Annual Report to the Congress for 1980 - Princeton University

Annual Report to the Congress for 1980

March 1981

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402

CONTENTS

Section Page

1. Statements by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Boardand the Director of OTA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

11. Year in Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11111. Work in Progress (as of 12-31-80) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31IV. Task Force on Methodology and Management.. . . . . . . . . . . 53V. Organization and Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Appendixes:A. Summary Report of Advisory Council Activities . . . . . . . . . . 67B. List of Work in Progress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68C. 1980 Services to Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69D. List of Published OTA Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76E. List of Advisors and Panel Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81F. Technology Assessment Act of 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

/11

Section ISTATEMENTS BY THECHAIRMAN ANDVICE CHAIRMAN OFTHE BOARD AND THEDIRECTOR OF OTA

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

Chairman’s Statement—Congressman Morris K. Udall

As a charter member of the OTA Board, I takepride in the reputation the agency has built ofdoing some of the “best work in town .“

Last year, OTA demonstrated how deservedthat reputation is as it produced a variety ofuseful work for Congress.

As Chairman of OTA’s Congressional Boardfor the past 2 years, I’m happy to report thatOTA’s performance measures up to the highstandards we have set. The agency merits ourcontinued confidence and support.

I’ve had the good fortune to have Sen. TedStevens of Alaska serve as my Vice Chairman.His contributions have been a real asset to meand to the agency, and I look forward to workingwith him 2 more years,

We regret that Dr. Frederick C. Robbinsresigned the chairmanship of the TechnologyAssessment Advisory Council to accept the presi-dency of the National Institute of Medicine, butwe are pleased that he will remain an activemember of the Council. We are delighted thatDr. Robbins will be succeeded by Dr. Charles N.Kimball, and that Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner willserve as Vice Chairman. Together, they willmake an extraordinarily effective team in advis-ing Congress and OTA on the difficult challengesposed by scientific and technological devel-opments.

The Board especially appreciates the fine jobthat Dr. John H. Gibbons has done in strength-ening and streamlining the internal managementof the agency and thus enabling it to meet theneeds of Congress more efficiently and effective-ly. The Office could not be in better hands.

OTA accomplished a lot last year. It delivereda total of 27 reports and other studies to variouscommittees of Congress. OTA representativestestified 17 times before 9 different committees

and gave 249 briefings and responses for Mem-bers of Congress, committees, and congressionalstaff. In terms of sheer volume, that is an im-pressive amount of work for a small agency toproduce in a year’s time —especially when it was,at the same time, engaged in an additional 33other major projects.

Last year, OTA produced major and path-breaking assessments on such subjects as thepotential for producing energy from oil shaleresources and from our “biomass” resources—our trees, crops, and other plant material; andthe technological and competitive strength of oursteel industry. The value of these and similarassessments to Congress, and to the larger com -munity of those informed and concerned about

vital issues, is underscored by the fact that, ac-cording to a Government Printing Office (GPO)spokesman, OTA reports are among the bestsell-ing in its category of any Government agency.During the calendar year 1980, GPO had soldover 48,000 copies of OTA reports for gross re-ceipts of one-quarter of a million dollars. The Na-tional Technical Information Service of the De-partment of Commerce also sells individualcopies and microfiche of all OTA reports andworking papers. The demand is in the thousandswith 20 titles on NTIS’ bestseller list. In addition,an increasing number of OTA assessments arebeing reprinted by commercial publishers. By theend of the year, nine were either already in printor were in the process of being reprinted. SectionV provides a more detailed listing of these high-lights.

In a city overwhelmed by studies and analyses,OTA’s work stands out for its integrity, its insight,and its usefulness to Congress.

I am proud to have served as Chairman of theOTA Board during the past 2 years. I look for-

3

4 ● Annual Report to the Congress for 1980

ward with eagerness to working with Ted efforts of this important agency for another pro-Stevens and my other colleagues in guiding the ductive 2 years.

Vice Chairman’s Statement—Senator Ted Stevens

As a member of the OTA Board since 1973, Board with a deft hand. I know I speak for all onand as its Vice Chairman during the last Con- the Board when I say it was a pleasure to servegress, I believe that 1980 must rank as the most with him.productive and certainly the most satisfying yearin the agency’s young life.

The best evidence that our joint efforts havesucceeded over the past year—is the fact that thecommittees keep coming back for more. Whilethe volume of congressional requests for OTAstudies and services increased, OTA demon-strated an ability to handle this increased volume,despite the fact that the size of its small staff re-mained the same.

As Chairman during the last Congress, Con-gressman Udall of Arizona guided the work of the

I look forward to working with other Membersof the Board in helping OTA forge even moreproductive relationships with the committees ofCongress. Science and technology will play animportant role in maintaining the strength of theNation’s economy and national defense in theyears ahead. Congress faces issues requiring thekind of expert, objective, and cross-cuttinganalysis that OTA performs while reflecting theperspectives of the private sector. Together, wecan continue to build on OTA’s already excellentrecord of meeting congressional needs for honestand unbiased advice.

Director’s Statement—John H. Gibbons

OTA continued, in 1980, to work on some ofthe toughest and most important issues beforeCongress.

For example, one of the last bills Congresssent to the President in 1980 makes pneumococ-cal vaccine an acceptable medicare expense. Be-fore that, medicare funds could be used for themore expensive and less effective task of treatingpneumonia after it happened, but not for pre-venting it. OTA did some key analysis on thisissue, showing that the vaccine was clearly costeffective.

In a similar vein, OTA did several comprehen-sive analyses on energy supply and availability.The work on liquids from shale showed both thepromise and the problems of achieving significantshale oil production over the next 8 to 12 years.It also highlighted the inefficiencies inherent ineither very modest or very ambitious productiongoals for 1990. Our work on oil shale also dis-closed barriers to production which would limitplausible production by 1990 to a maximum of 1million barrels of oil per day with severe regional

impacts above 300,000 barrels per day. Ouranalysis of the energy potential of biomass under-scored the major importance of producingmethyl alcohol from nonfoodstuffs —which faroutweighs the potential for production of ethanolfrom grains and sugars.

Our studies of the U.S. and foreign steel in-dustry pointed out the opportunities provided byadvanced, proven technologies such as continu-ous casting; the need for major capital invest-ment in new, more productive facilities; and theneed for higher levels of R&D spending to enablethe industry to benefit from innovative tech-nologies.

These are a few examples of the wide range ofwork we produced last year. Because much ofthat work centers around the comprehensiveanalysis of controversial issues, our studiestypically require more than a year to complete.Thus, much of OTA’s formal agenda of work for1981 is already set, generally reflecting bipartisanrequests from various congressional committees.On top of these formal assessments, which re-

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

Photo credit O/f/cc of Technology Assessment

Congressman Udall chairing a joint meeting of the Congressional Board and the Technology Assessment Advisory Council

quire staff expertise, the use of external contrac-tors, and the advice of distinguished panels ofprivate citizens, OTA provides a wide variety ofassistance to committees, using informationderived both from past and current assessmentprojects.

OTA’s Congressional Board and the Technol-ogy Assessment Advisory Council provided keyleadership and guidance throughout the year.The Board helped OTA’s management make dif-ficult choices between competing needs forOTA’s resources. It gave wise counsel in suchareas as choice of work, division of attention be-tween long-term and near-term issues, and onways to improve the transfer of technical in-formation to Congress. The Advisory Councilreviewed the Office’s program of work and sup-plied important insights concerning its quality andcomprehensiveness, as well as helping identifyemerging issues that will likely be subjects forfuture OTA assessments.

As technology becomes increasingly impor-tant in maintaining a vigorous economy, OTA’sunique capabilities to provide a variety of analyti-cal services will be especially helpful to the 97thCongress. The OTA staff will continue to counton the leadership of the Technology AssessmentBoard, the advice of the Technology Assessment

Advisory Council, and the generous devotion oftime and wisdom of the scores of advisors, con-sultants, and contractors from the private sector.It is this remarkably broad involvement of peoplethat is a hallmark of OTA.

Emerging Issues of the 1980’s

OTA always tries to be as responsive as possi-ble to the interests and priorities expressed bycommittees. At the same time, OTA is constantlymade aware, from a wide variety of contacts, ofemerging issues in science and technology. Thefollowing is a brief profile of a few issue areas intechnology that we believe will be of increasingconcern to Congress.

● Areas where science and technology arechanging rapidly. Fruits of scientific research pro-vide a richer understanding of our world and alsoserve as a main source for social progressthrough an advancing economy. Three examplesillustrate this point:

1. Molecular engineering. —The present andprospective rate of advance in molecularbiology research is phenomenal and is ex-ceeded only by the diverse and powerfulimplications it holds for society. Areas in

6 Annual Report to the Congress for 1980

which applications will probably be signifi-cant in this decade include production ofcomplex biochemical needed to treat hu-man disorders and diseases, developmentof improved food material, and creation ofspecialized enzymes and microbes to up-grade organic materials and digest toxicwastes. Perhaps the most important ap-plication of this new knowledge about howlife works will be to improve the treatmentof human illness.

2. Microelectronics. —A steady advance inresearch in another “micro world’’—of sur-faces, solids, semiconductors, and super-miniature electronic circuits—promisescontinued technological developmentsthat will have an impact on our nationalsecurity and in virtually every sector of oureconomy. The same advances in thephysics and chemistry of solid and liquidsurfaces that will allow more effective com-puters and telecommunication devices willalso lead to more effective ways to convertsunlight to storable, high-grade energy.Implications for society will be profound as“smart” electronics both create and dis-place jobs and create new patterns ofsocial communication.

3. Energy. —Driven by higher oil prices andprojected scarcities of current energysources, research in both new energysources (e. g., fusion) and in ways to useenergy more productively (fuel substitu-tion and conservation) is accelerating. Thefuture will probably be characterized byhigher costs of resources and uncertaintyof supply. This implies continuing congres-sional interest, especially when marketsignals do not adequately reflect eithermarginal (replacement) costs of energy ornonmarket costs such as those associatedwith our dependence on imports.

● Situat ions where there are major socio-economic impacts from existing technologies orwhere important opportunities exist for usingtechnology to meet national needs. Toxic andhazardous wastes are current examples. Theseunwanted residuals from the processing and useof resources will not go away through protractedarguments and adversary proceedings. How-

ever, a variety of technologies strategies exist thatcan be employed to: 1) clean up old hazardouswaste storage sites that pose a threat to healthand the environment; 2) improve the way thatpresently generated wastes are handled; and 3)reduce waste in streams by process modificationsthat produce the same product, or other modifi-cations that lead to somewhat different productsthat perform the same tasks.

A second major set of examples concerns in-ternational security. Threats to security derivefrom diverse origins such as shifts in comparativemilitary capabilities of various nations and coali-tions (especially NATO, the Warsaw Pact, andthe PRC); short-term and protracted vulnerabilityof U.S. access to world oil supplies; and the ero-sion of U.S. competitiveness in internationaltrade. In each instance, improved scientific andtechnological capabilities must play a critical rolein improving American security.

● Long-term trends related to science a n dtechnology. One important responsibility of OTAis to provide foresight about the longer-termfuture, especially as it might be shaped by currentpolicy, evolving technology, and underlyingforces such as demographic change and resourcedepletion.

1.

2.

3.

Much is known about the profound butsharply different demographic changesfaced domestically and in less industrial-ized countries. But little thought has beengiven to the kinds of impacts the variousdemographic patterns will have on techno-logical innovation or on demand for tech-nological development.The rapid advances in computers and tele-communications provide manifold oppor-tunities to improve human productivity,use resources more efficiently, and pro-vide new amenities. Substantially morecomprehensive thinking about the broadsocial and economic implications of thesenew technologies (e. g., on employment)appears justified.We are beginning to recognize some “dis-economies of scale, ” e.g., with respect topowerplants. Major technological opportu-nities exist to allow efficient economicoperations on a smaller or decentralized

Section 1– Statements by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board and the Director of OTA 7

4.

scale. At the same time we must not losesight of the tremendous contribution thateconomy of scale can make. The chal-lenge is to find the optimum scale for eachtechnological application in the face ofchanging prices of resources.There is increasing concern that human ac-tivity is beginning to stress the capacity ofthe Earth to supply resources and absorbwastes. It is extremely important that weimprove our understanding of the extentto which these concerns are justified. Tothe extent that they are, it is vital that weidentify and assess the various courses ofaction that can ameliorate the situation.Advanced science and technology will becentral to this effort.

Resolving the Issues of the 1980’s

As science and technology provide greatercapability both to provide amenities and to wagewar; as human population increases and mi-grates: as extraction of mineral and energy re-sources leads inexorably to dependence on lowergrade or less accessible resources; and as collec-tive human activity increasingly affects the wholeenvironment of our planet, we must respondwith greater wisdom. Human ingenuity seems tobe the one resource whose limits are not meas-ured and certainly not fully engaged. This in-genuity becomes manifest in several ways, in-cluding science, technology, and institutional in-novation.

Q Ingenuity expressed in science gives us un-derstanding about the opportunities–andthe limits—provided through natural law.

Ingenuity expressed through technologyprovides us with diverse ways to achieveour many wants and needs. There aremany ways in which technological ingenuitycan provide amenities with more efficientuse of increasingly scarce resources.Ingenuity expressed through institutionsprovides us opportunities to bring our ac-cumulated learning and collective wisdomto bear on our needs and problems. Newcooperative arrangements throughout oursociety and especially between the publicand private sectors are needed to take fulladvantage of technology. New approachesto social, economic, and technological con-flict resolution beyond adversary processesneed to be devised.

How do we build a future that will offer to allour citizens the high standard of living and levelof amenities that many already enjoy and thatothers aspire to, when that future will inevitablycontain more people, more expensive resources,and less margin for error? How do we make thisfuture sustainable, when many of our habits andways of doing things were developed during anera of low population and inexpensive, seeming-ly inexhaustible resources? To what extent cantechnology help us make the transition to a moredemanding and less forgiving future? Can aneconomy be devised which, like the mature eco-system, is highly competitive and innovativewhile still in some form of overall equilibrium?

These are some of the difficult and searchingquestions that will confront Congress in the yearsahead. Clearly, technology assessment has amajor role to play in helping Congress explorethem.

SectionYEAR

IIIN REVIEW

The assessments carried out by OTA cover a wide spectrum of majorissues before Congress and the country and examine a broad range of policyoptions and their potential impacts. To provide examples of the breadth anddepth of OTA’s work, summaries of reports published by the Office in 1980are presented in this section. Also included are summaries of TechnicalMemoranda, issued by OTA on specific subjects analyzed in recent OTA re-ports or on projects in progress at OTA. Technical Memoranda are neither re-viewed nor approved by the Technology Assessment Board.

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

Section IIYEAR IN REVIEW

Group Rapid Transit Technology

Driveless transit vehicles operating on ex -cl u sive g u i deways. known as automated guide-

, -vanced group rapid

transit (AGRT), now funded by the Urban MassTransportation Administration

First- and second-generation AGT systems arecurrently operating in airports, universities,hospital complexes, amusement parks, andshopping centers, Third-generation AGRT sys-tems are being developed with vehicles that carry12 passengers from origin to destination withouttransfers at speeds of up to 40 mph.

Users and nonusers alike are critical of the lackof amenities, infrequent service, unreliability,crowding, and inconvenience characteristic oftransit services currently available in most cities,Technological innovations that may result fromthe AGRT program could help to address theseproblems by making transit more attractivethrough improved trip time, convenience, com-fort, flexibility, and frequency of service. Thepublic desires the further advances that AGTshould be able to provide.

In the 1980’s, cities will face increasing pres-sure to adopt more space- and fuel-efficient tran-sit systems to meet the challenge of petroleumshortages, urban sprawl. and growing conges-tion, Barring major policy and lifestyle changes.traffic congestion in cities is expected to doubleby the year 2000. Automated systems are widelyregarded as promising new options for address-ing these in certain problem urban areas.

{It , , f ( r+, I f (j f 1, f , b j 1( ,(

Downtown People Movers belng planned Inseveral U S cities

It is too ear ly in the development cycle ,however. to predict which of several technologiescurrently being pursued will prove superior formost uses. The selection of a single-system concept wou]d appear premature at this time.

Cost comparisons with existing urban rail tech-nology look favorable, but will require validationin a real-world installation, Questions requiringfurther study include: reliability of new technol-ogy; community acceptance of elevated guide-way designs: emergency evacuation from narrowelevated guideways; operating problems in iceand snow; and public attitudes toward sharingsmall, automated vehicles with strangers.

There is no guarantee that these systems willbe marketed, even if the research and develop-ment (R&D) goals are met. Industry is finding itincreasingly difficult to justify production of anytransit technology, given a history of uncertainFederal support, unrealistic development time-tables, complex institutional barriers, and the lackof established, stable markets. In West Germany

11


and Japan, a cooperative relationship betweengovernment and industry exists which has helpedensure an orderly program of long-range transitinnovation and healthy transit equipment manu-facturers. A closer examination of foreign gov-ernment-industry relations is warranted.

While development of advanced AGT systemsoffers the prospect of improved transit services,urban transportation problems do not lend them-selves to a single, all-encompassing solution.Other near- and long-term options which deserveconsideration include expanded use of carpoolsand vanpools, transportation system manage-ment techniques, land use policies, and upgrad-ing existing bus and rail technology.

Future of Liquefied Natural GasImports

Despite current administration policy of dis-couraging imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG)

from overseas, such im-ports could be desirableas part of a strategy tomeet future U.S. energydemand. Specific im-port proposals should bejudged on their individ-ual merits in the light ofthe following findings.

By 1990, LNG im-ports could double fromthe currently approvedlevel of 0.8 trillion cubic

feet per year (Tcf/yr) to between 1,3 and 1,8Tcf/yr—less than one’ -tenth of present domesticgas production. Imports will probably not exceedthose levels because of political instability in [ran,the absence of any economic advantage in ex-porting gas for some other European and Japa-nese markets, and restrictions on trade with theSoviet Union. The likely sources of U.S. importsoutside North America include Nigeria, Indone-sia, Australia, Malaysia, Trinidad, Colombia. andChile.

Since not all potential LNG exporters are ma-jor oil producers or members of OPEC, cutbacks

in foreign oil supplies do not automatically meancutbacks in gas supplies. Moreover, LNG export-ers generally have a greater financial stake thanoil producers do in uninterrupted shipments,because they cannot easily find alternative pur-chasers with appropriate terminals, and becauseproject revenues must pay for the large amountsof debt exporters incur for liquefaction facilities.To the extent that Maritime Administration andExport-Import Bank programs promote involve-ment of U.S. owners and creditors in LNG shipsand facilities, the exporter’s stake in uninter-rupted revenues diminishes. The United Statescould ease the adverse impacts of any interrup-tion through the present priority curtailment sys-tem and by sales and exchanges among gaswholesalers.

Over the next decade, domestic gas produc-tion will probably satisfy essential requirements,but neither domestic sources nor pipeline importsfrom Canada and Mexico are likely to meet addi-tional demand except at costs equal to or greaterthan that of LNG. Delivered gas from LNG islikely to cost about the same as competing fuels,less than synthetic fuels and distillates fromforeign crude oil, and more than currently regu-lated domestic natural gas. Customers alsoassume part of the financial risks associated withan LNG project by paying gas prices regulated toallow investors to recover portions of their initialcosts, regardless of the project’s subsequent com-mercial success or failure,

Gas from LNG imports will generally be usedat least partly, and possibly entirely, in manufac-turing and electric generating applications. Underthe Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. the cost ofadded supplies will not necessarily be borne bythe customers receiving them. Industrial custom-ers will probably pay a price close to that of alter-native fuels and of LNC~ itself, and electric utilitiesand purchasers of electricity will receive a subsidyin the form of “exempt” prices under the Act.Although households and commercial establish-ments would probably receive little additionalgas, at least initially, the price levels in these sec-tors will rise or fall in response to the higher costof LNG and to any savings that may result fromthe more economical use of transmission and dis-tribution capacity that LNG makes possible.

Section 11– Year in Review ● 1 3

Alaska’s North Slope contains new reserves of natural gas At Prudhoe Bay, this rig is typical ofinitial exploratory and productlon efforts

Advanced High-Speed Aircraft

Barring some major disruption in the growth ofthe world economy, and assuming reasonable

— ----. w . . ~ —

success in coping withincreasingly costly ener-gy, the total market forair travel and commer-cial aircraft could con-tinue to expand in thefuture. In the 1990’s,the current fleet of jettransports may need re-placement and the aero-space industry maywant to consider tech-nologically a d v a n c e d

transports of either subsonic or supersonic de-sign. However, developing that new technology

“ 5-3 ! < - 81 - :

for either type of advanced aircraft will be ex-tremely costly.

If an economically viable and environmentallyacceptable advanced supersonic transport (AST)could be built in the 1990-2010 period, it couldcommand some $50 billion of sales in 1979 dol-lars or about one-third of the total sales antici-pated for the long-distance market through2010. However, whether such an AST can orwill be built depends on the future price andavailability of fuel, the ability to meet increasingpublic sensitivity to noise around airports, andthe ability to finance a highly advanced new com-mercial air transport. Such a development willalmost certainly not occur in the near futurewithout substantial Government participation.

An AST that could fly faster and haul morepassengers than the Concorde would offer the


Artists’ concepts of advanced supersonic transports


advantage of higher “productivity” compared toa new subsonic aircraft. (“Productivity” is a func-tion of the speed of the aircraft, load factor, andhours used in revenue service per year, ) How-ever. higher productivity does not necessarilymean profitability, The AST now envisionedwould be able to fly faster than 1,600 mph,allowing it to carry twice as many passengers aday on long-distance flights as a subsonic aircraftof equivalent size,

The major operating cost drawback to an A S Tis fuel consumption. An AST could burn twotimes more fuel per seat-mile than an advancedsubsonic aircraft. This factor offsets the higherproductivity of an AST and could mean higherfares–possibly up to one-third more than for theadvanced subsonic plane. Passengers who highlyvalue their time may tolerate this fare difference,However, greater fuel consumption raises energyconcerns as well as objections to Governmentsupport for a project perceived by some as serv-ing only selected classes.

In the United States a Supersonic Cruise Re-search (SCR) program, conducted by the Na-tional Aeronautics and Space Administrationsince the American SST was canceled in 1971,has made significant advances in the areas ofaerodynamics. structures. propulsion, and noisereduction. While foreign manufacturers are be-coming more competitive in the subsonic field,their willingness to embark on an AST is tem-pered by the same uncertainties as those facingthe U.S jndustry,

Given the possibility of an expanded market.and the importance to the U.S. economy and in-ternational trade balance of capturing a share ofthat market, it would appear that. if Congresswishes to keep the supersonic option alive, theexisting level of Federal support in the genericR&D is not adequate. While further generic R&Dto validate the supersonic technologies shouldfacilitate a decision on whether or not to initiatean AST development. it will not answer criticalquestions such as price and availability of futurefuel supplies, sensitivity of the public to aircraftnoise, and the ability to finance such a majorcapital commitment.

Forecasts of Physician SupplyRequirements

The supply of physicians is growing at an unprecedented rate The United States is expected

to have 6()().()()() phy-

SUPPLY ANDREQUIREMENTS

& $ z,”.-. .

Two main physician-forecasting efforts exist.The Bureau of Health Manpower (BHM) of theDepartment of Heal th and Human Services(DHHS) provides annual reports which includeestimates of the present and future supply of andneed for physicians and other health profession -als. In addition, DHHS has chartered a GraduateMedical Education National Advisory Committee(GMENAC) to make recommendations on pres-ent and future requirements of physicians. theirspecialty and locational distribution, and meth-ods for financing graduate medical educationprograms. These two groups use different fore-casting methods. BHM relies on standard eco-nomic techniques, while GMENAC uses a med-ical opinion approach.

Forecasts of needed medical services reflectprojected population growth and changes in itsage, sex, and income distribution, as well as percapita use. Different assumptions about demo-graphic changes, per capita use, and ‘or physi-cian productivity lead to different estimates ofhow many physicians are required. Adjustingonly for demographic changes, BHM estimatesthat 415,000 physicians will be required in 1990.Decreases in productivity and/or increases in per

14 . Annual Report to the Congress for 1980

U.S.-Trained Physicians, Graduates (MD and DO);Projected 1978-79 Through 1989.90

Academic year Total graduates MD graduates DO graduates.1978 -79 ......., . . . . .

——16,044 15,048 996

1979 -80., . . . . . . . . . 16,375 15,346 1,0291980-81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,997 15,789 1,2081981-82 . . . . . . . . . . 17,662 16,354 1,3081982 -83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,333 16,956 1,3771983-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,699 17,241 1,4581984-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,818 17,322 1,4961985-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,928 17,394 1,5341986-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,036 17,464 1,5721987-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,142 17,532 1,6101988-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,201 17,554 1,6471989-90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,289 17,604 1,685

SOURCE /nfer/m Report of the Graduafe Med/ca/ Educaf/on Nat/ona/Adv/sory Cornrn/tfee to the Secretary, L)eparfrrrentofHea//h Education, ar?d We/fare, Washington DC Health Resources Admlnlstratlon, DHEWpubhcatlon No (HRA)19.633, p 147

capita use would increase the requirements. Withthe further assumption of increased per capitause, the BHM projection rises to 600,00().

Adequate forecasts of how many physiciansare required in each specialty cannot be madeuntil agreement is reached on what these special-ties are. Experts disagree on what primary care isand what specialties it includes.

The Hea l th Manpower Shor tage Area(HMSA) designation is the vehicle for providingFederal support through the National HealthService Corps, determining eligibility for certainFederal grant programs, and obtaining Federalreimbursement for nurse practitioners’ and physi-cians’ assistants’ services. In contrast toforecasting techniques for aggregate and special-ty requirements, the methods used to identifyHMSAs and the number of physicians they re-quire contain assumptions on how physiciansshould be distributed and how much the FederalGovernment should be involved in such efforts.

Projections of physician supply and require-ments depend on historical data to predict futureevents, but even recent historical data reflect pastpolicies, not current ones. The limits of forecastmust be fully understood if they are to serve aseffective tools in the shaping of Federal medicalpolicy. Those limits could be made clearer by ex-plicitly describing the assumptions behind anyforecasts, by making alternative forecasts basedon different sets of assumptions, and by expand-ing the forecasting process to include policy-

makers as well as technicians in establishing theparameters.

Taggants in Explosives

A new technology to place “taggants” (minia-ture labeling devices) in commercial explosives

and gunpowders couldbe a useful tool againstmany terrorist and othercriminal bombers. How-ever, there are ques-tions of safety whichwould have to be re-solved before a taggantprogram could be putinto effect.

Two different kinds oftaggants could be usedfor different purposes.

Identification taggants are microscopic chips con-taining a code. designed so that the chips couldbe recovered from the debris of a bomb explo-sion. The code would provide law enforcementofficials with a list of the last legal purchasers ofthe explosive material used in the bomb, andthus assist in finding the bomber. Detection tag-gants emit a vapor which would escape from asuitcase package containing a bomb, and whichcould be detected by a sensing machine placed atan airport, public building entrance, or othersuitable site.

