promisesto have continuing value.

OTA also provided Congress with a comprehensive analysis of Im-pacts Applied Genetics. This rapidly moving field promises to be amajor source of technological advances in the 1980’s in such di-verse areas as health, agriculture, chemicals production, and wastemanagement. OTA concluded that current self-imposed safety regu-lations by researchers and producers seem appropriate; that thecurrent U.S. lead in applied genetics technologies is threatened byvigorous foreign competition; and that new institutional arrange-

ments, especially between universities and industry, are going to beimportant to the successful application of these new technologies.In contrast to the MX study, OTA’S assessment on genetics wasmostly oriented toward foresight rather than current legislative is-sues. The Government Printing Office reported particularly highsales of this report. It has also been published by the commercialU.S. press and was a featured selection in the recent offerings of theLibrary of Science book club. The report has also been published inEngland and now is being translated an d p rinted in Japan by a com-mercial publisher.

. Legislative issues are proliferating with respect to the direct and in-direct roles of Government in innovation and international compet-

itiveness. In 1981, OTA completed several studies relevant to theseissues. For example, a comparison of international competitivenessin the steel, auto, and electronics industries found that a “macro-industrial” Federal policy would have a number of advantages overthe present collection of ad hoc and sometimes contradictory, in-dustrial policies (U.S. Industrial Competitiveness: A Comparison of Steel, Electronics, and Automobiles, July 1981). An OTA analysis of



Sect ion l—Statements 5

q

q

q

coal exports and implications for U.S. port development high-lighted the major opportunities to expand U.S. coal exports, thecapabilities and problems of present deep water ports, and impactsof user-based fees as partial means of financing port development(Coal Ports and Port Development, April 1981),

Energy issues remain a matter of major concern. During the year,OTA published an assessment of the prospects for Solar Power Sat-ellites; an analysis of alternative schemes for Nuclear PowerplantStandardization; and a definitive study of Technology and SovietEnergy Availability. Several major points emerge from these andearlier OTA energy projects. First, even though demand for oil andgas is rising more slowly than it was (due both to price increasesand recession) the difficulty of providing incremental gains in out-put—or even holding onto current production rates—is increasing,and the margin between current U.S. demand and relatively securesupply is still far from comfortable. Second, sharply higher priceshave not resulted in a significantly expanded supply of these premi-

um fuels. In contrast, response to price increases has been remark-ably elastic on the demand side as various technologies are used toprovide for more efficient use of energy. Third, several promisingoptions exist to obtain more assured safety and performance innuclear power reactors by means of standardization. One proposedalternative, electricity from orbiting solar power satellites, appearsto be unacceptably expensive even under optimistic assumptions.Lastly, while the U.S.S.R. faces level or declining oil production be-ginning in the latter half of the 1980’s, their natural gas productioncan offset this effect, leaving them with continuing capability tosupply domestic needs and to export energy (e.g., gas to westernEurope) for badly needed hard currency.

OTA’S first report on the microelectronic revolution was completedin 1981. Computer-Based National Information Systems: Technologyand Public Policy Issues, an overview study, analyzes potential soci-etal benefits and impacts of the new information systems made pos-sible by advances in computer and communication technology. Thegrowing role of information processing in U.S. society, particularlyin the economy, is examined. The report explores a number of po-tential policy issues that Congress may need to deal with over thenext decade-among them innovation and productivity, privacy,system security, vulnerability, and Federal use.

Issues of health and safety have also been highly visible over thepast year. The 1981 OTA Assessment of Technologies for Determin-ing Cancer Risks From the Environment describes and analyzes can-cer rates and trends, factors that are associated with cancer occur-rence, methods to detect and identify carcinogenic substances, andprocedures for estimating levels of human risk from such sub-stances. It also examines the Federal laws that provide for regula-

q




tions to reduce cancer risks. The report resulted in requests for tes-timony about subjects as varied as health risks from toxic dumps,replacements for animal tests as methods to identify carcinogens,and possible changes in food safety laws. Further, OTA’S discus-sion of risk assessment is now being incorporated into a NationalAcademy of Sciences study about suggested changes in the processused by the Federal Government to assess risk.

. OTA, as required by Public Law 98-151, must approve the protocolfor a Veterans Administration study of possible long-term health ef-fects resulting from exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. A draftprotocol for the VA study, in September 1981, was found by OTA tobe lacking in detail. The VA has returned the draft protocol to thecontractor that developed it and asked for a revision.

q Additional aspects of health that continue to be of prominent con-gressional policy concern are the cost of health care and the rela-tionship between the benefits of specific medical technologies andtheir costs. Several of OTA’S health studies are directly related tothese concerns. Fifteen case studies of the costs and benefits of spe-

cific medical interventions were issued during 1981, covering suchtechnologies as automated chemistry analyzers, neonatal intensivecare, screening for colon cancer and cervical cancer, nurse practi-tioners, cimetidine, and gastrointestinal endoscopy. These casestudies were prepared as part of a larger project on the feasibilityand implications of using cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analy-sis in health care. A separate study of the Cost-Ej’’ectiveness Analy-sis of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, completed-during the year, ex-amined the effects on life expectancy and the decreases in illnessand in health care costs that might result from increased numbersof vaccinations.

Now Challenges f o r O T ADuring the coming decade, the United States will face problems

whose solution will require the power of human inventiveness, nur-tured by an economic system that encourages innovation and produc-tive risk-taking. The opportunities for science and technology to im-prove the national economy, defense, health, and environment aremany. The benefits do not come without costs. OTA’S job is to helpCongress understand the extent of the opportunities and the potentialcosts and evaluate alternative approaches to reduce the risks and un-desired effects.

In past years, when inflation was lower and public investment for

research and development was more readily available, the Nationcould often afford to follow many promising paths simultaneously.Now, with mounting pressures to cut Government expenditures, moredifficult choices have to be made, including not funding some admit-tedly very promising ideas. This new imperative means that carefulanalysis of options is more important than ever because the potential

q



Sect ion l—Statements . 7

cost of being even a “little wrong” can be so high. Facts must besorted out, informed consensus must be sought, and accurate, timely,unbiased information must be available to Congress on a growing listof complex, costly, and controversial issues. OTA carries out thesetasks, acting as a shared resource for committees of the House andSenate. In performing its analytical work for Congress, OTA links and

synthesizes the collective expertise from all sectors of the UnitedStates. Each year roughly 2,000 people from universities, private cor-porations, State and local government, and Federal agencies assistOTA in its assessment work. In this manner, OTA avoids duplicationof existing work and acts as a catalyst to bring national wisdom tobear on congressional issues.

In 1981, OTA worked on more than 30 assessments that, because of their scope and depth, typically require 1 to 2 years to complete. Work on the formal reports was accompanied by interim analytical papersand briefings, delivery of testimony in congressional hearings basedon current and past assessments, and technical memoranda. Numer-ous discussions were held with senior analysts and policymakers, in-

cluding officials from other nations who sought out OTA for adviceand counsel. An internal review was made of the methods of assess-ment and analysis being used not only at OTA but in other institu-tions, including private industry.

A Gl impse, Ahead

Satchel Paige once expressed his philosophy of life as “. . . Don’tlook back; something might be gaining on you . . . !“ Despite that ad-monition, we feel that it is essential both to look backward and for-ward in order to properly understand the present and to prepare forthe future. OTA has this dual responsibility. What, then, do we see

ahead?

A year ago I wrote of molecular biology and microelectronics astypifying the advanced areas of science and technology which willdeeply impact our personal and national life. I wrote of internationaland global impacts of human activity that constitute our growing in-terdependence.

It is easy to be pessimistic. Each year the technological capability of nations to do violence grows. Can mankind use its technological in-genuity to lessen the danger of conflict? Many nations are mortgagingtheir future by virtue of providing goods and services at a rate that isnot sustainable over time. What are our options to build a long-term

sustainable world economy? In the past, dire outlooks for the futurehave more often than not been diverted by the exercise of human in-ventiveness through technology. What new options can technology of-fer to turn the tide? What are our best options to assure adequateenergy and other resources for the United States? How can we bestassist other nations in their struggle for economic growth? To what




extent can we provide a high material standard of living while main-taining a high standard of environmental quality? Our hope for futuresuccess lies “. . . not in our stars but in ourselves . . .“ (apologies toShakespeare’s Mark Antony)–i.e., in the unfathomed potential of human inventiveness.

Our best hopes for the future, once focused on the seemingly infinite

West and on rich natural resources, now lie substantially in theesoteric world of nuclei, atoms, molecules—a microscopic world of crystal lattices, big molecules, and quantum theory. This microrealmis a world that few p eople are presently p rivileged to u nd erstand evensuperficially, and yet all are affected deeply by the technologies thatemerge from it.

The increasing gulf between accelerating developments of scientificand technological knowledge on the one hand and the level of scien-tific literacy of our citizens on the other creates a need for dispas-sionate analysis and information transfer. OTA’S job in this context isto continue to show that complex and controversial issues can be sub-

jected to analysis that is accurate, understandable, and useful to Con-gress. Such analysis is the necessary foundation on which effectivenational policy can be built.



Sect ion I l . -Year in Review

The assessments carried out by OTA cover a wide spectrumof major issues before Congress and the country. They examinea broad range of policy options and their potential impacts. To

provide examples of the breadth and depth of OTA’S work,summaries of reports published by the Office in 1981 arepresented in this section. Also included are summaries of Background Papers and Technical Memoranda issued by OTAon specific subjects analyzed in recent OTA reports or on proj-ects in progress at OTA. Background Papers and TechnicalMemoranda are neither reviewed nor approved by the Technol-ogy Assessment Board.

The reader is cautioned that these are summaries of reports.They do not cover the full range of options considered or all of the findings presented in any individual report.

Techno logy fo r Local Development

Appropriate technology (AT) has been proposed by some as a solu-tion to many of the social and economic problems created by large-

& , A - . . - , . .

scale, centralized technology. Ideally, ATemphasizes small-scale, energy efficiency,environmental soundness, community con-trol, labor (rather than capital) intensiveness,and local resources.

The AT projects examined in OTA’S ex-ploratory study exhibit a great diversity insize, complexity, and location. They rangefrom attached solar greenhouses in NewMexico to a plant that converts municipalwaste to steam heat in Akron, Ohio; from aheat-retentive house designed for low-in-come families in Alaska to a cooperativefarmers’ market in Louisiana; and from an

innovative wastewater treatment plant in California to small-scalehydroelectric dams in New England.

These AT projects were generally successful in achieving localgoals and involving local residents in the planning, construction, andmanagement of their facilities. Several projects provided marketabletraining and work experience, and others improved the viability of ex-isting local enterprises, notably the small family farm.

9



I0 q Annual Report to the Congress for 1981

At the community level, these technologies promise considerablebenefits in three substantive areas: 1) improving the delivery and re-ducing or stabilizing the cost of community services; 2) improving theprofitability of small-scale agriculture; and 3) improving energy effi-ciency.

If these and similar projects are widely replicated, they could lead to

significant benefits on the national level, including:energy conservation in the residential sector, which currently ac-counts for over 20 percent of U.S. consumption;lower production costs and more profitable marketing techniquesfor small-scale farmers, which might help to slow the conversionof the Nation’s farmlands to nonagricultural uses;lower costs and greater flexibility in upgrading the Nation’s sew-age treatment facilities, whose costs might otherwise be beyondthe available resources of Federal, State, and local governments;increased generating capacity at abandoned or underused dam-sites, which could substantially increase the Nation’s supply of hydroelectric power; andsignificant savings or improved delivery in community healthcare services.

Many existing Federal policies and programs have been relativelysuccessful in encouraging the development and adoption of AT proj-ects like those examined. On the basis of these case studies, there appears to be no need for new legislation or major increased Federal in-volvement, though existing programs could be made more effective infour specific areas: 1) gathering reliable data on the design, cost, andperformance of the technologies; 2) disseminating this informationthrough regional demonstration projects and through the encourage-ment of local networking; 3) technical assistance, including communi-

ty workshops for individuals and planning aids for municipalities;and 4) financial assistance, such as tax credits or cost-sharing for indi-viduals and risk guarantees or tax-free financing for municipalities.

These case studies suggest that individuality, ingenuity, and localinitiative are far from lacking in the United States.



Sect ion I I—Year in Review q 11

lmpac ts o f App l ied Genet ics ; Micro-Organisms,

Plants, and An ima ls

New genetic technologies developed in the last 10 years will have amaior commercial impact on the pharmaceutical, chemical, and food

processing industries, probably in that order.These technologies, already in use in severalindustries, offer fresh approaches to fillingbasic needs such as health care, and foodand energy supply. At the same time, theyarouse concerns about possible r isks tohealth and the environment and the effectson human values.

Genetic technologies open up new possi-bilities for developing vaccines for such in-tractable diseases as hepatitis and malaria.The availability of any one of these vaccines

would improve the lives of tens of millions of people. Other pharmaceutical products like-

ly to be affected in the next_ 10 to 20 years are most antibiotics, en-zymes, antibodies, and many hormones.

The economic impact of genetic technologies on the chemical in-dustry within the next 20 years is estimated at billions of dollars peryear and cuts across the entire spectrum of chemical groups. These in-clude pIastic and resin materials, synthetic rubber, pesticides, and theprimary products from petroleum that serve as the raw materials forthe synthesis of organic chemicals.

Large-scale availability of enzymes, made possible through genetic

technologies, will play an increasing role in the food processing indus-try. Genetic techniques can transform inedible biomass into food forhumans or animals and otherwise aid in the processing of food.

The application of genetic technologies to plants, combined withclassical breeding methods, offers the promise of increased yield, re-sistance to disease, and improved nutritional value. Genetic technol-ogies will probably not be used directly to affect animal productionand products within the next 10 years. However, applications in theproduction of animal vaccines and hormones will likely be significantwithin that period.

Genetically engineered micro-organisms may be developed for usein three areas that require their large-scale release into the environ-ment: oil recovery, pollution control, and mineral leaching. Technicalconstraints and questions about potential effects on human health andthe environment are a major obstacle to their use.

No evidence exists that any unexpected harmful genetically engi-neered organism has been created. Still, few experts believe that mo-lecular genetic techniques are totally without risk to health and the en-




vironment. National Institutes of Health guidelines and current Fed-eral laws appear adequate in most cases to deal with any risks. How-ever, there is uncertainty about the regulation of production methodsusing engineered micro-organisms or their intentional release into theenvironment for those cases where the risk is not clear.

Last year’s Supreme Court decision to allow human-tailored orga-

nisms to be patented will stimulate their commercial use. However,the option left room for Congress to overrule the decision, develop acomprehensive statutory approach, and decide which organisms, if any, should be patentable.

Current industry activity in genetics indicates that sufficient capitalis available for specific production objectives. But some high-risk orlow-profit areas of interest to society, such as pollution control or en-hanced oil recovery, may need Government promotion if they are tobe developed.

Nuclear Powerp lan t Standard iza t ion

Standardization of nuclear powerplants can bean essential elementin maintaining a viable and safe program for nuclear energy. Virtually

all of the existing 71 U.S. nuclear power-plants were uniquely designed and engi-neered by many different companies underchanging regulatory demands, utility de-sires, and industrial standards. Navy reac-tors have been m ore nearly standard ized, butthis experience is not directly applicable tocommercial powerplants. Therefore, there isno experience that explicitly proves thatstandardizing reactors would improve pub-lic safety. Nevertheless, the belief that safetybenefits would result is intuitively valid andwidely accepted by experts includ ing the nu-clear industry.

Some of the advantages of reducing diversity via standardizationare that designers and safety analysts could better focus their effortson perfecting existing designs; the licensing process could be stabi-lized; and the process for evaluating and implementing safety modifi-cations for operating plants could be improved.

There has already been a significant consolidation of designs by

each company involved. This trend would be greatly accelerated bysingle-stage licensing. Utilities could then order plants with preap-proved designs and would have to get only site-specific features li-censed. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) could unilaterallyimplement single-stage licensing, but this change would be ac-celerated by congressional encouragement.




U.S. Industr ia l Compet i t iveness: A Compar ison ofSteel , Elect ron ics, and Autom obi les

A reorientation of Federal industrial policy could help the perform-ance of the U.S. economy. Government policies that affect the interna-

tional competitiveness of American indus-try—including those dealing with trade,taxes, technology, and regulation—sufferfrom fragmentation and lack of continuity.This puts U.S. industry at a disadvantagecompared to several of our international ri-vals. There are no “quick fixes” to problemsof economic efficiency and productivity, butunless the Government takes positive action,U.S. competitiveness will probably continueto deteriorate.

Although the causes differ, U.S. competi-

tiveness in steel, electronics, and auto-mobiles has in fact declined. Steelmaker are

still closing facilities, steelworkers losing their jobs. Many of the TVsets—and all of the home video recorders—sold in the United Statesare now imported. In 1980, as American automobile firms lost morethan $4 billion, imports from Japan continued to-rise.

In steel, productivity has not grown fast enough to offset risingwage levels. Public policies have not directly addressed moderniza-tion and productivity improvement.

Even in high technology portions of the electronics industry—suchas computers and semiconductors—domestic firms have been unable

to maintain the technological advantages on which their leadership inworld markets depends. Government policies in support of R&D andinnovation have had only limited positive effects on high technologyindustries—although the future strength of the U.S. economy dependson their continued success.

The automobile market in the United States has turned away fromthe larger cars that have been the heart of the domestic industry. Thesuddenness of this shift, which caught American automakers by sur-prise, was caused in part by Government policies that kept gasolinecheap and plentiful during the mid-1970’s.

In all three industries, the conditions of international trade andcompetition are changing, with overseas rivals getting stronger.

Improving productivity, economic efficiency, and competitivenesshave seldom been conscious objectives of Government policymakers.Such objectives cut across the jurisdictions of many congressionalcommittees. Fashioning a more coherent industrial policy may re-quire that Congress create a new institutional focus such as a selectcommittee or task force. That new focus would enable Congress to ex-




plicitly consider the impacts of particular policies on the competitive-ness of U.S. industries. Such policies include: taxes, for example,modified depreciation schedules for industrial plant and equipment;regulation, such as automobiles standard-setting; technology, for in-stance, Government funding supporting the education and training of engineers and scientists; and trade—e.g., export financing and export

trading companies.Moving toward a more consciously developed industrial policy does

not imply Government picking “winners” and “losers” or relying onaid or support for certain sectors or firms. It does imply a broad re-direction of policies affecting technology and innovation; savings andcapitol investment; regulation, education, training, and economic ad-

justment; and international trade. Such an approach–which OTAterms “macroindustrial policy” —could help to maintain and strength-en U.S. competitiveness, increase employment opportunities and liv-ing standards, and moderate inflation.

Environment factors have contributed to as much as 90 percent of recent cancer, according to estimates made in the last two decades.

‘The “environment,” by definition, includ esa l l i n f l u e n c e s e x c e p t i n b o r n g e n e t i c f a c t o r s ,

ASSESSM ENT OF I and represents cancer causes that are, atTECHNOLOGIES least theoretically, modifiable. At present,

FOR DETERMININ GCANCER RISKS FROM however, specific factors are associated with

THE ENVIRONMENT less than half of all cancers.

Cigarette smoking is the cause of more

cancer than any other known environmentalagent. Occupational exposure to asbestosand some chemicals, some medical drugs, al-cohol consumption, and exposure to radia-

= - -t ion also cause signif icant but smallerproportions of the total cancer burden. Dietis associated with a large fraction of cancer,

but little is known about the mechanisms involved. Major naturalcomponents of food, such as fat, are considered more important thanadditives and contaminants. Viruses, aspects of sexual and reproduc-tive behavior, air and water pollution, and consumer products arelinked to some cancers.

During the last half century, lung cancer mortality has increaseddramatically in all races and sexes, accounting for all but a small partof the overall cancer mortality increase, Changes in mortality fromcancer at other body sites have been smaller; some rising and somefalling. Rates are higher and trends less favorable for blacks than forwhites.




Epidemiologic methods are used to link cancers with exposures andbehaviors that, in many cases, took place decades earlier. Because of such long-delayed effects, epidemiology cannot be used to predictwhether newly introduced exposures of lifestyle changes will causecancer. The public health goal of disease prevention and congres-sional mandates to reduce existing exposures and to protect against

new hazards necessitate using laboratory methods to identify carcino-gens.

The search for less expensive, quicker replacements for animaltests, which are accepted as predictive of human risk, but cost up to $1million and 5 years to complete, has produced more than 100 different“short-term” tests. Certain of these tests are now used by industry forscreening new chemicals, but no one test nor any known combinationof tests is accepted as a substitute for animal tests. The use of short-term tests as a basis for regulation faces stern opposition, and is, atbest, some years off.

Extrapolation methods have been developed to project estimates of

human risk from laboratory results. The Federal Government uses anextrapolation model that attaches a higher risk to a given exposurelevel than do most other models. Some critics contend that it overesti-mates risk. At present, given limited scientific agreement, the choiceof a model is a policy decision.

About 100 substances have been regulated as carcinogens underlaws providing for reductions in carcinogenic exposures. However,uncertainties accompanying test data and risk estimates, as well asquestions about benefits associated with some carcinogens, compli-cate regulatory decision-making.

Congressional issues include: gathering information about the oc-currence of cancer; the distribution of carcinogenic risks; testing forcarcinogenicity; and changes in the process used to make technicaldecisions for regulatory purposes.



Section / l—Year In Review q 17

MX Missi le Basing

Five different basing modes for the MX missile appear to offer theprospect of providing survivability and meeting established perform-

ance criteria for intercontinental ballisticmissiles (ICBMS). These are: multiple protec-

tive shelter (MPS) basing; MPS basing de-fended by a low-altitude antiballistic missile(ABM) system called LoADS; basing MXmissiles in silos and relying on launchingthem before they could be destroyed by a So-viet attack (launch under attack, or LUA];basing MX on small submarines; and air mo-bile basing in which MX missiles would bee jec ted f rom wide -bodied a i r c ra f t andlaunched in midair. But each of these alter-natives has serious risks and drawbacks, andno basing mode is likely to provide a substan-

tial number of survivable MX missiles much before 1990.MPS basing would preserve the characteristics and improve the ca-

pabilities of present land -based ICBMS. The su rvivability of MX/ MPSwould depend on successfully concealing the location of a few hun-dred missiles among thousands of shelters. Confidence in the UnitedStates’ ability to do this will be limited until prototypes have beentested; if the Soviets elected to continue to increase their inventory of warheads through the 1980’s, more missiles and shelters would haveto be added to the Carter administration’s proposed “baseline” MPSsystem of ZO O missiles and 4,600 shelters to ensure MX survivability.MPS would have severe socioeconomic and physical impacts on the

deployment region, and could result in the loss of thousands of squaremiles of productive rangeland.

Adding LoADS to an MPS system could be effective in forcing theSoviets to attack each shelter with two warheads only if both ABM de-fense and the MX missiles could be hidden from the Soviets and if theABM defense system could work in the midst of exploding warheads.It is not now certain that these conditions can be met.

Basing MX missiles in silos and relying on launching them beforethey could be destroyed (LUA) would be technically feasible. How-ever, LUA would require that the President be in continuous contactwith the warning sensors and the strategic forces, and that he be pre-pared to make launch decisions quickly on the basis of informationfrom remote sensors. Possible results of LUA errors include a success-ful Soviet first strike or an accidental nuclear war; consequently evena small possibility of error is an important consideration.

Deployment of MX missiles on small submarines would provide theUnited States with military capabilities nearly as good as land basingoptions. Such submarines would be highly survivable today and




against all future antisubmarine warfare (ASW) threats that OTA wasable to project. Small submarine basing would place far greater impor-tance on the sea-based portion of U.S. strategic forces than in the past.This could have serious consequences if an unforeseen Soviet strate-gic ASW capability were developed.

Air mobile MX basing would be highly survivable provided that the

aircraft took off immediately after receiving warning of an attack. If the Soviets chose to attack all of the airfields at which the aircraftcould land and refuel, the United States would have to “use or lose”air-mobile-based MX missiles within the first 5 to 8 hours of a war.

