Plans for 91st Congress As the new 91st Congress convenes or soon thereafter, the subcommittee expects to have in hand the three reports cited in part I. This trilogy consists of a special study by the Committee on Science and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, a similar study conducted by the Committee on Public Engineering Policy of the National Academy of Engineering, and a third study prepared by the Science Policy Research Division of the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress. The first of this group will pay particular attention to the methodology of the assessment procedure to the extent that this has functioned or is functioning today. The second will consist of a number of pilot assessment projects, prototype efforts to assess particular new technologies, and to describe concepts and methods which were used together with the degree of their success or failure. The third study will review, on a case history basis, a number of instances in which Congress has had to deal with technological-social-political situations since World War II, how these were handled, and the kind of information the Congress sought in disposing of them. When the three reports have been submitted and subjected to committee scrutiny, it is expected that a new piece of legislation to replace the original bill for a Technology Assessment Board 61 will be drafted and introduced. At the earliest opportunity, the subcommittee has indicated, hearings will be held on this bill. They will undoubtedly have to be of an extensive nature and very likely, as a result of the information obtained, still a third draft of a bill for the creation of some technology assessment mechanism will have to be drawn up. It seems likely that final committee action with regard to a specific piece of legislation will not occur until the second session of the coming Congress. Additional Inputs Aside from the three reports being drafted specifically for subcommittee use, a number of other endeavors involving technology assessment are underway which may also prove to be very helpful. Some of these are Government activities, some are private. They include the following: 1. An Engineering Foundation Research Conference on Technology Assessment to be held in August 1969. 2. A report by the Federal Council for Science and Technology summarizing the statutory responsibilities of the various Federal agencies for technology assessment. 3. The Evaluative Function of Government, a study being undertaken jointly by the Ford Foundation and the Brookings Institution. 4. The Technology Assessment Function, a special inquiry being undertaken by the Program of Policy Studies for Science and Technology at the George Washington University. 5. A study on the secondary consequences of the space program which is being undertaken jointly by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Harvard University. 6. Findings or pilot programs developed through the new Institute for the Future at Middletown, Conn., again under the auspices of a private foundation. 61 Op. cit. 54. The subcommittee notes with considerable interest and some satisfaction that the general idea of technology assessment and its possible application as a proper function of either Government or the private sector has grown sharply since its promulgation several years ago. The broad interest in this subject which is now being evidenced in all sections of the Government-science spectrum is unmistakable. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Since the subcommittee began its activities in this area with the study of the adequacy of technology for pollution abatement in 1966, environmental quality has grown to become a major social goal. Achieving a productive and high-quality environment is primarily hampered by institutional and political barriers to progress. But scientific information is needed for greater understanding of mankind's interactions with his surroundings. And improved low-cost technology can speed the restoration and maintenance of environmental values. Therefore, increased technical attention to these problems can aid society in reconciling the conflicting demands which are at the root of the environmental issue. Three distinct courses of action now appear warranted: A. Recommendations from the 1966 and 1968 subcommittee reports on environmental problems need to be followed up. 1. The application of the systems-engineering approach to Federal agency research and development activities in the environment is just beginning. The Committee on Environmental Quality of the Federal Council for Science and Technology should soon have valuable statistics and information of the "planning, programing, budgeting" type which would be of help to the Congress in maintaining an overview of research coordination. 2. The organization of the executive branch in planning and executing a research strategy for environmental information is undergoing change. Proposals for a Council of Ecological (or Environmental) Advisers have been referred to the subcommittee for action and should be studied further. 3. The needed expansion of ecology and social sciences to serve environmental management decisionmaking has not occurred. The application of these disciplines to the social objectives of clean air and water and preservation of conservation and recreation values may well require substantial increases in Federal support for research and training. Concurrently, ecology needs an industrial base of support, and industry needs ecology as a part of management advice. Federal stimulation of this relationship would be a valuable contribution. 4. The concern over human health hazards from environmental pollutants will continue as criteria are published pursuant to the Air Quality Act of 1967. The science of environmental epidemiology is important to the success of the legislation and will receive continued overview. B. Derivatives of the subcommittee responsibility in the National Science Foundation authorization bill will require more thorough studies than those hearings allow. 1. The proposal for a National Center or Institute for Ecology 62 merits a full-scale investigation. Studies are underway in the professional community and the Foundation which could serve as a basis for hearings. 2. The International Biological Program may also require hearings apart from the consideration of the IBP line item in the Foundation's authorization bill. 3. The disposition of responsibility for weather modification has not been settled. The implications of this question are important for the total problem of environmental science services organization, an activity which promises to become a front-line national concern.63 C. The Joint House-Senate Colloquium on a National Policy for the Environment on July 17, 1968, was a first step in obtaining comprehensive congressional action. The success of the colloquium suggests additional meetings of this type. This subcommittee, representing the full committee as one focal point in the House, believes that: 1. The contribution of private corporations to environmental policy planning is essential. Industrial representatives were not heard in the first colloquium because of the importance of emphasizing House-Senate and legislative-executive liason problems. A second colloquium could stress the difficulty of the market economy in including long-term and nonquantifiable environmental factors. 