—

Phofo credit U S Departmenl of [he Treasury

Recovered taggants from OTA-sponsored test of

There hasthe technicalenforcement

low-power dynamite

been considerable controversy overdevelopment, safety, cost and lawutility of such taggants. OTA found

that the taggants would probably work, althoughsome of the claims made by those developingthem are exaggerated. Questions about the safe-ty of adding such taggants to explosive materialswould have to be resolved before a programcould go forward. The cost of a program variesdepending on how extensive the program is;OTA assessed the costs of one possible programat about $25 million per year for either identifica-tion or detection taggants, and $45 million peryear for both. A taggant program would be of sig-nificant value to law enforcement; however, itwould not help much against bombings whichcaused little damage and the most sophisticatedterrorists and professional criminals could prob-ably find ways to evade the effects of a taggantprogram.

Conservation and Solar EnergyPrograms: A Critique

A lack of direction and leadership by the De-

partment of Energy (DOE) management is ham-pering the progress ofthe DOE Conservationa n d Solar Energ y(C&SE) P r o g r a m sMany C&SE programssuffer from inadequateplanning. frequent andd eb i I i t a t i n g manage -ment changes and re-organizations. and otheri n t e r n a 1 d i f f i c u 1 t i es,although some ar~ do-ing well and are staffed

by many dedicated and competent people. Thisis the main finding of an OTA review of C&SEprograms conducted with the aid of two panels ofexperts. The membership of the panels was de-signed to provide a balance of skills and view-points.

The national goals for solar energy outlined inthe Administration’s 1979 Domestic Policy Re-view (DPR), and endorsed in administrationmessages to Congress, have not been universallyaccepted within DOE, and C&SE programs havenot been designed to meet them. No effort simi-lar to the DPR has been made to establish conser-vation goals, which presently are defined implicit-ly. Conservation investments currently representthe most economic opportunity for dealing withthe energy crisis.

Critical C&SE management problems includelack of both procedures and funding for programevaluation, extraordinary delays in processingcontracts and filling staff vacancies, changing


Comparison of the DOE Fiscal Year 1981 Budget Request With DPR Solar Energy Goals for 2000or Conservation Savings Expected in 1990

Fiscal year1981 Ultimate Stage of Institutional

budget Quad goal potential develop- and marketrequest (2000) Ratio (Quads) Economics ment barriers

SolarA c t i v e hea t ing and coo l lng . , . $57.7 2 $ 30 B B A cPassive heating and cooling . . . 33.9 1 30 B B A cI n d u s t r i a l a n d a g r i c u l t u r a l . 49.0 2.6 20 B B B AB i o m a s s 66.7 3.6’ 20 A B A APhotovoltaics ... . . . . . . . . 175.6 1.0 180 A 7 c BWind . . . . . . . . 80.0 1.7 50 A A B cSolar thermal (e lect r ic i ty) . . . 117.5 0.4 290 A ? c cOcean ., . . . 39.2 0.1 390 A 7 c c

Conservation (1990)Residential/commercial . . . . . 97.6b 9.5 10 c A A cIndustrial. ... ... 58.9 25,9 2 c A B ATransportation ., . . . . 113.0 10.4 11 c A A B

A = favorable outlook B = intermediate C = Iimlted potential or dlfficult problemsaExcl udes the 1 8 Quads already bel nq usedbDoes not ln~jude $2025 mllllon for the Schools and Hospll’ls Grant Program or $19895 for the Weathertzation Assistance program The ener9Y con(rlbutlon of these

proqrams presumably IS included (n the 95 Quads but the high budqet levels result from the actual Implementation betng done by DOE u nllke the other proqramswhich are Ilmlted to R&D or demonstration projects

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

management and frequent reorganization, insuf-ficient coordination between solar and conserva-tion incentives, and difficulties in defining and im-plementing “commercialization” efforts.

C&SE also exhibits a number of institutionalproblems in such areas as coordination of energypolicy and action within the Federal Govern-ment, assistance to the States, commercializationof solar conservation technologies, and questionsof competing or conflicting roles among variousunits of the organization—headquarters offices,regional offices, the Regional Solar Energy cen-ters, the Solar Energy Research Institute. and theNational Laboratories.

From the view of specific program elements,OTA concludes: wind energy is a nearer termtechnology than DOE appears to believe; photo-voltaics may not meet stated goals unless DOEacts more aggressively; biomass managementshould be tightened and the staff augmented;transportation should reevaluate its efforts in bothadvanced engines and electric vehicles; and solaractive, passive, and conservation technologiesmust be integrated to achieve optimum energyuse in new and existing residential and commer-cial buildings.

Oil Shale Technologies

An oil shale industry could benefit the Nation’seconomy and security and help ease the liquid

. — . — —

fuel supply problem.However, the r ap iddeployment of a largeindustry (500,000 bar-rels per day (bbl/d) ormore by 1990 would en-tail economic, environ-mental, and social risks,Financial incentivescould spur production.Production tax credits,purchase agreements,and price supports

would be the most effective. Federal debt guar-antees or debt insurance would help smallerfirms,

The high-grade oil shale reserves of the West-ern United States could, with existing technol-ogies, produce at least 400 billion bbl of oil. Thisequals 57 years’ worth of current U.S. petroleumconsumption, and is over 2.5 times the estimatedreserves of Saudi Arabia.

.—. . —

Section 11— Year in Reureu’ ● 1 9

Recent increases in the price of world oil maymake shale oil price-competitive with foreigncrude, depending on: the reliability of currentcost estimates for plants, the continuation of oilprice increases, the effects of Federal and Stateregulatory action, and the required rate of returnon capital.

About 80 percent of the richest shale is onFederal land. Four tracts (in Colorado and Utah)have been leased under the Federal PrototypeLeasing Program. None of the extensive privateholdings are now being developed commercially.Production beyond about 400,000 bbl/d is possi-ble only if additional Federal land, with high-grade shale, is made available.

Of the three major processes for convertingraw shale to oil, one is now being commerciallydeveloped, Crude shale oil, upgraded and re-fined, is a somewhat better source of jet anddiesel fuel than of gasoline.

Oil shale development could have importantenvironmental impacts. Many impacts are regu-lated by existing State and Federal environ-mental laws, although some wastes pose unique

challenges and a number of serious uncertaintiesexist. The Clean Air Act, the only existing en-vironmental law that might limit the industry,could hold production in Colorado to about400,000 bbl/d, although additional productioncould occur in Utah.

A 500,000 -bbl/d industry would increase ap-proximately 1.5 percent the surface water de-mands projected for the Upper Colorado RiverBasin in 2000. Surplus surface water could sup-port this industry until at least 2000: some timeafter 2000, scarcities may limit all types ofregional growth. Any large-scale industry will re-quire additional storage and transportation ofwater within the region.

Development will change the communities inthe sparsely populated rural region. Adverseeffects could occur, especially if oil shale devel-opment accompanies other industrial expansion.Without strong preventive measures, social andpersonal distress (boomtowns) will happen. Be-tween 1985-90, communities in Colorado couldprobably accommodate the growth of 200,000 -bbl/d industry. Anything larger would require ex-tensive impact mitigation programs.

The Relative Degree to Which the Production Targets WouldAttain the Objectives for Development

1990 production target. bbl/d

100,000 200,000 400,000 1 mllllon

To position the industry for rapiddevelopment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

* .

To max im ize energy supplies . . ... 1 ,

To minimize Federal promotion ... . . . .

To maximize environmental informationa n d p r o t e c t i o n

To maximize the integrity of the socialenvironment . . . . . .

To achieve an efficient and cost-effectiveenergy supply system . .

Lowest degree of attainment I 1“ ● Highest degree of attainment

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

20 . Annual Report to the Congress-for 1980

Federal Prototype Oil ShaleLeasing Program

This report is a companion to volume I of theOTA oil shale assessment. It describes the historyand status of the Prototype Oil Shale LeasingProgram.

About 80 percent of the U.S. high-grade oilshale is on Federal land in Colorado, Utah, andWyoming. Under the Prototype Oil Shale Leas-ing Program, about 20,000 acres—less than 1percent of the Federal oil shale land—have beenleased to private developers. Four tracts, twoeach in Colorado and Utah, are under lease, butso far development has taken place only in Col-orado.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) in May1980 announced it would offer four more Proto-type tracts. A permanent leasing program also isbeing planned with a target date for its establish-ment of 1982-83. DOI intends to foster oil shaledevelopment by asking Congress to amend theMineral Leasing Act of 1920 and the FederalLand Policy and Management Act of 1976.

The stated goals of the Prototype Program areto provide a new energy source by stimulatingdevelopment of a commercial industry, to ensureenvironmental integrity while developing safe-guards and land restoration techniques, to permitan equitable return on development of the publicresource, and to establish sound managementpractices.

Unforeseen problems have resulted in onlypartial realization of these goals. They have in-cluded economic, environmental, legal, andtechnological uncertainties. The difficulties led tosuspension of the Prototype leases in 1976-77.Development has resumed, but there have beenmajor changes in the technologies being used.The development may not attain the level of pro-duction they expected when the Programstarted, and it will take about twice as long asoriginally estimated to achieve commercial pro-duction.

Several uncertainties remain. Unpatentedmining claims from before 1920 cloud the pic-ture. The U.S. Supreme Court recently found in

favor of certain unpatented claimants in Col-orado; the possible consequences of an exten-sion of this doctrine to other Federal lands areunclear.

The Prototype Programs grew out of an un-successful DOI leasing effort during the 1960’s.The effort failed to attract any private participa-tion. The Prototype Program obtained responsesto four of the six tracts offered. Increased interestin oil shale development should provide betterprospects for success of additional leasing.

The outlook for shale development under thePrototype Program will depend on how the re-maining uncertainties are resolved and on thesuccess of overall Government efforts to solvethe problems. Some of the Programs’ goals arebeing met outside DOI’S framework. DOE andthe Environmental Protection Agency are bothinvolved in oil shale development, which com-plicates evaluation of the Prototype Program.

Technology and Steel IndustryCompetitiveness

Steel will probably remain the world’s most im-portant engineering material and the steel indus-

try is vital to the Nation’ssecurity and economicprosperity. However,unless action is taken,continued low profit-ability and some Federalpolicies, such as longdepreciation times fornew facilities, will causethe domestic steel indus-try to contract substan-tially. Many jobs couldbe lost, and the Nation

might become vulnerable to scarce and high-priced imports, which by 1990 could account for40 percent of the domestic market, comparedwith recent levels of about 15 percent.

The U.S. steel industry can be revitalizedthrough increased investment in R&D and theadoption of new technology. For that to happen,however, OTA estimates that steelmaker must


increase their capital spending on productionfacilities by at least 50 percent during the nextdecade, to approximately $3 billion per year ascompared to industry estimates of $4.9 billion(1978 dollars), in order to modernize existingmills, expand capacity modestly, and bring profit-ability up to the level of most other domesticmanufacturing industries. At the $3 billion level,supportive Federal policies would be required togenerate at least $600 million of this additionalcapital per year.

Small nonintegrated steel plants that rely onferrous scrap rather than iron ore to produce thesimpler steel products could nearly double theirmarket share (now at about 13 percent) in thecoming decade, provided that adequate electrici-ty and scrap are available in specific marketareas. Considerable market potential could beexploited to increase exports by the highly com-petitive alloy /specialty steelmaker in the next 10years, if the new Multilateral Trade Agreement isenforced vigorously.

Following restructuring, modernization, andexpansion in the 1980’s, the industry couldadopt major new steelmaking innovations if theFederal Government supports more basic re-search in steelmaking, provides incentives formore industry R&D, and assists in pilot and dem-onstration projects. Such major process innova-tions could then bring the domestic industry acompetitive advantage, rather than mere paritywith foreign industries. This is the type of long-range strategic technology planning that the in-dustry has not done well.

A well-designed and vigorously implementedgovernment policy has nurtured the Japanesesteel industry’s expansion and adoption of newtechnology. The U.S. steel industry, on the otherhand, has been hurt by a long series of Federalpolicies that have frequently been uncoordi-nated, contradictory, and inattentive to criticalissues. A Federal policy that coordinates the in-dustry’s needs, the Nation’s interests, and specifictechnical concerns is an important option.

The Diffusion of Continuous Casting, 10 Countries, 1962-78

Percent

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

— Sweden

— C a n a d a

— United Kingdom— United States

5 -

01960 1965 1970 1975 1978

Year

SOURCE Organizatlon for Economic Cooperation and Development


Neither technology nor capital, alone, willsolve the steel industry’s problems. New tech-nologies could be adopted by the domestic indus-try if problems of insufficient capital and uncer-tain import policies are resolved. One such tech-nology already used by major foreign competi-tors is the continuous casting of molten steelwhich reduces energy consumption, increasesproductivity, and expands steelmaking capacity.Another, the coal-based direct reduction of ironore to produce a low-cost substitute for ferrousscrap and blast furnace iron, may be developedcommercially within the next 5 to 15 years. Po-tential advantages include reduced capital costs,reduced pollution, and increased use of coal.

Energy From Biological Processes

By 2000, energy from biomass (wood andother plant material) could supply as much as 12

to 17 quadri l l ion Btu(Quads) of U.S. energyper year, depending oncropland availability andresource management .Of this, up to 10 Quadscould come from woodand 1 to 6 Quads fromplant herbage, includingcrop residues.

The most efficientprocesses for replacingoil with biomass energy

are direct combustion and gasification for space-heating and process steam and heat. Combus-tion technology is now commercially available,and suitable gasification units are likely to bedeveloped soon. With favorable conditions thesetechnologies could supply the United States withas much as 10 Quads /yr by 2000 beyond 4 to 6Quads/yr that probably will be used anyway.Ten Quads / yr are enough to displace the energyequivalent of 4,5 million bbl/d of premium fuels(oil and natural gas).

Biomass also can be converted into the liquidfuels ethanol (grain alcohol) and methanol (wood

alcohol). Only ethanol is now produced commer-cially from biomass. Growing and convertingcrops to ethanol requires roughly the sameamount of energy that the ethanol contains.However, each gallon of ethanol can save nearlya gallon of premium fuels if: 1) ethanol distilleriesare not fueled with premium fuels and 2) the eth-anol is added to gasoline as an octane boosterrather than used as a stand-alone fuel. Methanolseems the least expensive near-term option forproducing liquid fuels from wood and plant herb-age. Although no biomass-to-methanol facilitiesare in operation in the United States, the neededtechnologies for alternative feedstocks either ex-ist or can be developed soon.

The behavior of wood harvesters will criticallyaffect both the amount of biomass energy theUnited States can produce on a renewable basisand the economic, environmental, and other im-pacts of doing so. For example, careless forestmanagement could damage the forests andsharply reduce the amount of wood available forenergy. Furthermore, the production of fuel fromcropland (except from residues) can drive foodprices up. Significant price increases could occurat ethanol production levels as low as 2 billiongal/yr, but this estimate is uncertain. Also an ex-pansion of the acreage in intensive crop produc-tion will add to the already damaging level of soilerosion from U.S. croplands.

The development of bioenergy poses a num-ber of policy issues that Congress may want toaddress. If Congress chooses to promote therapid expansion of energy from biomass, vigor-ous policy support including economic incen-tives—will be needed. In addition, severe envi-ronmental and other impacts may be unavoid-able unless the expansion of bioenergy produc-tion is accompanied by strong incentives forcareful resource base and the adequacy of ex-isting policies. Bioenergy is now accorded a lowpriority by DOE and the U.S. Department ofAgriculture. A decision to promote it aggressivelywill require a significant shift in the priorities ofthese departments as well as extensive coordina-tion among Federal agencies and among Nation-al, State, and local governments.


ImplicationsAnalysis of

Photo Credit USDA SOIl Comservaton Service

Commercial forests: an excellent source of energy from biomass

of Cost-EffectivenessMedical Technology

The need to control the rapidly rising costs ofhealth care while improving its quality and acces-

sibility has heightenedinterest in using cost-

THE IMPLICATIONS OF effectiveness analysisCOST-EFFECTIVENESS [CEA) and cost-benefit

ANALYSIS OFMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY analysis (CBA) as a

,means o t mak ing t h e

Mu. rJ* medical care systemmore efficient. CEA andCBA are methods forc o m p a r i n g a l t e r n a t i v e

w a y s t o a l l o c a t e r e -,1, .-,–2 . . -

sources.

The process of ana-lyzing costs and benefits can improve decision -making in the field of health care by structuring

the problem, allowing an open consideration ofall potential effects of a decision, and forcing theexplicit treatment of key assumptions. However,CEA/CBA have too many limitations to serve asprimary determinants of decisions in health care,Information produced by CEA CBA should beonly one of several components of a decisionprocess.

In CBA, both cost and benefits are expressedin dollars, resulting in a net plus or minus dollarfigure or in a numerical ratio. With CEA, how-ever, costs are expressed in dollars but effec-tiveness is measured in nonmonetary units suchas lives saved or life years gained. Thus, bothCEA and CBA are mainly designed to integratethe economic and the health aspects of decisions.However, CEA and CBA are only tools. Theiruse will not substitute for cost-containment pro-grams. CEA and CBA could perhaps influencethe distribution of expenditures, especially where


a program has a constrained budget, but in nei-ther case would they limit the absolute amount ofexpenditures.

Health decisionmakers have only rarely usedCEA and CBA in setting policy for medical tech-nologies. Reimbursement programs, such asmedicare, do not explicitly take costs into ac-count in deciding whether or not to cover specifictechnologies. Professional Standards Review Or-ganizations, which review the appropriateness ofservices provided under programs such as medi-care, have not used information from CEAs orCBAs, though they potentially could incorporatethat type of information in their review criteria.Health planning agencies have a mandate toconsider both the costs and the benefits of a tech-nology or service in making certain types of deci-sions. Yet those agencies have very infrequentlyused formal CEA or CBA. CEA and CBA havesignificant potential for use in health maintenanceorganizations because their budgets are fixed dur-ing any one time period.

The use of CEA and CBA is likely to increasesubstantially. Users, however, should be cautiousin interpreting results and avoid relying too heavi-ly on numerical result, which tend to obscureethical considerations and uncertainties in data.

Many of the limitations of CEA and CBA canbe ameliorated by following 10 principles ofCEA/CBA: Define the problem, state objectivesof analysis, identify alternatives, analyze all rele-vant benefits, analyze all relevant costs, differen-tiate the perspective of the analysis, perform dis-counting of future costs and benefits, analyzeuncertainties, address ethical issues, and inter-pret the results. In addition, to lessen the prob-lems associated with a numerical ‘bottom line,”analysts should refrain from combining into anaggregate number the often complex sets of cal-culations, especially when nonquantifiable ele-ments are important to the decision.

Technical Memoranda

Ocean Margin Drilling

Prepared in response to a request from theChairman and the Ranking Minority Member of

the HUD~IndependentAgencies Subcommitteeof the Senate Appro-priations Committee.the Technical Memoran-dum evaluates the Na-tional Science Founda-tions’ (NSF) plans forthe development of anocean margin drilling(OMD) program. The$700 million, 10-yearprogram is both a con-

tinuation of deep ocean drilling under NSF aus-pices, and a new thrust to explore the geology ofcontinental margins (the borders between thecontinents and the deep ocean) and ocean crustwhere deep drilling is required to penetrate un-known regions. Some of the margin regionscould contain substantial oil and gas resources,according to most experts, but very little evidenceof that has been collected.

Some major findings in OTA’s analysis are:

1. The NSF plan for ocean margin drillingdeveloped during 1980 contains manyworthwhile scientific objectives. The planis supported by NSF and the Joint Ocean-ographic Institutions (JOI) who assisted inits development, and a scientific consen-sus on the present program is developing.A major concern of many scientists hasbeen the lack of specific plans for geo-physical surveys that must precede thedrilling: however, a planning effort didbegin in late 1980.

—

Section II-Year in Review ● 25

2.

3,

4.

The probability of achieving the scientificobjectives through the holes drilled and in-formation collected will, in large part, bedetermined by the capabilities of the tech-nology which is not yet developed. Someof the deep holes may not be completed asplanned because of the technologicaluncertainty associated with deep oceandrilling in as yet unknown environments.The potential for oil and gas resources inthe continental margins is a subject ofmuch speculation, but competent geolo-gists claim that these areas hold significantpromise at least to the extent that theyshould be carefully explored. The oceanmargin drilling would provide better scien-tific information on which to base furtherspeculation on oil and gas resources, but itis not a logical oil and gas exploration pro-gram.A more sharply focused science programwith fewer options than the present plan isadvocated by several of the scientists OTAcontacted. They have suggested alterna-tives which might result in lower initialcosts and a postponement of the decisionto fund major technology developments.

It is planned that NSF’s ocean margin drillingprogram will be jointly funded by the FederalGovernment and the petroleum industry. Theprogram calls for 4 years of preparation and 6years of drilling. In carrying out the program,NSF plans to convert the Government-ownedGlomar Explorer to a deep drilling ship, and todevelop a riser system (a large pipe which chan-nels drilling fluid down to the ocean floor andback up to the ship). The system will be used forcontrolled drilling at approximately 13,000-ftwater depths and up to 20,000 ft below theocean floor.

The scientific objectives stated in the plan in-clude the investigation of: 1) passive and active

continental margins; 2) the Earth’s crust beneaththe ocean; and 3) deep sea sediments that couldreveal historical environmental information aboutthe Earth, particularly the opening of the AtlanticOcean and the Gulf of Mexico.

Recent Developments in OceanThermal Energy Conversion

Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) is aproposed system for extracting energy from the

Development of the

solar heat stored in thesurface water of tropicalseas. The method usesthe temperature differ-ence between surfaceand cold, deep oceanwater to operate huge,ocean-based electricitygenerating plants.

Prepared in responseto a request f rom theCha i rman of the Sub-commi t t ee on Ene rgyHouse Commi t t ee on

Science and Technology, this Technical Memo-randum updates a 1978 report on OTEC. Sincethe original report, several significant technicalaccomplishments have occurred in the OTECprogram. The Technical Memorandum discussesthese achievements as well as technical uncer-tainties that remain.

DOE is currently sponsoring a major effort todevelop OTEC as a future energy resource.Funding for the program has grown from approx-imately $15 million to $40 million annually in thepast 2 years. Recent DOE and industry reportswere reviewed by OTA experts in order to pro-vide an accurate update on the status of OTECtechnology.


Some of the major findings in OTA’s analysisare:

1. Outstanding technical achievements overthe past 2 years have been: a) the opera-tion of Mini-OTEC during the summer of1979 in Hawaii, demonstrating that asmall (10 kilowatt), barge-mounted systemcan generate net electrical output, and b)improvements in heat exchanger perform-ance through laboratory and sea tests. Theheat exchanger is the most important com-ponent for the OTEC plant due to its size,weight, and cost.

2. Over the past 2 years, the technology base

3

4

for OTEC has improved, reducing the riskinvolved in building a midsize (10 to 40megawatt) pilot plant. (The major techni-cal risks include cold water pipes, heat ex-changers, and electrical transmission ca-bles. ) However, development has notreached the point where the costs of large,commercial plants can be estimated.Little has been done to assess the potentialocean thermal energy resources availablefor major OTEC commercialization. Ac-cording to OTA, current DOE studies donot adequately consider future resourceavailability y.OTA’s analysis also questions whetherDOE’s project team, even though it iscomprised of many competent technicalgroups, could adequately respond to amajor acceleration requiring pilot plantconstruction before fiscal year 1982.

World Petroleum Availability: 1980-2000

Prepared partly in response to a request fromthe Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, this

Even under favorablemost likely be little or no

Technical Memoran-dum critically assessesthe prospects for worldoil production for therest of the century. It ex-amines, on a country-by-country basis, cur-rent production capabil-ities, the likelihood ofnew discoveries, andthe political, economic.and other factors thatwill affect actual produc-tion levels.

circumstances, there willincrease in world oil pro-

duction * from conventional sources over the restof the century, the Memorandum concludes. Notonly will the United States be unable to expect in-creased imports over current levels, but theUnited States will probably face much stiffer com-petition for world supplies at even lower levels ofimports. That is the likely future that current U.S.plans and efforts to reduce our heavy depend-ence on oil should prepare us to meet.

Forecasts of petroleum availability, in general,have fallen since the recent events in Iran. Never-

““0]1 production”’ Includes liqu]ds associated w]th the productionof natural gas


theless, the range of OTA estimates falls muchbelow those of other organizations. For example,Exxon has recently forecasted world petroleumavailability from conventional sources in 2000 at60 million bbl/d ● which is at the upper end of theOTA range. Compared with earlier estimates,both the OTA study and the Exxon forecast arepessimistic on production possibilities for theUnited States. Exxon forecasts U.S. productionat 6 million bbl/d in 2000, while OTA estimates arange of 4 million to 7 million bbl/d. All of theseestimates are considerably below the 1979 pro-duction level of 10.2 million bbl/d.

While it may be physically possible to increaseworld oil production by perhaps as much as 33percent by the 1990’s, no substantial increasesare likely to occur because the countries thatmust contribute to an increase of this size (such asthe Arab OPEC countries or Mexico) have littlefinancial or political incentive to do so and be-cause any attempt to increase production wouldrun into a number of practical as well as politicalproblems.

Oil production in the non-Communist worldcould begin to decline by the early 1980’s. As-suming political stability in the major exporters,and thus no interruptions in their production,OTA estimates that non-Communist world oilsupply is likely to range between 45 million to 60million bbl/d in 1985 and 40 million to 60 millionbbl/d in 2000, compared to 52 million bbl/d in1979. As a group, OTA projects, non-Com-munist industrialized countries will experience nosignificant increase in production, and may, infact, experience a decrease of as much as 50 per-cent by 2000.

● Mllllons of (42 gal) barrels per day

U.S. production may decline from its currentlevel of 10.2 million bbl/d to a level of 7.2 millionto 8.5 million bbl/d in 1985 and to a level of 4million to 7 million bbl/d in 2000. The highestimate of 7 million bbl/d for 2000 assumesboth the annual addition of 1 billion bbl to provenreserves and the extensive use of enhanced re-covery techniques.

The Communist countries may cease being anet exporter of oil to the free world by the early1980’s as a result of declines in Soviet produc-tion. The entry of the Eastern European coun-tries (now more than 80 percent dependent onthe Soviet Union for their imported oil) and con-ceivably the Soviet Union itself as buyers on theworld oil market will intensify the pressure onworld oil prices and have potentially serious im-plications for U.S. foreign policy.

OTA believes that OPEC production duringthe next 20 years will range around its currentlevel of 31 million bbl/d. Except in Iran, onlySaudi Arabia, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirateshave the reserves, and Iraq the estimated poten-tial, to increase production rates. Thus, substan-tial dependence on Arab OPEC is likely to con-tinue.

Although production in the non-OPEC less-developed countries (LDCs) will exceed currentlevels (mainly as a result of increases in Mexicanproduction), much if not all of that increase willbe absorbed by increases in LDC demand.

Although some large discoveries are possibleoutside the Middle East, there appears littlepossibility—outside of Mexico—that giant oilfields, such as those found in the Middle East, willbe discovered elsewhere. Major additions to the


world’s known oil supplies will likely come fromadditional recovery in known fields rather thanfrom new field discoveries. These additions arenot likely to alter the dominance of the MiddleEast, since over half of the new additions are ex-pected to be in the Middle East. Moreover, ex-perts generally agree that the world distribution ofultimately recoverable oil will not differ signifi-cantly from the known distribution today.