The cost of the baseline MX/ MPS deploym ent to th e year 2000 is es-timated by OTA in fiscal year 1980 dollars at $43 billion and couldgrow to more than $80 billion if the system were expanded to morethan 12,000 shelters to cope with a plausible 1995 Soviet arsenal. Add-ing an ABM defense would reduce costs of meeting high future Sovietthreats by 10 to 20 percent. Small submarine basing costs are esti-mated to be about $39 billion; the size of the force would not have tobe expanded to meet an increased Soviet threat. Costs of an LUA sys-tem including the MX missile, warning sensors, and communicationssystems would be $15 billion to $20 billion.

Technology and Oceanography

Federal ocean research efforts to explore the ocean cost more than$2.5 billion in fiscal year 1980. Some 90 programs conducted primar-

ily by eight Federal agencies range from ba-sic science to resource development to theprotection of the marine environment. Yet

there is no comprehensive effort to plan andcoordinate the development of new technol-ogies to advance these programs.

Oceanographic research is complex; nosingle technology system is best su ited for itstasks. Federally supported technologies in-clude ships, satellites, buoys, submersibles,and other vehicles, as well as independentinstrument systems. However, most expertsagree that ocean engineering capabilities areinadequate and that important technology

development work is not receiving needed attention in some key Fed-eral agencies.

Congressional initiatives may be necessary to strengthen oceantechnology development. For example, Congress could: establish acentral office to support future ocean technology development in oneor more agencies with authority to provide the expertise and projectmanagement capabilities for specific missions or program needs; call




for an evaluation of specific technology development needs not beingmet by established offices; establish an interagency ocean engineeringstrategy group with authority for technology transfer and other pro-ductive coordinating functions.

Most ocean research has been conducted from ships. New technol-ogies have not replaced the need for ships but, instead, have identifiednew and more productive ways to use them. Yet Federal funding forthe oceanographic fleet of about 79 ships has declined rapidly. Thefleet is not being adequately maintained or upgraded, is decreasing insize, and will require replacement or rehabilitation over the next 20years. The capabilities of the Federal fleet will continue to degradewithout new funds or more efficient arrangements that reduce costs.Several years of debate have failed to resolve whether more central-ized management systems with greater Federal control would pro-duce savings greater than their additional cost, especially when fund-ing today is already unable to meet the costs of the existing system.

In the future, increased attention will be given to remotely operatedand other unmanned vehicles, buoy systems and moored systems, as

appropriate, for many specialized ocean data collection and monitor-ing tasks. New data links with satellites are making buoys and mooredsystems more effective.

Major satellite systems for oceanography could become the domi-nant thrust in ocean technology in the next two decades. The new Na-tional Oceanic Satellite System, now in planning, offers the potentialof substantial improvements in ocean data gathering, but its projectedtotal development cost of almost $1 billion makes current budgetarysupport doubtful.

Federal programs have not given adequate attention to the handlingof oceanographic data, collected at great expense, for public use. Ex-

isting data systems are not meeting the research needs of many ocean-ographers. Satellites and other remote sensing systems with the poten-tial for generating large volumes of data will compound one area of data management in the future.




Patent -Term Extension

Proposals to extend patent terms for products subject to premarket-ing regulations would, if implemented, provide additional incentives

for conducting pharmaceutical research anddevelopment (R&D). But evidence is insuffi-cient to determine whether these incentivesby themselves would appreciably increasepharmaceutical innovation.

Patents were intended to promote innova-tion by providing inventors with the right toexclude others from making, using, or sellinga patented invention. Because drug devel-opers usually obtain patents before theirdrugs have been approved by the Food andDrug Administration, the length of the ap-proval process can directly affect the lengthof time during the patent term that a new

pharmaceutical is marketed (the effective patent term).

Drug developers believe that pharmaceutical research is becomingless profitable as a result of shorter effective patent terms, governmen-tal actions encouraging competition from drugs generically equiva-lent to drugs with expired patents, and higher costs of research.

To date, the profits of the pharmaceutical industry have remainedhigh, revenues have increased steadily, and R&D expenditures haveincreased to levels which more than compensate for the inflation inbiomedical research costs. However, the effects of the decline in effec-tive patent terms and the increased competition resulting from Gov-ernment actions may not have been fully felt.

Patent-term extension has numerous implications for society, indus-try, and innovation. The extension would increase the attractivenessof research on drugs for large markets; it would not increase theeconomic attractiveness of research on drugs for small markets.

Drugs with extended patent terms would generate additional reve-nues when the majority of the proposed extensions are to begin in the1990’s. The long-term stability of the relationship between R&D ex-penditures and revenues suggests that increases in research activitieswould not occur until that time and that 8 or 9 percent of the addi-tional revenues generated would be spent on R&D activities. Industryspokesmen maintain that increased R&D expenditures could be ex-pected sooner because firms would make their research decisions onthe basis of anticipated increases in revenues.

As a result of patent-term extension, the prices of drugs whose pat-ents are extended would be higher during the extended period thanthey would have been without the extension. Consumers would, how-ever, benefit if more and better pharmaceuticals were developed. It is




expected that both the benefits and the additional costs would affectthe elderly and the chronically ill more than other segments of society.

Patent-term extension would delay and in some cases prevent theentry of firms primarily selling drugs that are generically equivalent todrugs with expired patents. The revenues of these firms are deter-mined by the remaining market value of drugs with expired pat-

ents—and because of reduced marketing time—the remaining marketvalues would be reduced.

Solar Power Sate l l i tes

Although it appears technically feasible for satellites to supply elec-tric power to the Earth in the next century, there is too little informa-

tion currently available to make a sound de-cision on whether to develop a solar powersatellite (SPS) system.

A research program could provide this in-

formation. However, the urgency of pursu-ing SPS research depends less on resolvingtechnical diff icult ies than on the futuregrowth rate of electricity demand, the rela-tive cost and flexibility of competing electricsupply technologies, and the speed withwhich the major uncertainties about the SPScan be resolved.

The SPS concept envisions collecting solarenergy in space and transmitting it to Earth

for conversion to electrical power. ‘Microwaves, infrared laser, and

mirror reflection have all been suggested as transmission modes.Although it is not yet possible to choose an optimum SPS system, sev-eral alternatives to the reference system used for study by the NationalAeronautics and Space Adm inistration/ Department of Energy offersignificant improvements in size, cost, and feasibility.

Major uncertainties are associated with each of the proposed sys-tems. Predominant among these are the environmental and health ef-fects of transmitting energy, the size and location of receivers onEarth, the health risks to space workers from ionizing radiation, andthe potential interference with other users of the electromagneticspectrum. In addition, the high cost, complexity, and possible militaryimpacts of SPS involve institutional and political considerations.

Any SPS system would also raise sensitive questions of interna-tional law and trade. Since developing SPS as a multinational ratherthan a unilateral system could provide significant economic and po-litical advantages, these issues should be taken into account in SPSplanning.

The cost estimates to demonstrate a full-scale SPS for the systemsstudied by OTA exceed $100 billion. Although these estimates are now




uncertain, demonstration costs are likely to be at least $40 billion (incurrent dollars). These costs are unlikely to come down for the genera-tion of systems now under study, although it is possible that further in-novations may reduce these estimates.

OTA also compared several potential future electricity sources: nu-clear breeder, fusion, solar thermal, solar photovoltaics, and SPS. Itfound that while the capital costs and uncertainties are high for allthese technologies, they are highest for fusion and SPS.

If future growth of demand for electricity is expected to be low, it isnot necessary to initiate a specific SPS research program at this time.However, it maybe desirable to designate an agency to track researchapplicable to SPS, review trends in electricity demand, and monitorthe progress of other electrical supply technologies.

A dedicated SPS research program, started now, might range be-tween $5 million and $30 million per year. Research should focus onthose areas most critical to SPS economic, technical, and environmen-tal feasibility with particular attention to analysis of alternative SPS

systems. Since the feasibility to SPS also depends on its social, politi-cal, international, and institutional acceptability, these aspects shouldbe part of any research program.

Computer-Based Nat iona l Informa t i o n S y s t e m

Computers have become a major technological tool of American so-ciety during the last quarter of a century. Recent developments in

computer and communication technologypromise within this decade an even moreradical revolution in the way that informa-

tion is collected, stored, used, and dissemi-nated. These advances offer new Opportuni-ties, for example, to improve productivity inthe manufacturing and service sectors of theeconomy.

The development and use of computer-based national information systems—such asthose already integral to air traffic control,military command and control, and electron-ic funds transfer—will be accelerated by ma-

jor continuing advances in microelectronics,

computer programing, and data communication. Small computerswill become common in the home and business. Corporations willcompete intensively to provide computer-based information services.The number and size of computer networks linking users and databases anywhere in the country or the world will expand dramatically.

At the same time, computer-based information systems are generat-ing public policy issues at a rate that maybe outstripping the ability of



Sect ion I I—Year In Review q 23

the Federal Government to respond. The United States appears to lack a coherent “information policy” to guide the updating of the numer-ous laws and regulations, some overlapping and some potentially oractually conflicting, that affect the operators and users of informationsystems. Responsibility for setting policy is diffused throughoutvarious agencies of the executive branch and committees of Congress.

Continued innovation in information technology is a prime requi-site for a healthy information industry that is competitive in the worldmarket. It also offers the tools for improving the productivity of manysectors of the economy. Innovation depends on support for researchand development on civilian applications of computer technology, vi-tality of academic computer science, and support for research on theimpact of computers (e.g., the impact on employment).

New computer applications—such as an automated securities ex-change, in-home information services, electronic publishing, and elec-tronic mail—may introduce policy issues over secondary use of per-sonal information, surveillance, and the possible need for new

approaches to the protection of individual privacy. Also, the increas-ingly complicated systems now being designed and built will magnifythe need for adequate protection of Federal information systems andvital non-Federal systems, and for the development of improved datasecurity and cryptographic capability.

Large-scale information systems may also affect” Federal decision-making (the “automated bureaucracy”), constitutional rights (espe-cially first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights), computer-relatedcrime, international negotiations over the transborder flow of infor-mation and regulatory boundaries and definitions for computer-baseddevices and services.




Development and Production Poton t ia l o f

Federa l coal Leases

Coal production from mines that include currently existing Federalcoal leases [“Federal mines”) could increase from 138 million tons in

,,

Other major factors are

1979 (about 15 percent of national produc-

tion) to between 410 million tons and 500million tons by 1991. Whether or not coalproduction will actually rise that far dependsboth on overall market demand and on com-petition from non-Federal mines and pro-duction from new Federal leases. The extentof increased market demand, not the avail-ability of leased coal reserves, is expected todetermine the amount of coal that will beproduced from existing Federal coal leases.

The rate of growth in demand for electrici-ty will probably be the single most importantfactor affecting demand for Western coal.coal transportation availability and cost and

the growth of nonutility markets for coal, such as for-industrial use,synfuel production, and foreign exports.

Over 50 percent of the coal produced in 1979 from mines with Fed-eral coal leases came from the Powder River basin of Wyoming andMontana, which has 56 percent of the Federal reserves under lease. In1979, Federal mines in the Powder River basin had the capacity to pro-duce an additional 75 million tons over what was actually mined. De-mand for Powder River basin coal is likely to increase significantlyover the next decade. However, production capacity from existing

Federal leases and non-Federal coal properties in the basin could alsoincrease substantially. As a result, there is potential for continued sig-nificant overcapacity in the Powder River basin over the next decade.Consequently, there is considerable debate about the timing, extent,and location of renewed large-scale leasing of Federal coal lands inthat region. In contrast, little overcapacity is expected in the SouthernRocky Mountain coal regions during the same period. During the1990’s, demand for Western and Federal coal may grow rapidly, par-ticularly if coal-based synfuels and exports of coal to foreign countriesbecome important.

The Federal Government owns about 60 percent of the coal reservesin the Western States. By 1980, a total of 812,000 acres and over 16.5billion tons of recoverable coal reserves in 14 States had been leased.More than 99 percent of these leased Federal reserves are in Colorado,Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyo-ming. The OTA report focuses on potential production from the 548leases in these seven States.

In 1980, 189 of these 548 leases, with 7.4 billion tons of recoverablereserves, were part of active mines. Another 118 existing leases (2.5




billion tons) with proposed mine plans pending approval could beginproducing in the mid-1980’s. No mine plans had yet been submittedfor 241 leases. However, 75 of these leases (3.6 billion tons) are likelyto be in production by 1991; another 65 leases (2.3 billion tons) couldbegin by 1991 contingent on markets for coal, including demand forsynthetic fuels, and on railroad construction. There are 101 leases,

with about 5 percent of the reserves, that are unlikely to be devel-oped because of poor reserves, remote location, or environmentalproblems.

Less than 1 percent of currently leased Federal reserves are likely tobe prohibited from mining because of environmental regulations con-cerning air quality, water resources, alluvial valley floors, return toapproximate original contour, and wildlife. Mining of between 5 and10 percent of leased reserves could be delayed because of unresolvedenvironmental questions, but available evidence indicates that mostcan be mined.

Techno logy and Sov ie t Energy Ava i Iab i l i t y

No U.S. policy of restricting Soviet access to energy technology islikely to succeed unless U.S. allies change their present views of their

interests in this matter. A policy intended tobolster Soviet energy production would notsucceed without s ignif icant changes inSoviet economic policy. A course of actionseeking maximum commercial advantage for

the United States in energy equipment saleswould be aided by making the export licens-ing process more predictable.

The vast majority of the U. S. S.R.’S energy-related imports of technology are destinedfor its oil and natural gas industries, but itobtains most of these from sources outsidethe United States. There are a few energytechnologies solely available from the United

States, and a few instances in which U.S. equipment is preferred. Butexcept for advanced computers, the U.S.S.R. is either not purchasingthese items, is on the way to acquiring domestic production capabil-ities, or has demonstrated that such imports are not essential. More-over, the United States does not produce the large diameter pipethat constitutes the U. S. S.R.’S single most important energy-relatedimport.

Western technology has been and will continue to be important toSoviet energy development. In the long term, Western explorationtechnology and equipment may be crucial to the oil industry. But the




most vital area for such Western assistance is equipment for the con-struction of large diameter gas pipelines. This is the only area inwhich Soviet energy-related imports might be described as “massive.”

Contrary to common belief, oil is not the key to Soviet energy per-formance in this decade. The relevant question is not how much oilthe U.S.S.R. can produce by 1990, but how much energy. Predicting

future Soviet energy production is a tenuous exercise, but to the extentthat plausible outcomes can be identified, the Soviet’s own goal of asmall rise in oil output by 1985 is reasonable. On the other hand, pros-pects for the Soviet coal industry are poor; even the relatively modest1985 targets are excessively optimistic. Soviet targets for nuclearpower are overly optimistic—not because of lack of know -how, but be-cause of shortcomings in the efficiency and capacity of producing therequired equipment and constructing power stations. OTA also foundthat potentially large savings through energy conservation are notlikely to be achieved.

Gains in total energy production will therefore have to come from

gas. Proven Soviet gas reserves may be likened to the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. This is the energy sector with the best prospects andperformance record, and Soviet planners have accorded it high invest-ment priority.

Gains in gas output could more than compensate—both in energyvalue and in hard currency earnings—for slowing growth in oil pro-duction. It is therefore highly unlikely that the Soviet Union itself orthe Soviet bloc as a whole will become a net energy importer in the1980’s.

The extent to which the U.S.S.R. can capitalize on its tremendousgas potential will depend on its ability to substitute gas for oil, i.e., toconvert to gas in boiler and industrial applications, and to add to the

gas pipeline network. The rate of construction of new pipelines, bothfor domestic use and for export, is the most important determinant of the extent to which Soviet gas can be utilized.

Energy availability is a critical factor in the growth of the SovietUnion’s domestic economy; energy exports provide over half of Soviethard currency receipts; and subsidized energy sales to Eastern Europeare vital tools of Soviet influence in that region. From the perspectiveof Japan and some countries in Western Europe, Soviet energy indus-tries are important customers for equipment and technology and asource of energy supplies.




U.S. food and Agr icu l tura l Research S y s t e m

The structure of the U.S. food and agricultural research system mayneed to be changed if it is to function effectively and to meet the in-

creased demand on its resources,

The United States is widely recognized as

a leader in agricultural research largely be-cause of technologies developed through sus-tained public support. Scientists now areconcerned that new technologies may not bekeeping pace with domestic and worldneeds. Unless major breakthroughs occur innew technologies, the world food problem islikely to worsen.

However, the U.S. food and agricultural re-search system is working under a number of constraints that diminish its effectiveness.These include lack of well-defined national

agricultural goals, lack of a national research priorities process,underinvestment in research, confusion over roles of research partici-pants, and a structure that inhibits the system from having a nationalresearch focus.

Lack of well-defined, achievable national goals for U.S. food andagriculture is a major deterrent to formulating a national policy toguide the research community in planning its agenda. Present goalsare implicit but ambiguous and open-end ed, such as to provide an am-ple supply of food. But this has little meaning in the absence of anagreement on what constitutes an ample supply. Explicit, well-defined and achievable goals could be set—either by the research com-munity or by Government. If set by Government, public agencies andindustry could respond by planning and conducting research thatwould more adequately meet national needs.

The United States has no satisfactory long-term process for evaluat-ing existing research activities, potential research opportunities, anddevelopment of research priorities. Decisions are made on an ad hocbasis with insufficient coordination among Federal and State agen-cies. The research system could benefit from preparation of a nationalresearch agenda that could be updated at scheduled intervals.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) research expenditures areproportionately the smallest of any major Federal research agencyand have remained level in constant dollars since 1967. Yet, the de-

mands on agricultural research have increased and the cost of con-ducting research has increased substantially. The executive branchand Congress could reassess whether existing funding priorities inagriculture support are appropriate.

Under the present research structure, USDA’s role is associatedwith broad regional, national, and international activities, and the




State agricultural experiment stations with local, State, and regionalproblems, insofar as Federal funds are concerned. However, consider-able overlap exists and there is increasing concern that national issuesare not receiving adequate attention. The OTA study presents a vari-ety of options for congress to strengthen and clarify the roles of re-search participants.

USDA’s structure hinders its ability to manage and conduct re-search with a national focus and to be fully responsible to the agricul-tural needs and interests of the United States. However, within thepast few months, the executive branch has moved to improve some as-pects of research management within USDA, particularly in its for-mer Science and Education Administration. Still needed are im-proved procedures for managing research in the Agricultural Re-search Service and the Cooperative State Research Service.

The Agency for International Development (AID), the prime Federalagency involved in strengthening agriculture in developing nations,lacks the adequate technical skills and management structure for han-dling the job effectively. The OTA study indicates that AID could ben-efit through the establishment of technical bureaus centered aroundthe major thrusts of AID programs. and by increased use of USDA as atechnical resource.

C o s t E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f i n f l u e n z a Vacc ina t ion

Influenza vaccination is a low-cost method of preventing illness andreducing productivity losses. Vaccination benefits all age groups, but

is most cost effective among ‘high-risk per-sons, i.e., the elderly and those with pre-existing illnesses. Yet, the use of influenzavaccination is still at too low a level for soci-ety to reap substantially its potential bene-

fits.Over the period of 1971-78, approximately150 million influenza vaccinations resultedin about 13 more years of healthy life. Thiswas achieved at a cost of $63 per year of lifegained, and, according to this OTA analysis,about $386 million in potential productivitylosses were averted.

During the same period, influenza causedan estimated 127,000 deaths and cost about $1 billion for medicaltreatment. The illness also resulted in an average of 15 million days of work loss at an estimated productivity loss of $764 million in each of

those years.Although vaccination is the medically preferred method of prevent-

ing the illness, influenza vaccine has never received widespread ac-ceptance by either health professionals or the public. Throughoutmost of the 1970’s only 10 percent of the Nation’s population receivedinfluenza vaccine; further, only about 20 percent of the populationmost susceptible to influenza-related illness were vaccinated. How-




ever, in 1976-77 when the Federal Government launched the NationalInfluenza Immunization Program, these percentages doubled.

In spite of the incidence of the paralytic condition Guillain-BarreSyndrome (GBS) associated with the so-called “swine flu” vaccine in1976-77, influenza vaccines have proven to be quite safe. Subsequentto that year, the incidence of GBS among influenza vaccinees has been

virtually the same as that among nonvaccinees. About 5 percent of theadult vaccinees encounter a mild reaction. OTA estimates that theclinical effectiveness of influenza vaccine was about 60 percent in1971-78.

At present, the Federal Government spends little effort to promotethe use of influenza vaccine. Through its Food and Drug Administra-tion, the Government evaluates the safety and efficacy of influenzavaccine, and through the National Institutes of Health and Centers forDisease Control it finances epidemiologic and biomedical research oninfluenza and influenza vaccines.

If the Government decided to promote the use of influenza vaccine,it could do so in three ways:

q

q

q

The Public Health Service could fund a national campaign tostimulate private sector elements, e.g., health professionals, em-ployers, labor unions, and the public, to increase its use of thevaccine;Congress could appropriate Federal funds for support of annualnationwide influenza immunization programs analogous to feder-ally supported childhood immunization efforts; andCongress could authorize medicare to pay for influenza vaccina-tions.

92-921 0 - 82 - 3




TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS

Coa l Expor t and Por t Deve lopment

This Technical Memorandum explores four major issues: estimat-

ing the potential U.S. coal export market; development of foreigntrade policy; the Federal role in dredgingharbors; and the outlook for alternative tech-nologies that might facilitate coal exports.

Indications are that sizable increases in fu-ture U.S. coal exports are achievable if theFederal Government and the private sectorcooperate in encouraging these exports, andif developments in other countries do notdramatically alter present trends. However,without the development of a coherent, posi-tive coal export policy. the United States

risks losing a large share of the market toother coal-producing nations.

It is suggested that in order to promoteU.S. coal exports, it is important reaffirm the U.S. commitment toincrease domestic coal production, improve the coal transportationnetwork, and encourage export trade. The resulting political climatewould reassure importing nations as they assess U.S. reliability as afuture coal trade partner.

OTA’S analysis indicates general agreement on the need for somechanges in Federal dredging policies. The economic rationale for re-covering dredging costs in some form of user fees from those who di-

rectly benefit is gaining acceptance. Technologies other than dredg-ing that facilitate coal exports will probably be approached with cau-tion by established industries because they are not perceived as near-term options. Alternative technologies include: coal slurry pipelines,midstream transfer of barges or ships, barge-carrying ships, pneumat-ic pipelines, and shallow-draft, wide-beam ships.




Pat terns and Trends in Federa l CoalLease Ownership, 1950-80

This Technical Memorandum is part of OTA’S congressionally man-dated study (Public Law 94-377] of current Federal coal leases. The

full OTA report published in December 1981is entitled: “Development and ProductionPotential of Federal Coal Leases.”

Since 1920, the Department of the Interiorhas conducted a leasing program throughwhich the private sector is given permissionto mine coal in Federal lands. Over the past60 years, about 17 billion tons of coal on790,000 acres have been leased. Land cur-rently under lease represents about 12 per-cent of the total coal reserves owned by theFederal Government. Federal coal lessees

are contributing an increasing share of thecoal industry’s total production—from 1 per-

cent in 1970 to 8 percent in 1979—when total production from leasedland was 60 million tons. Production on leased land is expected to in-crease substantially over the next 5 years.

The history of the 528 coal leases in effect at the end of 1979 istraced and focus is placed on the coal lessees themselves: who theyare, how and when they acquired Federal coal leases, and what theyhave done with those leases. Participants in the Federal coal leasingprogram between 1950 and 1980 are identified.

The number of lessees participating in the coal leasing program has

nearly doubled over the past 30 years and the total acreage of leasedland has increased eighteenfold. In 1950, unincorporated individualsand independent corporations held 72 percent of all land under lease.Today, the percentage of leased Federal coal acres they hold has de-creased to 31 percent. The holdings of subsidiary corporations, whichwere 26 percent of the 1950 total, have risen to 43 percent in 1980,Multicorporate entities, defined as either joint ventures or two ormore companies sharing interests in leases, now hold 25 percent of leased acreage, up from less than 1 percent in 1965.

