many of us here today. Vaccines have all but erradicated Small

Pox, Whooping Cough, Diphtheria, Tetanus, Measles and

Poliomyelitis in this country. I had the good fortune and

great honor to have participated in the developmental research

that led to the polio vaccines, So I know not only that such

"miracles" are possible, but also that they are not true

miracles; they are products of good science, hard work and

sheer perseverance. It is important to recognize that although

scientific advances were important to the development of most

vaccines, it was motivation and administrative skill that made

possible the results of which we are all as proud. It is

possible for instance that current research will lead to

methods that promote regeneration of nerve tissue that could

prevent or correct the consequences of spinal cord and other

neurologic injuries. The new bio-technologies, such as

recombinant DNA technology, may lead to the prevention and

correction of some inborn errors of metabolism and other birth

defects may be quite possible. These new developments promise

to greatly improve success rates of organ transplants, which

would be tantamount to "cure" in some cases.

Dr. Lewis Thomas wrote in 1976, "There do not appear to be

any impenetrable, incomprehensible diseases", And I accept this

as a correct statement. A sense of optimism and hope is fully

justified.

However, it is well to recognize that many of the

problems we face such as arthritis or inducing nerve

regeneration are complicated and often multifactorial in their

cause. It would be unwise to promise too much too soon, but

one thing is certain: we not will achieve our goal without a

major commitment to research, both basic and applied.

Finally,

I would once more reiterate that scientific advances will have

been futile unless we have the wisdom and will to put them to

use.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YATRON. Thank you very much, Dr. Robbins, for your statement.

The third member of this panel is Mr. Robert Broshar, president of the American Institute of Architects, who has played an active role in bringing barrier-free architecture locally and in his home State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BROSHAR, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS

Mr. BROSHAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Winn.

I am certainly pleased to be a part of this distinguished panel. Understanding and education is really what we are all about and just participating in this panel and being able to listen this afternoon has helped my awareness and my understanding.

On behalf of our organization also I appreciate the opportunity to endorse the Decade of the Disabled. I am glad to be able to speak about the role of the design profession in that Decade of the Disabled.

First of all, I would like to commend the National Organization on Disability for their outstanding efforts to increase the opportunities and quality of life for the disabled. Over the past several years, both the public and private sectors, including the architectural profession, have made noteworthy advances in reducing the impediments to full participation by the disabled persons in the normal activities of society.

I am happy to say that the AIA has had some share in these advances and in the process of educating both architects and the public in enhancing opportunities for the disabled. Evidences of the architectural profession's commitment are provided by our emphasis on barrier-free design at our national conventions, by the AIA's educational programs and publications and in other forums, and also by our participation in the development of revised accessibility standards with the American National Standards Institute.

I believe that a partnership between the public and private sectors, as well as between able-bodied and disabled persons is essential for progress toward a more barrier-free environment. It is obvious that additional progress is needed in this area.

As an architect, I have been actively involved in promoting accessibility for the handicapped for many years. In conjunction with the Iowa chapter of the American Institute of Architects, our Governor's Committee on the Employment of the Handicapped and the Easter Seal Society in 1973, I chaired a task force which evaluated the effectiveness of the Accessibility Act of 1968.

The project was a great experience, again one of those learning experiences for the architects, for the volunteers, and for the wheelchair users who participated in it. The project also identified weaknesses that existed in the national codes and standards and developed guidelines for working with community groups who wish to organize efforts for more barrier-free environments at the local level.

Subsequently, that evaluation report was cited by Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts as one of the bases for improvements made in accessibility legislation in the 1970's.

So, some progress clearly has been made in making the built environment more accessible to disabled persons. However, several factors hinder the design profession's ability to create a more barrier-free environment for the Nation's 35 million handicapped persons. Included are lack of understanding of the needs of disabled persons, inadequate stress on barrier-free design in our architectural curriculum, and sometimes insufficient emphasis on human needs in our building designs.

The field of design embraces many discplines and serves many purposes. The purposes of design are also many-fold. Forces, such as cost, use, and profitability drive the design process. These sometimes can tend to deemphasize human needs in building design, including those special needs of the disabled persons.