Compensation for Vaccine= RelatedInjuries

The issue of compensation for vaccine-relatedinjuries came to congressional and public atten-

t ion dramatical ly in1976 in connection withthe Federal Govern-ment’s sponsorship of amass immunization pro-gram against swine flu.The memorandum isOTA’s response to a re-quest from the HouseInterstate and ForeignCommerce Committee.It expands on a chapterin the 1979 OTA report,

Federal Vaccine and Im-

The 1979 OTA report pointed to a major de-cline in the number of active vaccine manufac-turers and of licensed vaccine products, notingthat some researchers-blamed Federal policies forat least part of the decline. That report suggestedthat liability problems may be eroding the com-mitments of vaccine manufacturers, Congress,and State health departments to public immuni-zation programs.

All vaccines, even when properly manufac-tured and administered, may pose risks to users.

Under the existing legal liability system, personsinjured from vaccination must establish fault incourt in order to receive compensation. The in-jured person generally sues one or more of theparticipants in the vaccination process (e. g., aparty that manufactures, distributes, pays for, en-courages the use of, or administers the vaccine).In four major cases in the past 11 years, includingthe recent swine flu decision, plaintiffs have wonlarge judgments against vaccine manufacturersfor injuries caused by nondefective and properlyadministered vaccines. This situation has affectedmanufacturers’ willingness to produce and supplyvaccines.

The Memorandum does not analyze the argu-ments for and against a Federal compensationprogram. Rather, it starts with the assumptionthat establishing such a program is desirable. Theprimary case for establishing a vaccine-injurycompensation program is that society is obligatedto minimize the consequences of injury when avaccinee is harmed instead of protected in publicimmunization programs.

Six nations and the State of California havevaccine-injury compensation programs. Theseprograms contain the elements that Congressmay wish to consider in formulating a Federalcompensation program: 1) the vaccines to becovered, 2) the injuries to be included, 3) thekinds of compensation, 4) the administrativemechanisms, and 5) the relationships with ex-isting compensation programs (lawsuits, socialinsurance).

The memorandum sets out the Federal Gov-ernment’s current approach to compensation,the major arguments for and against a compen-sation program, the costs of such programs, thetypes and estimated numbers of vaccine-relatedinjuries, current approaches to vaccine-injurycompensation, and compensation in light of fu-ture developments in vaccines.

Section IllWORK IN PROGRESS

OTA’s work is structured along three broad divisional lines: energy, ma-terials, and international security; health and life sciences; and science, in-formation, and natural resources. Within those broad divisions, OTA con-ducts studies in energy, international security and commerce, materials, foodand renewable resources, health, human resources, communication and in-formation technologies, oceans and environment, and space technology.

More than 60 projects were in progress during the year, including 14 newstudies.

In this section, the broad concerns and current work schedule of eachOTA program are described for 1981 and beyond.

Section IllWORK IN PROGRESS

Energy, Materials, and International Security Division

Energy

Several factors combined in 1980 to give theNation a respite from the series of energy shockswhich began in 1973. Conservation driven byhigher prices, higher than normal winter tem-peratures, and the economic slowdown havereduced total energy use in the United States bynearly 4 percent from 1979. In particular, thehigher oil prices have so reduced the Nation’s oilconsumption that it is currently importing about30 percent less oil than in the peak year of 1978.In addition, domestic energy production, led bycoal, is continuing the slow increase that began 4years ago. Congressional activity on energy mat-ters in 1980 was considerably below the 1979level due partially to these circumstances. Theprincipal effort was completion of the EnergySecurity Act which established the SyntheticFuels Corp., greatly expanded biomass pro-grams, and set up new conservation and solarfinance programs.

Despite the apparent easing of the Nation’senergy problems, considerable danger remainsfor the next decade. The United States is stillcritically dependent on imported oil, and thethreat of future cutoffs continues. Although con-servation has been substantial—beyond the ex-pectations of the most optimistic forecasts of afew years ago—it is still not clear how much is ashort-term cutback and how much is a long-termgain in efficiency. Domestic production is increas-ing but currently not fast enough to offset the ex-pected declines in older oilfields in the yearsahead. Thus, Congress will face a number of im-portant issues in the coming years and activity islikely to increase dramatically in 1981.

OTA should continue to be an important re-source for Congress in analyzing energy issues.OTA assisted Congress in the course of its workon the Energy Security Act. In particular, OTA’sanalysis of energy from biological processes wasimportant in developing those portions of the billconcerning wood and alcohol fuels. In addition,

the OTA study on the Department of Energy’s(DOE’s) Conservation and Solar Energy pro-grams proved useful to congressional authorizingcommittees in treating that part of DOE’s pro-gram. OTA also released an updated summaryof the coal slurry pipeline study which was usedextensively during the House debate on slurrypipeline legislation. Finally, OTA, by drawing oncompleted and ongoing studies, was able to helpCongress meet immediate needs through testi-mony and other short-term responses on topicssuch as wood energy, methanol fuels, cogenera-tion, conservation in buildings, and enhanced oilrecovery.

Currently, the Energy Program is working on anumber of studies which should be of interest tothe upcoming Congress. These include studiesnearing completion on nuclear powerplant stand-ardization and the solar power satellites. Theformer should contribute to the anticipated con-gressional debate on the future of nuclear power.Other studies include: dispersed electric energysystems, which will deal primarily with cogenera -tion; energy and city buildings, which addressesconservation in buildings and the particular ener-gy problems facing cities; synthetic fuels for trans-portation, which is focused on the role of synfuelsand increased automobile efficiency in meetingthe Nation’s liquid fuel needs; and industrial en-ergy use. Finally, OTA will begin a study on tech-nologies that could ease the effects created by anoil supply disruption or chronically tight oil mar-kets. There will probably be strong congressionalinterest in contingency planning for possible long-term oil shortages and this study should contrib-ute to that debate.

Alternative Energy Futures

Following an analysis of major issues involvedin alternative energy futures, a number of sepa-rate but related studies have been initiated. Workon the future potential of “liquefied natural gas

31


imports” has been completed. The second studyis “energy for city buildings, ” which will focus onthe interaction of technology and policy for newand existing buildings in U.S. cities for the nexttwo decades. The massive current stock of build-ings contains a high proportion of structures,both residential and commercial, constructed in aperiod of low energy cost when the continuingcost of energy use received no attention. Improv-ing the energy efficiency of these structures is im-portant in terms of energy policy, city viability,and the interests of individual owners andtenants.

This study will analyze retrofit technologies,both to conserve energy and to employ renew-able energy that can improve the energy efficien-cy of structures. Capital costs, energy savings,and factors such as reliability and maintenancewill be identified. Second, the study will explorethe types of building owners. Regional factors af-fecting city opportunities and constraints, choicesof action open to Federal, State, and city govern-ments, and the related impacts of various policychoices will be examined.

A third major effort for the alternative energyfutures study, Industrial Energy Conservation,has recently been initiated. This project is de-signed to examine a series of four American in-dustries (pulp and paper, steel, petroleum refin-ing, and organic chemical production) for theirpotential to use energy more efficiently, and topredict the impact of selected legislative optionson energy use and efficiency within those in-dustries.

OTA will examine the available technologiesdesigned to improve energy efficiency, as well asthe barriers to such technology’s implementation.The legislative options to be examined rangefrom tax policy changes such as accelerated de-preciation, to institutional changes in capitalfinancing methods. Each option’s effects will beevaluated through a series of case studies inwhich corporation executives, consultants, andcomputer-modeling techniques are used to fore-cast the impacts of possible congressional action.Option’s will also be examined at the industry, in-dustrial sector, and national energy use and eco-nomic levels using a similar series of modeling,management, and consultant evaluations.

The Energy Policy Forum will retain the broadscope of the original Alternative Energy Futuresassessment, but will limit analysis to a systematicinventory of the most critical areas of agreementand disagreement over both factual assumptionsand social values relating to energy use. Thisdocument will be used internally to guide relatedstudies, and in 1981 to choose the remainingwork necessary to complete Alternatiue EnergyFutures study.

Delivery date: Early 1982. Call 226-2152 for further infor-mation.

Requesters House Committees: Banking. Finance, and Ur-ban Affairs; Interstate and Foreign Commerce; SelectCommittee on Population.

Dispersed Electric Energy GenerationSystems

The possibility of using cogeneration and solarenergy in all its direct and indirect forms, and therapidly escalating economic and environmentalcosts of large energy facilities have stimulatedconsiderable interest in small, dispersed energysystems. In particular, problems faced by theelectric utility industry, such as rapidly risingcapital costs, long leadtimes for plant construc-tion, and difficulty in finding suitable sites, makedispersed energy systems attractive. It is essen-tial, however, to determine the benefits and costsof dispersed systems in setting effective policy.This study will examine the role that cogenera-tion and small energy conversion equipmentcould play in meeting the country’s need for elec-tric energy. It will review the economic, environ-mental, social, and institutional consequences ofdispersed electric systems and their effect on theelectric utility industry. Finally, it will analyzepolicy options Congress may wish to consider inaddressing the issues about the development ofsuch systems.

The study will examine the technical featuresof dispersed systems using a variety of dispersedcogeneration and small electric-generating equip-ment. It will then analyze the economic and tech-nical effects of such systems on utilities usingmodels developed for the OTA onsite solarstudy. Concurrently, evaluation of changes inutility structure would be carried out using deci-sion models similar to those used by utilities.

Section 111– Work in Progress ● 3 3

Finally, a series about the effects on society (e.g.,employment, risks, etc. ) from dispersed systemswould be examined. This would include publicperception of small-scale, onsite energy facilities.

Delivery date. Spring 1981. Call 226-2152 for further in-formation

Requester House Committee on Banking, Finance, andUrban Affairs.

Nuclear Powerplant Standardization

No new orders for nuclear plants are likely tobe placed for the next several years, but newelectric generating capacity will be needed soon.One of the greatest obstacles nuclear plants mustovercome if they are to contribute to this newcapacity is a lack of public confidence in reactorsafety. Furthermore, there is probably generalagreement among both proponents and oppo-nents of nuclear power that the present licensingprocess is not an efficient means of ensuringeither safety or economically viable reactors.Standardization of nuclear powerplants has beenproposed to improve both safety and licensability.The potential benefits of standardization are clearand some progress has been made, but severalissues have to be addressed before the conceptcan be implemented. For instance, the timeneeded to prepare and improve standard de-signs, the degree of standardization to be re-quired, the number of designs to have available,and the period for which they should be valid willall affect the feasibility and desirability of stand-ardization.

This study will examine many of the technicaland institutional issues about nuclear power-plant standardization to determine its currentstatus, whether it can enhance safety, and theextent to which standardization is possible.

Delivery date Early 1981 Call 226-2152 for further in-formation.

Requester. House Committee on Interior and Insular Af -fairs

Solar Power Satellite Systems

This project will respond to congressional in-terest in a limited but independent assessment ofthe potential advantages, shortcomings, and im-pacts of solar power satellite systems. It is in-tended to aid in deliberations concerning the ap-

propriate level of Federal commitment to futuredevelopment of this technology. It also will pro-vide an improved background against which toevaluate analytical results and program proposalsarising out of a study by DOE and the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration com-pleted in August 1980.

Major topic areas, within which key uncertain-ties will be addressed in a balanced treatment ofpositive and negative impacts, include: 1) futuremarkets and the need for power from solar satel-lites, 2) cost feasibility of alternative satellitesystems, 3) environmental impacts, 4) social andinstitutional factors, and 5) competing energytechnologies and approaches. Within these cate-gories, material resource limitations, health ef-fects of microwave radiation, implications ofhighly centralized electric generation systems,and the expanded role of the Federal Govern-ment in energy production that may be required.Strengths, weaknesses, and uncertainties asso-ciated with the solar satellite concept will be con-trasted with those of other long-term energysources such as nuclear fusion.

The study is designed to identify and analyzethe key issues that need resolution before deci-sions whether or not to develop major solar pow-er satellite systems can be made. The study isdivided into four parts: alternative satellite con-cepts, public acceptance (including environmen-tal concerns), institutional acceptance (includingutility integration and international concerns),and programmatic context (competing long-termenergy sources, e.g., fusion, land-based solar).In each, a background paper will be preparedsummarizing the problems and alternatives. Aworkshop will then be held for each of the areasto identify and describe the major issues, high-lighting the divergent views. The backgroundpapers will form the basis of the workshops. Oncompletion of the workshops, a report will beprepared by the OTA staff with the key issuesand their analysis along with a summary of thebackground material. This report will provideassistance to Congress in evaluating major stud-ies now underway or being initiated to determinethe feasibility of these systems.

Deliuery date Early 1981 Call 226-2152 for further in-formation.

Requester House Committee on Science and Technology


Synthetic Fuels for Transportation

Synthetic Fuels for Transportation is a projectin the Energy Program to assess various syntheticfuels that can be used for transportation and au-tomotive technology that can increase passengercar fuel efficiency beyond 1985 standards, and tocompare these two options. The issue is how bestto balance these approaches, as the syntheticprogram develops and efficiency increasescontemplated, to achieve the most effectiveeconomic path to reduced dependency onported oil.

fuelare

andim-

The Energy Program will review the technical,economic, environmental, and social features ofthe major synthetic fuels and automotive technol-ogy (increased automobile fuel efficiency and

electric vehicles) including information from re-ports by the Congressional Research Service, theCongressional Budget Office, and OTA studieson oil shale and biomass. In addition, potentialoil savings through increased efficiency and fuel-switching in stationary uses of oil will be brieflydescribed. Synthetic fuels and increased automo-bile fuel efficiency will then be compared using avariety of criteria, including consumer and invest-ment cost, time frame for deployment, environ-mental impacts, and macroeconomic impacts.Selected issues related to these subjects will bediscussed and policy options developed.

Delivery date: Summer 1981 Call 226-2152 for further in-formation

Requester Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation.

International Security and Commerce

The interdependence of world nations is be-coming increasingly evident. A wide range ofvital U.S. national goals can be achieved onlywith the cooperation of other nations, or by de-terring them from acting in ways that threaten theNation. U.S. national security requires both eco-nomic and military strength, and U.S. technol-ogy continues to be an indispensable ingredient inboth. Technology must continue to be a distinc-tive U.S. asset in the future, and must be usedwisely. The International Security and Com-merce Program assists Congress when setting anappropriate national policy requiring a sophis-ticated understanding of the status and implica-tions of key technologies.

As military forces grow more and more expen-sive, the United States relies on a relatively smallnumber of military systems, each of which em-bodies a variety of advanced technologies. In1980, OTA initiated a project to study the waysin which the MX intercontinental ballistic missile(ICBM) could be based. During the course of1981, Congress will be informed about the ad-vantages, costs, and technical uncertainties of thealternative proposals for deploying this newmissile.

In connection with international trade, theProgram continued during 1980 a major assess-

ment of the international competitiveness of theU.S. electronics industry. This industry is a par-ticularly useful subject for study because it in-cludes areas of substantial U.S. technologicalleads (e.g. advanced semiconductors) and areasin which the United States has failed to retainmarkets in international competition (e. g., colortelevision sets). We drew upon this ongoingstudy as well as on completed OTA work onother industries to assemble a comparative studyof U.S. international competitiveness in the steel,automobile, and electronics industries. This studyhighlighted ways in which technology, govern-mental policies, and other factors affect U.S. in-dustrial competitiveness.

The Program’s final major study in 1981 willpoint out the ways in which international com-merce and the traditional definitions of nationalsecurity interact. This is a study of the impactwhich transfers of U.S. (and other Western) tech-nology in energy production to the Soviet Unioncould affect Soviet energy supplies in the next 10years, and how the level of Soviet energy sup-plies might affect U.S. national interests. Thisproject will examine and compare the state oftechnology in the Soviet Union, the UnitedStates, and other Western countries: it also willexamine the difficulties which the Soviets might


have in paying for Western technology and in ab-sorbing it effectively; and finally it will examinethe controversy over future Soviet energy pro-duction levels and the role Soviet productionplays in world energy markets. These studies willassist in advising Congress about the likely conse-quences of alternative U.S. export policies.

Competitiveness of U.S. Electronicsindustry

There is growing concern that U.S. industriesare losing, or have already lost, their position ofinternational technical leadership and that this inturn adversely affects their position in world mar-kets. OTA is examining this problem by studyingindustries chosen to illustrate a spectrum of issuesand industry capabilities. The electronics industryis particularly appropriate because it is sensitive toa volatile and rapidly advancing technology andbecause it occupies a strategic position in the lightof its contributions to innovation in other in-dustries. The OTA assessment will look at threesectors of this industry: consumer electronics(where the United States has suffered heavilyfrom Japanese competition), semiconductors(where a strong U.S. position is under chal-lenge), and computers (where the United Statesstill appears to lead the world).

The assessment focuses on those major con-tributors to the competitiveness of the electronicsindustry that could most readily be affected byU.S. Government policy. In each case, a com-parison is made between the United States,Japan, and (to a lesser extent) Western Europe.The major factors are: 1) commercialization ofresearch, development, and design: 2) manufac-turing techniques and resources; 3) finance, in-cluding both private and public sources of funds;4) human resources; and 5) overall governmen-tal industrial policies.

Delivery date: Summer 1981. Call 226-2020 for further in-formation.

Requester Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation

MX Missile Basing

The Soviet Union may now be in the processof acquiring, through increases in the accuracy of

its new generation of MIRVed missiles (SS017’s, 18’s and 19’s), the capability of destroyingour land-based ICBMs in their silos. The Depart-ment of Defense expects this Soviet capability tobecome substantial in the early 1980’s. In re-sponse, the administration has proposed to de-ploy a new missile, the MX, in a series of multipleprotective structure groupings in the southwest-ern desert. Proponents claim that the missilelocation uncertainty thus introduced will protectthese missiles from Soviet attack. Opponents ob-ject to the system on many grounds, includingcost, technical feasibility, environmental impact,and an escalation in the arms race.

OTA’s objectives are to assess the technicalfeasibility, strategic utility, cost, impact on theregion, and future consequences of various MPSbasing modes, and of any alternative missile bas-ing modes that merit serious attention.

OTA is examining the latest administrationMPS proposal, important generic classes of MPSsystems, and various alternative basing concepts.Each will be investigated for technical feasibility(including technical risk, survivability, and theavailability of resources), utility in the context of avariety of generic future scenarios (peacetimedeterrence, arms control negotiation, severe cri-sis, and war) cost, in the broadest sense (bothdollars spent and impact on the region where MXis based), and possible future consequences (in-cluding Soviet responses, and U.S. counterresponses).

Delivery date: Summer 1981 Call 226-2020 for further in-formation.

Requester Chairman and Vice Chairman of OTA’s Con-gressional Board,

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

OTA’s study of technology and the steel indus-try was recently published; a parallel study on theinternational competitiveness of the U.S. elec-tronics industry is in process. The efforts havenow been extended in the study of industrialcompetitiveness to a cross-industry comparison.This comparative project draws on OTA’s workin steel and electronics, supplements it with a


brief examination of the U.S. automobile indus-try, and discusses the implications of these threecase studies for U.S. policies toward industry.

The three industry sectors differ with respect toa wide range of factors which influence competi-tiveness —e. g., export orientation; level, nature,and maturity of technology; and frequency ofinnovation. These differences permit compara-tive analysis of the three industries, including theeffects of Government policies on their competi-tive strengths.

The project includes a comparative economicanalysis of the three sectors, drawing on the ex-isting OTA work. “the analysis will includeevaluations of the competitiveness of each in-dustry, as indicated—e .g., by parameters such asimport penetration, productivity, and return onassets. Based on the work discussed above,Government policies towards the three industrieswill be examined, with particular attention to theways in which they might vary from industry to

industry.

Delivery date: Early 1981. Call 226-2020 for further in-formation.

Requester: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation

Technology and Soviet Energy Availability

There is general agreement that the oil indus-try in the U.S.S.R. is facing serious difficulties. Itis increasingly clear that the extent of Sovietenergy problems and the way in which the Sovi-ets deal with them can have a major impact onU.S. interests–i. e., in the effects of Soviet entryinto world oil markets, the repercussions on thepolitical and economic stability of EasternEurope; and the increased chances of Soviet ad-venturism in the Persian Gulf. The U. S.S.R.’Sproblems result from the depletion of its olderfields, which obliges it to look offshore or to re-mote areas of Siberia for proven reserves orpromising sites for new discoveries. The harsh-ness and/or accessibility of these areas, togetherwith the lack of adequate technology, infrastruc-

ture, and trained manpower, will slow down theirdevelopment during this decade. Similarly, thecontinued exploitation of more accessible fields ishindered by technological lags in Soviet drillingand enhanced recovery techniques and equip-ment. Whether the United States can or shouldassist Soviet oil production through the export oftechnology is a matter of debate; substantial dis-agreement also exists over the degree to whichexports of American oil equipment and know-how to the U.S.S.R. might expand production,and over the impact of existing or potential U.S.trade policies on Soviet energy policies. The ob-jective of this study is to illuminate these uncer-tainties by investigating the role that Americantechnology might play in Soviet energy develop-ment.

The study addresses the following questions:

●

●

●

●

What equipment and technology areneeded by the Soviet Union for develop-ment of its energy resources?What factors inhibit or enhance the efficientuse of imported energy technology in theU. S. S. R.?To what extent is the United States the soleor preferred supplier of energy technologieslikely to be sought by the U. S. S. R.?Who are potential suppliers of comparabletechnologies and what are the costs andbenefits of resort to them by the U. S. S. R.?

Based on the answers to these questions, OTAwill construct several cases which assume variouslevels of availability of U.S. and other Westernenergy technology. These will be examined interms of impact of such availability on Sovietenergy production to 1990. The range of energysupply estimates will be used in turn to discussthe policy options available to the Soviets vis-a-vis other Warsaw Pact countries, the Western im-porters of Soviet energy, and the Middle East.


Requesters: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, andUrban Affairs. House Committee on Foreign Affairs.


Materials

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

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

The Program has one ongoing project relatedto extraction (Federal coal leasing) and oneongoing project related to processing and man-ufacturing (nonnuclear hazardous waste man-agement). The new projects started in 1981 willprobably be concerned with the efficient manage-ment and use of materials resources, includingrenewable materials resources.

Development and Production Potentialof Federal Coal Leases

The Federal coal leasing assessment, man-dated under the Federal Coal Leasing Amend-ments Act (Public Law 94-377), involves an in-dependent analysis of all outstanding Federalcoal leases, which include 564 developed andundeveloped leases and 172 preference-rightlease applications. The study analyzes all miningactivities on Federal leases, assesses the presentand potential value (development potential) ofthe outstanding coal leases, estimates revenuesto the Federal Government, and examines thefeasibility of using deep-mining technology inleased areas. The assessment addresses issues ofinterest to the Senate Committee on the Interiorand its subcommittee on Mines and Mining inevaluating the need for new leasing and the roleof coal in the Nation’s energy future.

Delivery date Spring 1981. Call 226-2210 for further in-formation.

Requester Mandated by Public Law 94-377,

Nonnuclear Industrial Hazardous Waste

Many nonnuclear industrial hazardous wastesmust be stored or disposed of with great care orthey may constitute a threat to health and the en-vironment. Information on the nature and mag-nitude of the hazardous waste disposal and aban-doned site problem will be reviewed. The reliabil-ity and efficacy of present containment, abate-ment, and disposal measures will be assessed.This information, coupled with criteria and tech-niques to judge relative health and environmen-tal hazards of a given waste, will assist in identify-ing those wastes which could be reduced at thesource—by modifications in process technol-ogies, by recycle, or by an end-use substitution.Approaches for reducing hazardous waste gen-eration with minimal undesirable economic ef-fects on domestic industry will be identified.


This assessment has four objectives: 1) toassess criteria for defining hazardous waste andfor judging the relative health and environmentalhazards of a given waste; 2) to evaluate tech-nologies for cleaning up present waste disposalsites that are hazardous to health and the en-vironment; 3) to assess technologies and ap-proaches for the safe storage or disposal of haz-ardous waste being presently generated; and 4)to assess technologies and approaches for reduc-ing the volume of hazardous waste. The possibleeconomic impacts on domestic industry of vari-ous approaches will be evaluated.

The project will focus initially on understand-ing the adverse consequences of present disposalstrategies and techniques, and next on ways ofreducing generation of industrial hazardouswastes economically. Alternative options will bedeveloped to cope with hazardous waste disposalin the short-run and hazardous waste generationin the long-run.

Delivery date Summer 1982 Call 226-221O for further in-formation

Requester House Committee on Energy and Commerce

Health and Life Sciences Division

Food and Renewable Resources

The disappearance of abundant, cheap ener-gy, the accelerating rise in world population, andindustrial and economic development have allcombined to put increasing pressure on theworld’s—and the Nation’s —food and other re-newable resources. In their scale and intensity,these pressures have rendered obsolete the tradi-tional and largely compartmentalized views ofagriculture, forestry, wildlands, and water man-agement. Increasing and competing demands forthese resources threaten to undermine their verycapacity for self-renewal. The world’s ability tomake available to an expanding population a nu-tritionally adequate supply of food is exceedinglyuncertain.

The Food and Renewable Resources Programexplores, in its assessments and studies, the ef-fects of technology on the productivity and sus-tainability of all elements of food and fiber pro-duction, distribution, and marketing; all ecosys-tems (agricultural lands, forestlands, wetlands,rangelands, deserts, etc.), their inhabitants, andtheir service functions; and human health as it isaffected by food quantity and quality.

In today’s world of 4 billion people, perhaps asmany as 10 percent are suffering from malnutri-tion and, in some cases, starvation. As the globalpopulation rises to a projected 6 billion by 2000,world food demands will rise and the world willcontinue to look to the United States for assist-

ance. How can technology contribute to the solu-tion of food problems?

Economic and environmental pressures in theUnited States are changing the natural resourcebase. The United States is rapidly losing some ofits best soils to erosion and salinization. Com-peting uses strain the water resource and affect itsavailability and quality. What are the new tech-nologies that can help sustain the land’s naturalproductivity and maintain water quality?

To provide Congress with information onthese and related problems, the Program iden-tifies current and emerging technological issuesthat affect the United States and world food andrenewable resources situation as well as issues af-fecting the sustainability of the renewable naturalresource base.

Future food studies will deal with aspects offood and agricultural systems and of diet-healthrelationships.

Future renewable resource studies will fallwithin the following categories: land and soils,forests and other vegetation, ground and surfacewater, wildlands and wildlife. The studies mayfocus on aspects of or relationships betweenthese resource systems and on ways of manufac-turing, restoring, or improving them through thewise application of technology.

—


Impact of Technology on Productivityof the Land

Were it not for technological advances, worldagriculture would never have been able to keeppace with world population growth. Historically,U.S. technology has had a pronounced positiveimpact on increasing the productivity of crop-lands and pastures. U.S. dependence on a con-tinuing supply of renewable natural resourcescompels it to maintain the stability of the ecologi-cal systems from which the resources arise. Now,however, there is increasing documented evi-dence showing that human activities are strainingparts of the biological and physical systems andthat the land’s productivity is in jeopardy.

The land productivity assessment is examiningthe effect of presently used technologies on thecapacity of the cropland and rangeland resourcebase to sustain high levels of production, and onemerging technologies that might be used to off-set adverse effects of some of the establishedtechnologies. The assessment includes evalua-tions of: 1) The adequacy of available data on theeffect of technologies on land productivity, and2) new technologies that have potential for re-storing, maintaining, or improving the productivi-ty of the cropland and rangeland resource base.Selected case studies are being developed to in-dicate how society is affected directly and in-directly where long-term productivity of agricul-tural ecosystems is being altered through innova-tive applications of technologies.