The shifts in lease ownership have led to a greater variety of indus-tries holding Federal coal leases. For 1950, OTA identified only fourdistinct kinds of businesses, each of which held at least 5 percent of all

land under lease. Independent coal companies were the leading leaseholders. By 1980, nine distinct kinds of businesses were identified aseach holding at lease 5 percent of leased land, with electric utilitiesowning more Federal coal land than any other industry group. Inte-grated energy companies are the second largest lease holder today,with 20 percent of all acres under lease and producing 16 percent of all Federal coal.




Nonnuclear Industr ia l Waste: Classi fy ingfo r Hazard Management

The management, or mismanagement, of industrial waste presentsvarious levels of hazard to the Public. Nonnuclear industrial waste

ranges ‘from being relatively harmless tobeing so extremely hazardous that it mu st becompletely isolated from hu mans and the en-vironment, destroyed, or detoxified. Thistechnical memorandum is part of a compre-hensive assessment of nonnuclear industrialwaste scheduled for completion in 1982.

Some of the key findings of the OTA anal-ysis are: 1) A w ell-designed degree-of-hazardclassification system could provide a strat-egy for cost-effective management of non-nuclear industrial waste; 2) The objectives of

a classification system are to identify withgreater certainty those wastes that most se-

verely threaten human health and environment; and 3) the benefits of using degree-of-hazard classification include concentration of regula-tory action on the most hazardous wastes.




BACKGROUND PAPERS

Pol icy Imp l i ca t ions o f t he Computed

Tomography (c t ) Scanner : An update

At the request of the Senate Finance Committee, this backgroundpaper updates the 1978 OTA report, “Policy Implications of the Com-

puted Tomography (CT) Scanner.”

The United States has the greatest numberof CT scanners per population of any coun-try in the world. In May 1980, there were1,471 scanners, or 6.7 per million people.Within States, the number of scanners permillion varies from 12.8 in Nevada to 2.4 inSouth Carolina.

The dramatically rapid rate of scanner

diffusion (the process by which a technologyenters and becomes part of the health caresystem) during 1975 and 1976 set the stagefor OTA’S original study, An equally dramat-ic decline in this rate from 1978 through

1980 is the backdrop for the update.

The decline in the diffusion rate has occurred during a period of changes in Federal policies toward medical technology affecting ev-ery stage of research, development, diffusion, and use of CT scanners.

CT scanners, which combine X-ray equipment with a computer andTV-like picture tube to produce cross-section images of the humanbody, revolutionized diagnostic medicine in the United States whenfirst introduced in 1973. Over the past 7 years, new applications of ex-isting and new technologies have rapidly expanded the field of “diag-nostic imaging” (making pictures of the inside of the human body).R&D in this new field is described and information on new developments such as ultrasound and nuclear magnetic resonance scanners ispresented.

Some key issues are: Can the relative advantages of the differenttechnologies be demonstrated? Can Federal policies rationalize theuse of the many technologies? Will new technologies merely be addedon to existing methods, driving up costs and contributing only mar-ginal benefits to people’s health? An examination of public policy

toward CT scanning may indicate how far we are from having effec-tive policies to promote the efficient expenditure of our health caredollar.




The Impl icat ions of Cost -Ef fect ivenessAnaIys is of Medica l Technology

Analyzes the feasibility, implications, and usefulness of cost-effec-tiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in health care

decision-making, including the current andpoten tial use of CEA/ CBA or related tech-niques in six health care activities: reim-bursement programs, Professional Stand-ards Review Organizations, health planning,market approval for drugs and medical de-vices, R&D programs, and health mainte-nance organizations.

In add ition to the m ain report (published inAugust 1980), there are five background pa-pers: I) Methodological Issues and LiteratureReview, published September 1980; 2) Case

Studies of Medical Technologies, consistingo f 17 i n d i v id u a l ca s e s t u d i es , 15 of

which (listed below) were published in 1981. The final two casestudies (#9—The Artificial Heart; and #13—Cardiac Radionuclide Im-aging and Cost Effectiveness) are in press; 3) The Efficacy and Cost Ef-fectiveness of Psychotherapy, published October 1980; 4) The Management of Health Care Technology in Ten Countries, published October1980; and 5) Assessment of Four Common X-Ray Procedures, in press.

Case Study 1 : Formal Analysis, Policy Formulation, and End-Stage Renal Disease.—Examines two instances of the use of formalanalysis in the formulation of Government policies toward end-stage

renal disease (ESRD). Focus is on the work of two committees, whosereports were an integral part of the ESRD policy formulation processin 1966 and 1967: 1) the Gottschalk committee, advisory to the U.S.Bureau of the Budget; and 2) the Burton committee, internal to thePublic Health Service.

Case Study Z: The Feasibility of Economic Evaluation of Diag-nostic Procedures: The Case of CT Scanning.—Computed tomo-graphic (CT) scanning can now be used to detect diseases in otherparts of the body. The use of this diagnostic technology has initiated acontroversy of unprecedented proportions regarding tradeoff be-tween the benefits and costs of CT scanning.

Case Study 3: Screening for Colon Cancer: A Technology Assess-ment.—Examines the available technologies used to screen for cancerof the colon: their development, evaluation, cost effectiveness, anduse. Although cancer of the colon is second in frequency to cancer of the skin, second to cancer of the lung as a cause of death in men, andthe third most common cause of cancer death in women, it is overallthe most common of the “lethal” cancers.



Sect ion l I—Year in Review . 35

Case Study 4: Cost Effectiveness of Automated MultichannelChemistry Analyzers.—A multichannel chemistry analyzer is a tech-nology capable of performing many laboratory tests simultaneouslyon a single sample of serum at extremely high speeds. The study re-views the evidence concerning the cost effectiveness of the three car-diac enzyme tests used to diagnose heart attacks.

Case Study 5: Periodontal Disease: Assessing the Effectivenessand Costs of the Keyes Technique.–Over 90 percent of the adult population in the United States is at some time afflicted with some degreeof periodontal disease. The Keyes treatment technique essentially in-volves the use of simple and inexpensive oral hygiene measures andplaque (bacterial) control by the patient.

Case Study 6: The Cost Effectiveness of Bone Marrow TransplantTherapy and I ts Policy Implications.—Bone marrow transplant(BMT) therapy is a relatively new medical technology used to treataplastic anemia and acute leukemia. The data used in the case studyfor the CEA of BMT therapy were obtained from the UCLA Bone Mar-

row Transplantation Program and were collected on 107 patients withaplastic anemia and acute leukemia who were given BMT therapy.

Case Study 7: Allocating Costs and Benefits in Disease Preven-tion Programs: An Application to Cervical Cancer Screening.—Ex-amines the financial incentives of various interested parties to fundcervical cancer screening and examines the cost effectiveness of screening under various conditions.

Case Study 8: The Cost Effectiveness of Upper GastrointestinalEndoscopy. —Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy refers to looking atthe upper gastrointestinal tract from the esophagus to an upper por-tion of the small intestine. The instrument used is a flexible fiberoptic

endoscope.Case Study 10: The Costs and Effectiveness of Neonatal Inten-

sive Care.–Neonatal intensive care consists primarily of using highlysophisticated life-support systems to compensate for an infant’s lack of full development. The most common technologies are respiratorsand positive pressure breathing devices for treatment of respiratorydistress syndrome, a disorder caused by the infant being born beforethe lungs are ready for breathing air.

Case Study 1 1 : Benefit and Cost Analysis of Medical Interven-tions: The Case of Cimetidine and Peptic Ulcer Disease.—Peptic ul-cer is a common disease that affects millions of Americans at sometime during their lives. Since March 1978, cimetidine has been pre-scribed in approximately 60 percent of all ambulatory visits for ulcerdisease.

Case Study 12: Assessing Selected Respiratory Therapy Modal-ities: Trends and Relative Costs in the Washington, D. C., Area.—Inits analysis of trends in the use of different respiratory therapymethods, based on data from the Washington, D. C., area, the casestudy found that the number of IPPB treatments per 100 admissions




decreased about 70 percent, and ultrasonic nebulizer treatments ap-proximately 75 percent. The number of simple aerosol treatments in-creased over 300 percent and incentive spirometry treatments in-creased more than 100 percent.

Case Stud y 14: Cost Benefit/ Cost Effectiveness of Medical Tech-nologies: A Case Study of Orthopedic Joint Implants.—The purpose

of this study is the assessment of the feasibility and potential useful-ness of und ertaking cost-effectiveness/ cost benefit analysis (CEA/ CBA) of orthopedic joint prostheses.

Case Study 15: Elective Hysterectomy: Costs, Risks, and Bene-fits.—This study concludes that none of the analyses of the risks,costs, and benefits of hysterectomy has found it to be cost effective forsterilization or the prevention of uterine cancer. Most of the costs andrisks of hysterectomy occur in the present, whereas the savings andbenefits occur when uterine diseases are avoided in the future.

Case Study 16: The Costs and Effectiveness of Nurse Practition-ers.—The concept of using nonphysician health professionals to per-

form basic medical services traditionally provided by physiciansemerged in the mid-1960’s amidst widespread concern over a per-ceived physician shortage. Currently there are 22,000 physician ex-tenders in active practice: 13,000 NPs and 9,000 PAs.

Case Study 17: Surgery for Breast Cancer.—Statistics indicate thatwhen breast cancer is discovered in a localized state, the 5-year sur-vival rate is 85 percent. Almost 50 percent of women with breast can-cer eventually die of the disease.




Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: Interstate airpollutionSenate Committee on Finance: U.S. trade policyHouse Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee onInvestigations and Oversight: Toxic substances research and theNational Toxicology Program

House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries: Promotion,financing, and facilitation of maintenance and deep draft improve-ment projects for U.S. portsHouse Committee on the Judiciary; Subcommittee on Courts, CivilLiberties and the Administration of Justice: Patent term extensionHouse Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee onEnergy Development and Applications: District heating and coolingHouse Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee onEnergy Research and Development: The High-Level RadioactiveWaste Management and Policy Act and H. R. 1993: The RadioactiveWaste Research, Development and Policy ActSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and SenateCommittee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee onNuclear Regulation: The High-Level Radioactive Waste Manage-ment and Policy Act and H. R. 1993: The Radioactive Waste Re-search, Development and Policy ActHouse Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee onScience, Research, and Technology: Use of animals in medical re-search and cancer testingSenate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: S. 1544: TheState and Local Energy Block Grant Act of 1981Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: Proposedlegislation (S. 1706 and S. 1709) related to acid precipitation control

House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee onFossil and Synthetic Fuels and House Committee on the Interiorand Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Energy and the Environ-ment: Alternatives to the Alaskan natural gas transportation systemSenate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: TheWest Siberian gas export pipelineHouse Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee onOversight and Investigations: Hazardous waste sitesSenate Committee on Veterans Affairs: Agent Orange StudyHouse Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee onCommerce, Consumers, and Monetary Affairs: Santa Fe Interna-tional—energy technology transfer

House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee onOversight and Investigations: Soviet energy availability



Sect ion I l l . -Work in Progress

OTA’S work is structured along three broad divisional lines:energy, materials, and international security; health and lifesciences; and science, information, and natural resources.

Within those broad divisions, OTA conducts studies in energy,international security and commerce, materials, food andrenewable resources, health, human resources, communicationand information technologies, oceans and environment, andspace technology.

More than 40 projects were in progress during the year, in-cluding 10 new studies.

In this section, the broad concerns andschedule of each OTA division are describedbeyond.

current work for 1982 and

ENERGY, MATERIALS, AND

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

Energy Ef ic iency of Bui ld ings in C i t ie s

This assessment focuses on the interaction of technology and policyfor new and existing buildings in U.S. cities for the next two decades.The massive current stock of buildings contains a high proportion of structures, both residential and commercial, constructed in a period

of low energy cost, when no attention was paid to the continuing costof energy use over time. Improving the energy efficiency of thesestructures is important from the point of view of energy policy, cityviability, and the interests of individual owners and tenants.

This OTA study analyzes retrofit technologies, both to conserveenergy and to employ renewable energy that can improve the energyefficiency of structures. Capital costs, energy savings, and factorssuch as reliability and maintenance are identified. A second principalportion of the study is an exploration of the type of policy most likelyto actually produce an investment in the efficiency of building energyby various types of building owners. Regional factors affecting city op-portunities constraints, choices of action open to Federal, State, andcity governments, and the related impacts of various policy choicesare explored.

Delivery date: Early 1982. Call 224-8996 for further information.

Requesters: Hou se comm ittees: Bankin g, Finance, and U rban A ffairs; Energy andCommerce.

39




I ndus t r i a l Ene r gy U se

This project is designed to examine a series of four American indus-tries (pulp and paper, steel, petroleum refining, and organic chemicalproduction) for their potential to use energy more efficiently, and topredict the impact of selected legislative options on energy use and ef-

ficiency within those industries.OTA will examine the available technologies designed to improve

energy efficiency, as well as the barriers to such technology’s im-plementation. The legislative options to be examined range from taxpolicy changes such as accelerated depreciation to institutionalchanges in capital financing methods. Each option’s effects will beevaluated through a series of case studies in which corporation ex-ecutives, consultants, and computer-modeling techniques are used toforecast the impacts of possible congressional action. Options willalso be examined at the industry, industrial sector, and nationalenergy use and economic levels using a similar series of modeling,management, and consultant evaluations.

Delivery date: Summ er 1982. Call 226-2152 for further information.

Requesters: House Com mittee on Energy and Com merce. Senate Committee onFinance.

S y n t h e t i c F u e l s f or T r a n sp o r t a t i on

Synthetic fuels for transportation is a project in the Energy Programto assess various synthetic fuels that can be used for transportationand automotive technology that can increase passenger car fuel effi-ciency beyond 1985 standards, and to compare these two options. Theissue is how best to balance these approaches, as the synthetic fuelprogram develops and efficiency increases are contemplated, to

achieve the most effective and economic path to reduced dependencyon imported oil.

The Energy Program will review the technical, economic, en-vironmental, and social features of the major synthetic fuels andautomotive technology (increased automobile fuel efficiency and elec-tric vehicles) including information from reports by the CongressionalResearch Service, the Congressional Budget Office, and OTA studieson oil shale and biomass. In addition, potential oil savings through in-creased efficiency and fuel-switching in stationary uses of oil will bebriefly described. Synthetic fuels and increased automobile fuel effi-ciency will then be compared using a variety of criteria, includingconsumer and investment costs, time frame for deployment, environ-mental impacts, and macroeconomic impacts. Selected issues relatedto these subjects will be discussed and policy options developed.


Requester: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,



Sect ion I l l—Work in Progress q 41

Indus t r i a l and Commerc ia l Cogenera t ion

The need to reduce U.S. dependence on expensive and scarce petro-leum as a primary fuel in the industrial, commercial, and electric util-ity sectors has created a resurgence of interest in cogeneration—thecombined production of both electric power and heat or steam in onetechnological process. Because the total amount of fuel needed to pro-du ce both pow er and heat/ steam in a cogenerator is less than the totalfuel needed to prod uce the same amount of pow er and heat/ steam inseparate technologies (e.g., a powerplant and an industrial boiler), co-generators can contribute to our Nation’s efforts to use fuel more effi-ciently. Moreover, problems faced by the electric utility industry, in-cluding rapidly rising capital costs, long leadtimes for powerplantconstruction, and difficulties in finding suitable sites, may make co-generators an attractive alternative to conventional central stationpowerplants. This assessment will examine the role that cogeneratorscould play in providing electric and thermal energy for industrial andcommercial facilities while distributing electricity to the utility grid. It

will review the economic, environmental, social, and institutionalconsequences of cogeneration, with a special emphasis on the poten-tial effects on the electric utility industry’s planning and operations.Finally, the study will analyze policy options that Congress may wishto consider in addressing the issues about the development of cogen-eration systems.

The assessment will examine the technical features of commercialand advanced cogeneration technologies, including requirements forconnecting cogenerators to the utility grid and technologies for stor-ing thermal or electrical energy. It will then evaluate the economicand technical effects of grid-connected cogeneration systems on elec-tric utilities using a computer model that minimizes the costs of pro-

viding electric and thermal power. A major focus of this evaluationwill be the potential effects of oil- and gas-fired cogenerators on over-all oil/ gas u se. Finally, a series of issues on the incentives for cogener-ation in the industrial and commercial sectors, and on the economic,environmental, and social effects of cogeneration will be examined.

Delivery d ate: Early 1982. Cal] 228-2152 for further information.

Requesters: Hou se comm ittees: Bankin g, Finance, and Ur ban Aff airs; Energy andComm erce; Science and Technology.

Stra tegic Technologies for an Oi l Disrupt ion

Over the next decade, there is a high probability that the Nation will

experience a disruption in imported oiI of a level that will exceed thecapabilities of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and seriously affect theeconomy.

This assessment will examine the opportunities and problems thatcharacterize various technical responses that could supplement the




Strategic Petroleum Reserve to meet such an ”interruption. The objec-tive will be to determine what available resources might be expanded,the technical limitations for fuel substitution and switching, the physi-cal constraints of stockpiling resources, and the impacts of accelerat-ing the use of these technologies. Technologies to be considered willinclude enhanced oil recovery; adapting industrial boilers to dual-fuel

capacity; biomass production; high-voltage transmission; hydro;wind; direct solar; vehicle retrofits; photovoltaics; retrofitting build-ing envelopes and heating/ cooling systems; retrofitting vehicles to im-prove mileage efficiency; and switching capacity of petroleum refin-eries. The study will be done at national and regional levels.

The assessment will be completed in two phases. Phase I will drawon OTA staff resources to collect data on the technical capabilitiesand constraints of the intervention technologies, and develop a sum-mary document on potential of the technologies to alleviate the effectsof various levels of oil disruption. A workshop will be held to reviewthe data, and a Technical Memorandu m will be published. In Phase H,OTA will examine the most promising technologies in greater detail,including complicated questions such as refinery-switching capacity,burner substitution logistics, electrical grid capacity and require-ments.

Delivery date: Technical Mem orand um , Fall 1982. Full Repor t, early 1983. Call226-2152 for further information.

Requ esters: Senate comm ittees: Governm ental Affairs; Foreign Relations,.

Pote n t ia l U.S . Na t ura l Gas Ava i lab i li ty

In the past few years there has been a change in the outlook aboutthe potential for natural gas production in the lower 48 States. Recentoptimistic projections by some groups have stimulated efforts to re-

vise current natural gas policy so that natural gas can play a biggerrole in reducing this country’s oil imports. There remains, however,considerable uncertainty about how much the United States can relyon natural gas, which is tempering this optimism. This assessment isdesigned to help determine domestic (lower 48 States) onshore naturalgas availability over the next few d ecades, and to help u nd erstand thefactors that affect this availability. The OTA assessment will: 1) ana-lyze the key technical and physical parameters that determine the re-source base, production rates, and costs of all categories of below-ground natural gas; Z) critically review current estimates of the re-source base; estimate the potential production rates of natural gas,and analyze the uncertainties in these estimates; 3) assess future tech-nology trends, research and development needs that may acceleratethese trends; and 4) analyze the institutional and policy issues appro-priate for a Federal role in dealing with barriers to production.

Delivery date: Spring 1983. Call 22&2152 for further information.

Requester: House Comm ittee on Energy and Commerce.



Sect/on I/ l—Work In Progress q 43

Nonn uc le a r I ndus t r i a l H a z a r dous Wa s t e

Many nonnuclear industrial hazardous wastes must be stored or dis-posed of with great care or they may constitute a threat to health andthe environment. Information on the nature and magnitude of the haz-ardous waste disposal and abandoned site problem will be reviewed.

The reliability and efficacy of present containment, abatement, anddisposal measures will be assessed. This information, coupled withcriteria and techniques to judge relative health and environmentalhazards of a given waste, will assist in identifying those wastes thatcould be reduced at the source-by modifications in process technol-ogies, by recycle, or by an end-use substitution. Approaches for reduc-ing hazardous waste generation with minimal undesirable economiceffects on domestic industry will be identified.

This assessment has four objectives: 1) to assess criteria for defininghazardous waste and for judging the relative health and environmen-tal hazards of a given waste; 2) to evaluate technologies for cleaningup present waste disposal sites that are hazardous to health and the

environment; 3) to assess technologies and approaches for the safestorage or disposal of hazardous waste being presently generated; and4) to assess technologies and approaches for reducing the volume of hazardous waste. The possible economic impacts on domestic indus-try of various approaches will be evaluated.

The project will focus initially on understanding the adverse conse-quences of present disposal strategies and techniques, and next onways of reducing generation of industrial hazardous waste economi-cally. Alternative options will be developed to cope with hazardouswaste disposal in the short run and hazardous waste generation in thelong run.

Delivery date: Technical Memorandum published November 1981; Full Report du efall 1982. Call 226-2269 for further information.

Requester: House Com mittee on Energy and Commerce.

Wood: The Mater ia l , The Resource

The United States has 483 million acres of commercial forestland;14 billion cubic feet of timber were harvested in 1976. However, theUnited States still imports nearly 30 percent of its softwood lumber,approximately half of the wood pulp, and significant quantities of plywood. The forest industry and Government experts state that withnew technologies for improved forestry practices, better wood utiliza-tion, and new prod uct development the Un ited States could become atleast independent of wood imports and possibly a net exporter of wood. If domestic wood production is to be increased significantly,policies will be needed to: 1) improve the management of privatetimberlands; 2) resolve conflicts among the users of Federal publiclands; and 3] investigate new uses and applications of wood materials.New technologies for the use of wood, which is a renewable resource,




may also hold promise as substitute for nonrenewable energy and ma-terials resources in some applications.

This assessment has six objectives: 1) explore the properties, uses,and technologies for using wood as a material and its potential forsubstituting for nonrenewable materials; 2) assess the future demandand supply profiles of wood and identify future problems; 3) evaluatethe capability of forest management technology to increase produc-tion; 4) analyze the forest management policies on public lands inreference to wood production and other forest uses; 5) assess the na-tional technology for wood and forestry R&D; and 6) review publicpolicies that affect forest production and the use of wood as a materialand identify policy options for the consideration of Congress.

The assessment is being conducted by the OTA Materials Programwith consultation among other OTA program offices and other con-gressional agencies. Ample use wi l l be made of the planningdocuments and assessments directed by the Forest and RangelandRenewable Resources Planning Act and the National Forest Manage

ment Act of 1976. Initial efforts will center on the identification of policy issues affecting the production and use of wood materials. Acomprehensive review of wood technology and the potential for thefuture development of wood products will be undertaken. An assess-ment of the current state of forestry technology and the extent of itsapplication in the field will be conducted.

The assessment will cover a period of 18 months: from October 1981through March 1983. Two interim Technical Memorandums areplanned: 1) Technologies for Improved and Expanded Wood Utiliza-tion, and 2) Technologies for Improved Forest Management.

Delivery date: Early 1983. Call 226-2269 for further in formation.

Requester: Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Impac t o f Technology on Compe t i t iveness o f

U.S . E lec t ron ics Indus t ry

There is a growing concern that key U.S. industries are declining intheir international competitive positions. The electronics industry isparticularly significant because it occupies a strategic position as atechnological driving force for other industries that use products likesemiconductors and computers. The OTA assessment will look atthree sectors of this industry: consumer electronics [where the UnitedStates has suffered heavily from Japanese competition); semiconduc-

tors (where a strong U.S. position is under challenge); and computers(where the United States still appears to lead the world).

The assessment will focus on those major contributors to the com-petitiveness of the electronics industry that could most readily be af-fected by U.S. Government policy. In each case, a comparison will bemade between the United States, Japan, and (to a lesser extent) West-




ern Europe. These major factors are: 1) commercialization of re-search, development, and design; 2) manufacturing techniques and re-sources; 3) finance, including both private and public sources of funds; 4) human resources, both quantity and quaIity; and 5) govern-mental industrial policies.

