chology, physiology, anthropology, sociology, propaganda, public information, education, advertising, and health. Particular attention will be given to case histories of pertinent mass communication programs, campaigns, and techniques that have proved to be particularly successful as well as particularly unsuccessful. Here, considerable attention will be given to detailed analyses of the factors that made for the successes and the failures for the bearing they may have on mass communication or traffic safety.

A byproduct of this study will be an examination of what is not known as well as what is known. Thus, the study will serve to codify our ignorance about areas in effective safety communications. Such a "codification of ignorance" should serve to focus future research attention upon significant problems calling for clarification as well as directing future research attention away from those problems about which abundant information already exists.

Analyses will proceed from statements of problems to the theoretical contexts from which they have evolved to the test hypotheses that they have generated to the empirical procedures that have been used to study them to the conclusions that have resulted from investigation to the pertinence of such conclusions for the effective communication of traffic safety propaganda.

Hopefully, this analytic system will generate patterns of insights that will be generalizable to communicating effectively for safety. These insights will be translated into principles that in turn will be synthesized into guidelines for communications actions to be contemplated by the various individuals and groups who are involved in communicating effectively for traffic safety.

Mr. JOHNSON. We have an example of the value of intramural research capacities in our own organization. We have one mathematician continuously assigned to the important matter of correlating and showing relationship between the present safety measures and the actual death rates obtained by the States.

This is a type of investigation which is practical only as a directed staff operation, inasmuch as the operating data are all a part of the continuing program of the National Safety Council.

This type of research project could not practically be assigned to a university. I know that similar needs to evaluate the effectiveness of State and local health department programs make mandatory the establishment of similar research facilities within the Public Health Service.

I conclude by again urging, on behalf of the National Safety Council, that the subcommittee amend H.R. 133, provide the U.S. Public Health Service with the research facility it requires, and I assure the subcommittee that we believe an amended bill will attract broad and widespread public support and can, in the years to come, reflect the greatest credit on the work of this subcommittee.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I noted that in one portion of your statement, I believe, in connection with the Minnesota examples, you cited the fact that presently the highway department is using about 11⁄2 percent of Federal highway moneys to carry on some of the studies that you mentioned?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is right.

Minnesota is typical of what is being done in, I believe, all of the States. I was given the information that they are using the 11⁄2 percent funds to make a study of accident frequency in Minnesota counties.

They have a study underway on the relationship of driver age to traffic accidents in Minnesota, and they are conducting one study of farm tractor accidents upon the highways.

Mr. ROBERTS. Do you believe that H.R. 133 can be amended so as not to interfere with the functions of your organization?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I think that we outlined the points that we felt were objectionable last year and if those objections were considered and the amendments properly drafted, this would have our very strong support.

Mr. ROBERTS. Do you believe that these amendments would also protect other private nonprofit organizations engaged not in similar work, but in some phases of work in which the Safety Council is engaged in?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I believe so. If, for example, it were made clear that the research is in the medical, clinical, and behavioral sciences, this would also protect the statutory functions of other governmental agencies. It would meet the objections that some of the governmental departments have raised.

Mr. ROBERTS. Here in discussion, Mr. Nelsen referred to the farm safety problem. Do you believe that this type of research facility could be of some benefit in the field of accident prevention on the farm?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I am quite certain it could and would. Our farm safety group conducted a special conference on farm research and outlined the kinds of projects that our farm conference feels need to be conducted.

The Department of Agriculture is a very prominent member of our farm safety conference and they endorse this statement of needs. There are some kinds of research projects that can profitably be conducted by the Department of Agriculture but equally there are types of projects involving human factors that could well and should be conducted in a research facility by the Public Health Service.

I know as a matter of personal experience that the Department of Agriculture does not have enough money to do this kind of research nor does it have the assembly of skills, and they would have no objection.

On the contrary, I am sure there would be the strongest support for a Public Health Service attack on some of these problems that our farm conference outlined.

Mr. ROBERTS. Of course, in mentioning the contribution that is made by the 11⁄2 percent of highway funds we talk, I am sure, about the interstate part, do we not, primarily?

Mr. JOHNSON. The Federal aid money?

Mr. ROBERTS. Do you feel that there is a great problem involving rural roads as far as the picture of highway traffic accidents is concerned?

Mr. JOHNSON. There are problems, engineering and other problems, in connection with the interstate system.

However, I think the problem that is perplexing to many of us today is the question of the rural roads off the State highway system.

As traffic steadily builds up, the secondary roads and the tertiary, the local rural roads, are carrying a larger and larger volume of traffic. It is a fact that these roads are under the jurisdiction of county highway departments and in some States under township road

supervisors.

The engineering staffs of these ageciens are inadequate. They don't have the necessary budgets to do a proper job of signing. They don't use, in many cases, uniform signs.

We believe that a great deal more attention needs to be given, and I think this can come, particularly, through farm organizations,

to the fact that you need public support for a better traffic safety job at the county level, particularly in the rural counties.

Mr. ROBERTS. Do you believe that, if this bill were enacted with the amendments which you suggested, your organization could cooperate and work with such a facility and mutual benefit would be derived?

Mr. JOHNSOi. I most certainly do.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you again, Mr. Johnson, for your statement, and I wish to have all of the exhibits included in the record, which Mr. Johnson amended to his statement.

Mr. Nelsen?

Mr. NELSEN. A question or two.

In the bill there are grants-in-aid for universities, hospitals, and laboratories, and other public and private agencies. In your judgment what is the more important, the grants-in-aid, or the accumulation of the information to make it available? Which of the two is the most needed endeavor as far as you feel in the safety program-the accumulation of this information, or additional money to colleges, universities, and what have you?