Delivery date Summer 1981 Call 226-2264 for further in -formation

Requesters Senate Committees. environment and PublicWorks: Appropriations House Committee on Agricul-ture

U.S. Food and Agricultural Research

The success of U.S. food and agriculture in-dustries has been based on an ever-increasing

use of new technologies. However, the effec-t iveness of these technologies and/or theirdevelopment seems to be decreasing at a timewhen the research problem base is expandingand the intensity of some problems is increasing.

This assessment will examine the scientificbase for establishing national, regional, and localresearch problems; identify the role of theFederal, State, and private research institutionsin solving these problems; evaluate cooperativemethods in identifying priority research areas;update evaluations of the adequacy of presentbasic and applied research efforts; and evaluatepublic policy options for Congress.


Requesters: Senate Committees: Appropriations, Agricul-ture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Innovative Biological Technologies forDeveloping Countries

This study reviews innovative biological tech-nologies that might be used by the Agency for In-ternational Development (AID) to assist devel-oping countries enhance the fertility of their tropi-cal/subtropical soils and improve food produc-tion while reducing the need for costly commer-cial fertilizers. OTA conducted a workshop onthis topic attended by 45 people in November1980. The workshop included scientists fromuniversities and executive branch agencies, con-gressional staff, and AID agricultural specialists.The final report will summarize 10 papers on in-novative biological technologies and evaluationsof the technologies, and present a summary ofhow these technologies might be used by AID.

Delivery date Spring 1981. Call 2262264 for further in-formation

Requester House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Health

The value American people place on health is directly, while a great many others indirectly af-reflected in the large number of Federal policies feet the development and use of such technol-on health. Many of these policies address issues ogy. As a result, the Federal Government hasof health-related technology, directly and in- become deeply involved in every aspect of the


process of development and diffusion of medicaltechnologies —supporting R&D, evaluating safe-ty and efficacy, and encouraging the use of bene-ficial technologies, while discouraging the use ofunsafe or obsolescent technologies.

The Health Program assists Congress by: 1)examining the Federal role in anticipating andmanaging domestic and international impacts ofhealth-related technology; 2) identifying andhighlighting the social, political, economic, andethical concerns surrounding the developmentand use of medical technologies; and 3) assess-ing the consequences of Federal policies involv-ing the provision of and payment for particularmedical technologies.

The work of the Health Program up to nowhas focused on methods of evaluating clinicalmedical technologies, and evaluation of com-puters in health care. However, although healthmay be viewed as being determined by four fac-tors (genetics, personal behavior, environment,and health care), those two areas relate almostexclusively to only one of the four—health care.The field of genetics is the responsibility ofanother OTA program, but little work has beendone by OTA in the other two areas. Because ofthis, in 1978 it was decided to initiate studies con-cerning health and the physical environment.The first study is examining cancer and the en-vironment. In addition, the Health Program isworking with other programs on aspects of theirassessments where health effects may be an im-portant factor. For example, the Program hastaken some responsibility for developing informa-tion being carried out by the Materials Program.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ofInactivated Influenza Vaccine

This assessment examines the costs and healtheffects of vaccination against influenza. Dataregarding several aspects of influenza, includinghospitalization, physician visits, work loss, schoolloss, and disability from fiscal years 1970 through1978 are analyzed through the use of a cost-effectiveness analysis model.

All costs and health effects are converted intoratios (e.g., cost/year of healthy life saved),which are used to compare the cost effectivenessof influenza vaccination for selected age groups.A sensitivity analysis is used to test the signifi-cance of certain variables, such as vaccine effi-cacy. Potential implications of Federal reimburse-ment for influenza vaccination are discussed.Delivery date: Technical Memorandum, Early 1981 Call

226-2270 for further information.Requester: House Committee on Interstate and Foreign

Commerce.

Technologies for Determining CancerRisks From the Environment

Reducing exposure to carcinogenic agents inthe environment depends on identifying thecausative agents, assessing the agent’s potency,locating sites of exposure, and deciding on ap-propriate interventions. In addition, regulationsto reduce exposure must be politically, socially,and economically acceptable. In this assessment,OTA examines four major issues:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Estimates of the percent of cancer due toenvironmental exposure. Of particular in-terest are the quality of the data used tomake the estimates, how the data can beimproved, and what effect different esti-mates might have on cancer policies.Technologies used to test for carcinogenic-ity. Testing of chemicals in rats and micehas been the mainstay of carcinogenicitytesting. Those tests, the rapidly developing“short-term” tests, and epidemiologicmethods for determining carcinogenicityare discussed and compared.Methods used for extrapolating data fromanimals to humans. Different methods ofextrapolation lead to widely divergent esti-mates of human risk. The limited numberof efforts made to compare carcinogenicityin animals and humans are described.Regulatory pathways for controlling carcin-ogens. The application and utility of avail-able data implicating agents as carcinogensvary under different health laws and pol-


icies. The various approaches to regulatingthese agents are examined.

Also presented as part of the assessment areoptions for improving information gathering,processing, and decisionmaking.

Delivery date Spring 1981 Call 226-2070 for further in-formation

Requester OTA Director, with approval of the OTA Con-gressal Board

Evaluation of Veterans AdministrationAgent Orange Protocol

The epidemiologic study by the Veterans Ad-ministrat ion of the long-term health effectsresulting from exposure to agent orange wasmandated in the “Veterans Health Act of 1979, ”Public Law 96-151. The same law requires OTAto review the study design. An advisory panel willbe assembled to assist in the review.

Delivery date Indeterminate Call 226-2070” for further in-formation.

Requester Mandated by Public Law 96-151.

Strategies for Medical TechnologyAssessment

Technology assessment is gaining increasingacceptance as a means of rationalizing healthcare. This trend has been stimulated by the rapid-ly rising costs of health care and technology’scontribution to those costs. Since assessmentscan be expensive and time-consuming and canresult in delaying the diffusion of beneficialtechnologies, and since not all technologicaldevelopments can be systematically assessed, itis critical to select: 1) the right technologies to beassessed, 2) the optimum stage of technologicaldevelopment, and 3) the appropriate assessmentmethods. It is also important for the informationgained from assessments to be disseminated in atimely and efficient manner. Currently, there isno coherent Federal policy regarding the selec-tion process, and there are major problems withinformation dissemination. These issues arecritical because many Federal agencies, as well asprivate organizations and individuals, depend oninformation from assessments to make decisions.

This study examines the appropriateness andvalidity of existing assessment methods, such ascontrolled clinical trials, epidemiological studies,consensus exercises, and computer models, withthe intent of identifying alternative strategies forassessment. In addition, the MEDLARS informa-tion and retrieval system of the National Libraryof Medicine is evaluated with respect to the ap-propriateness of indexing, storage, and retrievalof useful information. The uses of that informa-tion by both governmental and private sectors arethen examined in relation to the safe, efficacious,and efficient use of medical technologies.Delivery date. Late 1981 Call 226-207(1 for further in-

formationRequester. House Committee on Interstate and Foreign

Commerce

Technology and the Handicapped

Approximately 45 million Americans–includ-ing 10 million children—have significant mentalor physical handicaps. Technologies for aidinghandicapped people are numerous, varied, andoften complex and expensive. Such technologiesare designed to alleviate. eliminate, or preventthe effects of handicapping conditions. They canbe used to provide mobility and independence,restore or improve functional abilities, and helpenable handicapped individuals to lead moreproductive and fulfilling lives.

The Federal Government’s involvement in thisarea is extensive. A multitude of programs andagencies develop, evaluate, provide, pay for,and deliver technologies. Other actions—such ascivil rights and education opportunity laws—provide conditions and incentives for further de-velopment of and investment in technologies forthe handicapped.

Yet there are serious questions about whethertechnologies for the handicapped are being de-veloped and used in as effective and efficient amanner as possible. Inadequate information ex-ists regarding the overall process of technologicaldevelopment and use. Individual aspects of thetechnological process also remain troublesome.For example, what is the appropriate role for so-phisticated technologies as opposed to (or in con-

42 ● Annual Repor t the Congress /or 1980

cert with) the soft areas such as human servicedelivery systems that ultimately may determinethe effectiveness of technologies? What methodsexist for assessing the costs and benefits to soci-ety or to handicapped individuals of investmentin or use of various technologies? What is thestate of knowledge in regard to such costs andbenefits? What effect will advances in medicaltechnology have on the number and types ofhandicaps?

This assessment will provide information ongeneral issues, such as the state of the art of

Human

The Human Resources Program explorestechnologies which directly affect human beingsand their quality of life other than those which fallmore appropriately into the Health or Food Pro-grams. Examples are technologies affecting edu-cation, labor and population or deriving from ge-netics or other biological sciences.

Current assessments are in two areas: geneticsand population. Interest in genetics arises fromgreatly expanded understanding of, and emerg-ing capability for, altering or affecting the in-herited characteristics of man, animals, andplants. The term “genetics” is used broadly andincludes related biological technologies such as invitro fertilization and artificial insemination. Theimportance of these emerging technologies is il-lustrated by the concern of the scientific com-munity and the public over research with recom-binant DNA, which led to development of theNational Institutes of Health guidelines, the in-creasing use of procedures to detect genetic de-fects, and the recent successful human in vitrofertilization.

Rapidly growing population is a major factorinfluencing the quality of life everywhere. Worldpopulation did not reach 2 billion until 1930, butonly 45 more years were required to double it.Such rapid growth has placed great stress on theEarth and its resources as well as on economicand political stability, especially in those develop-ing countries where population growth rates arehighest. Increasing recognition of the importance

evaluating efficacy, safety, and costs. In additionit will address definitional problems and their im-plications. Most critically, it will examine severaltheme issues in depth. For example, what are thecauses and the effects of today’s emphasis onsophisticated technology?

Delivery date Earlv 1982 Call 226-2070” for further Infermation

Requester Senate Committee on I.abor and Human Re-sources

Resources

of the rights of individuals to have children and tochoose their number and spacing is illustrated byrising support for family-planning programs overthe last 25 years. Prior to 1965 only a few ThirdWorld countries had developed such policies.

These assessments are of unusual interest be-cause many of the issues they raise are rooted inindividual and societal values, attitudes andbeliefs.

Technology and World Population

World population has passed 4.4 billion and isexpected to double in 70 years. Growth of thismagnitude has major implications for the globalbiosphere and for international economic andpolitical stability. Because of the serious conse-quences of rapid population growth—such as in-creasing demands for food, energy and jobs—most governments and international agencieshave adopted policies and initiated programs inthe last 20 years to modify birth rates.

OTA’s study of global population examineshow government policies and programs viewplanned birth technologies, and how new inter-national population assistance has changedworld population growth in the last 20 years. Itprojects probable impacts of population growthfrom 1980 to 2000 on food, energy, jobs, in-come, and other aspects of quality of life; and itassesses present and prospective planned birthtechnologies and factors determining their futuredevelopment and use. The assessment focuses


on the Third World, where 92 percent of popula-tion growth in the next two decades will occurand where their governments seek to s lowgrowth, It includes a research agenda relevant totheir problems and presents policy alternativesopen to the United States in dealing with worldpopulation issues. U.S. domestic population pol-icies are not included in this assessment.

Delivery date Spring 1981 Call 226 2090 for further in-formation

Requester The OTA Director, with the approval of theOTA Congressional Board

Impacts of Applied Genetics

“Applied genetics” refers to those technologiesthat can influence biological characteristics in-herited by living organisms, Recent advances inknowledge are leading to greatly expanded capa-bility to affect genetic characteristics and to usethese techniques to improve the quality of life.Both industry and government in the United

States and abroad are increasing their efforts toharness the gene for production of fuels, chem-icals, and medicinal products. This assessmentidentifies and analyzes the impacts of nonhumanapplications of genetic technologies. Animal,plant, commercial, and industrial applications aredescribed. The costs and benefits. legal consid-erations, and social and ethical concerns associ-ated with genetic technologies are identified and,where applicable, compared to those associatedwith nongenetic approaches. The potential ofgenetics in developing biological approaches toensuring a sustainable future through renewab!eresources is considered. The s tudy presentspolicy options with regard to such topics as thepatentability of life forms, Government-industryrelations in developing genetic technologies. andgermplasm rnaintenancc.

delivery date Early 1981 Call 226- 2090” for further information

Requester The OTA Director, with the approval of theOTA Congressional Board

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Communication and Information Technologies

Telecommunication and information systemstechnologies are rapidly advancing and becom-ing more integrated New facilities are beingestablished, and new enterprises are merging inthe United States and abroad. Governments aretaking interest in the social and institutional im-plications of the new’ technologies Government -tal and industrial reorganizations are occurring,new legislation is being proposed and adopted,and relevant international norms are being for-mulated in global and regional forums.

Because of the unprecedented growth in thenew telecommunication systems investment. andthe expanding impacts on society of emergingnational information systems, several committeesof Congress consider it essential to assess thedeveloping technologies and their broad societalimpacts. General policies affecting areas as such asinnovation”, education. use and management o fradio frequency spectrum are also in a state ofrapid change. The Communication and lnforma

tion Technologies Program includes several proj-ects, One, on national information systems. andanother, on telecommunication systems, are be -ing conducted on a coordinated basis

The Parent System and New TechnologicalEnterprises

The climate for generating new technologicallybased enterprises in the United States hasworsened during the past decade Economistsdiffer in their appraisals of the exact contributionsuch firms make to innovation, employment, andeconomic progress: however-. it is possible thatthe contribution level is high and that techno-logically based enterprises are essential to thegrowth and revitalization of our society. Fledglingentrepreneurs and independent innovators arefrequently dependent on, and influenced by, thepatent systcm to a much greater degree than arelarge, established firms. In almost all aspects ofthe pa t en t system - e g , proscution, inter-


ferences, licensing, litigation–small firms and in-dividual inventors face far more difficult obstaclesand economic choices than do the large firms.The importance of new technologically basedfirms to the future economic vitality of the UnitedStates underscores the need to assess the impactof the patent system on the generation and stim-ulation of such enterprises.

Delivery date Spring 1982 Call 226-2249 for further in-formation

Requesters House Committee on the Judiciary SenateCommittee on the Judiciary.

Information Technology and Education

Over the last decade, the educational systemhas been increasingly pressed to meet a variety ofnew needs on a constant or even shrinking budg-et. The Federal and State governments now re-quire that schools provide equal educational op-portunities to groups traditionally outside themainstream, such as the handicapped. Changingneeds for job skills and changing demographicconditions also present new demands for educa-tion and training beyond the ages traditionallyconsidered as the educational years. Informationtechnology potentially provides opportunities foreducation systems to improve productivity andquality of instruction, and to offer more flexibilityboth in content, and in the time and place of of-fering. Previous attempts to enlist technology i neducation have had mixed outcomes, but themarkedly lower cost and increased capability ofnew and projected computer technology, cou-pled with advances in telecommunication serv-ices, imply the need for a new look at educationaluse of technologies. The study will identify andproject relevant technology and R&D activity andthe providers and users of curricula, educationaltechnology; and assess the likely impacts ofselected alternative policies on the use of in-formation technology.


Requester House Committee on Education and Labor.

Societal Impact of National InformationSystems (NIS)

The NIS project comprises four interrelated in-formation system studies, selected in response toseveral expressed Committee interests andgrouped to ensure more efficient managementand reduce cost. The National Crime InformationCenter (NCIC) of the Federal Bureau of Investi-gation and related State use of computerizedcriminal histories are being studied. OTA is ex-amining operational aspects, access to and use ofdata, principal user categories, data quality in thesystem, State uses of and attitudes toward NCIC,and alternative managerial and technical futures.Future electronic message systems are beingstudied with emphasis on the U.S. Postal Serv-ice’s role in such systems and implications ofalternative national policies. Electronic fundstransfer is studied with a view toward identifyinglikely growth rates in these services and the im-plications for society of alternative nationalpolicies in this area. An overall assessment of thebroader implications of computer-based nationalinformation systems was nearing completion atyear-end and will serve as an umbrella tyingtogether the information systems studies in par-ticular sectors.

De/iuery date Summer 1981 Call 226-2249 for further in-formation

Requesters Senate Committee on the Judiciary HouseCommittees: Judiciary, Post Office and Civil Service

Societal Impact of TelecommunicationsTechnology

This study reviews the telecommunicationtechnology base and industry structure and iden-tifies major participants in the domestic commoncarrier telecommunication sector, their roles andinteractions. A variety of future policy frame-works are being developed, including one thatassumes no major change in the extant legislativebase. The implications of these alternative policyframeworks are examined on the basis of a com-


mon set of key issues, and the projected implica-tions will be set forth as far and as clearly as possi-ble. Common issues being examined include as-pects of rates, economics, and accounting; impli-cations of regulation: competition and industryoversight: industry and market structures; role ofthe Bell system: the use of resources and impactson R&D: and implications for using and affectedpublics.

Delivery date Spring 1981 Call 226-2249 for further infor-mation.

Requester Senate Committee~ On Commerce, Science. andTransportation

Impacts of the 1979 World AdministrativeRadio Conference

More than 150 nations’ representatives met i nGeneva, Switzerland, for 11 weeks in late 1979

Oceans and

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

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

to review and adjust the global allocation of usesof the radio magnetic spectrum. This major worldmeeting changed frequency allocations, adoptednew definitions, planned additional future worldand regional conferences, and modified the In-ternational Radio Regulations of the InternationalTelecommunication Union (ITU). This study willreview the U.S. preparations for and participa-tion in that conference, identify its major resultsand project their impacts, and look at the futurerole of ITU and the U.S. participation in ITU andsuch future conferences.

Delivery date Fall 1981 Call 22(> -2249 for further inforrnation

Requester Senate Committee on Commerce, Science. andTransporation

Environment

stitutional, has become more difficult and morecritical.

To assist Congress in its deliberations. theOceans and Environment Program focuses on abroad range of issues encompassing the uses andquality of the oceans and the systems deployedon or in the oceans or along their shores. TheProgram is particularly concerned with examin-ing possible future uses of the oceans.

Fresh water Resources Management,Planning and Policy: An Assessment ofModels and Predictive Methods

The effective management and protection ofour freshwater is of far-reaching importance to thefuture of the Nation. Serious problems currentlyconfronting the United States include inadequatesurface water supply, ground water, hazardousdrinking water, and erosion of our most produc-tive soils into rivers and streams. As the Nation’swater problems become more complex, the often


conflicting advice presented to Congress byFederal agencies, advocacy groups, and expertwitnesses is increasingly difficult to evaluate.Often this advice is based on the results of com-puter models and predictive methods of un-known quality or effectiveness. The informationprovided by these techniques becomes the basisfor deciding such congressional water resourcepolicy decisions as funding water supply struc-tures. pollution control programs, and initiatingthe use of such new technologies as desalination.OTA’s study of the tools that help supply this in-formation will clarify which proposals are basedon the best available analysis procedures and theassumptions and limitations of these tools. Theassessment will consider a wider range of modelsand predictive methods, advising Congress of thecredibility of the techniques used to predict thework of water resource projects and regulations,and the societal ennvironmental effects of thesedecisions.

Delivery date: Spring 1981. Call 226-2046 for futher in-formation.

Requester: House Committee on Inter ior and insular Affairs

High-Level Radioactive WasteManagement and Disposal

More than three decades into the nuclear age,this country still has no permanent disposal facil-ities for either military or commercial high-levelradioactive waste. This assessment focuses ontechnologies for disposal of commercial high-level waste (spent fuel or solidified waste fromprocessing). A clear understanding of the prob-lem of managing radioactive waste from its gen-eration to final disposal requires comprehensiveanalysis of the interactive relationships amongpossible storage and disposal technologies ,transportation systems, regulatory considera-tions. and Federal, State, and local jurisdictionalprerogatives. The OTA study is using a systemsanalysis technique to evaluate a range of strat-egies for developing and deploying a commercialhigh-level radioactive waste disposal system.Other waste forms are considered to the extentneeded to deter-mine how their management anddisposal will affect commercial high-level wastedisposal plans and to provide a basis for analysis

for the impacts of, and management problemspresented by, a full-scale waste disposal system.

Delivery date Summer 1981 Call 226-2046 for further Information

Requesters House Committee on Merchant Marine andFisheries Supported by House Committees Scienc~and Technology. Foreign Affairs Senate Committee onEnergy and Natural Resources

Impacts of Atmospheric Alterations

Many present day human activities—particu-larly the burning of fossil fuels—are altering theEarth’s atmosphere in potentially harmful ways,The precise nature and extent of such activities isunclear. However, the potential consequencesare severe enough to merit careful congressionalconsideration of domestic and international Fed-eral policies.

Some of the consequences, such as acid rain,are occurring today. Others. such as global cli-mate changes due to increasing carbon dioxideconcentration, may appear within the next cen-tury. Increasing sulfur and nitrogen oxides andtheir transformation products (acid rains and oxi-dants) may damage thousands of lakes, decreasecrop and forest productivity, deplete soil nutri-ents. and damage buildings and monuments. In-creasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentra-tions and other climate modifiers might result inglobal climate changes severe enough to disruptpresent agricultural patterns and raise the sealevel enough to flood major urban coastal areasthroughout the world. Increasing sulfur andnitrogen oxides and certain climate modifiersmay have adverse effects on human health.

The OTA study will develop a range of plausi-ble impact scenarios covering the next severaldecades, describing the potential social, econom-ic and environmental consequences of atmos-pheric changes caused by human act ivi t ies .These scenarios will not attempt to “forecast” thefuture, but instead, present a range of plausibleconsequences of these changes, in terms respon-sive to near-term congressional decisions,

Delivery date Spring 1982 Call 226-2046 for further information

Requester HOUSe Committee on Interstate and ForeignCommerce

Section III Work in Progress ● 4 7

Ocean Research Technology

Federal ocean research efforts amount toabout $1 billion per year and involve the opera-tion of ships, satellites, buoys, aircraft, submer-sibles. and other- advanced technology. Our ca-pabilities have increased in recent years. This hasresulted inI steady. repeatable data collection andsurvey work in several important areas. But suchre se arc h work needs to be done with other

tion, undersea mineral exploration, and fisheries(especially krill). This assessment identifies thetechnologies and management systems that aremost effective in researching these four areas.OTA will describe the options available for tech-nology development as well as for getting themost out of existing equipment and managementsystems,

Delivery date Early 1981 Call 226 2406 for information

marine pollu - Transportation dil>pf)rtatl(~tl

Space Technology

Program, theThe completion of the Apollolaunchings of Landsat 1. the Synchronous Mete-orological Satellite. and Applications TechnologySatellite 6, and the arrival of the Viking space-craft at Mars represented the culmination of U, S.civil space technology developments of thel960's and early 1970’s These activities weremarked by international dissemination ofAmerican space “know-how” and the birth ofcommercializecl space systems, initially in communications. Since that time, advance in U, S,space technology capabilities have been sloweclby markedly reduced funding, except for- theSpace Shuttle.

Many Federal. State, and local agencies use orare experimenting with uses of space-acquireddata to support their missions. Private businessesin satellite communications have capital facilitiesvalued at over $1 billion, based on the estab-lished space technologies. and private interest incommercializing new space ventures is growing.The United States faces competition from severalother nations with declared space goals andfunded. competitive technic-a] capabilities. TheSpace Shuttle is approaching operational capaci-ty. but at present it serves only a limited orbitalregime Controversy exists over the readiness ofcertain technologies to become operational, andthe institutional arrangements, policies and pro-cedures. if any. appropriate to their commercial -ization. Because the relatively straightforwardthings have largely been done. the next majoradvances in space technologies are likely to bemore cost a n d to take longer Such advances

are highly risky and long-term: they are widelyseen as requiring government funding

Congressional committees have expressedconcern about national policies for [J. S. civilspace activities in the light of these conflicting de -velopments. OTA has been asked to assess theU.S. civil space activities: the economic, sociallegal, and political impacts of the technologiesand possible policy options dealing with the con-flicts and issues suggested by the developmentsabove,

The present study in this Program deals withoverall issues and policy options and focuses onspace applications. Topics such as science andexploration, the role of humans in space andtheir activities, and space transportation systemsremain to be treated in depth.

Space Policy and Applications

The assessment explores the adequacy of theNation’s present and future civilian space tech-nology base. It examines the possible reliance onthat base for applications of space technology inthe 1980-2000 time frame The focus will be oncurrent and anticipated uses and management ofremote sensing, communication satellites. materials processing in space. and the utilization of thespace transportation system. A range of programand policy options will be developed, togetherwith their societal, institutional, and economicimplications. International impacts and cooper-ation and the U, S. space technology-based competitive position~ will also be considered. The


study has cross-cutting ties to the ongoing OTA Delivery date: Summer 1981. Call 226-2209 for further in-

assessments of solar power satellites, land pre- formation.

ductivity, and telecommunications, each with im- Requester: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation.

portant space technology facets.

Transportation

Of major concern to Congress is the ability ofthe transportation system in the United States toprovide fast, efficient, and inexpensive mobilityfor people and goods. Transportation industrieshave had to contend with increasing economic,operational, environ mental, and safety problemsin recent years. In addition, there are a numberof factors, growing I n importance, which mayforce a change in transportation technology andpolicies in order to modify the system and themanner in which it is operated. These include:

●

●

●

●

the almost complete dependence of thetransportation system on petroleum in anera where dependence on imports must bereduced, and where supplies are dependenton the political stability of the Middle East;the rising percentage of the overall systemcost represented by the cost of petroleumfuel;the physical deterioration of roadbeds andequipment at a more rapid rate than that ofinvestment in their replacement; andthe increasing cost of operating transpor-tation systems–-both public and private,freight and passenger-because productivi-ty has not kept pace with demand for trans-portation services.

Since transportation supplies society withmobility for people and the wide range of goodsand services needed, a degradation in the trans-portation system could significantly affect thecharacter and lifestyle of society in the future.

In 1981, congressional interest will probablycontinue to focus on the influence of the cost andavailability of petroleum and its effect ontransportation systems, the deterioration ofroadbeds and equipment, and the inability of theexisting system (based on yesterday’s technol-ogy) to meet the economic, environmental, andsocial needs of the future.

The Program will center its efforts on the ef-fects of technological development in the areasof:

●

●

●

●

goods movement technology—rail andtruck systems—to improve service and re-duce costs;urban transportation technology —evalua-tion of alternatives to the automobile toreduce petroleum consumption, emissions,and congestion;air transportation technology—to cope withchanges in the system due to deregulationand increased costs of operation;reduction of the dependence on petroleumthrough the development of electrical pro-pulsion and energy distribution systems.

Advanced Air Transportation Technology

This assessment examines the impact of in-troducing or not introducing advanced high-speed aircraft into our future commercial fleetand of other potential commercial aircraft devel-opments. The assessment is being conducted infour parts: 1) advanced high-speed aircraft (com-pleted), which examines the economic, energy,environmental, and societal impacts of introduc-ing advanced subsonic and/or supersonic aircraftinto the future commercial fleet; 2) programmanagement and financing alternatives of ad-vanced high-speed aircraft, which examinesalternative structures for financing and managingnew aircraft programs, specifically an advancedsupersonic transport; 3) low-density air servicewhich studies its historical evolution, the eco-nomics of low-density service and the deter-minants of market size, conditions of competi-tion, future evolution of the domestic commuterairline industry and the impact of deregulation;and 4) air cargo operations, which includes thehistorical background and current status of theairfreight industry, economics of airfreight and

Section 111– Work in Progress “ 49

the potential market, competitive concerns, andthe potential for technological change in futurecargo aircraft, including lighter-than-air systems.