Delivery date: Summer 1982. Call 228-2012 for further information.

Requesters: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. JointEconom ic Committee.

S t r a t e g i c C o m m a n d , C o n t r o l , C o m m u n i c a t i o n s j

and In te l l igence (C3I)

U.S strategic nuclear forces are intended to deter hostile Soviet ac-tions, and to do so in a way that contributes to international stability.Their ability to meet these objectives depends not only on the char-acter and capabilities of the weapons systems themselves, but also onthe character and capability of the supporting C

3I systems. Specifi-

cally, both deterrence and stability may depend on: 1) the reliability

with which a Soviet attack can be detected; 2) the timeliness and quali-ty of the information about such an attack that can be assembled; 3)the speed and reliability with which this information can be com-mu nicated to the N ational Command Authorities; and 4) the immu nityto disruption of communications between the National Command Au-thorities and the strategic forces.

The technical difficulty of making strategic weapons themselvessurvivable was a major focus of OTA’S study of “MX Missile Basing.”The problems of assuring the reliability and survivability of the sys-tems that control these weapons are at least as difficult.

The purpose of the study is to assess the technical capabilities and

vulnerabilities of present U.S. strategic C

3

I systems. The study willidentify needs and opportunities for improvement in the present sys-tems, with special emphasis on additions to the system that could use-fully be made in the near term with available technology. Promisingavenues of research for future improvements will also be identified.

In order to carry out a meaningful study in the short time available,the study will be limited to: 1) central strategic forces, excluding Euro-pean-based nuclear forces or general purpose forces; 2) the period of several hours after launch of the first enemy missile; and 3) situationsin which the President is located at the White House, Camp David, oranother prepared location at the time the attack begins.

Delivery date: Summ er 1982 (Classified). Call 228-2020 for further information.

Requesters: Chairman, Technology Assessment Board. Senate Committee onAppropriations.

92-921 0 - 82 - Q



46 qAnnua l Report to t he Congress fOr 1981

Impac t s o f Technology on P roduc t iv i ty o f the

Croplands and Range lands o f the Uni t ed S ta t e s

Were it not for technological advances, world agriculture would

never have been able to keep pace with world pop ulation grow th. His-torically, U.S. technology has had a pronounced positive impact on in-creasing the productivity of croplands and pastures. U.S. dependenceon a continuing supply of renewable natural resources compels it tomaintain the stability of the ecological systems from which the re-sources arise. Now, however, there is increasing documented evi-dence showing that human activities are straining parts of the biologi-cal and physical systems and that the land’s productivity is in jeepardy.

This land productivity assessment examines the effect of presentlyused technologies on the capacity of the cropland and rangeland re-

source base to sustain high levels of production, and on emergingtechnologies that might be used to offset adverse effects of some of theestablished technologies. The assessment includes evaluations of: 1)the adequacy of available data on the effect of technologies on landproductivity; and 2) new technologies that have potential for restor-ing, maintaining, or improving the productivity of the cropland andrangeland resource base. Selected case studies were developed to indi-cate how society is affected directly and indirectly where long-termproductivity of agricultural ecosystems is being altered through inno-vative applications of technologies.

Delivery date: Early 1982, Call 224-8996 for further information.

Requesters: House Committee on Agriculture, Senate committees: Environment and

Public Works; Appropriations.

Water-Rela ted Technologies for Susta ining

Agr icu l ture in U.S . Ar id and Semiar id Lands

Freshwater is a controlling factor of U.S. agricultural productivity.In recent years, the availability of high-quality freshwater for agricul-ture, especially in the arid and semiarid United States, has become amajor concern. In particular, competition for available water supplies, overdraft, of underground aquifers, and deteriorating waterquality have contributed to severe water sup ply p roblems for arid andsemiarid U.S. agricultural lands (those receiving about 20 inches or

less of rainfall annually).The principal farming systems in arid and semiarid U.S. lands are

irrigation agriculture, dryland farming, and ranching. Irrigation agri-culture is one of the most seriously affected by reduced water supplies. This farming system accounts for over 80 percent of all con-sumed water withdrawn from streams and underground aquifers.About 90 percent of U.S. irrigated land is in the 17 Western States



Sect ion I I l—Work in Progress q 47

where water is in short supply. In California, Arizona, New Mexico,Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, for example, over 80 percent of the crops are produced with irrigation. Agricultural water suppliessuffer from declining water tables as well as agriculture’s inability tocompete on the open market for the water that is available. Energycosts become a particular critical factor as water must be transported

from greater distances or lifted from deeper aquifers. In addition,many conventional agricultural systems use available water ineffi-ciently. The seriousness of the problem necessitates an assessment of present and emerging water-related technologies and their potentialfor sustaining arid and semiarid agriculture in the United States.

This assessment will focus on the opportunities of present andemerging technologies to provide long-term sustainable agriculturalproductivity by increasing efficiency of water use and reducing agri-cultural water demands in arid and semiarid U.S. lands. The ability of such technologies to improve water quality of agricultural runoff andthe associated socioeconomic impacts also wilI be examined.

Technologies considered will include those that require modifica-tion of existing systems to maintain the present style of agricultureand those that involve fundamental changes through the adoption of low-water-demand biological technologies and systems. The assess-ment will include a critical review of data on the magnitude of thearid/ semiarid w ater problem, potentials for alternative “supp lies, andpossible legal and institutional mechanisms supportive of the adop-tion of sound agricultural water-related technologies.

Delivery date: Spring 1983. Call 226-2192 for further information.

Requ ester: Hou se Committee on Agriculture.

Technolog ies fo r Sus t a in ing Trop ica l Fores t Resources

Each year 1 to 2 percent of the world’s remaining tropical forestsare converted to other land uses or to wasteland. Where cleared landis developed for sustained agriculture, deforestation can be beneficial.But most land now being cleared cannot sustain farming or grazingwith available technologies, so it is abandoned after a few years. Oftenthe forests do not regrow because of highly weathered soils and harshclimates. Thus, highly productive but underused forest resources aregiving way to grasslands and deserts of low productivity.

Deforestation has economic and environmental consequences that jeopardize U.S. imports of agricultural germ plasm, pharmaceuticals,chemical feedstocks, foods, drugs, animals for medical research, trop-

ical hardwoods, and veneer and wood products. Also in jeopardy areU.S.-funded development projects in tropical countries, U.S. migra-tory wildlife species, and stability of global climates. Tropical defor-estation places pressure on world oil supplies and is an importantcausal factor in the increasing number of refugees seeking U.S. entry.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), the UnitedNations (U. N.) agencies, and the World Bank have increased funding




for forestry several-fold in the past 5 years. American corporations andnonprofit institutions also have been increasingly involved in thesearch for solutions to tropical deforestation problems. Most impor-tantly, many tropical nations’ governments recognize that deforesta-tion constrains their economies and their development options; theyare now making institutional changes to slow deforestation and to ac-

celerate reforestation.The United States is recognized for its leadership in bringing the de-forestation problems to world attention and for the technical versatil-ity it has to address the problem. Sustaining tropical forest resourcescan be helped or hindered by applications of certain technologies.OTA will assess: 1) dimensions of the tropical deforestation problem;2) impacts of technologies, both conventional and new, that theUnited States may ap ply to enhan ce use and managem ent of forest re-sources; 3) the role that U.S.-funded agencies, such as AID, PeaceCorps, the U. N., and the World Bank, play in developing improvedtechnologies; 4) improved mechanisms for transferring such technol-ogies to tropical nations and to tropical regions of the United States;

and 5) the special strengths of U.S. institutions in relevant science andtechnology.


Requ esters: Hou se Foreign Affairs Committee. Senate Committee on Energy andNatural Resources.

Evaluat ion of Veterans Administ ra t ion Agent Orange Protocol

The epidemiologic study by the Veterans Administration of thelong-term health effects resulting from exposure to agent orange wasmandated in the Veterans Health Programs Extension and Improve-ments Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-151). The same law requires OTA toreview the study design. An advisory panel was assembled to carryout the review. The panel’s first report was made in September 1981.

Delivery date: Indetermin ate. Call 228-2070 for further information.

Requ ester: Mand ated b y Pub lic Law 98-151.

Stra tegies for Medical Technology Assessment

Technology assessment is gaining increasing acceptance as a meansof rationalizing health care. This trend has been stimulated by therapidly rising costs of health care and technology’s contribution tothose costs. Since assessments can be expensive and time-consuming

and can result in delaying the diffusion of beneficial technologies, andsince not all technological developments can be systematically assess-ed, it is critical to select: 1) the right technologies to be assessed; 2) theoptimum stage of technological development; and 3) the appropriateassessment methods. It is also important for the information gainedfrom assessments to be disseminated in a timely and efficient manner.Currently, there is no coherent Federal policy regarding the selection




process, and there are major problems with information dissemina-tion. These issues are critical because many Federal agencies, as wellas private organizations and individuals, depend on information fromassessments to make decisions.

This study examines the appropriateness and validity of existingassessment methods, such as controlled clinical trials, epidemiologi-cal studies, consensus exercises, and computer models, with the in-tent of identifying alternative strategies for assessment. In addition,the MEDLARS information and retrieval system of the National Li-brary of Medicine is evaluated with respect to the appropriateness of indexing, storage, and retrieval of useful information. The uses of thatinformation by both governmental and private sectors are then ex-amined in relation to the safe, efficacious, and efficient use of medicaltechnologies.

Delivery d ate: Early 1982. Call 228-2070 for further information.

Requester: House Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Technology and Handicapped People

Approximately 45 million Americans—including 10 million chil-dren—have significant mental or physical handicaps. Technologiesfor aiding handicapped people are numerous, varied, and often com-plex and expensive. Such technologies are designed to alleviate, elimi-nate, or prevent the effects of handicapping conditions. They can beused to provide mobility and independence, restore or improve func-tional abilities, and help enable handicapped individuals to lead moreproductive and fulfilling lives.

The Federal Government’s involvement in this area is extensive. A

multitude of programs and agencies develop, evaluate, provide, payfor, and deliver technologies. Other actions–such as civil rights andeducation opportunity laws—provide conditions and incentives forfurther development of and investment in technologies for the han-dicapped.

Yet there are serious questions about whether technologies for thehandicapped are being developed and used in as effective and effi-cient a manner as possible. Inadequate information exists regardingthe overall process of technological development and use. Individualaspects of the technological process also remain troublesome. For ex-ample, what is the appropriate role for sophisticated technologies as

opposed to (or in concert with) the soft areas such as human servicedelivery systems that ultimately may determine the effectiveness of technologies? What methods exist for assessing the costs and benefitsto society or to handicapped individuals of investment in or use of various technologies? What is the state of knowledge in regard to suchcosts and benefits? What effect will advances in medical technologyhave on the number and types of handicaps?




This assessment will provide information on general issues, such asthe state of the art of evaluating efficacy, safety, and costs. In additionit will address definitional problems and their implications. Mostcritically, it will examine several theme issues in depth. For example,what are the causes and the effects of today’s emphasis onsophisticated technology?

Delivery d ate: Early1982. Call

228-2070 for further in formation.Requester: Senate Committee on Labor and Hu man Resources.

Health and Sa fe ty Cont ro l Technolog ies in t he Workplace

One hundred million Americans work. Each year there are some 2.3million disabling injuries and 13,200 accidental deaths in the work-place, and perhaps 100,000 people die from job-related diseases. Ef-forts to reduce this toll involve employers, labor organizations,nonprofit institutions, insurance companies, and Government agen-cies. To a major extent these efforts are directed at developing and ap-plying control technologies—engineering controls, worker educationprograms, and personal protection devices.

New industrial plant construction and modernization of existingplants is expected to result from interest in increased productivity andreduced energy consumption. Such construction may offer oppor-tunities for installing new technologies to reduce workplace healthand safety hazards.

This assessment would develop information about research and development, diffusion, application, and evaluation of workplace con-trol technologies. Engineering controls, worker education programs,personal devices, and interrelationships between them will be de-scribed and their role in worker protection evaluated.

One product of the assessment would be a series of options. These

areq

q

q

expected to address:improving data about workplace accidents and illnesses,aiding development of appropriate technologies, their diffusion,application, and evaluation, andmaking control technologies available to small firms at a price

—

they can afford.

Delivery d ate: Early 1983. Call 228-2070 for further information.

Requester: House Com mittee on Energy and Commerce.

World Popula t ion and Fe r t i l i t y P lann ing Technolog ies :The Next Twenty Years

World population has passed 4.4 billion and is expected to double in70 years. Growth of this magnitude has major implications for theglobal biosphere and for international economic and political stabili-ty. Because of the consequences of rapid population growth-such asincreasing demands for food, energy, and jobs—most governmentsand international agencies have adopted policies and initiated pro-grams in the last 20 years to modify birth rates.



Sect ion I l l—Work In Progress q 51

OTA’S study of global population examines how Governmentpolicies and programs view planned birth technologies, and how newinternational population assistance has changed world populationgrowth in the last 20 years. It projects probable impacts of populationgrowth from 1980 to 2000 on food, energy, jobs, income, and otheraspects of quality of life; and it assesses present and prospective birth

technologies and factors determining their future development anduse. The assessment focuses on the Third World, where 92 percent of population growth in the next two decades will occur and where theirgovernments seek to slow growth. It includes a research agenda rele-vant to their problems and ends with the policy alternatives open tothe United States in dealing with world population issues. U.S.domestic population policies are not included in this assessment.

Delivery d ate: March 1982. Call 224-8996 for further information.

Requ ester: The O TA Director, with app roval of the OTA Congressional Board.

Compara t ive Assessment o f the Commerc ia l Deve lopment o f

Bio technology

“Biotechnology” refers to the use of biological techniques such asrecombinant DNA technology, cell fusion, fermentation, and enzymetechnology to produce chemicals, pharmaceuticals, or other sub-stances to act on the environment to increase the quality of life (as inpollution control), or to improve the characteristics of economicallyimportant plants and animals. Advantages of biological productionover the alternative methods of chemical production or extraction of substances from living tissues include reduced dependence on petrol-eum substrates or on large quantities of sometimes scarce plant, ani-mal, or human tissues. Estimates or yearly potential markets for sub-stances that could be produced from applications of recombinantDNA technology in just the chemical and pharmaceutical industries

are $15 billion and more in the next 20 years.The potential of biotechnology has stimulated a great deal of corpo-

rate activity in the United States in the last 2 years. Many new smallfirms have been formed and large corporations are developing capa-bility in biotechnology. Foreign activity in the field is intense, espe-cially in Japan, West Germany, France, and the U.S.S.R.

This assessment will evaluate whether biotechnology and associ-ated research and development are developing in the United States insuch a way that this Nation is likely to be in a competitive positionwith other nations in the years ahead. The keys to competitivedevelopment of the biotechnology industry in the United States are

basic research and the transfer of basic research into commercial application. One major influence on development of the industry in theUnited States is Government policies on funding of research, patents,health and safety regulations, antitrust laws, and taxation. Equally im-portant and significantly influenced by Government policy are indus-trial/ academic relationships and their influence on fund ing, research,manpower training, and information flow. New developments in thetechnology and in support technologies are important to the growth of




the industry and will also be examined as part of this assessment.Analysis along the same dimensions as those above will be conductedfor selected other countries in order to estimate the probable U.S.position in the biotechnology industry in the next 10 years.

It is also important to consider areas of application in the public in-terest. Attractive commercial applications may so engage industry

that some areas, of great public benefit but higher commercial risk,could languish. The possible Government role in such areas will be in-vestigated.

Delivery date: Interim Report, spring 1982; Full Report, summer 1983. Call 228-2090for further in formation.

Requesters: House Committee on Science and Technology. Senate Committee on Com-merce, Science, and Tran sportation.

Gene t i c Sc reen ing and Cytogene t i c Surve i l l ance in the Workplace

One of the most difficult problems in regulatory policymaking is de-termining what is a safe level of exposure to chemicals in the work-

place. For any particular chemical, the scientific evidence on risk isoften conflicting, and the cost of each incremental lowering of expo-sure levels becomes increasingly expensive. Further, because of thenatural variability of humans, what may be safe for one person, oreven the vast majority of people, may be hazardous to another.Accordingly, some occupational health specialists have advocatedboth genetic screening and cytogenetic surveillance of workers as ameans of identifying high-risk individuals and environments wherethe entire work force may be at risk. The use of these techniques iscontroversial because the ability to actually identify high-risk workersis a matter of scientific dispute and the identification of such workers,if possible, could place their interests in opposition to those of the

company.This assessment will examine the following questions: What is the

technological state of the art? Do the claimed associations in fact existbetween certain recessive genes or chromosomal abnormalities andincreased risk of harm from certain chemicals? If these associationsexist, do genetic screening and cytogenetic surveillance offer a cost-effective way to enhance worker health and safety, given the eco-nomic and technical fact of life that workers will face some exposureto chemicals? What are the alternatives, regulatory or otherwise?What responsibil i t ies might companies have toward high-risk workers? How might these tests be done in order to protect the inter-ests of all parties?

Four specific conditions for which screening tests are available willbe examined in detail. They are G-6-PD deficiency, methemoglobin re-ductase deficiency, alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, and aryl hydro-carbon hydroxylase inducibility.

Delivery d ate: Sum m er 1982. Call 226-2090 for further information.

Requester: House Committee on Science and Technology.




greater degree than are large, established firms. In almost all aspectsof the patent system—e.g., prosecution, interferences, licensing, litiga-tion—small firms and individual inventors face far more difficultobstacles and economic choices than do the large firms. The impor-tance of new technologically based firms to the future economic vitali-ty of the United States underscores the need to assess the impact of the

patent system on the generation and stimulation of such enterprises.Delivery d ate: Sum mer 1982. Call 228-2249 for furth er inform ation.

Requesters: House committees: Small Business; Judiciary, Senate Committee on theJudiciary.

In format ion Technology and Educa t ion

Over the last decade, the educational system has been increasinglypressed to meet a variety of new needs on a constant or even shrinkingbudget. The Federal and State governments now require that schoolsprovide equal educational opportunities to groups traditionally out-side th e mainstream, such as the han dicapped. Changing n eeds for job

skills and changing demographic conditions also present new de-mands for education and training beyond the ages traditionally con-sidered as the educational years. Information technology potentiallyprovides opportunities for education systems to improve productivityand quality of instruction, and to offer more flexibility both in content,and in the time and place of offering. Previous attempts to enlist tech-nology in education have had mixed outcomes, but the markedlylower cost and increased capability of new and projected computertechnology, coupled with advances in telecommunication services,imply the need for a new look at educational use of technologies. Thestudy will identify and project relevant technology and R&D activity,and the providers and users of curricula, and educational technology,

and assess the likely impacts of selected alternative policies on the useof information technology.


Requester: House Committee on Edu cation and Labor,

The Use of Models for Freshwater ResourcesMan ag em e n t : P lan n i n g an d P o li cy

Our Nation’s water resource policies affect many domestic prob-lems in the United States today–food production, energy, regionaleconomic development, environmental quality, even our international

balance of trade. As the country grows, and excess water supplies di-

minish, it becomes increasingly important to manage existing supplies with the greatest possible efficiency. In recent years, successfulmanagement and planning of water resources has increasingly beenbased on the results of mathematical models.

The OTA study of water resource models is not an assessment of mathematical equations or computers, but of the Nation’s ability to



Sec t i on I I I—Work in Progress q 55

use models to more efficiently and effectively analyze and solve ourwater resource problems. The assessment considers not only the use-fulness of the technology–the models–but the ability of the Federaland State water resource agencies to effectively apply these analytictools.

The capabilities of water resource models vary greatly from issue toissue. In a number of areas, further research and development isneeded, but in other areas, usable and reliable tools currently exist.However, as often occurs, these technologies have outstripped thecapabilities of Federal, State, and local agencies to support and effec-tively use them. Today, model use is increasing the efficiency and low-ering the cost of water resource management, but the potential for fur-ther improvement remains great.

The OTA report presents options which focus on ways of improvingFederal, State, and local use of available technologies to analyze andresolve water resource problems.

Delivery date: In press. Call 226-8996 for further information.Requ ester: Hou se Committee on Interior and In sular Affairs.

H igh- Le ve l R a d ioa c t ive Wa s t e Ma na ge m e n t a nd Di sposa l

More than three decades into the nuclear age, this country still hasno permanent disposal facilities for commercial high-level radioactivewaste. This assessment focuses on technologies for disposal of com-mercial high-level waste (spent fuel or solidified waste from reproc-essing). A clear understanding of the problem of managing radio-active waste from its generation to final disposal requires comprehen-sive analysis of the interactive relationships among possible storageand disposal technologies; transportation systems; regulatory consid-erations; and Federal, State, and local jurisdictional prerogatives. TheOTA study is using a systems analysis technique to evaluate a range of strategies for developing and deploying a commercial high-level radio-active waste disposal system. Other waste forms are considered to theextent needed to determine how their management and disposal willaffect commercial high-level waste disposal plans and to provide abasis for analysis for the impacts of, and management problems pre-sented by, a full-scale waste disposal system.

Delivery date: Early 1982. Call 226-2132 fo r fu rth er in form ation ,

Requ esters: Hou se comm ittees: Merchant M arine and Fisheries; Science and Techn ol-ogy; Foreign Affairs. Senate committees: Energy and Natural Re-

sources; Comm erce, Science, and Transp ortation.

Impac t s o f Atmospher i c Al t e ra t ions

Many present-day human activities—particularly the burning of fos-sil-fuels—are altering the Earth’s atmosphere in potentially harmfulways. The precise nature and extent of such activities are unclear.



56 q Annual Report to the congress for 1981

However, the potential consequences are severe enough to merit care-ful congressional consideration of domestic and international Federalpolicies.

Some of the consequences, such as acid rain, are occurring today.Others, such as global climate changes due to increasing carbon diox-ide concentration, may appear within the next century. Increasing

sulfur and nitrogen oxides and their transformation products (acidrain and oxidants) may damage thousands of lakes, decrease crop andforest productivity, deplete soil nutrients, damage buildings and mon-uments, and have adverse effects on human health.

The assessment will characterize the potential benefits of actingnow to abate long-range transport air pollution and the potential costsof action that may be premature. The study will: 1) identify the re-sources potentially at risk, as well as the societal concerns about theloss of these resources; and 2) identify broad pollution control strat-egies, and discuss their costs, potential effectiveness, and societal ef-fects. OTA will develop a range of plausible, regionally oriented im-

pact scenarios that describe the potential environmental and socialconsequences of transported pollutants, and actions that might betaken to control them. These scenarios will not attempt to “forecast”the future, but instead, present a range of plausible consequences of these changes, in terms responsive to near-term congressional deci-sions.

Del ivery date: Sum mer 1982. Call 228-2131 for fur ther inf ormation .

Requesters: House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Senate Committee on Envi-ronment and Public Works.

Assessment o f Approaches to Wet l ands Use

Both the development and the preservation of wetlands—swamp,marshes, bogs, and other areas that are periodically saturated withwater —offer benefits to ind ividual users of wetland s as well as to so-ciety as a whole. For example, when drained or filled, some wetlandsmay be converted into highly productive farmland or choice residen-tial or commercial property. Valuable oil, gas, and timber resourcesmay also be extracted from some wetland areas. Many other techno-logical activities, such as the construction of dams, levees, break-waters and jetties, and bridges and highways, often take place in wet-lands. Similarly, undeveloped wetlands may provide flood control,fish and wildlife habitat, erosion protection, pollution control, andground water recharge.

In the past, the values of und eveloped wetlands have largely been ig-nored or seen as less than those of developed or technologically modi-fied wetlands. As a result, approximately 30 percent of the Nation’soriginal wetlands h ave been mod ified in some w ay by various techno-logical activities. During the last decade, the importance of the naturalfunctions of wetlands has received increasing recognition. In re-sponse to concerns about wetlands, many Federal and State laws now



Sect io n I l l—Work in Progress 57

influence the development and regulate the use of wetlands throughmeasures such as acquisition, economic incentives, and permitting.