Mr. JOHNSON. The bill as drafted provides authority to make these grants-in-aid for research.

Mr. NELSEN. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. This authority the U.S. Public Health Service already has and that particular feature of this draft of the bill is, as I understand it, totally unnecessary. The critical need is for a research facility, which would mean that they would have on their own staff a corps of scientists who can then be directed to study a particular problem.

As research builds up from a variety of sources, we have gaps of information. Under the free and uncontrolled university research system, you cannot instruct the university to study this particular problem.

But when you have your own staff corps of scientists you can instruct them and direct them to analyze this particular gap.

Therefore, this research facility would be very important. Finally, to come to your last point, it is very important that these results be translated into practical administrative guides.

Mr. NELSEN. I know in your chart here that there are gaps. Almost every column indicates activity in some area, but there are gaps in individual areas. Overall, you find a pretty complete coverage, but the accumulation of this information and making it available is something that in your judgment is a necessity to make it available. The reason I ask the question about the grants is that we are hearing bills every day to do very worthwhile things.

When we sit down and mark up a bill we have to take into account the overall picture and pick and choose a little bit. What I want to be sure we do is to make available services that are presently in existence and at a minimum of duplication.

I do feel that the accumulation of this information is important and, as has been pointed out, we have available funds for grants-inaid in research now, and the main thing then could be the accumulation and correlation of this information.

I want to thank the gentleman for his great interest in this problem and we do appreciate the contribution that has been made by organ

izations such as yours, and it is hard to beat things that are done on the basis of an organization such as yours with the contributions to the cause.

Thank you.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. ROBERTS. Because of the pressure of the House meeting at 11, and the fact that two of the witnesses on the list today are from this area, I am going to take next Dr. Albert L. Chapman, Director of the Bureau of Planning, Evaluation, and Research, Pennsylvania Department of Health, representing the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers.

Dr. Chapman had a long and distinguished career in the Public Health Service, was Chief of the Division of Accident Prevention before he left the Federal Government to join the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has been a leader in this field.

He is the author of a very fine book on this subject and has been one of the strongest supports of this legislation. I might say, Dr. Chapman, it is with great pleasure that we welcome you back to our hearings and we miss you. We hope you are happy in your present work and we are glad to have you.

STATEMENT OF DR. A. L. CHAPMAN, REPRESENTING DR. C. L. WILBAR, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PRESIDENT OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL HEALTH OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Dr. CHAPMAN. Thank you very much, Congressman Roberts. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Health and Safety of the House of Representatives, I am Dr. A. L. Chapman, Director of the Bureau of Planning, Evaluation, and Research, of the Pennsylvania State Department of Health, formerly Chief of the Accident Prevention Division of the U.S. Public Health Service.

I am here today representing Dr. C. L. Wilbar, Secretary of Health of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and President of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers.

Dr. Wilbar testified in favor of H.R. 133 to establish a National Accident Prevention Center last year and deeply regrets his inability to be here today.

The primary purpose of the proposed National Accident Prevention Center, as I understand it, is to mobilize personnel, facilities, and other resources that are needed to conduct research into the basic causes of accidents so that more effective counter measures may be developed. Such research, both basic and applied, is clearly indicated if the present annual toll of accidental deaths and injuries is ever to be decreased.

Before the communicable and contagious diseases could be brought under control it was necessary to mobilize many kinds of researchers to identify the basic cause of each disease and to establish, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the way in which the disease was spread.

Prior to this scientific mobilization to combat the spread of epidemic diseases, smallpox, cholera, yellow fever, typhoid fever, and many similar diseases decimated community after community.

Today these once-dreaded diseases have been controlled but they could not have been controlled if necessary basic research had not been done to point the way to effective controls.

The situation facing this Nation today relative to accidents is much the same as the situation relative to the infectious and contagious diseases was in 1900.

Not enough is known about the basic causes of accidents-about the human factors that contribute substantially to the accident equation.

Essentially people cause accidents. Accidents don't just happen. Environmental factors, of course, play their part, but it is quite evident that a healthy, well-conditioned, well-trained person can perform with a remarkable degree of safety even in many unsafe environments.

Physical factors such as disease and disability have been indicated as important contributors to accidents.

Psychological factors such as various emotional states-anger, fear, grief, worry-have been blamed.

And physiological factors such as the effects of certain types of medication, fatigue, alcohol, and other toxic substances have been suggested as important causes of accidents.

All of these human factors have been indicated but their guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, at least not to the complete satisfaction of many importantly placed decisionmakers.

Without such proof it has been very difficult to motivate public health administrators, public officials, and the public to support the types of actions that will be needed if the current epidemic of accidents is to be seriously challenged.

Needed proof can best be obtained through a concentration of research workers, laboratory equipment, and other resources in a national research center where scientists with various competencies and skills can work together, perhaps for the first time on a large scale, to discover what really causes accidents.

Then universities will be encouraged to conduct accident prevention research from which substantial new and applicable knowledge will emerge.

Once this vital knowledge about accident causation has been scientifically developed there is every reason to believe that it can be translated into action by various groups and agencies.

This application of new knowledge can bring about a dramatic reversal of present trends in accidental deaths and injuries.

One of the reasons why scientific research in accident causation has lagged behind research in heart disease, cancer, and other diseases, is that there have been very few places where a scientist could be trained to do accident prevention research.

A national accident prevention center, well equipped, staffed with senior scientists of repute, would provide an excellent training facility for future researchers.

It is absolutely essential to provide adequate research training facilities for researchers in accident prevention. Without such facilities accident prevention research on the scale of heart disease or cancer research will never be feasible.

During the past 30 years, due to the zeal and untiring efforts of the National Safety Council, State and local safety councils, police and

97767-63- -6