Delivery date Part 1, published April 1980, Parts 24. spring 1981 Call 226 2249 for further information

Requesters House Committee on Sciencce and Technology

Airport and Air Traffic Control System

Safety, performance in terms of capacity anddelay, and productivity are vital concerns of ourair transportation system, Increased trafficaround many of our major and medium hubs,brought on partly through the Airline Deregula-tion Act of 1978, is contributing to safety, con-gestion, and delay problems. The cost of delay isbecoming much more significant due to the in-creased cost of fuel, Also, public pressure againstboth noise and further expansion or develop-ment of airports is constraining possible solutionsto these problems. However, there are a numberof alternatives both technological and opera-tional, which may help reduce or alleviate theseproblems. This is particularly true with regard to

Other

Technology for Local Development

Technological innovations now being devel-oped —such as land disposal of wastewater, dis-tributed residential energy systems, and housingrehabilitation techniques—provide an alternativeand possibly more effective approach to com-munity and regional development. These tech-nologies stress self-help and the use of renewableresources and are compatible with local capitaland environmental requirements. This projectassesses several prototype technologies, the localproblems they may alleviate, and their feasibilityand potential impacts, It examines options forCongress to build institutional structures that ac-crue the maximum benefits of these technologiesto urban and rural communities,

Delivery date Early 1981 Call 226-2249 for further infor-mation

Requesters Senate Committee on Governmental AffairsHouse Committees Select Committee on Population,Interior and Insular Affairs

airport airside capacity. For example, in the nextdecade, proposed plans call for substantial in-vestments to implement new technologies for airtraffic control such as microwave landing, col-lision avoidance, navigation. communications,surveillance and higher levels of automation ofthe traffic control function. Other alternativespropose more efficient use of existing airports.development or improvement of reliever air-ports, more efficient ground transportation sys-tems, and separation of traffic for various usergroups as a means to improve airport airsidecapacity. In light of changing air transportationoperational patterns, new aircraft technologies,and rapidly changing telecommunications and in-formation systems technologies, this assessmentwill look at the process of growth of the commer-cial and general aviation sectors and examine therelative merits of alternatives to satisfy the airtravel demand of the 1980 to 2010 time frame.

Delivery date Summer 1981 Call 226 2249 for further information

Requesters House Committee on Appropriations

Projects

Technological Innovation and Health,Safety, and Environmental Regulations

This assessment evaluates alternative regula-tory policies with regard to their effectiveness andefficiency in ensuring that the rate and directionof technological change are compatible both withhealth. safety, and environmental goals and withthe goal of maintaining economic vitality. Thestudy includes an examination of how regulatorypolicies, when integrated with technical marketand financial considerations at the corporatelevel. influence private investments in innova-tion,

Delivery date Summer 1981. Call 226-2060 for further in-formation.

Requester Senate Committee on Commerce. Science. andTransportation

Section IVTASK FORCE ONMETHODOLOGY ANDMANAGEMENT

Section IVTASK FORCE ON METHODOLOGYAND MANAGEMENT

In November 1979, the OTA Director estab-lished an employee task force on TechnologyAssessment Methodology and Management withthe following objectives:

to improve the methodology and manage-ment of OTA’s technology assessment proj-ects;to build on OTA’s 6 years of assessment ex-perience, and on that of others in the publicand private sectors and in other countries;to find ways to increase productivity and im-prove cost effectiveness in OTA; andto build a stronger team effort among OTAstaff through cross-program and cross-divi-sional cooperation.

The Task Force, which includes a representa-tive from each OTA program, met 12 times dur-ing the year and submitted its recommendationsto the OTA Director in August 1980. Followingdiscussions with OTA senior management andpresentations to the Technology Assessment Ad-visory Council and the Technology AssessmentBoard, the OTA Director is implementing a num-ber of the recommendations.

Dr. Gibbons noted that the work of the TaskForce is a major contribution to better under-standing and strengthening of the OTA assess-ment process leading to constructive, internal im-provements at OTA.

Task Force recommendations now being im-plemented are:

● Development of an orientation program tohelp new staff, contractors, and consultantsgain an earlier and more complete under-standing of the OTA assessment process.The orientation package will include tape,written materials, personal briefings, andsmall group discussions.

● Improvement of intraoffice communication,For example, the publication “FOCUS” isnow serving as a staff newsletter as well as alibrary reference document. Informationkiosks and publication racks have been in-

●

stal led on each f loor to increase staffawareness of the full range of OTA work.The well-received “Brown Bag” Fridayseminar series also is effective in stimulatingcross-program discussion on a wide varietyof topics.Completion of an OTA operations manualwhich will be looseleaf so that it can be easi-ly updated.

Several additional recommendations will beput into effect soon. These include revised OTApolicies and procedures on preparation of projectproposals, on internal review and approval ofreports, and on project review checkpoints andproject followup time.

The checkpoints will help encourage cross-program and crossdivisional review of projects atkey points in the process, for example, at thepoint where the research is complete and a reportoutline has been developed but before the actualdrafting of a report has begun. This should en-able OTA to identify problems and provide guid-ance or assistance far in advance of the finaldraft.

Effective dissemination of study results is anessential part of the assessment process. TheTask Force found that in the past, OTA had fre-quently given inadequate attention to communi-cating study findings effectively. A new draftpolicy would establish a 60- to 90-day periodafter report publication during which key projectstaff would be encouraged to take part in a varie-ty of followup activities. These might include in-formal briefings for the requesting and interestedcommittees, press briefings held jointly with com-mittees, meetings with committees to advisethem on possible witnesses and issues for hear-ings, presentation of OTA testimony, preparationof articles based on the study results for publica-tion in scientific journals, and presentation offindings at scientific conferences. These kinds ofactivities help derive maximum returns to Con-gress on the investment in each project, and alsocontribute to the professional development of

53


OTA staff and the stature of OTA in the scientificand technical community.

Finally, there are a few recommendations re-lated to productivity and quality control whichwill take time to implement:

First, a Task Force working group is preparinga technology assessment “workbook” for internalstaff use which will bring together experiencefrom every program about each major step of theassessment process. Lessons learned from newassessments will be folded into the workbook ona continuous basis through the use of projectclose-out reports, to be completed at the end ofeach major study.

Second, the Director has appointed an inter-nal task force on OTA information systems. Thisgroup will review OTA’s current use of informa-tion handling equipment, including word proces-sors, computers, electronic typewriting equip-ment, and telephones, and to determine how toimprove it. The task force will draw in part onrelated work already completed by the HouseAdministration and Senate Rules and Adminis-tration Committees. It will also examine whethernew services such as computer mailing, video-

conferencing, or electronic filing offer any poten-tial benefits to OTA.

Third, over the next several months a series ofstaff development seminars will encourage amore regular exchange of learning within OTAand help sharpen the skills of the professionalstaff. Likely topics include policy analysis, Con-gressional relations, and assessment strategy andmethodology.

OTA has already initiated a survey of TAmethodology and strategy employed by selectedprivate firms and foreign countries. Retrospectivemethodology reviews of selected completedOTA studies are also underway. The intent ofthis effort, in part a followup to the work of theTask Force and closely coordinated with NSF,has two dimensions. One is self-improvement.What can OTA learn from the experience andperspective of others regarding our own TAmethodology and strategy? A second is to con-tribute to the broader TA professional communi-ty. It has been more than 4 years since OTA’s lasteffort along these lines, which resulted in TABhearings and a report on “Technology Assess-ment in Business and Govern merit,”

Section VORGANIZATIONAND OPERATIONS

Section VORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS

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

The Act provides for a bipartisan Congres-sional Board, a Director, and such other em-ployees and consultants as may be necessary toconduct the Office’s work.

The Congressional Board is made up of sixSenators, appointed by the President pro tem-pore of the Senate, and six Representatives, ap-pointed by the Speaker of the House, evenlydivided by party. In 1980, Cong. Morris Udall(D-Arizona) and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)served as the Chairman and Vice Chairman,respectively, of the Board. The two posts alter-nate between the Senate and House with eachCongress. The Board members from each Houseselect their respective officer.

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

The Act also calls for a Technology Assess-ment Advisory Council comprised of 10 publicmembers eminent in scientific, technological, andeducational fields, the Comptroller General ofthe United States, and the Director of the Con-gressional Research Service of the Library ofCongress, The Advisory Council advises theBoard and the Director on such matters as thebalance, comprehensiveness, and quality ofOTA’s work, and OTA’s nongovernmental re-sources.

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

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

Initiation, Processing, and Flowof Assessments

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

●

●

●

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

The authorization of specific assessment proj-ects and the allocation of funds for their perform-ance is the responsibility of the OTA Board. TheBoard early establishes priority areas of study,and approves individual assessment projectswithin those areas. To help in making these deci-sions, the Board considers recommendationsand plans developed by OTA staff, and appliesthe following general selection criteria developedin consultation with the Advisory Council:

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

5 7


●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

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

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

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

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

Organizational

The Office is organizeddivisions, each headed by

Structure

into three operatingan assistant director.

The three divisions are Energy, Materials, and In-ternational Security; Health and Life Sciences;and Science, Information, and Natural Re-sources. They encompass assessments groupedin the areas of energy, food and renewable re-sources, human rescources, health, materials, in-

ternational security and commerce, oceans andenvironment, communication and informationtechnologies, and space technology. A chartdetailing OTA’s organizational structure accom-panies this section.

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

Private Sector Involvement

The private sector is heavily involved in OTAstudies as a source of expertise and perspectiveswhile an assessment is in progress. Contractorsand consultants are drawn from industry, univer-sities, private research organizations, and publicinterest groups.

OTA works to ensure that the views of thepublic are fairly reflected in its assessments. OTAinvolves the public in many ways—through ad-visory panels, workshops, surveys, and formaland informal public meetings. These interactionsprovide citizens with access to information andhelp OTA identify contrasts between the perspec-tives of technically trained and lay citizens.

Operations

OTA’s Public Communication and Publishingunits provide a variety of services to Congress,the public, and the media. These activities arefeatured elsewhere in this section.

In addition, the Operations Division providesnumerous services to the OTA staff, contractorsand consultants, panelists, members of the Ad-visory Council, and others in the OTA “family. ”Included among these services are the following:

● contract negotiation; personnel services;● space, telephone, and equipment manage-

ment; controllership and financial services;

Section V– Organization and Operations ● 5 9

OTA Organizat ion Chart

CongressionalTechnology Assessment Board

SupportCongressional and

ServicesInstitutional

Relations&t

I

Assistant Director Assistant Director Assistant DirectorEnergy, Materials, Health and Science, Information,and International and NaturalSecurity Division Resources Division

1 I

I I n t e rna t i ona l

L MaterialsProgram

- Food & RenewableResources Program

– HealthProgram

— Human ResourcesProgram

financial and management reporting;literature searches and legislative reference;book and periodical library/circulationservices; andtravel arrangements and property manage-ment.

Public Communications

The OTA Public Communications Office helpsinform Congress and the public of OTA activities.The office acts as the main contact point withnews media, handles public inquiries on OTAand its projects, directs special inquiries, and ar-ranges press briefings. The office is also responsi-ble for writing press releases and for coordinatingand handling the initial distribution of reports,publication briefs, summaries, press releases, andother material to Congress, Board staff, and the

Program

L Space TechnologyProgram

public. Public Communications maintains theOTA mailing list, which includes over 25,000names of leaders in virtually every phase ofgovernment, academia, and private industry, aswell as representatives from major national newsmedia.

Publishing Office

Production of OTA assessment reports andstudies during 1980 has proven to be the mostrewarding year of the agency’s relatively shorthistory. The Office has published and deliveredto Congress 27 reports and studies that entailed45 separate documents.

The recognition of the quality of informationcontained in the reports published is evidencedby:


●

●

●

●

●

the numerous letter and phone requests re-ceived by the Publishing Office;the upsurge in sales of OTA reports andsubsequent reprinting by the GovernmentPrinting Office (GPO);the sales recorded by the National TechnicalInformation Service (NTIS);the number of private publishers that are re-printing OTA reports; andthe Superintendent of Documents’ selectionof 24 OTA titles that will be displayed in sixcities of the Peoples Republic of China inMay 1981.

REQUEST FOR PUBLICATIONS

In order to expedite requests for OTA reportsin a more efficient and timely manner to Mem-bers of Congress, congressional committees,Government agencies, and the general public, itwas decided that the Publishing Office would bethe central point for requests. This procedure en-abled the Office to maintain an accounting of re-ports and keep an accurate inventory after theinitial distribution was made to Congress. SinceMarch 1980, the Publishing Office processedover 18,900 single and multiple requests. Of thistotal, 3,014 were requested by congressional of-fices (averaging 17.3/day) and 10,396 by theprivate sector (averaging 58.7/day).

SALES OF’ PUBLICATIONS

Government Printing Office. -Sales ofOTA publications by the Superintendent of Doc-uments are proving to be quite popular with thepublic. According to a Superintendent of Docu-ments spokesman:

in comparison with other Federal agencies,OTA reports are considered good sellers. Theyhave been selling at a higher and faster volume,they’re better prepared than most agencies re-ports, and that they appear to be more under-standable to the buying public .

The Superintendent of Documents sold12,131 OTA reports for the period October 1through December 30, 1980. Between Januaryand December 1980, GPO sold 48,200 OTA re-ports for an estimated gross income of $280,000.

Summary of Sales of OTA Publications Throughthe Superintendent of Documents, GPO

(July 1976 through December 1980)

As of As of 12 mos12/79 12/80 difference

Number of Individual titledpublications put on sale tothe publlc. 83 105 + 22

T o t a l n u m b e r s o l d : : 76,586 124,789 + 48,203Estimated GPO grossrece ip t s f rom sa les a $271,880 $551,379 + $279,499

aBased on single copy selllng price

National Technical Information Service.–NTIS sells scientific reports and papers thatare, generally, not in great demand but are usefulfor scientific researchers. NTIS is the outlet forassessment working papers and contractorreports that are unavailable elsewhere.

During the past 18 months, NTIS informs usthat sales of OTA reports have more than dou-bled and that 20 of OTA publications have madetheir bestseller list.

Summary of Sales of OTA Publications Throughthe National Technical Information Service-

(July 1976 through December 1980)

Number of Indlvldual titled publications puto n s a l e t o t h e p u b l i c 102

Total number sold (hard copy) 5,200 ,6 ,71( m l c r o f i c h e ) }10,971 ‘

Es t ima ted NT IS g ross r ece ip t s f r om sa les : $77.183

EstimatedTotals No of copies sold dollar amount

GPO . . . . 124,789 $551,379NTIS : 16,171 $ 77,183

G r a n d t o t a l s 140,960 $628.562

The Superintendent of Documents was re-cently requested by the Peoples Republic ofChina to exhibit U.S. Government publicationsin six cities of China in May 1981. Based on thespecific interests of the Peoples Republic ofChina, the Superintendent of Documents chose24 of OTA’s publications for display. The follow-ing publications were chosen:

● Cancer Testing Technology and Saccharin● Policy Implications of the Computed To-

mography (CT) Scanner


Total Number Sold by(thousands)

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GPO Estimated GPO Gross Income From Sales(thousands of dollars)

600 r

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981

Year

An Evaluation of Railroad Safety Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion● Application of Solar Technology to Today’s

Energy Needs, VOLS. I &11 Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Med-

ical Technologies● The Direct Use of Coal Drugs in Livestock Feed: Technical Report A Review of Selected Federal Vaccine and

Immunization Policies Based on Case Stud-ies of Pneumococcal Vaccine

● Technical Options for Conservation ofMetals: Case Studies of Selected Metalsand Products

. Gasohol: A Technical Memorandum Technology and East-West Trade● Environmental Contaminants in Food Impact of Advanced Air Transport Technol-

ogy, Part 1: Advanced High-Speed Aircraft

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

01976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981

Year

●

●

Recent Developments in Ocean ThermalEnergy: A Technical MemorandumOcean Margin Drilling: A Technical Memo-randumTechnology and Steel Industry Competi-tivenessThe Effects of Nuclear WarMaterials and Energy From MunicipalWasteComputer Technology in Medical Educa-tion and Assessment: A Background PaperPest Management Strategies in Crop Pro-tectionAn Assessment of Oil Shale TechnologiesEnergy From Biological ProcessesThe Implications of Cost-EffectivenessAnalysis of Medical Technology


PRIVATE SECTOR REPRINTING

Private publishers have expressed interest inseveral OTA publications. As of January 1981,nine OTA reports have been or are being com-mercially reprinted. This is in addition to the salesby GPO and NTIS. The following is a listing ofthe commercial publishers and the OTA publica-tions that are being reprinted:

Friends of the Earth, Denver, Colo.–Energy From Biological Processes–

Summary● McGraw Hill, New York

—Enhanced Oil Recovery Potential in theUnited States

—An Assessment of Oil Shale Technologies–World Petroleum Availability: 1980-2000–Energy From Biological Processes, vol. 11

● Allanheld, Osmun Publishers, New York—The Effects of Nuclear War

–Technology and East-West Trade–Residential Energy Conservation, vol. I

● Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.–Energy From Biological Processes, vol. I

Praeger Publishing Co. , New York—Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards

OTHER ACTIVITIES

In a joint effort, OTA, CRS, CBO, and GAOput together an information kit containing abrochure about each agency and its functions.One hundred copies of the kit were used by theSecretary of the Senate and their personal staffs;200 copies were distributed to CBO; 100 copieswere distributed to GAO; and 1,100 copies weredistributed to CRS to be used for their congres-sional staffs. OTA served as the coordinator inthis effort.


Organizational Roster of OTA

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

John H. Gibbons, DirectorSue Bachtel, Executive AssistantBarbara O’Bryan, SecretarySylvia Mokhtarian, Secretary

Congressional and Institutional Relations

Marvin Ott, Director CIREugenia Ufholz, Assistant to Director CIRPatricia Halley, Secretary’

Staff as of December 1980

Materials Program

Audrey Buyrn, Program ManagerPatricia Canavan, SecretaryWilliam E. Davis, Senior AnalystCarol Drohan, Adiministrative AssistantJoel Hirsch horn, Project DirectorGerd Kleineberg. OTA FellowKaren Larsen, AnalystPhillip Robinson, Senior Analyst

HEALTH AND LIFE SCIENCES DIVISIONMedical Services

Rose McNair, Resident Nurse

ENERGY, MATERIALS, ANDINTERNATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION

Lionel S. Johns. Assistant DirectorLinda Riddiough, Division Assistant

Energy Program

Richard Rowberg, Program ManagerThomas Bull, Project DirectorAlan Crane, Project DirectorMarian Grochowski. SecretaryCharles Holland, Senior AnalystNancy Naismith, Project DirectorStephen Plotkin, Senior AnalystLillian Quigg, Administrative AssistantJenifer Robison, Project Director

James Ryan, OTA FellowJoanne Seder, Research AssistantEdna Saunders, SecretaryPaula Stone. Senior AnalystRichard Thoreson, Senior AnalystRay Williamson, Project Director

International Security & Commerce Program

Peter Sharfman. program ManagerJohn Alic, Project DirectorMartha Cal dwell, AnalystRonnie Lee Goldberg, Project DirectorHelena Hassell, SecretaryJeremy Kaplan. Project DirectorDorothy Richroath, Editorial AssistantJacqueline Robinson, Administrative Assistant

Joyce Lashof, Assistant DirectorOgechee Koffler, Division Assistant

Food and Renewable Resources Program

Walter E. Parham, Program ManagerPhyllis Balan, Administrative AssistantChristine Elfring, OTA FellowElizabeth Galloway, SecretaryBarbara Lausche, AnalystMichael Phillips, Project DirectorBruce A, Ross, Project DirectorElizabeth Williams, Project Director

Health Program

H. David Banta, Program ManagerClyde Behney. Project DirectorVirginia Cwalina, Administrative AssistantShirley Gayheart, SecretaryMichael Gough, Project DirectorNancy Kenney, SecretaryArthur Kohrman, OTA FellowBryan Luce, Senior AnalystJudith Randal, OTA FellowMichael A. Riddiough, Senior AnalystGloria Ruby, Analyst

Human Resources Program

Gretchen Kolsrud, Program ManagerMarya Breznay, Administrative AssistantSusan Clymer, SecretaryDavid Cantor. AnalystLes Corsa, Project DirectorZsolt Harsanyi, Project DirectorEmiline Ott, Senior Analyst


SCIENCE, INFORMATION, ANDNATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION

John Andelin, Assistant DirectorDoris Smith, Division AssistantSamuel Hale, Executive Assistant

Marci Conors, InternScott Finer, AnalystWilliam Mills, Senior AssociateMarsha Mistretta, Administrative AssistantJohn Young, Project Director

Communication and InformationTechnologies Program

Stephen Doyle, Program ManagerNorman Balmer, Project DirectorRaymond Crowell, Project DirectorElizabeth Emanuel, Administrative AssistantTeri Miles, SecretaryZalman Shaven, Senior AnalystRichard Weingarten, Project DirectorFrederick Wood, Project Director

Oceans and Environment Program

Robert Niblock, Program ManagerPrudence Adler, AnalystWilliam Barnard, Senior AnalystKathleen Beil, Administrative AssistantRosina Bierbaum, OTA FellowThomas Cotton, Senior AnalystRobert Friedman, AnalystLinda Garcia, AnalystNancy Ikeda, AnalystPeter Johnson, AssociateDaniel Kevin, AnalystLucia Turnbull, AnalystLinda Wade, Secretary

Space Technology Program

Richard Marsten, Program ManagerMarion Fitzhugh, SecretaryDonna Valtri, Analyst

Transportation Program

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

OPERATIONS DIVISION

Bart McGarry, Operations Manager

Administrative Services

Thomas P. McGurn, Administrative OfficerSusan Carhart, Director of Contracts & Legal ServicesLola Craw, Assistant to Administrative OfficerAlexandra Ferguson, Contract SpecialistSusan Klugerman, Conference Center CoordinatorMichael McIntyre, Research AssistantPearl Smulevitz, Contract SpecialistGeneva Watkins, Travel & Admin. Training Coor.

Financial Services

Alban Landry, ControllerBill Burnett, Voucher ExaminerLoretta O’Brien, Computer TechnicianJanice Perocchi, Manager/Systems Planning GroupAnn Woodbridge, Manager/Operations Group

Information Center

Martha Dexter, Manager, Information ServicesSuzanne Boisclair, lnformation TechnicianCarolyn Crenshaw, Information TechnicianMarian Ulincy Starr, Asst. Mgr., Information Services

Personnel Office

William Norris, Personnel OfficerKatherene Mason, Personnel Specialist

Public Communications Office

John Burns, Senior EditorJean McDonald, Press OfficerAnnette Taylor, Assistant to the Press Officer

Publishing Office

John C. Holmes, Publishing OfficerKathie S. Boss, Assistant Technical SpecialistDebra Datcher, Administrative Assistant

.

APPENDIXES

Appendix A-Summary Report of Advisory Council Activities

Appendix B-Work in Progress (as of 12=31-80)

Appendix C—1980 Services to Congress

Appendix D-List of Published OTA Reports

Appendix E-List of Advisors and Panel Members

Appendix F–Technology Assessment Act of 1972

Appendix A

Summary Report of Advisory Council Activities

Charles N. Kimball, Chairman

It was with great pleasure that I accepted thechairmanship of the Technology Assessment Ad-visory Council, succeeding Dr. Frederick Robbinsupon his assumption of the presidency of the Na-tional Institute of Medicine. I was particularlygratified that Dr. Jerome Wiesner agreed to servewith me as Vice Chairman of the Council.

The scientific and technological capabilities ofthe United States are diffused broadly in the in-dustrial, academic, and research communities—public and private. If this Nation is to successfullyconfront the problems of the 1980’s, science andtechnology must play a central role. Progress inagriculture, energy, health, transportation, tele-communications. trade, environmental protec-tion, resource extraction, and other major sectorsof activity is dependent on the scientific and tech-nological enterprise. Government policies in turnhave a critical impact on the health of that enter-

prise. Consequently, it is particularly importantthat Congress have access to the best scientificand technological judgment available in establish-ing national policies and programs,

OTA plays a vital role in gathering and focus-ing expertise from around the country on majorissues facing Congress. The Advisory Council,comprising distinguished individuals from variousdisciplines, locations, and professions, workswith the Congressional Board and the Director inthis process.

Under the direction of Dr. John Gibbons,OTA has become an increasingly potent instru-ment in bringing science and technology to bearupon the Nation’s needs. That role will assumeeven greater importance as we confront the chal-lenges and complexities ahead.

6 7

Appendix B

Work in Progress (as of 12-31-80)

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

10.12.13.14.15.16.17.18,19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.30.

31.32.33.34.

Alternative Energy FuturesSolar Power Satellite SystemsSynthetic Fuels for TransportationDispersed Electric Energy Generating SystemsAn Analysis of Nuclear Powerplant Standardization ProblemsImpact of Technology on Competitiveness of U.S. Electronics IndustryU.S. Industrial Competitiveness: A Comparison of Steel, Electronics, and AutomobilesTechnology and Soviet Energy AvailabilityMX Missile BasingAn Assessment of Development and Production Potential of Federal Coal LeasesAn Assessment of Nonnuclear Industrial Hazardous WasteU.S. Food and Agricultural ResearchImpact of Technology on Productivity of the LandTechnologies for Determining Cancer Risks From the EnvironmentEvaluation of Veterans Administration Agent Orange ProtocolTechnologies for the HandicappedStrategies for Medical Technology AssessmentImpacts of Applied GeneticsTechnology and World PopulationTechnological Innovation and Health, Safety, and Environmental RegulationsThe Patent System and Its Impact of New Technological EnterprisesAssessment of the Societal Impact of National Information SystemsSocietal Impact of Telecommunications TechnologySpace Policy and, ApplicationsImpacts of the 1979 World Administrative Radio ConferenceInformation Technology and EducationAn Assessment of High-Level Radioactive Waste Management and DisposalImpacts of Atmospheric AlterationsFreshwater Resources Management, Planning, and Policy: An Assessment of Models andPredictive MethodsOcean Research ‘TechnologyImpact of Advanced Air Transport TechnologyAirport and Air Traffic Control SystemAutomotive Fuel Efficiency and Alternative Energy Sources

6 8

Appendix C

1980 Services to Congress

Communications With Congress

Testimony

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

House Committee on Science and Technology:National Academy of Sciences Report: Energy inTransition, 1985-2010.House Committee on Science and Technology,Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation andCommunications: Management and Financing Op-tions for Advanced Air Transport.House Committee on Appropriations, Subcom-mittee on Legislative Branch: OTA Fiscal Year1981 Appropriations Request.Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcom-mittee on Legislative Branch: OTA Fiscal Year1981 Appropriations Request.Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Sub-committee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation andFederal Services: S. 1699, The Energy ImpactsAssistance Act of 1979.House Committee on Science and Technology,Subcommittee on Energy Development and Ap-plications: H.R. 6638, The Municipal Waste-to-Energy Act of 1980.House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-merce, Subcommittee on Health and the Environ-ment: Health Professions Educational AssistanceAct of 1976.Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs: VeteransAdministration Agent Orange Study,Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation; Subcommittee on Science, Tech-nology, a n d S p a c e : S. 2015, Transpor ta t ionEnergy Efficiency Act.House Committee on Science and Technology:H .R. 7178, The R&D Authorization Estimates Act.House Committee on Science and Technology,jointly with House Committee on Interstate andForeign Commerce and International Trade Sub-committee on the House Committee on Banking,Finance, and Urban Affairs: Technology and East-West Trade.Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,Subcommittee on Health and the Environment:Drugs in Animal Feed.Senate Committee on Commerce , Science, andTransportation: Subcommittee on Science, Tech-nology, and Space: Oversight hearings on the im-plementa t ion of the Sc ience and Technology,

Policy, Organization and Priorities Act of 1976 andthe Operation of the Office of Science and Technol-ogy Policy.House Committee on Science and Technology,Subcommittee on Energy Development and Ap-plications: Cogeneration.House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-merce, Subcommittee on Energy and Power: Meth-anol Fuel.Senate Committee on Environment and PublicWorks: Steel Industry.Senate Committee on Budget, Subcommittee onIndustrial Growth and Productivity: Steel Industry.