Proposals to develop wetlands have frequently led to controversy.To provide a framework for future debates on this issue, OTA willevaluate:

the effects of technological activities on wetlands,technological and nontechnological options for mitigating unde-sired impacts,

q the functional values of different types of wetlands,problems associated with weighing the benefits of technologicalactivities in wetland areas against the functional values of thewetlands that may be lost, and

q various approaches to wetlands use.

Del ivery dat e: Early 1983. Call 226-2130 for furth er inform ation .

Requester: Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,

Space Pol icy and Appl ica t ionsThe assessment explores the adequacy of the Nation’s present and

future civilian space technology base. It examines the possible reli-ance on that base for applications of space technology in the1980-2000 time frame. The focus will be on current and anticipateduses and management of remote sensing, communications satellites,materials processing in space, and the utilization of the space trans-portation system. A range of program and policy options will be devel-oped, together with their societal, institutional, and economic implica-t ions. International impacts and cooperation and the U.S. space tech-

nology-based competitive position will also be considered. The study

has cross-cutting ties to the ongoing OTA assessments of solar powersatellites, land productivity, and telecommunications, each with im-portant space technology facets.


Requesters: Senate Comm ittee on Com merce, Science and Transportation. HouseComm ittee on Science and Technology.

Globa l Mode ls , Wor ld Fu t ure s , an d Pu bl ic PoI icy—A Cr i t ique

The purpose of this assessment is to examine global models as a toolfor long-range strategic analysis and policy development, The find-ings and recommendations of five major modeling studies, including

Global 2000, are compared and evaluated.Delivery date: Early 1982, Call 224-8996 for further information,

Requester: OTA’S Congressional Board.




Technolog ica I Innova t ion and Hea l th , Sa fe ty , andEnvi ronmenta l Regula t ions

This assessment examines the effects of health, safety, and environ-mental regulation on the rate of productivity growth and on techno-logical innovation in several sectors of the economy. The study alsoexamines alternative regulatory policies with regard to their likely ef-fects on private sector innovation.

De livery date: Early 1982. Call 224-8996 for furthe r infor mat ion.

Requ ester: Senate Comm ittee on Comm erce, Science, and Transp ortation.

I m pa c t o f Adva nc e d Ai r T r a nspo r t Te c hn o logy

This assessment examines the impact of introducing or not in-troducing advanced high-speed aircraft into our future commercialfleet and of other potential commercial aircraft developments. The as-sessment is being conducted in four parts: 1) advanced high-speed air-craft (completed), which examines the economic, energy, environ-mental, and societal imp acts of introdu cing advanced subsonic and/ orsupersonic aircraft into the future commercial fleet; 2) air cargo sys-tems, which studies the role, importance and impact of advanced air-craft technology on the air cargo systems; 3) air service to small com-munities, which is an inquiry into recent trends in air service to smallcommunities and the possible influence of advances in commuter air-craft technologies on this service; and 4) program management and fi-nancing alternatives of advanced high-speed aircraft, which examinesalternative means for financing and managing the development andproduction of an advanced supersonic or subsonic commercial airtransport.

Delivery dates: Part 1, published April 1980; Part 2 (in press); Part 3 (in press); Part 4,

early 1982. Call 228-2182 for furt her in formation .Requesters: House Committee on Science and Technology. Senate Committee on Com-

merce, Science, and Transportation.

Airpor t an d Air Tra ff ic Cont ro l Sys t em

Increasing levels of air traffic have led to problems of congestionand delay at many of the Nation’s large hub airports, and continuedgrowth of commercial and general aviation will spread these prob-lems to other airports in the future. The rate and incidence of growthwill be affected by a number of factors—such as general economicconditions and the future evolution of the deregulated airline indus-

try—that are difficult if not impossible to foresee. There are, however,a number of steps that might be taken to alleviate these problems byincreasing the effective capacity of the airport and air traffic control(ATC) systems. Potential ATC system components include enroute au-tomation, collision avoidance, data link, and microwave landing sys-tem. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) currently plans tospend $2.4 billion for enroute computer modernization alone over the



Sect ion I l l—Work In Progress . 59

next decade, and users will have to spend billions more for equipmentto operate in this new environment. Airport traffic-management alter-natives include a number of proposals for increasing the efficiencywith which airport facilities are used, such as reliever airports, peak-hour landing fees, stub runways, and automated terminal area meter-ing. This assessment examines the likely future evolution of domestic

aviation and examines both the FAA’s proposals and other alterna-tives for meeting the increasing demand for airport and ATC servicesthrough the year 2000.


Requesters: House Committee on Appropriations. Senate Committee on Commerce,Science, and Transportation.



Sect ion IV. -Organ izat ionand Operat ions

Created by the Technology Assessment Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 797),OTA is a part of an d is responsible to the legislative branch of the

Federal Government. OTA received funding in November 1973 andbegan operations as the second session of th e 93d Congress convenedin January 1974.

The ac t provides for a bipartisan Congressional Board, a Director,and such other employees and consultants as may be necessary to

conduct th e Office’s work.

The Congressional Board is made up of six Senators, appointed b y

th e President pro tempore of the Senate, and six Representatives, ap

pointed by the Speaker of the House, evenly divided by p arty. In 1981,

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Cong. Morris Udall (D-Arizona)served as the Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively, of the

Board. The two posts alternate between th e Senate and House with

each Congress . The Board members f rom each House se lec t the i r

respective officer.

The Congressional Board sets the policies of the Office and is the

so le and exc lus ive body govern ing OTA. The Board appoin t s the

Director , who is OTA’S chief execut ive off icer , and a nonvot ing

member of the board.

The act also calls for a Technology Assessment Advisory Council

comprised of 10 public members eminent in scientific, technological ,

and educational fields, the Comptroller General of the united States,and the Director of the Congressional Research Service of the Library

of Congress. The Advisory Council advises the Board and the Director

on such matters as the balance, comprehensiveness, and quali ty of

OTA’S work, and OTA’S nongovernmental resources.

In providing assistance to Congress, OTA is to: identify existing or

probable impac t s o f t echnology or t echnolog ica l p rograms; where

possible, ascertain cause-and-effect relat ionships of the applications

of technology; identify al ternative technological methods of imple-

menting specific actions; identify al ternative programs for achieving

requi s i t e goa l s ; e s t ima te and compare the impac t s o f a l t e rna t ive

methods and programs; present findings of completed analyses to the

appropr ia t e l eg i s l a t ive au thor i t i e s ; i den t i fy a reas where add i t iona l

research or data collection

ments; and undertake such

necessary.

is required to provide support for assess-

additional associated activities as may be

61

92-921 0 - 82 - E )




IN IT IAT iON, PROCESSING, AND

FLOW Or ASSESSMENTS

OTA’S primary function is to provide congressional committeeswith assessments or studies that identify the range of probable conse-

quences, social as well as physical, of policy alternatives affecting theuses of technology. Requests for OTA assessments may be initiatedby:

. the chairman of any standing, special, select, or joint committeeof Congress, acting alone, at the request of the ranking minoritymember, or a majority of the committee members;

q the OTA Board; or. the OTA Director, in consultation with the Board.

The authorization of specific assessment projects and the allocationof funds for their performance is the responsibility of the OTA Board.The Board early establishes priority areas of study, and approves indi-vidual assessment projects within those areas. To help in makingthese decisions, the Board considers recommendations and plans de-veloped by OTA staff, and applies the following general selectioncriteria developed in consultation with the Advisory Council:

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

Is this now or likely to become a major national issue?Can OTA make a unique contribution, or could the requested ac-tivity be done effectively by the requesting committee or anotheragency of Congress?How significant are the costs and benefits to society of the variouspolicy options involved, and how will they be distributed amongvarious affected groups?Is the technological impact irreversible?

How imminent is the impact?Is there sufficient available knowledge to assess the technologyand its consequences?Is the assessment of manageable scope—can it be bounded withinreasonable limits?What will be the cost of the assessment?How much time will be required to do the assessment?What is the likelihood of congressional action in response to thisassessment?Would this assessment complement or detract from other OTAprojects?

Assessment reports emerge from the combined effort of a staff withappropriate expertise, citizen advisory panels of experts, consultants,contractors, and other congressional information agencies. A par-ticular assessment project may involve exploratory meetings, work-shops of advisory panels, staff analyses, and consultant studies.

Different approaches are used. The method employed, personnel in-volved, and the skills tapped depend on the technology under study,the requesting client, the nature of the issues at stake, and the timeavailable for and the setting of the project. Required to consider the




Staff professionals represent a wide range of disciplines andbackgrounds, including the physical, biological, and environmentalsciences, engineering, social sciences, law, and public administration.Professionals from executive branch agencies, detailed to OTA on atemporary basis, and participants in several congressional fellowshipprograms also contribute to the work of the Office.

Private Sector Involvment

The private sector is heavily involved in OTA studies as a source of expertise and perspectives while an assessment is in progress. Con-tractors and consultants are drawn from industry, universities,private research organizations, and public interest groups.

OTA works to ensure that the views of the public are fairly reflectedin its assessments. OTA involves the public in many ways—throughadvisory panels, workshops, surveys, and formal and informal public

meetings. These interactions provide citizens with access to informa-tion and help OTA identify contrasts between the perspectives of tech-nically trained and lay citizens.

OPERATIONS

Publishing Activi t ies

During 1981, OTA delivered 53 published documents to Congress.

These included: 14 assessment reports; 11 summaries; 16 backgroundpapers; 3 technical memorandums; 3 working papers (appendixes); 2staff papers; and 4 administrative reports. In addition, OTA had inputin the preparation of a committee print on “Background Papers for In-novative Biological Technologies for Lesser Developed Countries” forthe House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Reques t s fo r Publi ca t ions

The Publishing Office processed over 21,303 (averaging 58.4/ day)separate mail and phone requests for OTA publications during the cal-endar year. Of this total, 2,219 were requests from congressional of-

fices, and 19,084 requests from various Government agencies and theprivate sector.



Sect/on iV—Organizat ion and Operat ions . 65

Pr iva te Sec tor Repr in t ing

To date, 24 OTA publications (in whole or in part) have been re-printed, by commercial publishers or private organizations for vari-ous audiences. Out of the 24 reprinted publications, three publications(Energy From Biological Processes, vol. II, The Effects of Nuclear War,and Impacts of Applied Genetics) have been reprinted by more thanone commercial publisher. Among the publications reprinted are:

q Westview PressImpacts of Applied Genetics: Micro-Organisms, Plants, and

AnimalsAssessment of Technologies for Determining Cancer Risks

From the EnvironmentEnergy from Biological Processes, Vol. I

Technology and Soviet Energy Availability

q Praeger Publishing Co.

Nulcear Proliferation and Safeguards

Ball inger Publishing Co.

The Direct Use of Coal: Prospects and Problems of

Product ion and Combust ion

Energy From Biological Processes, Vol. II: Technical and

Environmental Analyses

q McGraw Hi l l

Enhanced Oil Recovery Potential in the united States

An Assessment of Oil shale Technologies

Energy From Biological Processes, Vol. II: Technical and

Environmental Analyses

World Pet roleum Avai labi l i ty: 1980-2000-A Technical

M e m o r a n d u mq Allanheld, Osmun Publishing Co.

Technology and East West TradeThe Effects of Nuclear WarResidential Energy Conservation, Vol. I

q Olympus Corp.The Implications of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Medical

Technology, Background Paper #2, Case Study #5:Periodontal Disease: Assessing the Effectiveness andCosts of the Keyes Technique

q The Society for Microbiology

Impacts of Applied Genetics: Micro-Organisms, Plants, andAnimals—Summary




q Smith Kline Corp.The Implications of Cost Effectiveness of Medical

Technology, Background Paper #2, Case Study #n:Benefit and Cost Analysis of Medical Interventions:The Case of Cimetidine and Peptic Ulcer Disease

. National Association of Medical Directors of Respiratory CareThe Implications of Cost Effectiveness of Medical

Technology, Background Paper #2, Case Study #12:Assessing Selected Respiratory Therapy Modalities:Trends and Relative Costs in the Washington, D.C. Area

Cheshire BooksThe Effects of Nuclear War

q Friends of the EarthEnergy From Biological Processes—Summary

q University of American Medical Students, Department of Familyand Community Medicine

Forecast of Physicians Supply and Requirements

c Federal Emergency Management AgencyThe Effects of Nuclear War

I n t e r n a t i on a l In t e r e s t s

The United States International Communication Agency publishedan abridgement of Chapter 2, Introduction “Concepts of AppropriateTechnology” from OTA’S publication An Assessment of Techno~ogy

for Local Development in a magazine published three times a year inboth Spanish and English. Additionally, Asahi Shimbun Publications,Japan’s leading newspaper publishing company, had requested per-

mission to translate and pu blish OTA’S publication Imp acts of App ]iedGenetics: Micro-Organisms, Plants, and Animals. The translation willbe done by researchers specialized in this field at Tsukuba University—one of Japan’s most authoritative universities—and staff members of the Science Department of Asahi Shimbun.



Sect ion IV—Organ/zat lon and Operat ions q 67

Sales of Publ ica t ions

G ove r nm e n t P r in t ing O ffi c e .—Sales of OTA publications by theSuperintendent of Documents are continuing to be quite popular withthe public.

The Superintendent of Documents sold 26,206 OTA reports for an

estimated gross income of $200,000 for the period January 1 throughDecember 31, 1981.

Summary of Sales of OTA Publications Through the Superintendentof Documents, GPO (July 1976 through December 1981)

As of 12/80 As of 12/81 12 mos. difference

Number of individual t it led publicati onsput on sale to the public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 138 +33

Total number sold. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124,789 150,995 + 26,206Estimated GPO gross receipts from salesa. . . . . $551,379 $749,442 +$198,063aBased on a single copy selling price.

N a t i o n a l T e c h n i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n Servic e. -NTIS Sel ls scientific

reports and papers that are, generally, not in great demand but areuseful for scientific researchers. NTIS is the outlet for OTA’S assess-ment working papers and contractor reports, plus those reports thatare out of print by GPO.

Summary of Sales of OTA Publications Through the National TechnicalInformation Service (July 1976 through December 1981)

A S of 12/80 AS of 12/81

Number of individual t it led publicati onsput on sale to the public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 143

Total number sold (hard copy). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,200

}16,171

6,329(microfiche). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,971 13,818 }

20,147

Esti mated NTIS gross receipts from sales. . . . . . . . $77,183 $112,435




Organizat iona l Roster of OTA St af f as of December 1981

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

John H. Gibbons, DirectorSue Bachtel, Executive Assistant

Barbara O’Bryan, Secretary

Congressional and InstitutionalRelations

Marv in Ott, Director CIREugenia Ufholz, Assistant to

Director CIRPatricia Halley, Secretary

Medical Services

Rose McNair, Resident Nu rse

ENERGY, MATERIALS, ANDINTERNATIONAL SECURITY

DIVISION

Skip Johns, Assistant DirectorTeri Miles, Division Assistant

En e rg y P ro g ra m

Richard Rowberg, Program Manager

Thom as Bull, Project DirectorVirginia Chick, Secretary

Alan Crane, Project Director

Marian Grochowsk i, Secretary

Nancy Naismith, Project DirectorSteve Plotkin, Senior AnalystMary Procter, Pro jec t DirectorPidge Quigg, Administrative

AssistantJenifer Rob ison, Project DirectorJoann e Seder, Research AssistantEdna Sau nd ers, SecretaryPaula Stone, Senior AnalystDavid Strom, AnalystRichard Thoreson, Senior Analyst

I n t e r n a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y a n d

Commerce ProgramPeter Sharfman, Program ManagerJohn Alic, Pro jec t DirectorMartha Caldw ell, AnalystRonnie Lee Goldberg, AnalystHelena Hassell, SecretaryHen ry Kelley, Senior AssociateDorothy Richroath, Editorial

Assistant

Jacqueline Robinson, AdministrativeAssistant

Mater ia ls Program

Audrey Buyrn, Program ManagerPatricia Can avan, Secretary

Carol Drohan, AdministrativeAss is tant

Julie Gorte, AnalystJoel Hirschhorn, Project Director

Karen Larsen, Analys t

Suellen Pirages, Senior An alyst

HEALTH AND LIFE SCIENCESDIVISION

David Banta, Assistant Director

Ogechee Koffler, Division Assistant

F o o d a n d Re n e wa b le Re so u rc e sProgram

Walter E. Parham, Program M anagerPhyllis Balan, Administrative

AssistantAlison Hess, Research AssistantBarbara Lausche, Project DirectorMichael Ph illips, Project DirectorBruce A. Ross, Project DirectorPhyllis Wind le, Analyst

Health ProgramClyde Behney, Program Man agerAnn e Kesselman Burns, AnalystVirginia Cwalina, Administrative

AssistantLorraine Ferris, SecretaryMichael G ough , Project DirectorBryan Luce, Project DirectorJudith Randal, ConsultantAnn Rose, Senior AnalystGloria Ruby, AnalystJane Willem s, Project Director

H u m a n R e s o u r c e s P r o gr a mGretchen Kolsrud , Program ManagerSusan Clymer, Administrative

AssistantJeff Karny, AnalystFrank Packer, Research AssistantLouise Williams, Project DirectorBarbara Winchester, SecretaryRay Zilinskas, Analyst



Sect ion IV—Organizat ion and Operat ions . 69

SCIENCE, INFORMATION, ANDNATURAL RESOURCES

DIVISION

John An delin, Assistant DirectorDoris Smith, Division AssistantSamu el Hale, Executiv e Assistant

John Burn s, Senior EditorWilliam E. Davis, Senior An alyst

Scott Finer, AnalystWilliam M ills, Senior AssociateMarsha Fenn Mistretta,

Administrative AssistantPaul Phelps, Analys t

John Youn g, Project Director

C o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d I n f o r m a t i o nTechnologies Program

Sam H ale, Interim ProgramManager

Pruden ce Adler, AnaJystNorman Balmer, Project Director

Marjory Blum enth al, AnalystJeanette Contee, WordprocessorElizabeth Emanuel, Administrative

AssistantLinda Garcia, Analyst

Shirley Gayheart, SecretaryLarry L. Jenney, Project DirectorZalman Shaven, Senior AnalystJean Smith, AnalystDonna Valtri, AnalystRick Weingarten , Project Director

Fred Wood , Project Di rec tor

O c ea n s a n d E n v i r on m e n t P r o gr a m

Robert Nib lock, Program M anagerWilliam Barnard, Senior Analyst

Kathleen Beil, Admin istrativeAssistant

Rosina Bierbaum, AnalystThomas Cotton , Senior AnalystRobert Friedm an, Senior AnalystDaniel Kevin, AnalystValerie Lee, AnalystJacqueline Mulder, SecretaryLinda Wad e, Secretary

S p a c e Te c h n o lo g y P ro gra m

John An delin, Acting ProgramManager

Paula Walden, AdministrativeAssistant

Ray Williamson , Project Director

OPERATIONS DIVISION

Bart McGarry, Operations M anagerAnn Woodbridge, Management

AnalystLoretta O’Brien, D ata Base

AdministratorJanice Perocchi, Manager/Systems

Planning Group

Adminis tra t ive Services

Thomas P. McGurn, AdministrativeOfficer

Susan Carhart, Director of Contractsand Legal Counsel

Alexandra Ferguson, Contract

SpecialistSusan Klugerman, Conference

Center CoordinatorLisa Raines, Contract Sp ecialist

Financial Services

Alban Landry, Controller

Joan Camino, SupervisoryAccounting TechnicianStacy Newman, Manager, Financial

Operations Group

I n f o r m a t i o n C e n t e r

Martha D exter, Manager,lnformation Services

Suzann e Boisclair, InformationTechnician

Vermille D avis, InformationTechnician

Diane Rafferty, Assistant Manager,lnformation Services



70 q Annual Report to the congress for i981

Personne l Off ice

William Norris, Personnel O fficerLola Craw, Personn el SpecialistDenise DeSanctis, Personnel

AssistantKatherene Mason , Assistant

Personnel OfficerP u b l ic Co mm u n ic a t io n s Off ic e

Jean McDonald, Press OfficerAnnette Taylor, Assistant to Presso f f i c e r

Publ ish in g Office

John C. Holmes, Publishing officerKathie S. Boss, Ass is tant Technica l

SpecialistDebra Datcher, Ad m inistrative

Assistant

Joe H enson, Depu ty PublishingOfficer



Appendix A

Lis t o f Adv isors and Panel Members

ENERGY, MATERIALS, AND INTERNATIONAL

SECURITY DIVISION

Energy ProgramDispersed Electric GeneratingTechnologies Ad visory Panel

James J. Stukel, ChairmanDirectorPub lic Policy ProgramCollege of EngineeringUniversity of Illinois

Roger BlobaumRoger Blobaum & Associates

William H. Corkran

General ManagerThe Easton Utilities Comm ission

Claire T. Dedrick California Air Resources Board

Steven FerreyEnergy CounselNational Consum er Law Center, inc.

Todd La Porteinstitute of Government StudiesUniversity of California

Evelyn MurphyEvelyn Mu rphy Comm ittee

Theodore J. Nagel

Senior Executive Vice President andAssistant to the ChairmanAmerican Electric Power Service Corp.

Thomas W. Reddoch

Associate Professor of ElectricalEngineering

University of Tennessee

Bertram SchwartzSenior Vice President

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York

Harry M. TrebingDirectorInstitute of Public UtilitiesMichigan State University

Thomas F. WidmerVice p residentEngineering Thermo Electron Corp.

Robert H. WilliamsCenter for Energy and Environmental

StudiesPrinceton University

Energy and the CitiesAd visory Panel

William Reilly, ChairmanPresidentConservation FoundationFrancis Hooks BurrPartner, Ropes & GrayVernon FriasonF&H ServicesLenneal Henderson

School of Business an d PublicAdministrationHoward UniversityMichael HoganHogan AssociatesGeorge LatimerMayorCity of St. PaulHew itt LovelacePublic Safety DirectorGreensboro, N.C.Neal R. PeirceContributing EditorNational Journal

George PetersonDirector of Public FinanceThe Urban instituteJohn H. RobsonVice presidentMarqu ette Fuels, Inc.Terry L. SinnottCommercial Sales ManagerSan Diego Gas and ElectricVictoria J. TschinkelSecretary Department of Environmental

RegulationState of Florida

James A. WalkerCommissionerEnergy Resources Conservation and

Development CommissionJoseph WidmayerExecutive Vice PresidentComplete Building Services, Inc .

71

.



72 . Annual Report t o the Congress for 1981

Indu strial Energy Prod uctivityAdvisory Panel

Herbert FusfeldDirectorCenter for Science and Technology

PolicyNew York University

E. Milton BevingtonPresidentServidyne, Inc.Harold BogartCarlton BurttEquitable Life Assurance of the U.S.William U. ChandlerDirectorEnergy Con servation ProjectEnvironmental Policy InstituteWilliam CunninghamAFL-CIO Research DepartmentGordon GeigerMining and Materials DivisionChase Manhatten Bank, N.A.J. M. LeathersDow Chemical Co.Harvey N . MorrisHarvey Morris AssociatesJohn M yersDepartment of EconomicsSouth ern Illinois UniversityRudolph G. PennerResident ScholarAmerican Enterprise instituteR. B. Poo lKaiser Aluminum & Chemicals Corp.

Rosalie Wolf international Paper Co.

Synthetic Fuels for TransportationAdvisory Panel

Hans Landsberg, ChairmanResources for the FutureHa rvey O. BanksPresidentWater Resources DivisionCamp Dresser McKee, Inc.Ellen BermanConsumer Energy Council of AmericaLeslie Bur gessVice presidentFluor Corp.Frank Collins

Oil, Chemical and Atomic WorkersIntern ationa l Union , AFL-CIO

Thomas F. Edgar

Professor

Departmen t of Chemical Engineering

University of Texas

Louis Frick Planning and Intelligence ManagerChemicals and Pigments DepartmentE. I. du Pent de Nemours & CO., Inc.