2. The legal profession is just beginning to apply judicial tools to resolving environmental problems. The importance of a sound information base (largely scientific facts and interpretations) makes it worth while also to propose a colloquium on the law and the environment. THE INTERNATIONAL BIOLOGICAL PROGRAM In February 1965, the United States, through the established procedures of the National Academy of Sciences, elected to participate in the largest ecology-based research program in the history of science. The 50-nation program, known as the International Biological Program (IBP), has been under development since 1959 and was voted into formal reality in July 1964 by the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU). The IBP objectives are a worldwide study of organic production on the land, in fresh water, and in the seas, so that adequate estimates may be made of the potential yield of new as well as existing natural resources; and a worldwide study of human adaptability to the changing conditions of the environment. This focus of the program led the subcommittee, which has long been concerned with the 'ssues of environmental quality, to examine through a series of hearings the status of the U.S. contribution to the IBP. As the first set of hearings progressed, it became increasingly clear to the subcommittee that the IBP was not just another international cooperative agreement or program. It dealt, on the contrary, with one of the most crucial 62 Such proposals have been discussed with the subcommittee during hearings on the International Biological Program in both 1967 and 1968. 63 On August 17, 1968, Mr. Daddario wrote to President Johnson suggesting an early decision on this matter and an expanded role for the Environmental Science Services Administration. Op. cit. 45. situations to face this or any other civilization-the immediate or near potential of man to damage, perhaps beyond repair, the ecological system of the planet on which all life depends. Key witnesses were firm in their endorsement of the program's goals and the necessity of giving biologists this needed opportunity to prepare themselves to build a more scientifically based resource and environmental management system. When the first set of hearings on the status of the IBP were concluded, the subcommittee issued a report 65 which stated that it was apparent that four major difficulties were standing in the way of a meaningful and successful IBP endeavor on the part of the United States. These were: (1) The loose structure and organization of the IBP administrative machinery. This seemed to involve the management of the entire effort. It was felt by the subcommittee that a more tightly knit and cohesive managerial arrangement, including a more centrally located executive group and closer liaison with the Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC) which has the responsibility to support and coordinate the participation of the Federal agencies in IBP, seemed essential. The subcommittee felt that administrative functions should be unified and the decisionmaking process lodged at one focal point. The management of the research projects need to be clarified between the U.S. Committee for the IBP in the National Academy of Sciences and the operating agencies of the Federal Government. If the National Committee does not have the ability to implement its decisions on priorities and project integration, the IBP will probably be a disappointing and haphazard affair. (2) An inadequate and unrealistic mode of funding.-The U.S. financial support for the IBP consisted primarily of "passing the hat" among interested Federal agencies. It was felt that this makeshift system of providing funds for the U.S. program was an unsatisfactory means of assuming any reasonably sustained effort. The subcommittee therefore urged that a determination be made, agreed upon by the Bureau of the Budget, as to the best method of future financing. Specifically, the subcommittee report recommended that the Federal Government provide financing for the U.S. portion of the IBP, for fiscal 1969, in an amount not less than $3 million nor in excess of $5 million. (3) The shortage of trained manpower.-While biology is a rapidly expanding field, its main thrust has not been toward ecology, and its overall research support still lags in relation to its significance and potential at least in terms of the amount of dollars committed to it. The number of well-trained ecologists is woefully small, and the discipline itself needs much study and development. The subcommittee sees the American IBP effort as a viable means of partly rectifying this situation which, in the final analysis, is a limiting factor to accomplish full program objectives. (4) Lack of public understanding and of firm endorsement by Congress and the Executive. The significance of IBP although ably and pro 65 Op. cit. 51. foundly demonstrated does not appear to have been brought home to the country in general, or the Federal Government in particular. Growing congressional concern over ecological problems is clearly at hand-the Congress has dealt with the seemingly isolated problems I of pollution, food resources, wilderness conservation, water use, etc. The IBP embodies the concept that total ecosystems must be dealt with in order to handle the individual problem areas of which we are aware. This approach must be appreciated by all branches of local, State, and Federal governments if we are to understand our planetary I ecology and avoid continued acceleration of the deterioration of our ecosystems on which all life depends. Second Set of Hearings Subsequently, and in accordance with the subcommittee's findings, new resolution (H.J. Res. 1240) was introduced calling for the authorization of specific sums to be used for the IBP through the National Science Foundation during fiscal year 1969. Hearings were held in May of this year (1968) on this resolution to determine the method of implementing the U.S. effort and to assess the current status of the program. Dr. W. Frank Blair, chairman of the U.S. National Committee of the IBP, testified before the subcommittee and addressed himself to the urgency of funding the U.S. IBP effort at the earliest possible time. Dr. Blair asserted that problems with loose structure and organization of the IBP administrative machinery were being resolved. The original planning and coordinating structure has been reduced from one consisting of 94 persons and approximately 14 elements to approximately 24 persons distributed among (1) a five-man executive committee, (2) a nine-man international coordinating committee and (3) a committee of the program directors for the integrated research programs which will interact directly with the ICC. Dr. Blair expressed concern that the planning for the U.S. participation in the IBP has reached the stage where action is necessary or there will be a severe loss of momentum and U.S. world leadership. Further delays in funding will contribute to the redirection of valuable scientific manpower to other active areas of biological research. Dr. Ivan L. Bennett of the Office of Science and Technology (OST)' while reasserting OST's unaltered support for U.S. participation in IBP, argued that as important as IBP may eventually be to our national interests, the program "has not yet been sufficiently developed to warrant large-scale special funding during fiscal year 1969, particularily in the prevailing fiscal situation." Dr. Bennett emphasized that streamlining of the U.S. national committee for the IBP would not eliminate the need for additional time, for planning management arrangements must be devised at all levels of involvement to assure orderly execution of studies. "The process of defining and refining the new concepts so as to translate them into integrated action programs rather than a collection of traditional projects is underway, but the task is new, difficult, and far from complete." Dr. Bennett observed that despite the needed further planning the President's fiscal 1969 budget includes specifically $700,000 for NSF to support U.S. IBP efforts. Dr. Philip Handler, Chairman of the National Science Board, while endorsing the overall objectives of such programs, expressed the con |