Director’s Congressional Appointments

●

☛

●

●

●

●

●

m

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

The Hon. Melvin Price, Chairman, House Commit-tee on Armed Services.The Hon. Jennings Randolph, Chairman, SenateCommittee on Environment and Public Works.The Hon. James M. Hanley, Chairman, HouseCommittee on Post Office and Civil Service.The Hon. Harley O. Staggers, Chairman, HouseCommittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.The Hon. Harold T. Johnson, Chairman, HouseCommittee on Public Works and Transportation.The Hon. Henry S, Reuss, Chairman, House Com-mittee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.The Hon. Robert N. Giaimo, Chairman, HouseCommittee on the Budget.Richard A. Wegman, chief counsel and staff direc-tor, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.The Hon. Claiborne Pen, Chairman, Senate Com-mittee on Rules and Administration.The Hon. Adam Benjamin, Jr., Chairman, Sub-committee on Legislative Branch, House Commit-tee on Appropriations.The Hon. Carl D. Perkins, Chairman, House Com-mittee on Education and Labor.Letitia Chambers, staff assistant to Sen, Harrison A.Williams, Chairman, Senate Committee on Laborand Human Resources.Jonathan W. Fleming, legislative assistant for Sen.Alan D. Cranston, Chairman, Senate Committeeon Veterans’ Affairs.Joan Drummond, staff assistant to Sen. Robert C.Byrd, Senate Majority Leader.The Hon. Herman E. Talmadge, Chairman, Sen-ate Commit tee on Agricul ture , Nutr i t ion , andForestry,

6 9


●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

The Hon. Edward J. Derwinski, Ranking MinorityMember, House Committee on the Post Office andCivil Service.The Hon. Robert T. Stafford, Ranking MinorityMember, Senate Committee on Environment andPublic Works.The Hon. Robert Wilson, Ranking Minority Mem-ber, House Committee on Armed Services.The Hon. Donald H. Clausen, Ranking MinorityMember, House Committee on Interior and InsularAffairs.The Hon. J, William Stanton, Ranking MinorityMember, House Committee on Banking, Finance,and Urban Affairs.The Hon. Howard W. Cannon, Chairman, SenateCommittee on Commerce, Science, and Transpor-tation.Minority Chief Counsel, Senate Committee on theJudiciary.The Hon. John J. Rhodes, Minority Leader, U.S.House of Representatives.The Hon. Albert Gore, Jr., U.S. House of Repre-sentatives.The Hon. Alan Cranston, U.S. Senate.Staff Director, Senate Committee on Finance.Staf f Direc tor and Counsel , Subcommit tee onEnergy and Power, House Committee on Interstateand Foreign Commerce.Staff Director, Subcommittee on Energy Develop-ment and Appl ica t ions . House Commit tee onScience and Technology.The Hon. Ted Stevens, U.S. Senate.The Hon. Morris K. Udall, U.S. House of Repre-sentatives.The Hon. John Wydler, U.S. House of Represent-atives.The Hon. Larry Winn, Jr., U.S. House of Repre-sentatives.The Hon. Edward M. Kennedy, U.S. Senate.The Hon. Joseph L. Fisher. U.S. House of Repre-sentatives.

Responses to Congressional Inquiries

OTA regularly receives inquiries from congressionaloffices concerning issues which are the subject of on-going or recently completed assessments. Responsesto such inquiries are provided both orally or in briefwritten communications.Cong. Don Fuqua Technological issues of the

1980’s (other than energy ormilitary)

Cong. Bill Green . Energy advantages ofhigh-density urban areas

S e n . B i r c h B a y hSen Howard

M e t z e n b a u m . ,Congressmen Edward

Markey and JosephF i s h e r

Cong. Paul Simon

Sen. Thomas Eagleton

Cong. Mike McCormackSen. Jacob Javits . . . . .Cong . Leon Pane t taCong. Morr i s Udal lCong Robert McCloryCong. Bill Green .,Cong, Jerry Huckaby

Cong. Henry ReussCong. Charles Vanik

Congressmen HarleyStaggers, JohnDingell, Bob Eckhardt,a n d J a m e s F l o r i o

S e n . J o h n G l e n nCong, John Dingell .,

Sen. Herman Talmadge

Sen. Alan Cranston . .

Senators John Melcher,Max Baucus, andCong. Ron Marlenee

Sen. Spark Matsunaga .

Sen. Daniel Inouye.

Cong. Berkley Bedell

Cong. George E.B r o w n , J r

Sen. Charles Percy. . .

Ohio River Basin energy study

Low head hydro

CogenerationIntroduction of methanol as atransportation fuelConservation and Solar EnergyPrograms of the Department ofEnergyEnergy demandElectric power transmission costsBreeder reactor scheduleCoalWood energyEnergy conservation in citiesNuclear powerplantstandardizationEnergy and the citiesTechnology and steel industrycompetitiveness

Hazardous wasteCalderon processMandated study on toxicsubstances, DOE studies ofethanol/methanol toxicityChiropractic in New Zealand,Report of the Commission of in-quiryFive Epidemiologic Studies aboutherbicides and cancer incidence,photovoltaic costs, relative safetyfeatures of fission and fusion,agent orange

Study of saline seeps–theircauses. consequences. and cor-rection —in the Fort Benton -Highwood Bench region of Mon-tanaTropical/subtropical nutritionresearchOcean thermal energyconversionCO, problem, oil and gasreserves controlling ethanol im-ports

Results of the public participationand Three Mile Island confer-ence, regulating chemicals,health, hazardous waste assess-mentPresent storage capacity problemat nuclear reactors

Appendix C– 1980 Services to Congress . 7 1

C o n g T o m E v a n s

C o n g D o n F u q u aSen George McGovernCong Patricia

S c h r o e d e rCong. Ronnie FlippoCong. Robert McCloryCong. Anthony Toby

M o f f e t tCong. James BlancCong Christopher

D o d dCong. Ted Weiss

Cong. Cecil HeftelCong, James

Sensenbrenner

a r d

, .

C o n g J a c k K e m pSen. Paul E. Tsongas

Sen HowardM e t z e n b a u m

Cong Sam GibbonsSen. Lowell P Weicker,

J r

Cong Robert W Daws

Cong Carlos JM o o r h e a d

Cong. Robert Duncan

Cong Robert A, Young

Cong NicholasM a v r o u l e s

Cong George EB r o w n , J r ,

Sen. Bill Bradley.

Sen Paul TsongasCong Charles E

G r a s s l e yCong Bill FrenzelSen Edward Nl

Kennedy .,Cong. Caldwell ButlerCong Thomas S Foley

Skills needed in futuretechniciansMoon TreatyThe effects of nuclear

Oil shaleSolar power satellitesKemeny report

Propane/natural gasBiomass and oil shale

Coal transmissionCoal slurry pipeline,

war

cost-effectiveness studyMechanical cogeneration

Coal slurry pipelineCoal slurry pipelineInternational solar work,Massachusetts utilities

Synfuels processes and directhydrogenationSteel Industry competitiveness

Psychotherapy case studyadvisory panelMedical technologies: toughdecisions for the hospital trustee

WARC 1979 study and air trafficcontrol-collision avoidanceAir traffic control-collisionavoidanceAir traffic control -collisionavoidance

Plant Varieties Act, HR. 999

Regulating chemicals, healthMany inquiries regarding thepsychotherapy backgroundreport and the periodontaldisease case studyCogeneration, dispersed elec-tricit yMassachusetts utilities

Gasohol pricesConservation marketing

Review of JEC reportGasohol’s energy balanceAgriculture water use

Briefings, Presentations, Workshops forCongressional Staff

CommitteeSENATE:A p p r o p r i a t i o n s

A r m e d Services . .

Banking, Housing &U r b a n A f f a i r s

Budget . . . . . . .

Commerce, Science &T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

Energy & NaturalR e s o u r c e s

Environment & PublicW o r k s

Topic

NSF work in populationOcean drillingNational Oceanic SatelliteTaggantsAgent orangeNSF/NASA appropriationsHospital information systems

Residential energy conservationITC study of international trade

in integrated circuitsAdministration embargo of high

technology exports to theU S.S. R.

Electronic funds transfer assess-ment

Economic growth andproductivity

Productivity hearings

Steel and electronics studiesOTA space studyMoon TreatyProposed study on airports and

air traffic controlWARC 1979Industrial competitivenessCOMSAT/lNMARSATTanker accidentsProposed legislation to modify

Communications Act of 1934Wind machinesAutomotive development–GM,

Ford, and ChryslerDraft of technology and ocean-

ographic report

Biomass for S. 923 conferenceDOE C&SE studyOil shale reportOcean thermal energy conver

slonCoal leasing assessmentUtah task force resultsTechnology and Soviet energy

availability y

Land ProductivityAnalysis of spent fuel storage


Away-from-reactor siting ques-tion, disposal problems

S. 1480-EnvironmentalEmergency Response Act

International Wildlife ResourceConservation Act of 1980

Acid rainF i n a n c e Evaluation of chiropractors

Liquefied natural gasThe value of pneumococcal vac-

cinePsychotherapy case studyColonial Virginia Foundation for

Medical CareCost-effectiveness study

Foreign Relations Soviet energyTechnology and world popula-

tionRelationship of OTA population

assessment and Foreign Rela -tions Committee populationstudy

Subcommittee staff report on in-ternational population programs

Governmental Affairs Taggants (includlng attendanceat markup session at committee

request)Office of Strategic TechnologyEnergy technologies and oil

supply disruptionsJudiciary NCIC report

Patent studyLabor and Human

R e s o u r c e s Cost-effectiveness studyPhysician supply and require-

mentsPast OTA workPatent study

Rules & Administration Congressional computer andgraphics capabilities and possi-ble use for population presentations

S m a l l B u s i n e s s Generic drugsAcid rain

S t e e l C a u c u s . Steel Industry competitivenessVeterans’ Affairs Health effects of agent orange

Expected mortality for a popula-tion the size and age distribu-tion of Vietnam

Theater Veterans, 1970-79Ingestion and inhalation of radio-

activity at Utah A-bomb tests

HOUSE:A g r i c u l t u r e Gasohol

Biomass for S 932 ConferenceAgricultural water useU S food and agriculturalresearch study

Appropr ia t ions Technology and wor ldpopulationFAA’S discrete address beacon

system (DABS)Future of electric vehiclesAn evaluation of the

Cooperative AutomotiveResearch Program (CARP)

Proposed study on air traffic andair traffic control

Agent orangeTaggantsCost effectiveness and PSROs

Banking. Finance &( U r b a n A f f a i r s Transportation and the evolution

of citiesB u d g e t Financial incentives of oil shale

developmentTechnology and world popula-

tionEducation & Labor Information technology and

educationForeign Affairs ., U.S trade policy: technology

transferTropical deforestation

Intelligence Acid rainNuclear role in satisfying future

electricity demandlnterior & Insular Affairs Oil shale

MX missile basingMlnerals policy, nonfuels

mineralsGround water modelsManagement & disposal of

nuclear waste, away-from-reactor siting

Freshwater resource studyAgricultural water use assess-

mentInterstate & Foreign

C o m m e r c e DOE authorization hearingsEliminating the deductible re-

quirement in medicare’s reim-bursement policies for blooddonations

Use of the nonreplacement feein blood banking

Payment for vaccines undermedicare

Physician supply and require-ments

Drugs in Livestock feed reportOTA studies on benefits and

costs of medical technologiesCancer risksEnvironmental contaminants in

foodDrugs exports to developingcountries

Appendix C– 1980 Services to Congress 73

J u d i c i a r y . ,

Merchant Marine andF i s h e r i e sNarcotics & Abuse

C o n t r o l

Public Works &Transportation

Science & Technology

Auto fuel economy improve-ments

WARC 1979Auto assistance and automobile

industry measuresPrescription drug use, evaluation

& exportationCompensation for damage from

hazardous substancesTransportation of radioactive

wasteCOMSAT/ IN MARSATCost-effectiveness analysis, risk

assessmentNational Library of MedicineMethyl fuelsDispersed electric study, PURPA

& FUAFate of used oil and possibility

for recyclingHazardous waste managementOil refining as it applies to haz-

ardous waste regulationsHazardous waste legislationPneumococcal vaccineUse of information technology

and applicationService and maintenance of

automotive electronicsNCIC reportPatent study

Military surveillance systems

Substitute crops for opium indeveloping countries

Issues in radiation controlAirport and air traffic controlAircraft cabin safetyAircraft occupant restraintsDOE conservation and solar

energy studyTelecommunications and the in

formation system studiesImpact of WARC 1979 Con

ferenceInformation technologies and

educationConservation and small power

production after PURPACancer reportOcean thermal energy conver-

sionImpact of inflation on the

Federal R&D investmentCoordination of activities In in-

formation policy technology

Smal l Business

S t e e l C a u c u sJoint Committee on

T a x a t i o nV e t e r a n s ’ A f f a i r s

W a y s a n d M e a n s

Interactions With

Availability of premium qualityFederal coal-oil backout legisla -tion

Genetics studySpace studyinformation policyRenewable resources technologyTechnological issues of the

1980’sMajor issues in Health ProgramPatent studyNCIC CCH studySteel industry competitiveness

BiomassAgent orangeQuality of research regarding ex

posure of U S servicemen toresidual radiation in Nagasakiand Hiroshima

Federal vaccine andimmunization policies

Japanese industrial quality andmanagement

Steel IndustryAssessment and reimbursement

of drugs and other medicaltechnologies

Other CongressionalSupport Agencies

A g e n c y TopicCBO ... . . Reviewed the changing energy

problemCosts of vaccines project being carried

out by CBOOTA’s cost-effectiveness analysis of

pneumococcal vaccineThe implications of cost-effectiveness

analysis of medical technologiesNuclear waste disposal fundingTransportation/energy projectsMX missile basing costsEconomics chapter of oil shale assess-

mentMedical technology and the handi-

cappedOil shale costsReview of bill to modify the Com-

munications Act of 1934CRS . . . . . . Biomass and analysis of wood policy

issuesSeminar on innovation


Exportation of drugs produced in theUnited States

Genetics report prepared by CRSWorld Administration Radio Con-

ference (WARC) 1979Moon Treaty WorkshopRetrofit of oil/gas boilers for woodTotal energy systems, cogeneration,

photovoltaic/ thermal cogenerationSoviet energyResearch regarding Soviet technologyEuropean views of East-West tradeCoal leasing assessmentOcean research technologyStatus and plans for NCIC studyNIS study -transborder data flow

study by CRSInformation policyEast European energyEast-West technology transferCritical technologies1980 Henniker Conference on tech-nological innovation in the basicmaterials industries

Handicapped technologiesPopulationMultinational corporations and tropical

deforestationComputer modeling for congressional

staffExploration of support options for

space studyWARC 1979 StudyCogeneration /district heatPetroleum refineriesInflation in food prices and indirect

cost of gasohol productionDispersed electric energy generation

systemsEnergy and Soviet foreign policyWashington Environment Develop-

ment GroupMedical technology and the handi-

cappedSecurity chapter of electronic funds

transfer systemsInformation and communication

technologiesCoal exportSpace policy and applications

GAO . . Dispersed electric energy generationsystems

Technology and Soviety energyavailability

Agriculture and nutritionMedical technology and the handi-

cappedDepartment of Justice Management

Information SystemsNSF research ship managementOuter Continental Shelf leasingNASA remote sensing and satellite

communications programsAir navigation systemsAnalysis of the DOE Conservation and

Solar Energy ProgramsGermplasm maintenanceProfessional Standards Review

Organizations (PSROs)Proposed GAO study of the Delaney

amendment to food and drug laws2,4,5-T: A component of agent

orangeOcean margin drilling programCoordination of telecommunication

and information systemsANFLOW processEnergy analysis, data, modelsEnergy and citiesDecentralized electric powerMX missile basingOil shaleHazardous wasteAgricultural researchLand productivityGermplasm maintenanceOCS oil and gasPost- 1985 automobile fuel-economy

standardsBudgetary implications of NAVSTAR

global positioning satellite (GPS)GasoholBureau of Mines –synfuels plants in

the 1950’sEnergy analysis for synfuelsGlobal domestic energy consumptionMX missile basingCoal leasing and regulation of mining

activitiesBriefing to AAAS science and

engineering fellowsCoordination of health area projectsUSMC personnel exposed to agent

orange in VietnamCost effectiveness studyNutritional assessment research

presently funded by NIHAssessment on food and agricultural

research

. .

Appendix C– 1980 Services to Congress ● 7 5

WARC 1979 study CBO-CRS-Patent study GAO . . . . . Coordination of various energyAirport and air traffic control systems activities within each agency

CRS-GAO . . Uniform tire quality standards International affairsFood and renewable resources

Appendix D

List of Published OTA Reports

Annual Report to the Congress, March 15, 1974, OTA-A-1

Technology Assessment Activities of the National Science Foun.datlon, June 12 and 13, 1974, OTA-A-2 (Hearings before theOTA Congressional Board )

Drug Bioequivalence, July 1974. OTA- H-3 Examines the rela-tionships between the chemical and therapeutic equivalence of drugproducts

Requirements for Fulfilling a National Materials Policy, August1974, OTA-M-4 Consists of the proceedings of a conference on anational materials policy sponsored by the Federation of MaterialsSocieties from August 11-16, 1974, at Henniker, N.H.

Automobile Collision Date An Assessment Of Needs and Meth-ods of Acquisition, OTA-T-5 Analyzes the nationwide data base onautomobile accidents In Iight of proposals by the National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration to use crash recorders to relate crashforces to injuries

“An Analysis Of the Department Of the Interior’s Proposed Accel-eratlon of Developrnent of Oil and Gas on the Outer ContinentalShelf, March 1975, (1) ‘

An Analysis ldentifying issues in the Fisca/ Year 1976 ERDABudget, March 1975, (2) 2

Annual Report to the Congress. March 15, 1975, OTA-A-6

An Analysis of the Feasibility of Separating Exploration FromProduction of 0il and Gas on the Outer Continental Shelf, May1975, OTA-O 7 Analyzes the potential for and the alternativemethods by which exploration for and production of 011 and gas re-sources on the Outer Continental Shelf could be separated into twodistinct operations

Automated Guideway Transit: An Assessment of PRT and OtherNew Systems, June 1975, OTA-T-8 Examines the social and eco-nomic implications of Introducing new mass transit technologies mU S cities

0il Transportation by Tankers An Analysis of Marine Pollutionand Safety Measures, July 1975, OTA- O-9 Examines safety prob-lems of oil tankers and their potential effect on the ecology and qual-ity of the oceans and coastal areas

Analyses of Effects of Limited Nuclear War/are, September 1975.(3) Examines the social, economic. political, and health effects ofvarvous levels of nuclear attacks on the United States and the SovietUnion

The Financial Viability of Conrad. September 1975, OTA-T-10Analyzes the ability of the Consolidated Rail Corp. to pay its ownway in light of proposed new rates

A Review of Alternative Approaches to Federal Funding of RailRehabilitation, September 1975, OTA-T-11 Examines alternativeapproaches which the Federal Government might adopt to solve thefinancial and other problems of railroads located in the Northeastand Midwest, but whose difficulties are national m scope.

An Analysis of the ERDA Plan and Program, October 1975,OTA-E- 12 Analyzes 99 issues, ranging from nuclear safety to theresearch outlook for solar and other alternative energy systems,raised by the long-range plan and program developed by ERDA in1975

An Analysis Of the Impacts of the Projected Natural Gas Curtail-ments for the Winter 1975-76, November 1975, OTA-E- 13.Assesses the impact on residential and business consumers of the18 percent shortfall in natural gas supplies below contract require-ments that was projected by the Federal Power Commission

A Review of National Railroad Issues, December 1975,OTA-T- 14 Reviews a series of issues ranging from rate structure topublic subsidies for the railroad industry m the United States.

Energy, the Economy, and Mass Transit, December 1975,OTA-T-15 Examines the relationship of mass transit ridership to theenergy shortages and economic recession experienced following the1973 oil embargo.

An Assessment o/ Community Planning for Mass Transit. Febru-ary 1976. Assesses the ways cities plan for mass transit as well as theproblems and possible solutions to mass transit needs in the contextof changing relationships between the Federal Government and thetransit industry

Volume 1: Summary, February 1976, OTA-T-16

Volume 2: Atlanta Case Study, March 1976, OTA-T-17

Volume 3: Boston Case Study, March 1976, OTA-T-18

Volume 4: Chicago Case Study, March 1976, OTA-T-19

Volume 5: Denver Case Study, March 1976, OTA-T-20

Volume 6: Los Angeles Case Study. March 1976, OTA-T-21.

Volume 7: Minneapois-St Paul Case Study, March 1976,OTA-T-22

Volume 8: San Francisco Case Study, March 1976,OTA-T- 23

Volume 9: Seattle Case Study, March 1976, OTA-T-24

Volume 10: Washington, D C Case Study. March 1976,OTA-T-25

Volume 11: Technical Report, February 1976, OTA-T-26

Volume 12: Bibliography, February 1976, OTA-T-27

Comparative Analysis of the 1976 ERDA Plan and Program,May 1976, OTA-E-28 Compares the revised ERDA plan and pro-gram put forth in 1976 with the earlier 1975 document

OTA Board Hearings Food in/ormatlon Hearings, OTA-F-29(See OTA- F-35.)

Automat/c 7-rain Control in Rail Rapid Transit, May 1976,OTA-T-30. Evaluates the safety, maintenance, and cost of differentlevels of automation of mass transit trains

Annual Report to the Congress, March 15, 1976, OTA-A-31

A Review of the U S Environmental Protect/on Agency Environ-mental Research Outlook FY 1976 Through 1980, August 1976,OTA E-32 Reviews the ability of EPA to anticipate environmentalproblems, given the day-to-day demands of its regulatory respon-sibilities, as evidenced in the research plans submitted by EPA toCongress in February 1976

The Feasibility and Value of Broadband Communications inRural Areas. A Preliminary Evaluation. April 1976, OTA-T-33. Ex-amines the issues involved in using communication technologies—

76

Appendix D–List of Published OTA Reports 77

such as cable television, ground or satellite based microwave Iinks,and automatic broadcast repeater stations—to provide communityservices in rural areas

Development of Medical Technology Opportunities for Assessment, August 1976, OTA-H-34 Examines the need for assessingthe potential social impacts of emerging medical technologies whilethey are being developed

Food Informatton Systems Summary and Analysis, August1976. OTA-F-35 Summarizes and Integrates lnformation generated on information systems designed to collect data on world foodsupply and demand

An Assessment of Alternative Stockpilng Policies, August 1976.OTA-M-36 Assesses the social, political, and economic Impacts ofsix alternative policies for stockpiling materials for purposes otherthan national security

Coastal Effects of Offshore Energy Systems, November 1976,OTA-O-37 Assesses social. economic. and environmental impactsof three proposed offshore energy systems

Volume //– Work/rig Papers, November 1976, OTA O-38

Coastal Effects of 0ffshore Energy Systems (Pamphlet). Decem-ber 1976, OTA O-39 Summarizes certain findings and publlc pol-rcy alternatives of OTA’s assessment report

An Assessment of information Systems Capabilities Required toSupport U S Materials Policy declsions, January 1977, OTA-M-40 Analyzes the ability of existing information systems, relied onby Government and business policy makers for data on the supplyand demand for materials, to help avert future shortages and solveother materials-related problems

Technology Assessment Activities In the Industrial, Academic,and Governmental Communities (hearings before the OTA Con-gressional Board). December 1976, OTA-X 41

Technology Assessment in Business and Government Summaryand Analysis, January 1977, OTA-X 42 Summarizes and analyzesthe evolution and Influence of technology assessment as a tool forpolicymaking In Government, business and industry, and the aca-demic research communities

A Preliminary Analysis of the IRS Tax Administration System,March 1977, OTA TCI-43 Raises questions about the civil liberties,privacy, and due process of millions of Americans that could arisefrom a new computer system

Engineering Implications of Chronic Materials Scare/ty, April1977, OTA M-44 Consists of the proceedings of a conference onnational materials policy conducted by the Federation of MaterialsSocieties from August 8-13, 1976, at Henniker. N H

General Issues In Elementary and Secondary Education (hearingsbefore the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary. and Voca-tional Education), May 10, 11, 1977 (4) 4

Establishing a 200-Mile Fisheries Zone, June 1977, OTA-O-45Evaluates the problems and opportunities presented by the new200-mile U S fishery zone

Volume II– Working Papers, June 1977, OTA-O-46.

Perspectives on Federal Retail Food Grading, June 1977,OTA-F-47 Assesses the capability of the current food grading sys-tem used by the Federal Government, as well as that of alternativesystems that could be adopted

Nuc/ear Proliferatron and Safeguards, June 1977. OTA-E-48 Examines several nuclear power fuel cycles and ancillary enrichment and reprocessing technologies for their Impact on the risks ofthe proliferation of nuclear weapons to nations or other groups thatdo not now possess them

Organizing and Financing Basic Research to lncrease Food Pro-duction. June 1977, OTA-F-49 Evaluates alternative methods fororgan and funding basic research in the biological scienceswhich IS designed to increase food production

Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards – Appendixes. June 1977,OTA-E 50 Two-part volume containing background data forOTA’s assessment report

Volume 1Volume II

Analysis of the Proposed National Energy Plan. August 1977,OTA-E 51 Provides an evaluation of the administration’s energyplan and its impact on energy supply. energy demand, and society

Annual Report to the Congress, March 15, 1977. OTA A 52

Transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas, September 1977,OTA-O-53 Evaluates the status and trends of ongoing and pro-posed projects involving the transportation and handling of liquefiednatural gas

Brochure. 0il Shale Technology, October 1977, OTA-M-54 ‘

Cancer Testing Technology and Saccharin, October 1977,OTA-H-55 Assesses the capacity of current testing methodology topredict the carcinogenic potential of chemicals consumed byhumans

Policy lmplications of Medical lnformation Systems, November1977, OTA-H-56 Examines the potential of computer-based med-ical Information systems

Gas Potential From Devonian Shales of the Appalachian Basin,November 1977, OTA-E 57 Analyzes the potential for producinggas from Devonian shales using existlng technologies under a varie-ty of economic assumptions

OTA Publications Listing, October 1980, OTA P 58 ‘

Enhanced Oil Recovery Potential in the United States. January1978, OTA-E-59 Assesses the potential for increasing domesticproduction of 011 by applying developing technologies to knownreservoirs

A Technology Assessment on Coal Slurry Pipelines. March1978. OTA E-60 Compares the cost of transporting coal by slurrypipelines to rail for certain routes

An Evaluation of Railroad Safety, May 1978. OTA-T 61 Eval-uates trends In railroad-related accidents

Renewable Ocean Energy Sources Part 1, Ocean Thermal Ener-gy Conversion, May 1978, OTA-O-62 Examines the renewableocean energy sources that are being considered as possible contrib-utors to our future energy supply, and evaluates the technologicalproblems and policy that will affect further development of thesesources

Working Papers Renewable Ocean Energy Sources Part 1,Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, May 1978, OTA-O-63.(See OTA-O-62.)