Furthermore, some design professionals still regard the incorporation of accessibility features as something special, something that is added on rather than an integral part of the design process. In some cases, the accessibility features are incorporated because they are required by Federal or State laws, rather than out of a particular concern or understanding for disabled persons who will use them.

Unfortunately, some members of the design community lack that understanding of disabled persons and the wide variety of their needs. Most buildings are designed to meet the needs of average users. Too frequently, "handicapped" connotes someone in a wheelchair. This limited concept may give insufficient attention to those with visual, hearing or coordination disabilities. In turn, this last of familiarity may limit the designer's ability to envision how accessible elements of buildings must fit together, so that the disabled person can move around easily and consistently through a building. Also, many designers fail to recognize that designing accessibility for one type of disability can in fact create a barrier for a person with another type of disability. For example, a curb cut may facilitate accessibility for a person in a wheelchair. At the same time, that same curb cut may cause a barrier for a person with impaired vision-the person who depends upon the touch of a cane on a curb or upon a guide dog trained to stop at curbs.

The entire design profession needs better understanding of the disabled community. To date, there has been inadequate research into the human factors and their role in building design. Consequently, many design solutions fail to adequately consider the needs of disabled persons. As a result of this inadequate knowledge base, designers are hampered in maximizing their design choices, especially when they are faced with a resource constraint.

The problem of creating an accessible environment is further exacerbated in existing buildings because most were built before barrier-free design became a part of the architectural curriculum or our vocabulary or, more importantly, part of our consciousness. Installed elevators and other accessibility features obviously becomes an expensive proposition in existing buildings.

To deal with this, a number of States and other cities have tough legal requirements for existing buildings in their building codes. These provisions require buildings under their_jurisdiction to be made barrier free when they are remodeled. For example, both Massachusetts and the city of Chicago have effective enforcement

programs for new and existing construction, as well as inspector training programs on barrier-free design.

These programs are designed to overcome inertia, insensitivity and inflexibility which are many times caused by the designers' unfamiliarity with requirements for barrier-free design.

Many design curriculums fail to provide design students with adequate exposure to barrier-free design concepts and the needs of disabled persons. All too frequently, the barrier-free issue is a matter of a special course, rather than being treated as a part of universal design criteria. I believe the latter should be our goal.

At a time when many have questioned the role of the Federal Government as a promotor of accessibility for the handicapped, it is easy to become discouraged about progress in this area. However, I see several very exciting private and public sector activities which have not yet received much attention, I would like to share some of these with you.

First, we are beginning to see results from the design program of the National Endowment for the Arts. The Endowment has made an important contribution toward barrier-free efforts by awarding grants to four schools of architecture to develop design curriculum that would encourage both the implementation of section 504 accessibility regulation and also to encourage schools to teach courses in barrier-free designs.

I would like to tell you about the results of one of these grants. The School of Architecture and Urban Planning of the University of Wisconsin is teaching all types of design students better methods of programing. This will make facilities more accessible for all types of people.

This educational program includes first-hand experience with disabled persons, a process for gathering information on how disabled users respond to their environments, a process for translating the gathered data into an actual design solution, a postoccupancy evaluation or process by which successes and failures in a building's design can be discovered.

These developments are just the beginning. I believe that many more architectural schools must make real efforts to teach their students in design about the needs of disabled persons. I believe they also must seek to elevate the status of barrier-free design courses in their curriculums. Furthermore, design societies must make a greater effort to educate their members through seminars, workshops, and other means because many have received a degree in design when barrier-free design was not part of their curriculum.

Another promising activity is the National Center for a BarrierFree Environment. This organization is sponsored by societies, such as the American Society of Interior Designers, the Disabled American Veterans, the National Easter Seal Society, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the President's Committee on the Employment of the Handicapped, as well as the American Institute of Architects. The National Center is also supported by a number of corporate contributors.

The Center plays a valuable role by acting as a clearinghouse on barrier design information and related activities. As a follow-up activity to the U.N. 1982 Conference on "Designed Environments for