Robert P. HowellConsulting EngineerChairman, Synfuels Task Force, Sierra

Club

Sheldon Lambert

Shell Oil Co.

John L. McCormick Environmental Policy Center

Edward MerrowRand Corp.

Richard K. PefleyChairmanDepartment of Mechanical Engineering

Santa Clara UniversityAUan G. PulsipherTennessee Valley Authority

Robert ReillyExecutive Director

Business Strategy D evelopment,

Corporate Strategy and Analysis

Staff Ford Motor Co.

Fred WilsonCoordinatorAlternate EnergyTexaco, Inc.

John J. Wise

Vice Presiden tPlanning M obil Research &

Development Co.

Automobile Fuel EfficiencyAdvisory Panel

Michael J. Rabins, ChairmanProfessorMechanical Engineering DepartmentWayne State University

Maudine R. CooperAssistant Vice President for Pu blic

PolicyNational Urban League, Inc.

John FerronExecutive DirectorResearch & D ealership Op erations

GroupNational Automobile Dealers

Association



Appendix A—Lis t o f Adv isors and Panel Members 73

Donald FriedmanPresidentMinicar, Inc.

Herbert Fuhrman

National Institute for AutomobileService Excellence

James M. Gill

The Ethyl Corp.R. Eugene GoodsonProfessorHoover Universal, Inc.

Charles M. Heinen

John B. HeywoodProfessor

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

John H oldenFord Motor Co.

Mary Ann KellerVice President

Paine, Webber, Mitchell & Hutchins

Paul LarsenChief EngineerTruck and Coach Division

General Motors Corp.

Robert D. NellConsumers Union

Kenneth Orski

Vice President

German M arshall Fund of the UnitedStates

Howard YoungUnited Auto WorkersSolidarity House

Solar Power Satellite PolicyIssues Study Advisory Panel

John P. Schaefer, ChairmanPresidentUniversity of Arizona

Paul Craig

Professor of Applied Science

University of California

S. David FreemanChairmanTennessee Valley Authority

Eilene GallowayIndependent Consultant

Karl GawellSolar Energy Research Institute

Peter GlaserVice President

Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Jerry GreyAdministrator for Public Policy

American Institute of Aeronautics andAstronautics

Grant HansenPresident

SDC Systems Group

SDC Corp.Russell HensleyVice Presiden t, TechnologyDiversified Business DivisionAetna Life & Casualty

Maureen Lamb

J. C. RandolphDirector, Environmental Programs

School of Public and EnvironmentalAffairs

Indiana University

Graham SiegelAdvanced SystemsTennessee Valley Authority

John J. SheehanLegislative DirectorUnited Steelworkers of America

Robert UhrigVice Presiden t

Advanced Systems and TechnologyFlorida Power & Light Co.

Frank von Hippel

Senior Research Physicist

Center for Energy and EnvironmentalStudies

Princeton University

Charles WarrenAttorney

Oil DisruptionWorkshop Attendees

Al AlmJohn F. Kennedy SchoolHarvard University

David Bjornstad

Economic Analysis, EnergyOak Ridge National Laboratory

Wilson Clark Applied Energy Research, Inc.

Bob CraigKeystone Center

Charles EbingerCenter for Strategic and International

StudiesGeorgetown University



74 . Annual Repor t to the Congress for 1981

Ed Krapels James Plummer

Private Con sultant Electric Power Research Institute

Terry Lash Emilio Varinini

Scientists’ Institute for Public Commissioner

Information California Energy Commission

David Montgomery John Weyant

Resources for the Future Energy Modeling Forum

Knut Mork

Stanford University

University of Arizona

International Secur i ty and Commerce

MX Missile Bas ingAdvisory Panel

Harry Woolf, ChairmanDirectorInstitute for Advanced Stud y

Stanley AlbrechtProfessor and Editor of Rural SocietyDepartment of Sociology

Brigham Young UniversityStephen T. Bradhu rstDirector

Nevada MX Project Field Office

Russell E. Dou ghertyGen eral, USAF (Retired)Executive DirectorAir Force Association

Sidney D. D rel lProfessor and Depu ty Director

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Henry M. Foley

Professor

Departmen t of Physics

Columbia University

Kenneth E. FosterAssociate DirectorOffice of Arid Land s Studies


Sanford Gottlieb

Daniel O. GrahamLt. General, USAF (Retired)Director of Special Projects

American Security Council

William KincadeExecutive Director

Arms Control Association

Gordon Kirjassoff PresidentEdward s & Kelcey

Kenneth C. OlsonProject Manager

Utah MX Coordination Office

Kenneth SmithLockheed Chief Engineer (Retired)

John Toomay

Major General, USAF (Retired)

William Van CleaveDirectorDefense an d Strategic StudiesUniversity of Southern California

Jerome WiesnerInstitute Professor

Massachu setts Institute of Techn ology

James R. WoolseyShea & Gardner

Technology and Soviet EnergyAvailability Advisory Panel

Clifford Case, ChairmanCurtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle

E. C. Broun, Jr.Hugh es Tool Co.

Robert CampbellIndian a University

Leslie Dien esUniversity of Kansas

John GarrettGulf Oil Exploration & Production

Marshall GoldmanWellesley College and Harvard

University

Gregory Grossman

University of California at Berkeley

Robert JacksonDresser Industries

Stanley LewandChase Manhattan Bank

Richard NehringThe Rand Corp.

Richard Pipes (until January 1981)

Harvard University



Appendix A—List of Advisors and Panel Members 75

Dankw art Rustow

City University of New York

Henry SweattHoneywell Corp.

Allen S. Whiting

University of Michigan

Electronics Advisory PanelKatherine Seelman, ChairpersonDivision of Church and SocietyNational Council of Churches

Jack ActonStaff Executive

Sector PlanningGeneral Electric Co.

Steve BeckmanResearch AssociateInternational Union of Electrical, Radio

and Machine Workers

A. Terry BrixMarket Coordinator

BattelleNorthwest LaboratoriesRichard P. CaseDirector of Technical OperationsSystems Products DivisionIBM Corp.

Ruth Schwartz Cowan

Associate Professor of HistorySUNY-Stony Brook

William Kay DairiesExecutive Vice Presid entAmerican Retail Federation

Leonard DietchVice presiden tProduct DevelopmentZenith Radio Corp.

Isaiah FrankWilliam Clayton Professor of

International EconomicsJohns Hopkins University

F. Willard Griffith, 11Chairman and Chief Executive O fficerCC International

Robert R. JohnsonVice Presiden tEngineeringBurroughs Corp.

Richard A. Kraft

PresidentMatsushita Industrial Co.

E. Floyd Kvamm eNational Advanced Systems

Geraldine McArdleBoard MemberConsum er Federation of Am erica

Charles PhippsAssistant Vice President of Corporate

DevelopmentTexas Instruments, Inc.

K. M. PooleHead, Integrated Circuit Planning

DepartmentBell Telephone Laboratories

Benjamin M. RosenVice Presiden tMorgan Stanley & Co., Inc.

Kate WilhelmAuthor

Robert B. WoodDirector of Research

International Brotherhood of ElectricalWorkers

Michael Y. YoshinoProfessor of Business AdministrationHarvard Business School

U.S. Industrial Competitiveness:A Comparison of Steel, Electronics,

and Automobiles Advisory Panel

Alan K. McAdams, ChairpersonProfessor

Graduate School of Business and PublicAdministration

Cornell University

Steve BeckmanResearch AssociateInternational Union of Electrical,

Radio, and Machine Workers

Milton DeanerVice President, Engineering National

Steel Corp.William E. Dennis

Senior Vice President

American Iron & Steel Institute

John HoldenEnergy PlanningFord Motor Co.

Robert JohnsonVice President, Engineering

Burroughs Corp.

Maryann N. KellerVice PresidentPaine, Webber, Mitchell, Hutchins, Inc.

E. Floyd KvammeNational Advanced Systems

Daniel LuriaResearch Associate

United Auto Workers



76 . Annual Repor t to the Congress for 1981

Thomas P. RohlenResearch Associate

Stanford East Asian Forum

H. Paul RootDirector of Economic Studies

General M otors Corp.

Federal Coal Leasing

Advisory Panel

Lynton K. Caldwell, ChairmanDepartment of Political ScienceIndian a University

James BoydEx officioPrivate Consu ltant

C. Wayne Cook

ChairmanDep artment of Range Science

Colorado State University

Lloyd ErnstManager, OperationsWestern Fuels Association Inc.

Thomas FrancePrivate Consu ltant

Gerrie GreeneLegislative RepresentativeNational Association of Counties

James R. JonesVice Presiden t

Environmen tal AffairsPeabod y Coal Co.

Carla KishRegional RepresentativeWestern Organization of Resource

Councils

Jonathan LashSenior Project AttorneyNatural Resources Defense Coun cil,

Inc.

Alfred Petrick, Jr.

Petrick Associates

Jack Sim onDirectorIllinois State Geological Survey

Dan iel J. Snyd er

PresidentColorado-Westmoreland, Inc.

Joseph Yancik Vice President, Research and Technical

ServicesNational Coal Association

Gary R. SaxonhouseProfessorDepartment of Economics


Caroline WareMemb er of BoardNational Consum ers League

P r o g r a m

Nonnuclear Industrial HazardousWaste Advisory Panel

Myron Tribu s, ChairmanDirector, Center for Advanced

Engineering Stud yMassachusetts In stitute of Technology

David AndersonCorporate Director

Environmen tal AffairsBethlehem Steel Corp.

Frank Collins

Physical Chemist and Con sultantOil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

International Union

Jeffrey DiverSenior Environmen tal CounselWaste Managemen t, Inc.

Philippa FootDepartment of Philosophy


Thomas H. GoodgameDirector of Corporate Environmental

ControlResearch and Engineering Center

Whirlpool Corp.

Diane G ravesConservation ChairmanN.j, Chapter of the Sierra Club

Sam GusmanSenior AssociateConservation Foundation

Rolf HartungSchool of Public Health


Robert L. Jud d

DirectorOffice of Appropriate Technology

Kenneth S. Kamlet

Assistant Director for Pollution andToxic SubstancesNational Wildlife Federation

Terry Lash

Director of Science and Public PolicyKeystone Center



Appendix A—List of Advisors and Panel Members 77

David LennettAttorney

Environmental D efense Fund

Joe J. MayhewManager of Solid Waste ProgramsChemical Manufacturers Association

John M. Mulvey

Director of Engineering Man agementSystems

Princeton University

School of Engineering/Applied Science

Steven J. Picco

Assistant CommissionerRegulatory and Government Affairs

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Delbert RectorActing Chief Environmental Services DivisionMichigan Department of Natural

Resources

Gerard Add ison Rohlich

LBJ School of Pu blic AffairsUniversity of Texas at Austin

Kenneth J. RothmanHarvard School of Public Health

Reva RubensteinManager of the Institute of Chem ical

Waste ManagementNational Solid Wastes Management

Association

W. Earl TatumDirector of Environmental AffairsE. I. du Pent de Nemours & Co.

George M. Woodwell

Director of the Ecosystems CenterMarine Biological Laboratory

Wood: The Material, The ResourceAdvisory Panel

Larry Tombau gh, ChairmanDeanDepartment of ForestryMichigan State UniversityDarius AdamsDepartment of Forest ManagementOregon State University

Clark BirddeySchool of Forestry and EnvironmentalStudies

Yale UniversityCarroll BrockM. J. Brock & SonsMerle ConkinNational Forest Products Association

M. Rupert CutlerSenior Vice President

The Audu bon Society

Judge Ormond S. DanfordPrivate Forest Land Owner

Robert D. DayFellow

Resources for the Future

Kirk Ewart

DirectorGovernmental and Environmental

Affairs Departmen t

Boise Cascade Corp.

R. Rodney Foil

DirectorMississippi Agricultural and Forestry

Experiment Station

Carter KiethleyExecutive DirectorWood H eating Alliance

Peter KirbyThe Wilderness Society

Dud ley KircherWorld Headquarters

Mead Corp.

Bruce LippkeWeyerhaeuser Corp.

Norma PaceSenior Vice President

American Paper Institute

Carl ReidelEnvironmental ProgramUniversity of Vermont

Henry Webster

DirectorForest Management Division

Michigan Department of NaturalResources

John ZivnuskaDepartment of Forestry and Resource

ManagementUniversity of California



78 q Annual Repor t to the Congress for 1981

Stephen H. Berwick Chief Scientist

HD R SciencesCy CarpenterPresidentMinnesota Farmers Union

Eliot ColemanMountain School

Johanna DwyerDirectorFrances Stern Nutrition CenterNew England Medical Center

Richard L. HallVice President

Science and TechnologyMcCormick & Company, Inc.

Laura HeuserAgricultural Council of America

J. Frank McCormick Professor and DirectorThe Graduate Program in EcologyThe University of Tennessee

R. Den nis Rouse

Dean

School of AgricultureAuburn University

Daryl B. Simons

Associate Dean for EngineeringResearch

College of Engineerin g


Thomas SporlederDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsTexas A&M Un iversity

William StappProgram ChairpersonBehavior and Environment School of

Natural Resources


Sylvan WittwerDirector and Assistant DeanCollege of Agriculture and Natural

ResourcesMichigan State University

U.S. Food and Agricultural ResearchAdvisory Panel

Aileen AdamsConsumer Consultant

Paul Baumgart

Corporate Economist andVice President

Safeway Stores, Inc.

Roger Blobaum

Consultant

William BurnsDirector of ResearchUnited Food and Commercial Workers

International Union

Carl W. CarlsonConsultant

Nick CarneyDirector

Division of AgricultureDepartment of Natural Resources

State of AlaskaTony J. Cunh aDeanSchool of AgricultureCalifornia State Polytechnic University

Susan De Marco

Consultant

Robert Di Marco

Director of Central ResearchGeneral Foods Corp.

Harold DoddPresidentIllinois Farmers Union

Lewis C. Dowd y, Chancellor

North Carolina Agricultural andTechnical State University

Thomas F. JonesVice President for Research

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Jarvis E. MillerConsultant

Albert H. MosemanConsultant, IADS

Lewis F. NorwoodDirector of Affiliate Relations

National Association of Retail G rocersof the United States

William A. ReinersDepartm ent of Biological SciencesDartmouth College



Append/x A—List of Advisors and Panel Members q 79

James E. TillotsonVice President

Technical Research and DevelopmentOcean Spray Cranberries, Inc.

Harold L. Wilcke

ConsultantRalston Purina Co.

Water-Related Technologies forSustaining Agriculture in U.S. Aridand Semiarid Lands Adviaory Panel

James B. Kendrick, Jr., ChairmanVice PresidentAgriculture and University Services


Alton A. Adam s, Jr.

Adam s & Associates

Thomas G. BahrDirectorWater Resources Research InstituteNew Mexico State University

Wilbert H. Blackb urnDepartment of Range ScienceTexas A&M Un iversity

Harold E. DregneDepartment of Plant and Soil ScienceTexas Tech University

Chester E. Evans

Larry J. Gordon

Deputy SecretaryNew Mexico Health and Environment

Department

Robert M. HaganDepartment of Land, Air, and Water

ResourcesUniversity of California

David E. Herrick Western Agricultural Research

Committee

Helen IngramDepartment of Government


Cyrus McKellDirector of Research

Plant Resources Institute

Michael F. McNultyDirectorTucson Active Management Area

Arizona Department of WaterResources

Milton E. Mekelburg

Rancher

Clifford J. Murin oPresidentDesert Research Institute

Alice ParkerSecretary and TreasurerP&P Farms, Inc.

Cynthia ReedRancher

Luis TorresProgram Director

Northern New MexicoAmerican Friends Service Committee

Casey E. Westell, Jr.Director of In du strial EcologyTenneco, Inc.

Norman K. WhittleseyDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsWashington State University

Impact of Technology on Productivity

of the Land Advisory Panel

David Pimentel, ChairmanDepartment of Entomology

Cornell University

Delmar AkerlundAkerlund Farm Biological Enterprises

Steve BrunsonDirectorNational Association of Conservation

Districts

William Dietrich

Senior Vice PresidentOperationsGreen Giant Co.

James V. DrewDean, School of Agriculture

Director, Agricultural ExperimentStation

University of Alaska

George R. HawkesAdvisorProduct Environmental Affairs

Ortho-Chevron Chemical Co.

Earl O. Heady

Department of EconomicsIowa State University

John H. HermanAttorney at Law

Dayton, Herman, Graham & Getts

Maureen K. HinkleNational Audubon Society

William H. HintonFarmer

Garry D. McKenzieDivison of Polar Programs

National Science Foundation



80. Annual Report to the Congress for 1981

William R. Meiners

ConservationistResource Planning and Management

Associates, Inc.

John Moland , Jr.DirectorCenter for Social Research

Southern UniversityRichard E. Rominger

Director

Department of Food and AgricultureState of California

Edwin L. Schmidt

Department of Soil ScienceUniversity of Minnesota

F. C. SticklerDirectorProduct and Market PlanningDeere & Co.

Glover B. Triplett, Jr.Department of Agronomy

Ohio Agricultural Research andDevelopment Center

Ralph WongRancher

Technologies for Sustaining TropicalForest Resources Advisory Panel

Leonard Berry, ChairmanCenter for Technology, Environment.

and DevelopmentClark University

Eddie Albert

Hu gh BollingerDirector

Plant Resources InstituteUniversity Research Park

Robert CassagnolDirector

Division of Natural ResourcesDepartment of AgricultureHaiti

Robert Cramer

Gary EilertsAppropriate Technology International

John EwelDepartment of Botany

University of Florida

Robert HartWinrock InternationalPetit Jean Mountain

Susanna HechtDepartment of G eography

U C L A

Marilyn HoskinsDepartm ent of Sociology

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

John H unter

Department of GeographyMichigan State University

Norman JohnsonVice Presiden t

North Carolina RegionWeyerhaeuser Co.

Jan LaarmanDepartment of ForestryNorth Carolina State University

Chuck Lankester

UN D evelopment Programme

Robert Ow en

Christine PadochUniversity of Wisconsin

Don PlucknettCGIARWorld Bank

Allen PutneyECNAMP

West Indies Lab

Jeff RommDepartment of ForestryUniversity of California

Richard E. SchultesHarvard Botanical MuseumHarvard University

John TerborghDepartm ent of BiologyPrinceton University

Henry TschinkelRegional Forestry Advisor

Regional Office for Central Am ericanPrograms

Water Assessment, Field Workshop:Irrigation Agriculture,

Berkeley, Calif.

Lars W. J. AndersonUSDA Aquatic Weed Control ResearchBotany D epartmentUniversity of California

Neil H . Berg

Pacific Southwest Forest and RangeExperiment Station

U.S. Forest Service

Sheldon BooneU.S. Department of Agriculture

Soil Conservation ServiceBrent Cluff Water Resources Research Center


William EhrlerU.S. Water Conservation LabDepartment of Agriculture



Appendix A—List of Advisors and Panel Members q 81

Paul E. Fischbach

Department of Agricultural EngineeringUniversity of Nebraska

Robert M. Hagan

Department of Land, Air, andWater Resources

University of California, Davis

R. Keith HigginsonHigginson & Associates, Inc.

James B. Kendrick Vice President

Agricultural and University Services

University of California, Berkeley

Gary NabhamMeals for M illions Found ation

J. Herbert SnyderDepartment of Economics

University of California at Berkeley

Water Assessment, Field Workshop:

Rangeland Agriculture,Salt Lake City, Utah

Kay H. AsayUSDA/ARSCrops Research Lab

Utah State University

Wilbert H, Blackburn

Range Science Dep artmentTexas A&M University

Al A. DyerDepartment of Forest and

Wood ScienceColorado State University

Richard E. EckertRenewable Resources CenterUniversity of N evada

James E. EllisNatural Resources Ecology Lab


Dennis HansenPlant Resources Institute

Floyd E. KinsingerExecutive Secretary

Society for Range M anagement

John L. McLainResource Concepts, Inc.

David R. Patton

Rocky Mt. Forest and RangeExperiment Station

Forestry Sciences Laboratory

Arizona State University

William SissonU.S. Department of AgricultureNew Mexico State University

Work Group I: Management of Foodand Agricultural Research

James AlbrechtVice President for Business

DevelopmentThe N estle Co.

William P. Flatt

Dean, College of AgricultureUniversity of Georgia

Hugo O. GraumannRetiredU.S. Department of Agriculture

Robert JuddManaging DirectorNational Soybean Crop Imp rovement

Council

Roy L. LowornRetiredNorth Carolina State University and

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Thomas S. RonningenDirector-at-LargeNortheast Regional Association of State

Agricultural Experiment Station

Directors

University of Maryland

John StovallDepu ty Director

Joint Planning and EvaluationScience and Education AdministrationU.S. Department of Agriculture

Work Group II: Structure, Evaluation,and Funding of Food and

Agricultural ResearchC. L. DuncanVice President

Campbell Soup Co.

B. R. EddlemanDirectorNational an d Regional Research

Planning and Analysis, SAESMississippi State University

Earl GloverRetiredU.S. Department of Agriculture

R. J. Hild rethManaging Director

Farm FoundationJames Kendrick Vice President

Agriculture and University Services

University of California, Berkeley



82 q Annual Repor t to the Congress for 1981

E. F. Knip lingRetiredU.S. Department of Agriculture

Vernon RuttanDepartmen t of Agricultural and

Applied Economics

University of M innesota

Work Group III: Determination of Food

and Agricultural Research Priorities

Thomas ArmyDepu ty AdministratorAgricultural Research

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Charles E. FrenchCoordinator of International an d

Interagency ProgramsDevelopment Sup port Bureau

Agency for International Developmen t

Keith Huston

Director-at-LargeNorth Central Regional Agricultural

Experiment Station Directors

Ronald D. Knu tsonDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsTexas A&M University

Donald Ku eselVice President an d Director of Q uality

Assurance and ResearchLarsen Co.

John P. MahlstedeAssociate DeanCollege of Agricultu re

Iowa State University

Water Assessment, Field WorkshopDryland Agriculture, Denver, Colo.

Alfred L. Black Director

USDA Agricultural Research ServiceNorthern Great Plains Research Cen ter

Theodore DowningAnthropology Department


James EngibousDepartment of Agriculture and SoilsWashington State University

Chester E. Evans

Richard Felger

Arizona-Sonora Desert M useumMichael GlantzHead, Environmental and Societal

Impacts GroupNational Center for Atmospheric

Research

James KrallPlant and Soil Science DepartmentMontana State University

Ronald NewtonDepartmen t of Plant SciencesTexas A&M University

Robert W. Pearcy

Botany Dep artmentUniversity of California, Davis

Norman Rosenberg

DirectorCenter for Agriculture, Meteorology,

and ClimatologyAgricultural Engineering BuildingUniversity of Neb raska

Robert A, StewartLaboratory DirectorUSDA Agriculture Research Service

Conservation an d ProductionResearch Lab

Dryland Agriculture Work GroupWashington, D.C.

Bruce BeattieDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsMontana State University

Ernest FrenchSuperintendentNorth D akota State Agricultural

Experiment Station

Joe Good inDepartment of Biological SciencesTexas Tech University

John HanksSoils and Biometeorology Dep artment

Utah State UniversityJim HeyserResearch AssociateDepartment of Botany and

Plant PathologyColorado State University

Bob Papendick

Research Leader

USDA/ARSWashington State University

Robert A. StewartResearch LeaderUSDA/IARSConservation an d Production

Research Lab



Appendix A—list of Advisors and Panel Members .83

Irrigation Agriculture Work GroupWashington, D.C.

Don Alford

Stanley DavisDepartment of Hydrology and

Water ResourcesUniversity of Arizona

Paul Fischb ach

Department of Agricultural Engineering

University of Nebraska

Anthony E. HallDepartment of Botany and

Plant Sciences


Marvin JensenNational Research Program LeaderAgricultural Research ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture

Ron Lacewell

Department of Agricultural Economics

Texas A&M UniversityJoe LordPresidentJ.M. Lord, Inc.