Working Papers An Evaluation of Railroad Safety, May 1978,OTA-T-64 (See OTA-T-61 )

Application of R&D in the Civil Sector, June 1978, OTA-R-65Examines the management policies of the Federal Government forresearch and development aimed at the civil sector in light of theFederal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977

Volume 1 Application of Solar Technology to Todays EnergyNeeds. June 1978, OTA-E-66. Evaluates the economic, technical,and environmental impacts of solar energy systems located at thepoint of use

78. Annual Report to the Congress for 1980

Brochure – The Automobile: It’s Driving Us To Think, August1978, OTA-T-67 ‘

Annual Report to the Congress, August 1978, OTA-A-68

Working Papers Volume II, Materials and Energy From Munic-ipal Waste, July 1978, OTA-M-69 (See OTA- M-93.)

The Role of Demonstrations In Federal R&D Policy. July 1978,OTA-R-70 Analyzes the role of demonstrations In Federal R&Dpolicy and gives criteria for evaluating their success or lack thereof

Impact of a Department of Education on Federal Science andTechnology Activities, August 1978, OTA-R-71 Suggests criteriafor evaluating the Impacts of a new Department of Education oneducation programs in science and technology run by the NationalScience Foundation, as well as on other Federal science and tech-nology activties

Policy Implications of the Computed Tomography CT) Scanner,August 1978, OTA-H-72 Analyzes issues such as efficacy, healthplanning, use, and financing arising from the widespread adoptionof the CT scanner

Government Involvement in the Innovation Process – A Confrac-tor’s Report, August 1978, OTA-R-73 Examines the role of theFederal Government in influencing the Introduction of new technol-ogles, goods, and services in the marketplace

Nutrition Research Alternatives, September 1978, OTA-F-74Evaluates alternative strategies to redirect Federal research towardexamining the relationship between nutrition and the changinghealth problems of Americans

Assess/rig the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies, Sep-tember 1978, OTA-H-75. Evaluates the need for assessments of theefficacy and safety of medical technologies before they go into wide-spread use

Volume 11. Working Papers, Analysis of Laws Governing AccessAcross Federal Lands Options for Access in Alaska, September1978, OTA-M-76 Analyzes laws, regulations, and policies affectingaccess across federally owned lands to minerals on non-Federallands

Volume II: Application Of Solar Technology to Today’s EnergyNeeds, September 1978, OTA-E-77 (See OTA-E-66 )

The Health of the Scientific and Technical Enterprise, October1978, OTA-R-78 Suggests criteria for examining the state or healthof the scientific and technical enterprise in the United States

Emerging Food Marketing Technologies, October 1978,OTA-F-79 Examines new and emerging technologies for marketingfood

A Preliminary Assessment of the National Crime InformationCenter and the Computerized Crimnnal History System, December1978, OTA-1-80 Identifies issues emanating from use of the FBI’sNational Crime Information Center and Computerized CriminalHistory system

OTA Priorities 1979, January 1979. OTA-P-81 ‘

Volume 1 Analysis of Laws Governing Access Across FederalLands Options for Access in Alaska, February 1979. OTA-M-82Analyzes laws, regulations, and policies affecting access across fed-erally owned lands to minerals on non-Federal lands

Volume I: Summary and Findings, Technology Assessment ofChanges in the Future Use and Characteristics of the AutomobileTransportation System, February 1979, OTA-T-83 Describesenergy, environmental, safely, and cost impacts of technologicalchanges

Volume II: Technical Report, Technology Assessment ofChanges in the Future Use and Characteristics of the AutomobileTransportation System, February 1979, OTA-T-84

Annual Report to the Congress for 1978, M a r c h 1 9 7 9 ,01-A-A-85

The Direct Use of Coal– Prospects and Problems of Product/onand Combustion, April 1979. OTA- E-86 Assesses the prospects aswell as the environmental, health, safety, and other problems ofmining and burning significantly more coal than at present

Volume II: Working Papers, Residential Energy Conservation,April 1979, OTA-E-87 (See OTA-E-92 )

Management of Fuel and Nonfuel Minerals in Federal Land, April1979, OTA-M-88 Analyzes Federal laws and practices that governthe exploration, development, and production of fuel and nonfuelminerals in onshore Federal lands

The Effects of Nuclear War. May 1979. OTA-NS-89 Examinesthe social, economic. political, and health effects of various levels ofnuclear attacks on the United States and the Soviet Union

Selected Topics in Federal Health Statistics, June 1979,OTA-1{ -90 Examines data systems used in Federal health pro-grams and offers alternatives for their effective management

Drugs in Livestock Feed, June 1979, OTA-F-91 Analyzes theuse of antibacterial and other drugs to promote growth and preventdisease in livestock

Volume I: Residential Energy Conservation, July 1979,OTA-E-92. Examines the prospects of existing and new technol-ogies for reducing energy consumption in homes

Volume 1 Materials and Energy From Municipal Waste –Resource Recovery and Recycling From Municipal Solid Waste andBeverage Container Deposit Legislation. July 1979, OTA-M-93Examines present and potential technologies for producing energyand recovering resources from municipal solid waste

Open Shelf-Life Dating of Food, August 1979, OTA-F-94 Ad-dresses the practicality, benefits, and costs of open shelf-life datingof food products

Railroad Safety U S -Canadian Comparison, August 1979.OTA-T-95 Compares U S and Canadian rail systems and railroadsafety programs

A Review of Selected Federal Vaccine and Immunization Pol-icies: Based on Case Studies of Pneumococcal Vaccine, September1979. OTA-H-96 Analyzes Federal policies related to four areas ofvaccine and immunization activities

Computer Technology in Medical Education and Assessment,September 1979, OTA-BR-H-1 7

Technical Options for Conservation of Metals: Case Studies ofSelected Metals and Products, September 1979, OTA-M-97 Ex-plores the kinds and amounts of waste that occur in our use of eightcritical metals and the technical options for reducing that waste

Volume I– Summary, Pest Management Strategies, S e p t e m b e r1979, OTA-F-98. Reviews the array of tactics currently used to con-trol agricultural pests

Volume 1/– Working Papers, Pest Management Strategies. Sep-tember 1979, OTA-F-99

Gasohol A Technical Memorandum, September 1979, OTA-TM-E- 1 8 Discusses the technology and economics of gasohol pro-duction.

Volume [I] Public Participation, Technology Assessment of

Appendix D–List of published OTA Reports ● 7 9

Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile

Transportation System, September 1979, OTA-T- 100 (SeeOTA-T-83 )

Benefits of Increased Use of Continuous Casting by the U.S.

Steel Industry A Technical Memorandum October 1979. OTATM-ISC-2 H Describes the continuous casting process and the rate ofits adoption by U.S. and foreign steel Industries

Technology and East-West Trade, November 1979, OTAISC 101 Examines the economic. military. and political implica-tions of technology transfer to the Communist world

Environmental Contaminants in F o o d – S u m m a r y D e c e m b e r1979, OTA-F-102 6

Environmental Contaminants in Food December 1979,OTA F 103 Discussess the different types and sources of chemicaland radioactive contaminants in food

OTA – What It Is, What it Does, How it Works, March 1981.OTA PC- 104 6

Current Assessment Activities. March 1981, OTA PC- 105 6

Impact of Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology, January1980, OTA-T-106 Examines second-generation automated guide-way transit systems as part of a solution to the need for Improvedurban mass transit

Impact of Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology – Sum

mary January 1980. OTA-T-107

U.S. Disaster Assistance to Developing Countries Lessons Ap

plicable to U.S. Domestic Dissaster Programs – Background P a p e r ,January 1980. OTA-BP-X-1 Evaluates trends in disaster assistance and preparedness

Criteria for Evaluating the lmplementation Plan Required by the

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, January 1980. OTABP X-2

Issues and Options in Flood Hazards Management, February1980, OTA-BP-X-3 7

Annual Report to the Congress, March 1980, OTA-A-108

ALternative Energy Futures, Part 1: The Future of Liquefied Natu-ral Gas Imports – Summary. March 1980, OTA-E-109 6

Alternative Energy Futures, Part 1: The Future of Liquefied Natu-

ral Gas Imports. March 1980, OTA-E 110 Evaluates projectedU S demand global availability, cost and financing. and security offoreign supplies

Impact of Advanced Air Transport Technology}, Part 1: Ad-v a n c e d H i g h S p e e d A i r c r a f t – S u m m a r y , March 1980,OTA-T-111 6

i m p a c t of Advanced A i r T ranspor t Techno logy , Par t 1 : A dvanced High Speed Aircraft, April 1980, OTA T 112 Assesses theeconomics. feasibility, and uncertainties of developing advancedsubsonic and/or supersonic passenger aircraft

Forecosts of Physician Supply and Requirements, April 1980,OTA-H-113 Analyzes the assumptions, methods. and conclusionsof the technologies for forecasting both the need for and supply ofphysicians by specialty and geographical distribution

The Effects of Nuclear War – Summary, April 1980, OTA-ISC-114 6 (See OTA- NS-89 )

Taggants in Explosives – Summary. April 1980. OTA-ISC-115 6

Taggants In Explosives, April 1980, OTA-ISC-1l6 Assesses thetechnical feasibility, safety ramifications. costs, and law. enforcementutility of a proposal to require that commercial explosives be manufactured with “ldentification taggants “

Recent Developments in Ocean Thermal Energy, April 1980.OTA-TM-O-3 Reviews status of ocean thermal energy conversion(OTEC) developments occurring after OTA's 1978 report

Ocean Margin Drilling, May 1980. OTA-TM-O-4 4 Evaluates the

newly proposed public private cooperative research effort in marinegeology

An Assessment of Oil Shale Technologies – Summary June1980. OTA M 117 ‘

An Assessment of Oil Shale Technologies, June 1980,OTA-M-118 Assesses the status and potential of technologies forthe development of 011 shale resources

Volume II: History and Analysis of the Federal Prototype OilShale Leasing Program, July 1980. OTA M- 119

Conservation and Solar Energy Programs Of the Department ofEnergy –A Critique, June 1980. OTA-E-120 Analyzes the prog-ress and direction of five major conservation and solar energy programs of the Department of Energy

Technology and Steel Industry Compet i t iveness – Summary

June 1980, OTA-M-121 6

Technology and Steel Industry Competitiveness, June 1980,OTA-M 122 Assesses how and when new technology can Improvethe International competitivenss of the U S steel industry

Energy From Biological Processes – Summary. July 1980.OTA-E- 123 ‘

Energy From Biological Processes. July 1980. OTA-E 124 Eval-uates the energy potential of plant and animal matter (biomass) con-centrating on four biomass fuel cycles –- wood, alcohol fuels, grassesand crop residues. and animal wastes.

Proceedings of the OTA Seminar on the Discrete Address Beacon System (DABS), July 1980, OTA BP- T-4 “ Summary of findings and proceedings of a seminar held to examine some impacts ofthe FAA proposal to Implement DABS and the Automatic TrafficAdvisory and Resolution Service

Volume II: Technical and Environmental Analyses, Energy FromBiological Processes, September 1980, OTA-E-128 (See OTA--E- 124 )

The Implications of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Medical Technology — Summary, August 1980, OTA-H- 125 6

The Implications of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Medical Tech-nology, August 1980, OTA H 126 Analyzes the feasibility. implica -tions. and usefulness of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and costbenefit analysis (CBA) in health care decisionmaking

Background Paper # 1 Methodological issues and LiteratureReview, September 1980, OTA-BP-H 5 -

Background Paper #3 The Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness ofPsychotherapy, October 1980. OTA- BP-H-6 ‘

Background Paper #4 The Management of Health Care Tech-nology In Ten Countries, October 1980. OTA BP H 7 ‘

A Technology Assessment of Coal Slurry Pipelines – Summary,September 1980, OTA-E- 127 6

80. Annual Report to the Congress/or 1980

World Petroleum Auailability 1980-2000, October 1980, OTA- Compensation for Vaccine-Related Injuries, November 1980,TM- E-5 “ Examines prospects for world supplies and production in OTA-TM-H-6.8 Discusses the questions that Congress must answercoming decades in developing a compensation program

“Included in appendix in publlc,]tlon OTA O-7

‘Pubkshed as Committee Print Senate Committee on Commerce‘Pubkshed as Joint Committee Print House Committee on Science and Technology Sen~te Comm]ttee on lntenor and Insular Affairs

‘Published as Committee Print, Senate Foretgn Relatlons Comm]ttee‘Pubhshed as Commttee Print, House Committee on Education and Labor‘Praeger Pubkshmg Company has repnnfed the OTA report that was ong!nally printed at the Government Pnnhng OffIce Price $21

HoIt, Rinehart and Winston, 383 Madison Avenue, New York N Y 10017‘Avajlable at no charge from OTA Pubbshmg Office, Tele (202) 2248996

and Jolcrt Committee on Atom]c Energy

50, hardcover Please d]rect all purchase orders to

‘Pubhshed as a background paper, wh]ch IS a document that cc~nta!ns Information belleoed to be useful to various parties The Information underglrds formal OTA assessments or E an outcome of Internal exploratory plannln J and evaluation The material IS usually not of Immediate POIICY Interest such as IS contained ]n an OTA report or technical memorandum nor does It present options for Congress to consider

‘Publtshed m a techcrlcal memo] andum, which IS Issued by OTA on Speclf!c sub]ects analyzed in recent OTA reports or on pro)ects presently In process at OTA Technical memoranda areIssued at the request of Members of C’ongress who are engaged In comml[tee legislative actions which are expected to be resolved before OTA completes Its assessment

For information and availability of these publications, please call OTA’s Publishing Office, 224-8996

Appendix E

Advisors and Panel Members

ENERGY, MATERIALS, AND INTERNATIONAL

Energy From Biological ProcessesAdvisory Panel

Thomas Ratchford, ChairmanAssociate Executive DirectorAmerican Association for the

Advancement of Science

Henry ArtEnvironmental StudiesUniversity of California at Santa

Barbara

Stanley BarberDepartment of GronomyPurdue University

John BenemannVacaville, Calif.

Paul Bente, Jr.Executive DirectorThe Bio-Energy Council

Calvin BurwellOak Ridge National Laboratory

Robert HirschExxon Research and Engineering Co.

Robert HodhamHodham AssociatesSacramento, Calif.

Kep HewlettGeorgia Pacific

Ralph KeinkerMonsanto Co.

Dean KlecknerPresidentIowa Farm Bureau Foundation

Kevin MarkeyFriends of the Earth

Jacques MaroniEnergy Planning ManagerFord Motor Co.

Michael NeushulMarine Science InstituteUniversity of California at Santa

Barbara

ENERGY PROGRAM

William SchellerDepartment of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Nebraska

Kenneth SmithOffice of Appropriate TechnologyState of California

Wallace TynerDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsPurdue University

Liquefied Natural Gas (AEF)Advisory Panel

Jerome E. Hass, ChairmanGraduate School of Business and

Public AdministrationCornell University

Seth BorgosDirector of ResearchACORN

Irvin C. Bupp, Jr.Graduate School of Business

AdministrationHarvard University

George CaramerosChairmanEl Paso LNG Co.

Melvin A. ConantConant & Associates, Ltd.

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

Todd M, DoscherDepartment of Petroleum EngineeringUniversity of Southern California

Michael R. EatonSierra Club

Bruce M. HannonDirectorEnergy Research GroupUniversity of Illinois

SECURITY DIVISION

Michael HoganE. J. Rager & Associates

Max M. LevyVice PresidentColumbia LNG Corp.

William R. RobertsonExecutive Secretary-TreasurerLos Angeles County Federation of

Labor

Robert L. SolomonAssistant DirectorCalifornia Energy Resources

Conservation & DevelopmentCommission

Macauley WhitingThe Dow Chemical Co,

Nuclear PowerplantStandardization Workshop

Participants

Harold W. Lewis, ChairmanDepartment of PhysicsUniversity of California

Myer BenderDirector of EngineeringOak Ridge National Laboratory

Sidney BernsenManager of Nuclear EngineeringThermal Power OrganizationBechtel Power Corp.

Dale G. BridenbaughMHB Technical Associates

Thomas CoxPrincipal Reactor Systems EngineerU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Jesse EbersoleOak Ridge, Term.

Darrell G. EisenhutDirector, Division of LicensingU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

81


Stan JacobsChief Licensing EngineerStone and Webster Engineering Corp.

Jerry GriffithOffice of Light Water ReactorsNuclear Energy ProgramsU.S. Department of Energy

Joseph M, HendrieCommissionerU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Edward O’DonnellVice President of Enviosphere Co.Ebasco Services, Inc.

John RaulstonAssistant to the Chief Nuclear EngineerTennessee Valley Authority

Don RoyManager, NPGD Engineering

DepartmentBabcock and Wilcox Co.

A. Edward SchererDirector, Nuclear LicensingCombustion Engineering

Oswald F. SchuetteDepartment of Physics and AstronomyUniversity of South Carolina

Glenn SherwoodManagerSafety and Licensing OperationNuclear Energy Systems DivisionGeneral Electric Co.

William R. SpezialettiManager of Domestic Licensing

TechnologyWestinghouse Electric Corp.Power Systems

Wayne StiedeManager of Station NuclearEngineering DepartmentCommonwealth Edison

Frank Von HippelSenior Research PhysicistCenter for Energy and Environmental

StudiesPrinceton University

Synthetic Fuels for TransportationAdvisory Panel

Hans Landsberg, Chain-r-tanResources for the Future

Harvey O. BanksPresidentWater Resources DivisionCamp Dresser McKee, inc.

Ellen BermanConsumer Energy Council of America

Leslie BurgessVice PresidentFluor Corp.

Frank CollinsOil, Chemical and Atomic Workers

International UnionAFL-CIO

Thomas F. EdgarDepartment of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Texas

Louis FrickPlanning and Intelligence ManagerChemicals and Pigments DepartmentE. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.

Robert P. HowellConsulting EngineerChairman, Synfuels Task ForceSierra Club

Sheldon LambertShell Oil Co.

John L. McCormickEnvironmental Policy Center

Edward MerrowRand Corp.

Richard K. PefleyChairmanDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringSanta Clara University

AlIan G. PulsipherTennessee Valley Authority

Robert ReillyExecutive DirectorBusiness Strategy DevelopmentCorporate Strategy and Analysis Staff,

Ford Motor Co.

Fred WilsonCoordinatorAlternate EnergyTexaco, Inc.

John J. WiseVice President, PlanningMobil Research and Development Co.

Dispersed Electric Generating

Technologies Advisory Panel

James J. Stukel, ChairmanDirector, Public Policy ProgramCollege of Engineerin g

University of Illinois

Rober BlobaumRoger Blobaum & Associates

Charles J. CicchettiProfessor of EconomicsUniversity of Wisconsin

William H. CorkranGeneral ManagerThe Easton Utilities Commission

Claire T. DedrickCalifornia Public Utilities Commissioner

Steven FerreyEnergy CounselNational Consumer Law Center, Inc.

Henry KellyAssociate Director, Analysis and

ApplicationsSolar Energy Research Institute

Todd La PorteInstitute of Government StudiesUniversity of California

Evelyn MurphyDepartment of Urban Studies and

PlanningMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Theodore J. NagelSenior Executive Vice PresidentAssitant to the ChairmanAmerican Electric Power Service Corp.

Thomas W. ReddochAssociate Professor of Electrical

EngineeringUniversity of Tennessee

Bertram SchwartzSenior Vice PresidentConsolidated Edison Co.

Harry M. TrebingDirectorInstitute of Public UtilitiesMichigan State University

Thomas F, WidmerVice President, EngineeringThermo Electron Corp.

Robert H. WilliamsCenter for Energy and Environmental


Energy and the Cities AdvisoryPanel

William Reilly, ChairmanPresident, Conservation Foundation

Edward BerlinPartner; Leva, Hawes, Symington,

Martin & Oppenheimer

Appendix E–List of Advisors and Panel Members ● 83

Francis Hooks BurrPartner, Ropes & Gray

Vernon FriasonDirectorMount Auburn Good Housing

Foundation

Lenneal HendersonSchool of Business and Public

AdministrationHoward University

Michael HoganHogan Associates

George LatimerMayorCity of St. Paul, Minn.

Hewitt LovelacePublic Safety DirectorGreensboro, N.C.

Neal R PierceContributing EditorNational Journal

George PetersonDirector of Public FinanceThe Urban Institute

John H. RobsonVice PresidentMarguette Fuels, Inc.

Terry L. SinnottCommercial Sales ManagerSan Diego Gas and Electric

Victoria J. TschinkelAssistant SecretaryDepartment of Environmental

RegulationState of Florida

Homer J, VickVice PresidentWisconsin Power & Light

James A. WalkerCommissionerEnergy Resources Conservation &

Development CommissionSacramento, Calif.

Joseph WidmeyerExecutive Vice PresidentComplete Building Services, Inc.

Solar Power Satellite Policy IssuesAdvisory Panel

John P. Schaefer, ChairmanPresident, University of Arizona

Paul CraigProfessor of Applied ScienceUniversity of California at Davis

Mr. S, David FreemanChairman, Tennessee Valley Authority

Eilene GallowayPrivate ConsultantWashington, D.C.

Karl GawellSolar Energy Research Institute

Peter GlaserVice PresidentArthur D, Little, Inc.

Jerry GreyAdministrator for Public Policy

American InstituteAstronautics

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

International Security and Charles E. CalfeeCommerce Program Taggants Special Agent

Advisory Panel Federal Bureau 01

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

Tom AshwoodAir Line Pilots Association

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

H. J. BurchillPresidentAtlas Powder Co.

of Aeronautics and

AND COMMERCE

Investigation

Robert DimockMine ManagerUtah Copper DivisionKennecott Copper

Ernest H. EvansResearch AssociateThe Brookings Institution

Henry EyringDepartment of ChemistryUniversity of Utah

Eugene H. EysterLos Alamos Scientific Lab

Grant HansenPresident, SDC Systems GroupSDC Corp.

Russell (Deek) HensleyVice President-TechnologyDiversified Business DivisionAetna Life and Casualty

Maureen LambAnnapolis, Md,

J, C. RandolphDirector, Environmental ProgramsSchool of Public and Environmental

AffairsIndiana University

John J. SheehanLegislative DirectorUnited Steelworkers of America

Graham SiegelAdvanced SystemsTennessee Valley Authority

Robert UhrigVice PresidentAdvanced Systems and TechnologyFlorida Power & Light

Frank von HippelSenior Research PhysicistCenter for Energy and Environmental


Charles WarrenAttorneySacramento, Calif.

PROGRAM

Rona M. FieldsConsultant in PsychologyAlexandria, Va.

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

Robert E. HodgdonPresidentHodgdon Powder Co., Inc. and

Pyrodex Corp.

Neal KnoxExecutive DirectorNational Rifle AssociationInstitute for Legislative Action


Lynn LimmerDirector, Department of Public SafetyDallas-Fort Worth AirportInternational Operations

Alexander v. d. LuftDirectorExplosive Products DivisionE. 1. duPont de Nemours & Co.

Hugh M. McGowanSupervisor, Bomb SquadNew York City Police Department

William T. PoeSupervisor, Explosives & FirearmsControl UnitLouisiana State Police

Theodore J. SullivanNaval Surface Weapons Center

Robert W. van DolahPrivate ConsultantPittsburgh, Pa.

Charles O. WilliamsOlin Corp.

Electronics Advisory Panel

Katherine Seelman, ChairmanNational Council of ChurchesDivision of Church & Society

Jack C. ActonStaff Executive, Sector PlanningGeneral Electric Co.

Steve BeckmanResearch AssociateInternational Union of Electrical, Radio

& Machine Workers

A. Terry BrixMarket CoordinatorBattelle-Northwest Laboratories

Richard P. CaseDirector of Technical OperationsSystems Products DivisionIBM Corp.

Ruth Schwartz CowanAssociate Professor of HistoryState University of New York at Stony

Brook

William Kay DairiesExecutive Vice PresidentAmerican Retail Federation

Leonard DietchVice President, Product DevelopmentZenith Radio Corp.

Isaiah FrankWilliam Clayton Professor of

International EconomicsJohns Hopkins University

F. Willard Griffith IIChairman and C E O

GC International

Robert R. JohnsonVice President, EngineeringBurroughs Corp.

Richard A. KraftPresidentMatsushita Industrial Co.

E. Floyd KvammePresidentNational Advanced Systems

Geraldine McArdleBoard MemberConsumer Federation of America

Charles PhippsAssistant Vice President,

Corporate DevelopmentTexas Instruments, Inc.

K. M. PooleHead, Integrated Circuit Planning

DepartmentBell Telephone Laboratories

Benjamin M. RosenPresidentRosen Research Inc.

Kate WilhelmAuthor

Robert B. WoodDirector of ResearchInternational Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers

Michael Y. YoshinoProfessor of Business

AdministrationHarvard Business School

MX Missile Basing Advisory Panel

Harry Woolf, ChairmanDirector, Institute for Advanced Study

Stanely AlbrechtProfessor and Editor of Rural SocietyDepartment of SociologyBrigham Young University

Stephen T. BradhurstDirectorNevada MX Project Field Office

Russel E. DoughertyGeneral, USAF (retired)

Sidney D. DrellProfessor and Deputy DirectorStanford Linear Accelerator Center

Henry M. FoleyProfessorDepartment of PhysicsColumbia University

Kenneth E. FosterAssociate DirectorOffice of Arid Lands StudiesUniversity of Arizona

Sanford GottliebKensington, Md.

Daniel O. GrahamLt. Gen., USA (retired)Director of Special ProjectsAmerican Security Council

William KincadeDirectorArms Control Association

Gordon KirjassoffPresidentEdwards and Kelcey

Kenneth C. OlsonProject ManagerUtah MX Coordination Office

Kenneth SmithLockheed Chief Engineer (retired)

John ToomayMajor General, USAF (retired)

William Van CleaveDirectorDefense and Strategic Studies .Center for the Study of the American

ExperienceAnnenberg School of CommunicationUniversity of Southern California

Jerome WiesnerInstitute ProfessorMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Harry WoolfChairmanDirector, Institute for Advanced Study

James R. Woolsey, Esq.Shea and Gardner

Appendix E–List o} Advisors and Panel Members ● 8 5

Soviet Energy Advisory Panel

Clifford Case, ChairmanProduction Tools and Services GroupHughes Tool Co.