Peter WierengaDepartment of AgronomyNew Mexico State University

Rangeland Agriculture Work Washington, D.C.

Farrell BransonU.S. Geological Survey, WRD

Bruce God freyDepartment of Economics

Utah State UniversityDan Laster

Group

Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat AnimalResearch Center

Bill Laycock Forage and Range Management

Research

Crops Research Lab


Brian Sindelar

Animal and Range Science Dep artmentMontana State University

Paul T. TuellerDirectorKnud tsen Renewable Resources Center

University of Nevada

Warren WhitmanProfessor EmeritusBotany Department

Agricultural Experiment StationNorth Dakota State University of

Agriculture and Applied Sciences

Socioeconomic/Legal/EnvironmentalWork Group Denver, Colo.

Harvey Bank sDirectorWater Resources DivisionCamp-Dresser and McKee

Bruce BeattieDepartment of Agricultural Economics

Montana State University

Bruce God frey

Department of EconomicsUtah State University

Joe G oodinDep artment of Biological SciencesTexas Tech University

Ron LacewellDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsTexas A&M Un iversity

Dwight M etzlerSecretary

Kansas Department of Health

Ray MosesMoses, Wittemyer, Harrison, and

Woodruff, P.C.

John SheafferPresidentSheaffer and Roland, Inc.

Bill StiniDepartment of Anthropology


Joe WarburtonDesert Research Institute




William StasonVeterans’ Administration and Harvard

School of Public Health

Gregg VanderheidenTrace Research and Development

Center

University of WisconsinMichael ZulloCorporate Partnership ProgramU.S. Council for International Year

of Disabled Persons

Assessment of Technologies forDetermining Cancer Risks From the

Environment Advisory Panel

Norton N elson, Chairman

Department of Environmental MedicineNew York University Medical School

David AxelrodN.Y. Commissioner of Health

Peter A. A. BerleBerle, Butzel, Kass & Case

Theodore L. Cairns

Paul F. Deisler, Jr.Vice President

Health, Safety and Environment

Shell Oil Co.

George S. Dominguez

Director of G overnment RelationsCIBA–Geigy

David DonigerNatural Resources Defense Coun cil

A. Myrick FreemanBowdoin College

Robert HarrisEnvironmen tal Defense Fund

Priscilla W. LawsDickinson College

Mark LepperVice President for Inter

Institutional AffairsRush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s

Medical Center

Brian MacMahonDepartment of Epidemiology

School of Public Health

Harvard UniversityRobert A. Neal

Director, Center in Environmental

Toxicology

Vanderbilt University School of

Medicine

Vaun A. NewillResearch and Environmental

Health D ivisionExxon Corp.

William J. NicholsonMoun t Sinai School of Medicine

R. Talbot PageCalifornia Institute of Technology

Margaret SeminarioDepartment of Occupational Safety and

Health, AFL/CIO

Alice S. WhittemoreDivision of Epidemiology

School of MedicineStanford University

Michael Wright

Safety and Health Department

United Steel Workers of America

Agent Orange Study Protocol Review

Advisory PanelRichard RemingtonSchool of Public HealthUniversity of Michigan

Margit BleeckerDivision of O ccupational M edicine

The Johns Hopk ins Medical Institutes

School of Hygiene and Public Health

George L. CarloEpidemiology, Health and

Environmental SciencesDow Chemical U.S.A.

Neal Castagn oli, Jr.Department of Chemistry &

Pharmaceutical ChemistryUniversity of California

Theodore Colton

School of Public HealthBoston University

James DavisVeterans of Foreign Wars of the

United States

Frederic HalbertPublic Representative

George B. Hutchison

School of Public HealthHarvard University

Patricia King

Georgetown Law Center

Lewis KullerDepartment of EpidemiologyGraduate School of Public Health

University of Pittsburgh



86 . Annu al Report to t he Congress for 1981

Claire O. LeonardSchool of MedicineUniversity of Utah

John F. Sommer, Jr.The Am erican Legion

John F. TerzanoVietnam Veteran s of America

Monte C. ThrodahlSenior Vice Presiden tEnvironmental Policy Staff Monsanto Co.

H. Michael D. UtidjianCorporate Med ical DirectorAmerican Cyanamid Co.

Strategies for Medical TechnologyAssessment Advisory Panel

Lester Breslow, Chairp ersonSchool of Public HealthUniversity of California

Morris CohenDirector of Technology Assessment

Department of Medical MethodsResearch

The Permanence Medical Group

Richard Cooper

Williams and Connolly, Inc.

D. V. d ’Arbeloff Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerMillipore Corp.

Harvey Fineberg

School of Public HealthHarvard University

Jerome D. Frank

The H enry Phipp s Psychiatric ClinicThe Johns Hop kins Hospital

William GoffmanSchool of Library ScienceCase Western Reserve University

Leon GreeneVice Presiden tNew Product TechnologySmith Kline & French Laboratory, Inc.

David H arrierOrthopedic Surgeon

Stanley B. JonesVice Presiden t

Blue Cross/Blue Sheild AssociationF. Wilfiid LancasterGraduate School of Library and

Information ScienceUniversity of Illinois

Louise B. RussellThe Brookings Institution

Herbert SemmelPresidentConsumer Coalition for Health

Robert M. VeatchKennedy Institute of Ethics

Richard W. VilterAmerican College of Physicians

College of MedicineUniversity of Cincinnati

Kenneth E. Warner

School of Public HealthUniversity of Michigan

Richard N. WatkinsStaff PhysicianGroup Health Cooperative

Carol WeissGraduate School of EducationHarvard Un iversity

Kerr L. WhiteDeputy Director of Health Sciences

Rockefeller Foundation

Strategies for Medical

Technology Assmsment

Boston UnivemityWorkshop Participants

Robert AustrianDepartmen t of Research MedicineSchool of MedicineUniversity of Pennsylvania

Ralph D’AgostinoDepartmen t of Mathematics

Boston University

Harvey FinebergSchool of Public HealthHarvard University

Leonard SaxeDepartment of PsychologyBoston University

Alexander M. WalkerSydney Farber Cancer InstituteSchool of Public Health

Harvard University

John E. Wennberg

Department of Community andFamily Medicine

Dartmouth Medical School

John W. WilliamsonDepartment of Health Services

Administration

School of Hygiene & Public HealthThe Johns Hopk ins University



Appendix A—list of Advisors and Panel Members .87

Paul M. WortmanInstitute for Social Research


Technology and Handicapped PeopleWorkshop Participants

Claus Bahnson

Woodrow Wilson CenterSmithsonian Institution

Jane BairdCommittee on Education and LaborU.S. House of Representatives

Louis Bransford

Public Service Satellite Consortium

Terry ChaseBureau of Social Science Research

Fay Cook

School of EducationNorthwestern University

Debra Cornelius

RRRI-ALLBJoan CostelloSchool of Social Service Admin istrationUniversity of Ch icago

Judy CravensNCCMHC

Sam Crouch

Center for th e Stud y of Welfare Policy

University of Ch icago

Kay EllisRRI-ALLB

William EnglishRehabilitation Training CenterUniversity of Oregon

Helen Picard

Department of PsychologyGeorge Washington University

Robinsue Frohboese

Committee on Labor andHum an Resources

United States Senate

James GarrettWorld Rehabilitation Fund

Eva GavillanWashington, D.C.

Tom G ilhoolPublic Interest Law Center

Joe GilmoreDirector for Personnel Preparation

Office of Sp ecial Education

John GliedmanNew York

Herman Goldberg

Acting Director

Office of Sp ecial Education

Richard Harris

Office of Handicapped ServicesBall State University

Deborah Jennings

National Association of State MentalRetardation Program Directors

Tom JoeCenter for th e Stud y of Welfare PolicyUniversity of Ch icago

Evan KempDisability Rights Center

Mike KuberU.S. Council for the International Year

of Disabled Persons

Mary Lang

Legal Assistance ProgramSUNY School of Law

Sharon LansingManagement Instruction Resources

Dick LashNew York

Joyce Lazar

National Institute of Mental H ealth

Richard Beinecke

U.S. Council for the International Yearof Disabled Persons

Robert LichterGraduate Program of Science and

Technology

Ron MaceBarrier-Free Environment

Paul Marchand

Government Affairs OfficeAR C

Susan McElroy

U.S. Council for the International Yearof the Disabled Persons

Sheila McVeighAlbany, New York

Sharon MenkveldDepartment of O rthopedicsChildren’s Hospital

Sharon M istier

Office of Gen eral Counsel

Community Services AdministrationTom Nerney

Executive Director

Connecticut Association of MentallyRetarded Citizens



Mark OzerOzer AssociatesWashington, D.C.Jody PalmourWashington, D.C.

David ParkNational Park Service

Departmen t of InteriorCharles PicardU.S. Council for the International Year

of Disabled Persons

Joe PiccolinoNew York State Department of

Vocational Rehabilitation

Carolyn Del PolitoAmerican Society of Allied Health

P r o f e s s i o n s

Margaret PorterDepartment of Health & Human

Services

Ruth PurtiloInstitute of Health ProfessionsMassachusetts General Hospital

Myrta QuadraNew York

Reese H. RobrahnDirectorAmerican Coalition of Citizens With

Disabilities, Inc.

Cheryl RogersCenter for th e Study of Welfare PolicyUniversity of ChicagoAnn RosewaterComm ittee on Edu cation and Labor

U.S. House of RepresentativesHelga RothOffice of Handicapped individualsU.S. Department of Education

Larry ScaddenActing DirectorNational Institute of

Hand icapped ResearchWashington, D.C.

Leslie Scallet

Harold Yuker

Hofstra UniversityGail SchultzThe Washington Business Group

on Health

Lynn SchultzNational Mental Health Association

Stanley SmitsCollege of Business AdministrationGeorgia State University

Shirley Starr

National Allian ce for the Mentally III

Raymond Starr

Office of Congressman Solarz

Tom StraxMoss Rehabilitation Hospital

Tom Stripling

Paralyzed Veterans of AmericaJule SugarmanU.S. Council for the International Year

of Disabled Persons

Jack Tringo

Office of Sp ecial Edu cation

Irving Zola

Departm ent of SociologyBrandeis University

Lois WeithornNational Mental Health Association

Human Resources Program

Biotechnology Advisory Panel Zsolt Harsanyi

Howard Bremer E. F. Hutton

Paten t Council Michael HookerWisconsin Alumn i Research Federation The Johns Hopkins University

Brook Byers Peter Hutt

Klein er, Perk in s, Cau field & Byers Covin gton an d Bu rlin gRobert Fildes David JacksonBiogen, Inc. Genex Corp.

Julian Greaser William MaxonMassachusetts Institute of Technology Upjohn Co.Ralph Hardy Laura MeagherE. 1. d u Pent de Nemou rs & Co. North Carolina Biotechn ology Center



Appendix A—List of Advisors and Panel Members .89

Robert MillerUniversity of Texas at Dallas

Dorothy NelkinCornell University

Norman Oblon

Ob lon, Fisher, Spivak, McClelland &Maier, PC

David PadwaAgrigenetics

David ParkinsonFalk Clinic

Phillip A. SharpCenter for Cancer ResearchMassachusetts Institute of Technology

William J. Whelan

School of Medicine

University of Miami

John ZysmanUniversity of California, Berkeley

Genetic Screening Advisory PanelArthur D. Bloom, ChairmanCollege of Physicians and Surgeons

Columbia University

J. Gran t BrewenAllied Chemical Corp.

Eula Bingham

Department of Environmental Health

University of Cincinnati

Patricia BufflerUniversity of Texas School of

Public Health

Ira Cisin

Social Research GroupGeorge Washington University

Burford W. Culpepper

Medical DivisionE. I. du Pent de Nemours & Co.

James D. EnglishUnited Steelworkers of America

Neil H oltzmanJohns Hopkins Hospital

Paul Kotin

Thomas O. McGarity

School of LawUniversity of Texas at Austin

Rafael MoureOil, Chemical, and Atomic

Workers Union

Robert F. Murray, Jr.

Howard University College of Medicine

Elena Nightingale

Institute of M edicine

National Academy of Sciences

Gilbert OmennThe Brookings Ins t i tu te

William N. Rom

Rocky Mountain Center forOccupational and Environmental

HealthUniversity of Utah Medical Center

Stuart SchweitzerProgram in Health Planning and

Policy Analysis

UCLA School of Pu blic Health

Robert VeatchThe Kennedy Institute of Ethics

Georgetown University

World Population Advisory Panel

Philip R. Lee, Chairman

Health Policy ProgramSchool of Medicine


Leona Baumgartner

Kenneth BouldingInstitute of Behavioral ScienceUniversity of Colorado

Wilbur J. CohenLyndon Baines Johnson School of

Public AffairsUniversity of Texas

Cyril CrockerSchool of Medicine

Howard University

Arthur Dyck Harvard Divinity School

William N. Hubbard, Jr.

PresidentThe Upjohn Co.

Snehendu B. Kar

School of Pu blic HealthUniversity of California

Nathan KeyfitzHarvard University Center for

Population Studies

Marjory Mecklenburg*

American Citizens Concerned for Life

Deborah OakleySchool of NursingUniversity of Michigan

Kenn eth J. RyanBoston Hospital for Women

Nafis Sadik United Nations Fund for

Population Activities

Carol Tauer

Department of Philosophy

College of St. Catherin e

q Resigned February 1981 to assume position at the Department of Health and HumanServices.



Faye WattletonPresidentPlanned Parenthood Federation

of America

Impacts of Applied Genet icsAdvisory Panel

J. E. Legates, Cha irm anDean, School of Agriculture and

Life SciencesNorth Carolina State UniversityRonald E. CapeCetus Corp.Nin a V. Federoff Department of EmbryologyCarnegie Institution of Washington

June GoodfieldThe Rockefeller University

Harld P. GreenFried, Frank, Harris, Shriverand Kampelman

Halsted R. HolmanStanford Un iversity Medical School

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

International Union

Elizabeth ‘KutterThe Evergreen State CollegeOliver E. Nelson, Jr.

Laboratory of GeneticsUniversity of Wisconsin

David PimentelDepartment of EntomologyCornell University

Robert WeaverDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsPennsylvania State University

James A. WrightPlant Breeding DivisionPioneer Hi-Bred International

Norton D. ZinderThe Rockefeller University

SCIENCE, INFORMATION, ANDNATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION

Technological Innovat ion and Health, Victor H. Frank elSafety, and En v i r o n men ta l R eg u la t io n Department of Orthopedics

Advisory Panel University of Washington

Donald F. Hornig, Cha i rman Herber t I . Fusfeld

Di rector , Interdiscipl inary Programs in Director

Public Health-

School of Public HealthHarvard Un iversity

John R. BartlitChairmanNew M exico Citizens for Clean Air

and Water

Joseph B. Bidwell*Executive DirectorGM Research LaboratoryJohn R. BlizardManagerGovernment AffairsCorning Glass Corp.

Robert M. Collins

Center for Science andTechnology PolicyGraduate School of Public

AdministrationNew York University

R. Eugene G oodson **Hoover Un iversal, Inc.

Peter Barton HuttCovington & Burling

Joseph T. LingVice President for Environmental

Affairs3M Co.

Claire Nader

ConsultantPresident and Chairman of the Board Roger G. NellCobe Laboratories, Inc. ProfessorDavid J. Fogarty Director, Division of Humanities a n dSenior Vice President Social SciencesSouthern California Edison Co. California In stitute of Technology

q Replaced William G. Agnew, Technical Director.q q A~lia~ wi th Pu rdue University du ring term on panel.




Frederick J. Rarig*Vice President and Associate

General Council

Rohm & Haas Co.

Charles H. TupperDirector, Safety DepartmentInternational Brotherhood of

Electric WorkersJaqueline Warren* q

Natural Resources Defense Council

James W. YoungManager of Regulatory AffairsZoecon Corp.

Airport and Air Traffic ControlAdvisory Panel

Raymond L. Bisplinghoff, ChairmanVice President an d D irector of R&DTyco Laboratories

Jesse Borthwick Executive Director

National Association of Noise ControlOfficials

Secor D. Browne

Secor D. Browne Associates, Inc.

Jack Enderspresident

Flight Safety Foundation, Inc.

Robert EverettpresidentThe Mitre Corp.

Matthew FinucaneAviation Consumer Action Project

William T. Hardaker

Assistant Vice PresidentAir Navigation/Traffic Control

Air Transport Association

William Horn , Jr.National Business Aircraft Association,

Inc.

Jack D . HowellAir Line Pilots Association,

International

Alton G. Keel, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of the Air ForceResearch, Development and Logistics

Clifton A. MooreGeneral ManagerCity of Los AngelesDepartment of Airports

Thomas L. Oneto

Planning Ol%cerAircraft Owners and Pilots Association

Robert E. PoliPresidentProfessional Air Traffic Controllers

Association

Gilbert F. Quinby

Consultant

Janet St. Mark PresidentSMS Associates

David S. Stempler

Airline Passengers

Richard TaylorVice President

Association

Boeing Commercial Airplane Co.

David ThomasConsultantGeneral Aviation Manufacturers

Association

Space Program Advisory Panel

Jerry Grey, Chairman Hugh DownsAdministrator of Public Policy American Broadcasting Co.American Institute of Aeronautics Terry Dawson, Jr.

and Astronautics The Analytic Sciences Corp.Fred E. BradleyDirector

Daniel J. Fink

Advan ced Space ProgramSenior vice President

McDonnell Douglas Astronau ticsCorporate Planning & Development

General Electric Co.Sam Brown Arnold FrutkinJohn G. Burk e Director, Market DevelopmentDepartment of History Pacific-Canada DivisionUniversity of California The Burrou ghs Corp.Hal Clement (Harry Stubbs)Author

“Currently retired.**Affi1iated with Environmental Defense Fund during most of term on panel.



Eilene GallowayHonorary DirectorInternational Institute of Space Law

of the International AstronauticalFederation

Ivan GettingConsultant

Willis M. HawkinsSenior AdvisorLockheed Corp.

Ida R. HoosResearch SociologistSpace Sciences Laborator yUniversity of California

James A. LovellPresidentFisk Telephon e Systems, Inc.

Michael B. McElroyAbbot Lawrence Retch Professor of

Atmospheric ChemistryDivision of Applied Sciences

Center for Earth & Planetary PhysicsHarvard Un iversity

James A. Michen erAuthor

Bernard J. O’KeefeChairm an & Chief Executive O fficerEG&G, Inc.

Thomas O. PainePresident and Chief Operating OfficerNorthrop Corp.

Merton J. Peck ChairmanDepartmen t of EconomicsYale University

Marcia SmithScience Policy Research Divi sionCongression al Research Service

Martin SummerfieldPresidentPrinceton Combustion Research

Laboratories, Inc.

Verner E. Suom iDirectorSpace Science & Engin eering Cen terUniversity of Wisconsin

Anthony F. C. WallaceProfessorDepartment of Anthropology

University of PennsylvaniaRoy A. WelchProfessorDepartment of GeographyUniversity of Georgia

Space Policy AtternativeaWorkshop A t t e n d e e s

Jerry Grey, Chairm anAdministrator of Public PolicyAmerican Institute of Aeronau tics

and Astronautics

Russell DrewPresident

Science and Techn ology Consultants

Louis Friedman

Planetary Society

Ronald KonkelPlanning OfficesNational Bureau of Standard s

John LogsdonTechnoscience Association

Arthur Morrissey

Senior Policy Analyst, Space Affairs

Office of Science andTechnology Policy

Executive Office of the President

Willis ShapleyRobert ShawManager, New BusinessExxon Enterprises

Jerome Simonoff Vice Presiden tCitibank

David Williamson

Assistant for Special ProjectsNASA Headquarters

Satellite Commu nications q ndRemote Senaing Commercialization

Workshop Attendees

Ralph BernsteinIBM Scientific Center

Denn is BurnettCOMSAT

Charles DannamanSpace Operations GroupGeneral Electric Co.David FergusonMaterial Resources information System

Task ForceInformation Systems and ServicesRobert GreenbergLeonard Jaffe

Computer Sciences Corp.Vladim ir NaleskewiczSatellite Systems EngineeringChar les SheffieldEarth Satellite Corp.



Appendix A—l is t o f Adv isors and Panel Mem bers q 93

Don WalkletTerra-Mar Associates

R. Gordon WilliamsTRW Electronics and Defense

Materials Processing in Space

Workshop AttendeesDarrell Branscome

Staff D irectorCommittee on Science and Technology

U.S. House of Representatives

Joseph E. Coleman

Program Development ManagerMcDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co.

David CummingsExecutive Director

Universities Space ResearchAssociations

Donald Edgecombe(Alternate: Alfred Robin son)

Battelle .Columbus Laboratories

Charles FrittsEvaluator

National Productivity GroupU.S. General Accountin g O ffice

Laurence GilchristStaff OfficerSpace Applications BoardNational Research Council

James A. Kirk Associate Professor

Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of Maryland

John LogsdonDirectorGraduate Program in Science,

Technology, and Public Policy

George Washington University

Louis TestardiDirector

Material Processing in Space DivisonNASA

International CommercializationWorkshop Attendees

Jean-Pierre Fouqu etScientific Attache for Space Affairs

Embassy of France \ Tadahico Inad a

NASDA Representat iveEmbassy of Japan

Ryo KimuraInternational Space DivisionScience & TechnologyAgency Emb assy of Japan

Sebastian Lasherlntelsat

Wilfred MellorsDirectorWashington OfficeESA

Kenneth PedersonDirector

International AffairsNASA Headqu arters

Space TransportationWorkshop Attendees

W. C. ArmstrongNorthrop Services, Inc.

William French

United Technology Corp.

Chuck GouldRockwell International Corp.

Don Ingram

Grumm an Aerospace Corp.Gilbert KeyesBoeing Aerospace Co.

Gilbert MooreThiokol Corp.

Morgan SanbornRockwell International Corp.

Charles TringaliLockh eed Corp.

Robert WhiteGeneral Dynamics Corp.

James WilsonMcDonnell Douglas Astronautics

Kenneth Zitek Martin Marietta Aerospace Corp.

Remote Sensing Workshop Attendees

Wolf Drews

World Bank

Roland InlowO AO

Ahmed MeerDepartment of State

James Nycum

U.S. Gen eral Accountin g Office

Charles Parrish

Executive Vice PresidentEarth Resources Data Analysis

Charles PaulAgency for International Development

Irv PikusNational Science Foundation



94 q Annual Report to the congress for 1981

Bruce Rado Bill WigtonGeorgia State Department of Department of Agriculture

National Resources Rich WilliamsEd Risley U.S. Geological SurveyDepartment of th e Interior

Robotics Workshop Participants

Roy Amara, ChairmanPresidentInstitu te for the Future

Paul AronExecutive Vice PresidentDaiw a Securities America, Inc.

James K . BakkenVice President of Op erations

Support Staffs

Ford Motor Co.Donald C. BurnhamRetired ChairmanWestinghou se Electric Corp.

Laura ConigliaroBache H alsey Stuart Shield s, Inc.

Robert W. DuffyVice Presiden tCorporate M FG ServicesHoneywell, Inc.

Joseph EngelbergerPresidentUnimation Corp. & Consolidated

Control Corp.

Donald F. EphlinVice Presiden tInternational UnionUnited Auto Workers

Bela GoldResearch Program in Industrial

EconomicsCase Western Reserve University

Margaret GrahamProfessorHarvard Busin ess School

John KendrickDepartment of Economics

George Washington UniversityRobert B. KurtzSenior Vice PresidentGeneral Electric Co.

Ronald L. LarsenNASA RTE-6

Alvin P. Lehn erdVice President-New Products R & DBlack and Decker Manu facturing Co.

Eli S. Lustgart enVice Presiden tPaine Webber M itchell Hu tchins Inc.

Reginald NewellDirector of ResearchI.A.M.

Gordon 1. RobertsonPresidentControl Autom ation, Inc.

Bernard M . Sallott

Director of Technical &Governmental ActivitiesSociety of M fg. Engin eers

Harley ShaikenResearch FellowScience, Technology an d

Society ProgramMassachusetts Institu te of Techn ology

Ken SusnjaraPresidentThermwood Corp.

Patent System Advisory Panel

Donald Banner

Schuyler, Banner, Birch, McKie &Beckett

J, Fred BucyPresidentTexas Instrumen ts, Inc.

C. Marshall DannDann, Dorfman, Herrell & Skillman

Henry GrabawskiDepartment of EconomicsDuk e University

Seymour HollanderGeneral Legal & Patent CounselBell Laboratories

Auzville Jackson, Jr.Vice Presiden tResearch & TechnologyRobertshaw Controls Co.

Norm an A. JacobsPresidentAmicon Corp.



Append/x A—List of Advisors and Panel Members q 95

Willard MarcyVice PresidentPatents ProgramResearch Corp.

Simon MencherS. K. Mencher Assocaciates, Inc.

Thomas E. OsbornePresidentLogic Design

William E. Riley

Director of MarketingBattelle Development Corp.

M. Robert Showalter

PresidentAutomotive Engine Associates

Richard H. SternBaker & Hostetler

John P. SuttonLimbach, Limbach & Sutton

Gerald UdellFaith Center

David S. UreyGeneral Attorney-PatentsUnited States Steel Corp.

Information Technology and EducationAdvisory Panel

Willis Ad cock

Assistant Vice PresidentTexas Instruments, Inc.

Joel N. BloomDirectorFranklin Institute

Science Museum and PlanetariumColleen CaytonDevelopment OfficerDenver Public Library

Robert L. Chartrand

Senior Specialist in InformationTechnology and Policy

Congressional Research ServiceThe Library of Congress

Mark Curtis

President

Association of American Colleges

L Linton Deck

Superintendent

Fairfax County SchoolsSam GibbonExecutive Producer

Children’s Television Workshop

Harold Howe, 11Gutm an LibraryHarvard Graduate School of Education

Robert HoyeDirectorInstructional TechnologyUniversity of Louisville

Judy LozanoSuperintendent of Southside

School DistrictMaurice MitchellChairman of the BoardNa tional Public RadioSarah ResnickPresidentMedia Systems Corp .Vic WallingPolicy A nalystStanford Research InstituteNellouise WatkinsDirector,Compu ter CenterBennett College

Joe Wya ttVice President, AdministrationHarv ard University

Telecommunication Advisory Panel

Richard B. Marsten, ChairmanBoard on Telecommunications &

Computer Ap plicationsNational Research Coun cil

General L. E. Adams

Executive Vice PresidentArmed Forces Communications and

Electronics Association

Roger C. Aude

Executive OfficerInternational Communications

Assocociation

Ruth S. Baker-Battest

Attorney at Law

K. Woodw ard BenekertChairman of the Board of the U.S.

Transmission Systems

International Telephone &Telegraph Corp.

A. G. W. BiddlePresidentComputer & Communications Industry

AssocociationJames B. BooeAssistant to th e President

Commun ications Workers of America



Kurt BorchardtHarvard Program on

Resources PolicyHarvard University

Warren BrarenAssociate DirectorConsumers Union

Willard T. CarletonProfessor

Information

Departmen t of FinanceUniversity of North Carolina

Joseph V. CharykPresidentCommunications Satellite Corp.

Ralph L. ClarkConsultantInstitu te of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers

Harry DannalsPresidentAmerican Radio Relay League

Lee L. Davenp ortVice president, Chief ScientistGeneral Teleph one & Electronic Corp.

Francis DeRosaVice PresidentRCA Global Communications, Inc.

William D. EnglishVice PresidentSatellite Business Systems

James FellowPresidentNational Association of

Educational Broadcasting

Emanuel FthenakisPresidentAmerican Satellite Corp.

George GraySpecial Representative for

Government RelationsNational Association of Broadcasters

Jerry GrayAdmin istrator for Public PolicyAmerican Institute of Aeronautics

and Astronau tics

Walter R. HinchmanWalter Hinchman Associates, Inc.

Edward W. Hu mmers, Jr.PresidentFederal Communications Bar Association

Manley IrwinProfessorWhittemore Schoo l of Bu siness

and EconomicsUniversity of New Ham pahire

Charles P. John sonVice PresidentIndependent Data Communications

Manufacturers Association, Inc.c/o General Data Communications

Indu stries, Inc.

Jack Kinn

Institute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers

Lane KirklandPresidentAmerican Federation of Labor &

Congress of Industrial Organizations

Jo Ann KlimschotResearch AssociateCommon Cause

Arthur Korff Director, Cable Television DepartmentInternational Brotherhood of

Electrical Work ers

Norman LernerPresidentTranscomm, Inc.

Richard LongExecutive DirectorNorth American Teleph one Association

George MansurPresidentAeronautical Radio, inc.

Rev. Donald C. MatthewsGen eral ExecutiveOfiice of CommunicationsTelecommu nications Consum er

CoalitionUnited Chu rch of ChristBilly B. OliverVice PresidentEngineering PlanningAT&T Long Lines Department

Billy B. OxleySenior Vice President for Distribu tionNational Public Radio

Edward W. Page (Ex officio)Departm ent of Compu ter ScienceClemson University

George E. PickettExecutive Vice Presiden tUnited States Independent

Telephone AssociationG. RUSIMU Pipe

Translational Data Reporting Service,Inc.




Ithiel De Sola Pool

Professor

Department of Political ScienceMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Paul ReardonDepu ty Director

Economic Policy CenterChamber of Commerce of the U.S.

Michael RidderPresidentCommodity N ews Service

Bert C. Roberts, Jr.

MCI Telecommu nications Corp.

Lawrence RobertsPresidentTelenet Commun ications Corp.

Robert W. RossSenior Vice-PresidentNational Cable Television Association

Robert L. SchmidtPresidentNational Cable Television Association

John Shattuck Director

American Civil Liberties Union

Samuel SimonExecutive Director

National Citizens Committee forBroadcasting

Larry SingerAttorney at LawFager & Sin ger

John Sodolski

Vice PresidentElectronics Industry Association

Reinhard StammingerPresident

Future Systems, Inc.

Bernard Strassburg

Robert Sutliff Representative for the Governor’s

Office of New York Chief Systems PlannerNew York Public Service Commission

Harry M. TrebingDirector

Institute of Public Utilities

Gradu ate School of BusinessAdministration

Michigan State University

Carver L. WashburnVice President, Business D evelopm entWestern Union Corp.

Ron WheatleyComputer and Business Equipment

Manufacturers Association

Val J. WilliamsPresidentNational Association of Business and

Educational Radio

Lee WingExecutive DirectorNorth Carolina Agency for

Public Telecommunication

Elizabeth L. Youn g

PresidentPublic Service Satellite Consortium

Education Technology MarketingWorkshop Participants

Sarah Resnick, ChairmanPresidentMedia Systems Corp.

Dick BallardTALMIS

George Blank Creative Computin g

Robert C. BowenPresidentSchool Pub lishingMcGraw-Hill Book Co.

Dee Brock PBS

Beth BrownConsultant

Christopher Dede

University of HoustonSeymour EskowPresident

Rockland Commun ity College

Samu el Y. Gibb on, Jr.Children’s Television Workshop

Dustin HeustonChairmanWICAT, Inc.

Jim JohnsonOffice of the PresidentUniversity of Iowa

Sharon Lansing

Linda RobertsConsultantDepartment of Education

Richard RobinsonPresidentScholastic, Inc.



98 qAnnual Report to th e Congress s for 1981

Telecommunication, Technologiesspecial P a n e l

Edward W. Page, Chairm anDepartment of Compu ter ScienceClemson University

Paul Baran

Cabledata AssociatesDouglas CrombieDirectorInstitute for Telecomm un ication

SciencesU. S. Dep artmen t of Comm erce

John ClarkDirector, Space Applications

and TechnologyRCA Corp.Burton I. EdelsonVice President of Systems Technology

COMSAT Corp.Robert K. GeigerDirector, DevelopmentMartin-Marietta AerospaceDean GilletteExecutive DirectorSystems ResearchBell Teleph one LaboratoriesRichard G. GouldPresidentTelecommunication SystemsRichard MarstenBoard on Telecommunications &

Comp uter App licationsNational Research Council

Geogory E. MastersonAssistant Technical DirectorComp uter SystemsInternational Telephone &

Telegraph Corp.Wilbur PritchardPresidentSatellite Systems Engineering, inc.Joe SobalaNASA Headqu artersDavid L. Solomo nDepu ty AssistantTechnical Policy and OperationsDepartment of Defense

Ha rry J. TalberthGroup LeaderCommu nications EngineeringThe MITRE Corp.Charles K. WattDeputy Director of Defense Test

and EvaluationOffice of the Secretary of Defense

National Information SystemsOverview Advisory P a n e l

Susan Nycum, ChairpersonGaston Snow & Ely Bartlett

Roy AmaraPresident

Institute for the FuturePaul BaranPresidentCabledata Associates

Harold P. BelcherGeneral ManagerAdvanced Mail SystemsU.S. Postal Service

Robert L. ChartrandCongressional Research ServiceThe Library of Congress

Kent ColtonPresident’s Comm ission on H ousing

Donald Du nnEngineering-Econom ic Systems

DepartmentStanford University

Mau rice W. GreggSenior Vice Presiden t, Finan ceNational Retail M erchan ts AssociationThe G ap Stores, Inc.

Jeremiah GutmanNew York City EFT Comm ission &

ACLU Privacy Com missionLevy, Gutman, Goldberg & Kaplan

J. Robert Harcharik PresidentTymn et, Inc.

Rob KlingAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Information and

Computer ScienceUniversity of California, Irvine

John C. LeGatesDirectorProgram on Information ,Resources Policy

Hen ry LucasChairmanComputer Application and

Information Systems

Graduate Scho ol of Bu sinessAdministrationN ew York University

Dan iel D. McCracken

Arthu r S. Miller

Sharon Nelson



Appendix A—list of Advisors and Panel Members 99

Phil NybargMCI

G. Russell PipeEuropean DirectorTranslational Data ReportAmsterdam, Holland

Ithiel De Sola PoolDepartment of Political ScienceMassachusetts Institute of Technology

James RuleState University of New York

Stony Brook

Richard M. Schmidt

American Society of Newspaper Editors

Sherry TurkleSchool of Humanities and

Social SciencesMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Ron UhligManager

Business and Services PlanningBell Northern Research Lab

Jacques ValleePresidentINFOMEDIA

Carl VorlanderExecutive DirectorNational Association of State

Information Systems

Fred W. Warden

Willis WareThe Rand Corp.

Iram Weinstein

System Planning Corp.

Alan F. Westin

Electronic Funds TransferAdvisory Panel

Kent Colton, ChairmanPresident’s Commission on Housing

Wayne I. Boucher

Roland R. Eppley, Jr.President

Eastern States Bank Card Association

John Fisher

BANC ONEFirst Bank Group of Ohio, Inc.

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

Jeremiah S. GutmanLevy, Gutman , Goldberg & Kaplan

Michael Levine

Citibank

Allen LipisPresidentElectronic Bank ing, Inc.

Howard MandelbaumManu facturers Hanover Trust Co.

John McDonnell, Jr.

Eastern Regional M anagerTymnet, Inc.

Susan NycumGaston Snow & Ely Bartlett

William H. Riley

James RuleDepartment of SociologyState Universi ty of New York

Jerome SvigalsIBM

Willis WareThe Rand Corp.

Bob ZimmerCounselElectronic Money Council

National Information SystemsTechnology Advisory Panel

Paul Baran, ChairmanPresidentCabledata Associates

Craig Fields

Senior Program ManagerARPA

Vico HenriquesCBEMA

Lance Hoffm an

Department of Electrical, Engineeringand Computer ScienceSchool of Engineering and

Applied ScienceThe George Washington University

Dean GilletteExecutive DirectorSystems Research D ivisionBell Telephone Labs, Inc.

Kas KalbaPresident

Kalba Bowen Associates, Inc.

Theodore Myer

GTE Telenet

Daniel McCrackenPhil NyborgM CI

Dorm B. ParkerSenior Management Systems

ConsultantSRI International



Ron UhligManagerBusiness and Services Plannin gBell North ern Research LabsFrederic WithingtonArt hu r D. Little, inc.

Paul G. ZurkowskiPresidentinformation Industry Association

National Crime Information CenterAdvisory Panel

Arthur S. Miller, ChairmanProfessorJoe ArmstrongJerry BermanLegislative Cou nselWashington OfficeAmerican Civil Liberties UnionGerald Caplan

ProfessorNational Law CenterThe George Washintong UniversityRobert GallatiCollege of Criminal JusticeNortheastern UniversityLance HoffmanDepartment of Electrical, Engineering

and Computer ScienceSchool of Engineering an d

Applied ScienceThe George Washington UniversityJohn J. KennedyDirector, Peter W. Rodino institute of

Criminal JusticeJersey City State CollegeSteve KolodneyExecutive DirectorSEARCH Group, inc.Barry MahoneyInstitute for Court ManagementJeffrey A. MeldmanSloan School of ManagementMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyArthur R. MillerProfessorThe Law SchoolHarvard UniversityChristopher PyleMount Holyoke CollegeJames RuleState University of New YorkRichard M. SchmidtAmerican Society of Newspaper Editors

Carl VorlanderExecutive DirectorNational Association for State

Information Systems

Iram WeinsteinSystem Planning Corp.

Elyce H . Zenoff ProfessorThe National Law CenterThe George Washington University

Radio frequency Use and ManagementImpacts From the 1979 World Radio

Conference Advisory Panel

Thomas E. Nelson, Chairman

Amb assador Jacob Beam

Nolan Bowie

Paul Dembling

John M . EgerVice President

Strategic Plannin g andInternational Development

CBS

James C. FletcherFederal and Special Systems Grou pBurroughs Corp.

Walter R. HinchmanWalter Hinchman Associates

Har vey J. LevinHofstra Un iversity

Edgar T. MartinIthiel De Sola PoolProfessorDepartment of Political Science

Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyRaymond E. Spence

M. Jon Von dracek Director of Comm unicationsCenter for Strategic and

International StudiesGeorgetown University

Adm iral Grover M . Yowell

WARC-Taak Team 6 Advisory Panel

George Codding

Ronald S. EwardPresident

MarTech Strategies, Inc.Richard GouldTelecommu nications Systems



Appendix A- l is t o f Adv isors and Panel Members q 101

Heather E, Hu dsonDirectorTelecommunications ApplicationsAcademy for Education D evelopmen t,

Inc.

Nicholas Marzella

Future Systems, In c.Harley Radin

Leonard R. RaishAttorney at LawFletcher, Heald & H ildreth

Reinhard StammingerPresidentFuture Systems, In c.

John A. SteinFuture Systems, In c.

Patent Term Extension and thePharmaceutical Industry Advisory

Working G roupsJames F. FlugLobel Novins & Lament

Henry Grabowski

Marcia GreenbergerCenter for Law & Social Policy

Ronald W. HansenUniversity of RochesterGraduate School of Management

Peter Hu ttCovington and Burling

Kenn eth N. LarsenPresident

Zenith Laboratories, Inc.David H. MacCallumPaine Webber Mitchell & Hutchins

Robert MoserExecutive DirectorAmerican College of Physicians

Joseph OddisExecutive DirectorAmerican Society of

Hospital Pharmacists

Mick RiddioughPharmaceutical Manufacturers

Associations

Lewis SarettSenior Vice Presiden tScience and Techn ologyMerck an d Co., Inc.

Leonard G . SchifrinDepartment of EconomicsCollege of William an d Mary

William VodraArnold and Porter

Fred WegnerNRTA-AARP

William A. ZellmerAmerican Society of

Hospital Pharmacists

Patent Information RetrievalWorkshop Participants

Jim Arshem

Science and Engineering DivisionDenver Public Library

t Patr icia Wilson Berger

Chief Library & Information ServicesNational Bureau of Standards

R. H. Blaker

E. I. du Pent de Nemours, Inc.

Anne Kornbau

George Lewett

Director OERINational Bureau of Standards

P. James Terrango

Pergamon InternationalInformation Corp.

Dan WildeNERACMansfield Professional Park

Jan WilliamsMonsanto Co.

Education Technologies FederalWorkshop Participants

John Cameron

Public TelecommunicationFacility Program

Department of Commerce

Joe LipsonNational Science Foundation

Tom LoftisDirector

Office of TrainingOffice of Personnel Man agement

Arthur Melmed

National Institute of EducationDepartment of Education

Andy Molnar

National Science FoundationWilliam O’ConnorContinuing Education & Staff

Development Services

Department of Medicine and SurgeryVeterans Admin istration

92-921 0 - S2 - 7



l02 qAnnual Report to the congress for 1981

Linda Roberts Fred WoodEducational Policy Fallow Department of AgricultureDivision of Educational TechnologyU. S. Dep artmen t of Education

Andy ZuckerDepartment of Education

Alvin TuckerDirector of Training and Education

OASD (MRA & L)Pentagon

Nuclear Waste Advisory PanelHans Frauenfelder, Cha i rman

Department of PhysicsUniversity of Illinois

Seymour AbrahamsonDepartment of ZoologyUniversity of Wisconsin

Frank CollinsPrivate Consultant

Floyd CullerPresidentElectric Power R esearch Institute

J. William FutrellEnvironmental Law Institute

Edward GoldbergScripps Institution of O ceanographyUniversity of California

William W. HambletonDirectorKansas Geological SurveyThe Un iversity of Kansas

Harriet KeyserlingTerry LashPrivate Consultant

Kai LeeInstitute for Environm ental StudiesUniversity of Washington

Jeanne Malchon

Peter MontagueCenter for Environmental StudiesPrinceton University

Glenn PaulsonVice President for ScienceNational Audubon Society

Howard RaiffaHarvard Business SchoolWilliam A. Thom asUniversity of Illinois at

Urbana-ChampaignMason WillrichVice President-Corporate planningPacific Gas an d Electric Co.

Donald WodrichRockwell International

John YasinskyGeneral ManagerAdvanced Power Systems DivisionsWestinghou se Electric Corp.

Impacts of Inadvertent AtmosphericAlterations Mvisory Panel

Norton N elson, ChairmanNew York University Medical CenterThomas H . BrandEdison Electric InstituteRobert Wilbur BrocksenManagerEcological Effects ProgramElectric Pow er Research instituteJack George CalvertNational Center for Atmosph eric

ResearchDavid HawkinsNatioal Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Edward A. HelmeN ational Govern or’s AssociationRichard L. KerchConsolidation CoalAnne LaBastilleCommissionerAdirond ack Park AgencyGene E. LikensPro fessor of Ecology Section of

Ecology and SystematicCornell UniversityDonald H . PackCarl Shy

Professor of Epid emiologySchool of Public HealthUniversity of North CarolinaLester ThurowSloan School of Management-.Massachusetts Institute of Technology

George H. Tomlinson , IIDom tar, Inc.



Appendix BOTA A c t

Public Law 92-48492nd Congress , H. R. 10243

October 13, 1972

An Act86 STAT* 797

T O establish an Office Of Technology Assessment for the Congress as q id inthe Ide nt i f i c a t ion a nd c ons ide ra t ion of e x i s t ing a nd proba ble impa c ts of t e c h-nologic a l a ppl ic a t ion; to q mend the Na t iona l Sc ie ne Foundat ion Act of1950; a n d f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s .

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of theUnited States of America in Congress assembled That this Act mayhe cited as the” Technology Assessm ent Act of 1972”.

FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE

Sec. 2. The C ongress hereby finds and declares that:(a) As technology continues to change and expand rapidly, its

applications are--(1 ) large and growing in scale; and(2) increasing ex tens ive, pervasive, and critical in their

impact, beneficial and adverse, on the natural and socialenvironment.

(b) Therefore, it is essential that to the fullest extent possible, theconsequences of technological applications be anticipated, understood,and considered in determination of public policy on existing andemerging national problems.

(c) The Congress further finds that :(1) the Federal agencies presently responsible directly to the

Congress are not designed to provide the legislative branch withadequate and timely information. independently developedrelating to the potential impact of technological applications,and

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

(d) Accordingly, it is necessary for the Congress

(1) equip i tse l f w i th new and ef fec t i ve means for securingcompetent. unbiased. information concerning the physical, bio-Iogical, economic. social and political effects of such applications;and

(2) utilize this informationfac tor in the Ieg is la t ive assess

, whenever appropriate as one

‘ent “f ‘atum ‘ Fedndi%$?%%%Congress particularly in those instances where theernment may be called u n to consider support for. or manage-

rment or regulations of. technological applications.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

SEC. 3. (a) In accordance with the fin din gs and declaration of pur-rpuce in section 2. there is hereby created the Office of Technology

Assessment (hereinafter referred to as the Office”) which shall bewithin and responsible to the legislative branch of the Government.

(b) The Office shall consist of a Technology7?’

Assessment Board(hereinafter referred to as the “Board’”) whic shall formulate andpromulgate the policies of the Office, and a Director who shall carryou t such policies and administer the operations of the Office.

(c) The basic function of the Office shall be to provide early indica-t i ons of the probable beneficial and adverse impacts of the app lica-t ions of technology

ConF

and to develop other coordinate, information whichmay assist the

7ongrvss. Tn rarrying out such function, the Office

shall:( 1 ) identify existing or

-probable impacts of technology or

technological programs;

Te c hnology

Assessment Ac t

of 1972.

T e c hn o l o g y

Assessment

B oa r d .

Duties.



104 . Annual Report to t he Congress for 1981

P u b . Law 9 2 - 4 8 4 - 2 -8 6 STAT. 798

October 13, 1972

In fo rmat iona v a i l a b i l i t y ,

81 Stat. 54.

Membership.

v where possible asecertain cause-and-effect re la t i onsh ips;

(8 ) ldenti alternative technological methods of implementing

(4) ident i fy a l ternat ive programs for achieving requisite

goals;(5) make estimates and comparisons of the imp acts of altern-ative methods and programs

(6) present findings of completed analyses to the app ropriate1 legislative authorities;

(7) identify areas where additional research or data collectionis required to provide adequ ate support for the assessmentsestimates described in paragraph (1) through (5) of this sub-section; and

(8) undertake such additional associated activit ies as theappropriate authorities specified under subsection (d) may direct-

(d) Assessment activities undertaken upon the request of:

(l) the chairman of any stand ing, special,or select committeeof either House of the Congress or of any joint committee of the Congress, acting for himself or at the request of the rankingminority member or a majority of the committee members;

(2) the Board; or

L(8) the Director, in consultation with the Board.

(e) Assessments made by the Office, inclnding information sur-veys s tudie s r e por t s . a nd f indings r e la te d thereto, shall be madeavailable to the initiating committee or other appropriate commit-

!tees of the Congress. In addition, an such in information, surveys,studies~ reports, and findings produce by the Office may be madeavailable to the public except where

[1

Y(1) to do so would v io la te s e c ur i t y statutes; or(2) the Board considersit necessary or advisable to withhold

such information in accordance with one or more of the numberedParagraphs in section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code.

Technology ASSESSMENT Board

Sec. 4. (a) The Board shall consist of thirteen members as follows:

(I) s ix Members of the senate, appointed by the Presidentpro tempera of the Senate, three from the majority party q ndthree from the minority party;

(2 ) six Members of the House of Representa tives appoin ted byssithe peaker of the House of Representative three from the

majority( t l ? r

y and three from the minority party; and8) e “rector, who sh all not be a voting memb er.

(b) ‘vancies in the member ship of the Board shall not q ffect thepower of the remain”

imembers to execute the functions of the Board

and shall be f i l led in the same mannner as in the case of the originalappointment.

(c) The Board shall select a chairman and a vice chairman fromamong its members at the beginning of each Conress. The vice chair-

man shall act in the place and stead-of the chairman in the absence of the chairman. The chairmanship and the vice chaialternate between the Senate and the House of Represen

rmanhip shalltatives with

each Congress The chairman during each even-numbed Congressshall be selected by the Members of the House of Representatives o nthe Board from among their number. The vice chairman during each