E C, Broun, Jr ,PresidentProduction Tools and Services GroupHughes Tool Co

Robert CampbellProfessor of EconomicsIndiana University

Leslie DienesProfessor of GeographyUniversity of Kansas

Marshall GoldmanProfessor of EconomicsWellesley College

Gregory GrossmanProfessor of EconomicsUniversity of California

Robert JacksonPresident, Security DivisionDresser Industries

Stanley LewandVice President, Public UtilitiesChase Manhattan Bank

Richard NehringThe Rand Corp.

John GarrettManager, Business ResearchGulf 0il Exploration and Production

MATERIALS PROGRAM

Oil Shale Advisory Panel

James H Gary, ChairmanChemical and Petroleum Refining

DepartmentColorado School of Mines

William BrennanRancherRifle, Colo.

James BoydEx officioPrivate ConsultantCarmel, Cal i f

Roland FischerSecretary /EngineerColorado River Water Conservation

District

John D HaunDepartment of GeologyColorado School of Mines

Carolyn A Johnsonpublic Lands InstituteDenver, Colo

Sidney KatellCollege of Mineral & Energy ResourcesWest Virginia University

Estella LeopoldDirector, Quaternary Research CenterUniversity of Washington

Charles H Prien ●

Senior Research FellowUniversity of Denver Research Institute

“ [kxva5e(i April 1979

John F. RedmondPrivate ConsultantBainbridge, Wash

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

Thomas W. Ten EyckV i c e P r e s i d e n t f o r C o m m u n i t y ,

Government and Public AffairsRio Blanco Oil Shale Project

Wallace TynerDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsPurdue University

Glen D, WeaverDepartment of EconomicsColorado State University

Federal Coal Leasing AdvisoryPanel

Lynton Caldwell. ChairmanDepartment of Political ScienceIndiana University

James BoydEx officioPrivate ConsultantCarmel, Calif.

C. Wayne CookChairman, Department of

ScienceColorado State University

Range

Richard PipesProfessor,Harvard Unviersity

Damtwart RustonProfessorCity University of New York

Henry SweattVice President, Government & Industry

AffairsHoneywell

Allen S, WhitingProfessor of Political ScienceUniversity of Michigan

Lloyd ErnstManager, OperationsWestern Fuels Association, Inc.

Thomas FrancePrivate ConsultantMissoula, Mont.

James R. JonesDirector of Environmental QualityPeabody Coal Co.

Robert LangPlant Science DivisionUniversity of Wyoming

Johnathan LashSenior Project AttorneyNatural Resources Defense Council,

Inc.

Carla KishRegional RepresentativeWestern Organization of Resource

CouncilsBillings, Mont.

Alfred Petrick, Jr,Petrick Associates

Jack SimonDirectorIllinois State Geological Survey

Daniel J. SnyderPresidentCo!orado-Westmoreland, Inc.


Larry NaakeAssociate DirectorNational Association of Counties

Joseph YancikVice President, Research & Technical

ServicesNational Coal Association

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

Industry Advisory Panel

Gordon Geiger, ChairmanProfessor and HeadDepartment of Metallurgical

EngineeringUniversity of Arizona

Edmund AyoubResearch DirectorUnited Steelworkers of America

James CannonResearch DirectorCitizens for a Better Environment

Robert W. CrandallSenior FellowThe Brookings Institution

Milton DeanerVice President, EngineeringNational Steel Corp.

William E. DennisSenior Vice PresidentAmerican Iron and Steel Institute

Stewart G. FletcherSenior Vice PresidentAmerican Iron and Steel Institute

William B. HudsonExecutive Vice President, Planning &

DevelopmentThe McKee Corp.

Robert R. IrvingSenior Technical EditorIron Age Magazine

F. Kenneth IversonPresident. NUCOR Corp.

Betty JardineLeague of Women Voters

Ruth MacklinThe Hastings Center

Peter F. MarcusFirst Vice PresidentPaine, Webber, Mitchell, Hutchins, Inc.

Donald R. MuzykaCarpenter Technology Group

Mary Ann RitterManager, Purchasing, Forward

Planning & ResearchGeneral Motors Corp

Roger E. ShieldsVice President, International Economics

DepartmentChemical Bank

Edward StantonDirector, Human Development-Social

ActionDiocese of Youngstown Catholic

Charities

Caroline WareNational Consumers League

U.S. Industrial Competitiveness: AComparison of Steel, Electronics,and Automobiles Advisory Panel

Alan K. McAdams, ChairmanProfessor of Business and Public

AdministrationCornell University

Steve BeckmanResearch AssociateInternational Union of Electrical, Radio

& Machine Workers

Milton DeanerVice President, EngineeringNational Steel Corp.

William E. DennisSenior Vice PresidentAmerican Iron & Steel Institute

John HoldenEnergy PlanningFord Motor Co.

Robert R. JohnsonVice President, EngineeringBurroughs Corp.

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

E. Floyd KvammePresidentNational Advanced Systems

Daniel LuriaResearch AssociateUnited Auto Workers

Thomas P. RohlenResearch AssociateStanford East Asian Forum

H. Paul RootDirector of Economic StudiesGeneral Motors Corp.

Gary R. SaxonhouseProfessor of EconomicsUniversity of Michigan

Caroline WareBoard MemberNational Consumers League

Appendix E– List of Advisors and Panel Members ● 87

HEALTH AND LIFE SCIENCES DIVISION

FOOD AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Johanna Dwyer, ChairpersonDirector, Frances Stern Nutrition Center, New England Medical Center

Stephen BerwickChief ScientistHDR Sciences

Cy CarpenterPresident, Minnesota Farmers Union

Almeta Edwards FlemingTeacher CoordinatorFlorence, South Carolina, School

District

Eliot ColemanDirector, Coolidge Center for the Study

of Agriculture

Richard L HallVice President. Science and

TechnologyMcCormick & Co , lnc

Laura HeuserAgricultural Council of America

J. Frank McCormickProfessor and DirectorGraduate Program in EcologyUniversity of Tennessee

Max MilnerExecutive OfficerAmerican Institute of Nutrition

Robert O. NesheimVice President, Science and

TechnologyQuaker Oats Co.

Kathleen O'ReillyDirector. Consumer Federation of

America

R Dennis RouseDean, School of AgricultureAuburn University

Arnold MayerLeglslatlve RepresentativeAmalgamated Meat Cutters and

Butcher Workmen of North America

Impact of Technology onProductivity of the Land Advisory

Panel

David Pimentel, ChairmanProfessor, Department of EntomologyCornell University

Delmar AkerlundAkerlund Farm Biological EngerprisesValley, Nebr

Steve BrunsonDirector. National Association of

Conservation Districts

William DietrlchSenior Vice President, OperationsGreen Giant Co

James V DrewDean, School of Agriculture and Land

Resources ManagementDirector, Agricultural Experiment

StationUniversity of Alaska

George R HawkesAdvisor, Product Environmental AffairsOrtho-Chevron Chemical Co.

Earl O. HeadyProfessor of EconomicsIowa State University

John H HermanAttorney at LawDayton, Herman, Graham & GettsMinneapolis, Minn

Maureen K HinkleEnvironmental Defense Fund

William H. HintonFarmerFlintwood, Pa

Garry D McKenzieDivision of Polar ProgramsNational Science Foundation

William R MeinersConservationistResource Planning and Management

Associates. Inc.Meridian, Idaho

Daryl SimonsAssociate Dean for Engineering

ResearchCollege of EngineeringColorado State University

Thomas SporlederProfessor of Agricultural EconomicsTexas A & M University

William StappProgram ChairpersonBehavior and EnvironmentSchool of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Michigan

Sylvan WittwerDirector and Assistant DeanCollege of Agriculture and Natural

ResourcesMichigan State University

John Moland, Jr.Director Center for Social ResearchSouthern Univerlsty

Richard E. RomingerDirector, Department of Food and

AgricultureState of California

Edwin L SchmidtProfessor, Department of Soil ScienceUniversity of Minnesota

F. C, SticklerDirector. Technical CenterDeere & Co

Glover B. Triplett, JrProfessor, Department of AgronomyOhio Agricultural Research &

Development Center

Ralph WongRancherMarana, Ariz


U.S. Food and AgriculturalResearch Advisory Panel

Aileen AdamsConsumer ConsultantLos Angeles, Calif.

Paul BaumgartCorporate Economist and Vice

PresidentSafeway Stores, Inc

Roger BlobaumConsultantWest Des Moines, lowa

William BurnsDirector of ResearchUnited Food and Commercial Workers

International Union

Carl W. CarlsonConsultantRuckersville, Va.

Nick CarneyDirectorDivision of AgricultureDepartment of Natural ResourcesState of Alaska

Impacts of Applied GeneticsNon-Human Applications Advisory

Panel

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

SciencesNorth Carolina State University

Ronald E. CapeCetus Corp

Nina V. FedoroffDepartment of EmbryologyCarnegie Institution of Washington

G. June GoodfieldThe Rockefeller University

Harold P. GreenThe National Law CenterThe George Washington University

Halsted R. HolmanStanford University Medical School

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

Internationa! Union

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

Tony J. CunhaDean. School of AgricultureCalifornia State Polytechnic University

Susan de MarcoDirector of Central ResearchGeneral Foods Corp.

Harold DoddPresident, Illinois Farmers Union

Lewis C. DowdyChancellorNorth Carolina Agricultural and

Technical State University

Thomas F, JonesVice President for ResearchMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Jarvis E. MillerPresident. Texas A & M University

Albert H. MosemanConsultant, IADS

HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAM

David PimentelDepartment of EntomologyCornell University

Robert WeaverDepartment of Agricultural EconomicsPennsylvania State University

James A. WrightPioneer Hi-Bred InternationalPlant Breeding Division

Norton D, ZinderThe Rockefeller University

Population Advisory Panel

Philip R. Lee, ChairmanDirector, Health Policy Program School

of Medicine University of California

Leona BaumgartnerMartha’s Vineyard, Mass.

Wilbur J. CohenSchool of EducationUniversity of Michigan

Cyril CrockerHoward University School of Medicine

Arthur DyckHarvard Divinity School

William E, MyersRural Employment and Training

CoordinatorState of California Employment

Development Department

Lewis F. NorwoodDirector of Affiliate RelationsNational Association of Retail Grocers

of the United States

William A, ReinersProfessor, Department of Biological

SciencesDartmouth College

James E, TillotsonVice President, Technical Research and

DevelopmentOcean Spray Cranberries, Inc.

Harold L. WilckeConsultantRalston Purina Co.

Julia HendersonWarwick, N.Y.

William N. Hubbard, Jr.President, The Upjohn Co.

Snehendu B. KarSchool of Public HealthUniversity of California

Nathan KeyfitzHarvard University Center for

Population Studies

Marjory MecklenburgPresident, American Citizens

Concerned for Life

Deborah OakleySchool of NursingUniversity of Michigan

Kenneth J. RyanBoston Hospital for Women

Nafis SadikUnited Nations Fund for Population

Activities

Carol TauerDepartment of PhilosophyCollege of St. Catherine

Faye WattletonPresidentPlanned Parenthood Federation of

America

Appendix E – List of Advisors and Panel Members ● 89

HEALTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Sidney Lee, ChairmanAssociate Dean, Community Medicine, McGill University

Stuart H AltmanDean, Florence Heller SchoolBrandeis University

Robert M. BallSenior ScholarInstitute of MedicineNational Academy of Sciences

Lewis ButlerHealth Policy ProgramUniversity of California

Kurt DeuschleProfessorMount Sinai School of Medicine

Zita FearonConsumer Commission on the

Accreditation of Health Services, Inc

Cost-Effectiveness of MedicalTechnologies Advisory Panel

John R Hogness, ChavmanAssociation for Academic Health

Centers

Stuart H AltmanDean, Florence Heller SchoolBrandeis University

James L BenningtonChairman, Department of Anatomic

Pathology and Clinical LaboratoriesChildren’s Hospital in San Francisco

John ChaseAssociate Dean for Clinical AffairsUniversity of Washington School of

Medicine

Joseph FletcherVisiting ScholarMedical EthicsSchool of MedicineUniversity of Virginia

Clark C HavighurstProfessor of Law, School of LawDuke University

Sheldon LeonardManager, Regulatory AffairsGeneral Electric Co.

Barbara J, McNeilDepartment of RadiologyPeter Bent Brigham Hospital

Robert H. MoserExecutive Vice PresidentAmerican College of Physicians

C Frederick MostellerProfessor and Chairman,

Department of StatisticsHarvard University

Robert M. SigmondAdvisor on Hospital AffairsBlue Cross and Blue Shield

Associations

Jane Sisk Wil!emsVA ScholarVeterans Administration

Psychotherapy Review AdvisoryPanel

Jerome FrankProfessor Emeritus of PsychiatryJohns Hopkins University School of

Medicine

Donald KleinNew York State Psychiatric Institute

Beverly LongNational Mental Health Association

Bevedee MyersDirector, Department of Health

ServicesState of California

Mitchell RabkinGeneral DirectorBeth Israel Hospital

Frederick RobbmsPresidentInstitute of Medicine

Kerr L. WhiteDeputy Director, Health SciencesRockefeller Foundation

Thomas McGuireAssistant Professor of EconomicsBoston University

Morris ParloffChief, Psychotherapy and Behavioral

Intervention SectionNational Institute of Mental Health

Hans StruppDepartment of PsychologyVanderbilt University

Gary VandenBosDirector, National Policy StudiesAmerican Psychological Association

Technologies for DeterminingCancer Risk from the Environment

Advisory Panel

Norton Nelson, ChairmanProfessor, Department of

Environmental MedicineNew York University Medical School

David AxelrodCommissioner of HealthNew York State Department of Health

Peter A. BerleButzel and KassNew York, N Y


Theodore I_. CairnsE. I. du Pent de Nemours & Co

(retired)

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

EnvironmentShell Oil Co.

George S, DominguezDirector, Government RelationsHealth and EnvironmentCIBA-GEIGY Corp

David DonigerNatural Resources Defense Council

A. Myrick FreemanDepartment of EconomicsBowdoin College

Priscilla W. LawsDickinson College

Mark LepperVice President for Inter-Institutional

AffairsRush-Presbyterian-St, Luke’s Medical

Center

Brian MacMahonHarvard School of Public Health

Robert A, NealDirector of Center in Environmental

ToxicologyVanderbilt University School of

Medicine

Vaun A. NewillResearch & Environmental Health

DivisionEXXON Corp.

William J. NicholsonEnvironmental Sciences LaboratoryMount Sinai School of Medicine

R Talbot PageCalifornia Institute of Technology

Margaret SeminarioIndustrial Hygenist-AFL CIODepartment of Occupationtal Safety and

Health

Alice S, WhittemoreDivision of EpidemiologyStanford University School of Medicine

Michael WrightSafety and Health DepartmentUnited Steel Workers of America

Technologies for ForecastingPhysician Supply and

Requirements Advisory Panel

E, Harvey Estes, ChairmanDepartment of Community and Family

MedicineDuke University School of Medicine

E. B. CampbellExecutive Vice PresidentLane College

Jack HadleyUrban Institute

John HatchSchool of Biomedical EducationCity College of New York

Lauren LeRoyHealth Policy ProgramUniversity of California

Charles LewisDepartment of MedicineUCLA School of Medicine

Ted PhillipsAssociate Dean for Academic AffairsSchool of MedicineUniversity of Washington

Jane RecordHealth Services Research CenterKaiser Foundation

Alvin TarlowDepartment of MedicineUniversity of Chicago

John WennbergDepartment of Community MedicineDartmouth College

Strategies for Medical TechnologyAssessment Advisory Panel

Lester Breslow, Panel ChairmanDean, School of Public HealthUniversity of California

Morris CohenDepartment of Medical Methods

ResearchKaiser Permanence Medical Group

Richard CooperWilliams and Connolly, Inc.Washington, D.C,

D. V. d’ArbeloffChairman and Chief Executive OfficerMillipore Corp.

Harvey FinebergHarvard School of Public Health

Jerome D. FrankProfessor Emeritus of PsychiatryThe Henry Phipps Psychiatric ClinicThe Johns Hopkins University Medical

School

William GoffmanProfessorSchool of Library ScienceCase Western Reserve University

Leon GreeneVice PresidentNew Product TechnologySmith, Kline and French Laboratories,

Inc.

Stanley B. JonesVice PresidentBlue Cross and Blue Shield Association

F. Wilfrid LancasterProfessor of Library ScienceUniversity of Illinois

Louise B. RussellThe Brookings Institution

Herbert SimmelPresident, Consumer Coalition for

Health

Robert M. VeatchKennedy Institute for Ethics,

Georgetown

Richard W. VilterCollege of MedicineUniversity of Cincinnati

Kenneth E. WarnerSchool of Public HealthUniversity of Michigan

Richard N. WatkinsGroup Health Cooperative

Carol WeissGraduate School of EducationHarvard University

Kerr L. WhiteDeputy Director of Health SciencesRockefeller Foundation

Appendix E–List of iAcfuisors and Panel Members ● 91

Technology and the HandicappedAdvisory Panel

Daisy Tagliacozzo, ChairpersonDepartment of SociologyUniversity of Massachusetts

Miriarn K BazelonWashington, D.C

Tom BeauchampKennedy Institute. Center for BioethicsGeorgetown University

Monroe BerkowitzDisability and Health Economic

ResearchRutgers University

Henrik BlumUniverslty of California, Berkeley

Frank BoweAmerican Coalition of Citizens With

Disabilities

Jim GallagherMartha Porter Graham CenterUniversity of North Carolina

Melvin GlasserSocial Security DepartmentUnited Auto Workers

Ralf HotchkissOakland, Calif

John KimberlyYale School of Organization and

ManagementHealth Systems Management Group

LeRov P. Levitt

Jacquelin PerryRancho Los Amigos Hospital

Barbara W. SklarMount Zion Hospital

William StasonHarvard School of Public Health

Gregg VanderheidenTrace Research and Development

CenterUniversity of Wisconsin

Michael ZuloCorporate Partnership ProgramU S. Council for International Year of

Vice President for Professional Affairs Disabled PersonsMount Sinai Hospital, Chicago

Robert LeopoldDepartment of PsychiatryHospital of the University of

Pennsylvania

SCIENCE, INFORMATION, AND NATURAL

OCEANS AND ENVIRONMENT

RESOURCES DIVISION

PROGRAM

Disposal of Nuclear WastesAdvisory Panel

Hans Frauenfelder, ChairmanDepartment of PhysicsUniversity of Illinois

Seymour AbrahamsonDepartment of ZoologyUniversity of Wisconsln

Kenneth BouldingProfessorAmerican Association for the

Advancement of Science

Frank Collins0i1, Chemical, and Atomic Workers

lnternational Union

Floyd CutlerPresident, Electric Power Research

lnstitute

J William FutrellSchool of LawUniverslty of Georgia

Edward GoldbergProfessor. Scripps Institute of

OceanographyUniversity of California

William W HambletonDirector, Kansas Geological SurveyUniverslty of Kansas

G W HardiggVice President and General ManagerAdvanced Power Systems DivisionWestinghouse Electric Corp.

Harriet KeyserlingMember of the HouseState of South Carolina

Terry LashStaff ScientistNatural Resources Defense Council,

Inc

Kai Leelnstitute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of Washington

Jean MalchonPinellas County CommissionerState of Florida

Peter MontagueCenter for Environmental StudiesPrinceton University

Glen PaulsonVice President for ScienceNational Audubon Society

Howard RaiffaProfessor. John F Kennedy School of

GovernmentHarvard University

Wi]]iam A ThomasAmerican Bar Foundation

Mason WillirchVice President. Corporate Planningpacific Gas & Electric CO

Donald WodrlchDirector, Rockwell International Waste

ProgramRichland National Laboratory

Ocean Margin Drilling AdvisoryPanel

Joseph CurrayScripps Institute of Oceanography

Charles DrakeDartmouth College

James HaysColumbia University

John ImbrieBrown University

Feenan JenningsTexas A & M University

John SclaterMassachusetts Institute of Technology

John H VanAndelStanford University


Technology and OceanographyAdvisory Panel

D. James Baker, ChairmanUniversity of Washington

Tim BarnettScripps Institute of Oceanography

Frank BusbyConsultant

Charles DrakeDartmouth College

Van HolidayTracer

COMMUNICATION

Telecommunication AdvisoryPanel

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

of New York

L. E. AdamsExecutive Vice PresidentArmed Forces Communications and

Electronics Association

Roger C. AudeExecutive OfficerInternational Communications

Association

Ruth BakerAttorney at LawCohn & Marks Law Firm

K. Woodward BenekertChairman of the Board of the U.S.

Transmission SystemsInternational Telephone & Telegraph

Corp.

A. G. W. “Jack” BiddlePresident, Computers &

Communications IndustryAssociation

James B. BooeAssistant to the PresidentCommunications Workers of America

Kurt BorchardtHarvard Program on information

Resources PolicyHarvard University

Warren BrarenAssociate Director, Consumers Union

Charles D. HollisterWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Paul MaughanCOMSAT

Arthur MaxwellWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Eric Mono-ChristensenMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Worth NowlinTexas A & M University

James O’BrienFlorida State University

Marshall OrrWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Derek SpencerWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution

T. K. TreadwellTexas A & M University

Warren WoosterUniversity of Washington

AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

Willard T. CarletonDepartment of FinanceUniversity of North Carolina

Joseph V. CharykPresident, Communications Satellite

Corp.

Harry DannalsPresidentAmerican Radio Relay League

Lee L. DavenportVice President, Chief ScientistGeneral Telephone & Electronic Corp.

Francis DeRosaVice PresidentGeneral Counsel, Law and Regulatory

Affairs

William D. EnglishVice President, Satellite Business

Systems

James FellowPresidentNational Association of Educational

Broadcasting

Emanuel FthenakisPresident, American Satellite Corp.

George GraySpecial Representative for Government

RelationsNational Association of Broadcasters

Jerry GreyAdministrator for Public PolicyAmerican Institute of Aeronautics and

Astronautics

Walter R. HinchmanWalter Hinchman Associate, Inc.

Edward W. Hummers, Jr.President, Federal Communications Bar

Association

Manley IrwinProfessorWhittmore School of Business and

EconomicsUniversity of New Hampshire

Charles P. JohnsonVice President, IDCMAGeneral Data Communications

Industries, Inc.

Jo Ann KimschotResearch Associate, Common Cause

Jack KinnStaff DirectorInstitute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers

Lane KirklandPresidentAmerican Federation of Labor &

Congress of Industrial Organizations

Arthur KorffDirector of Cable Television

DepartmentInternational Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers

Norman LernerPresidentTranscom, Inc.

Richard LongExecutive DirectorNorth American Telephone Association

George MansurPresidentAeronautical Radio, Inc.

Appendix E–List Advisors and Panel Members ● 9 3

Donald C. MatthewsGeneral ExecutiveOffice of CommunicationsTelecommunications Consumer

CoalitionUnited Church of Christ

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

Billy B, OxleySenior Vice President for DistributionNational Public Radio

Edward W. PageEx officioDepartment of Computer ScienceClemson University

George E PickettExecutive Vice PresidentUSITA

Russell PipeTranslational Data Report

Ithiel De Sola PoolDepartment of Political ScienceMassachusetts institute of Technology

Paul ReardonDeputy Director, Economic Policy

CenterChamber of Commerce of the United

States

Michael RidderAssociation PresidentCommodity News Service

Bert RobertsSenior Vice PresidentMCI Telecommunications Corp.

Lawrence RobertsPresidentTelenet Communications Corp.

Robert L. SchmidtPresidentNational Cable Television Association

John ShattuckDirectorAmerican Civil Liberties Union

Samuel SimonExecutive DirectorNational Citizens Committee for

Broadcasting

Larry SingerAttorney at LawFager & Singer

John SodolskiVice PresidentElectronics Industry Association

Reinhard StammingerPresidentFuture Systems, Inc.

Bernard StrassburgPrivate Consultant

Robert SutliffRepresentative for the Governor’s

Office of New YorkChief System PlannerNew York Public Service Commission

Harry M. TrebingDirectorInstitute of Public UtilitiesGraduate School of Business

AdministrationMichigan State University

Carver L. WashburnVice President for Business

DevelopmentWestern Union Corp.

Ron WheatleyComputer and Business EquipmentManufacturers Association

Val J. WilliamsPresidentNational Association of Business and

Educational Radio

Lee WingExecutive DirectorNorth Carolina Agency for Public

TelecommunicationDepartment of Administration

Elizabeth L. YoungPresidentPublic Service Satellite Consortium

Telecommunication TechnologiesSpecial Panel

Edward W. Page, ChairmanDepartment of Computer ScienceClemson University

Paul BaranCabledata Associates

John ClarkDirector, Space Applications and

TechnologyRCA Corp.

Douglas CrombieDirectorInstitute for Telecommunication

Sciences/NTIAU.S. Department of Commerce

Burton 1. EdelsonVice President of Systems TechnologyCOMSAT Corp.

Robert K. GeigerDirector, DevelopmentMartin-Marietta Aerospace

Dean GilletteExecutive DirectorBell Telephone Laboratories

Richard G, GouldPresident

Telecommunication Systems

Richard MarstenProfessor of EngineeringThe City College of the City University

of New York

Gregory E. MastersonAssistant Technical DirectorComputer SystemsITT, Telecommunications Technology

Center

Al PaladinoDeputy Director, TOTCGTE Laboratories

Wilbur PritchardPresidentSatellite Systems Engineering, Inc.

Joe SobalaNASA Headquarters

David L. SolomonDeputy Assistant, Technical Policy and

OperationsOffice of the Secretary of Defense

Harry J. TalberthGroup LeaderCommunications Engineering, The

MITRE Corp.

National Information SystemsOverall Advisory Panel

Susan Nycum, ChairpersonAttorney at LawChickening & Gregory

Roy AmaraPresidentInstitute for the Future

Paul BaranPresidentCabledata Associates

Kent ColtonGraduate School of ManagementInstitute of Government ServiceBrigham Young University


Donald DunnEngineering-Economic Systems

DepartmentStanford University

Lawrence J. GervaisNational Vice PresidentAmerican Postal Worker; UnionAFL/CIO

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

Jeremiah GutmanAttorney at LawLevy, Gutman, Go!dberg & Kaplan

J. Robert HarcharikPresidentTYMNET, Inc

Rob KlingDepartment of Information and

Computer ScienceUniversity of California, Irvine

John C. LeGatesDirector. Program on Information

Resources PolicyHarvard University

Henry LucasComputer Applications and Information

Systems DepartmentGraduate School of Business

AdministrationNew York University

Daniel McCrackenPresidentAssociation for Computing Machinery

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

Sharon NelsonAttorney at LawConsumers Union

Phil NyborgComputer and CommunicationsIndustry Association

Russell PipeTranslational Data Report

Ithiel De Sola PoolDepartment of Political ScienceMassachusetts Institute of Technology

James RuleDepartment of SociologyState University of New York

Richard M. SchmidtAmerican Society of Newspaper Editors

Robert P SmithResearch & Development DepartmentU.S. Postal Service

Sherry TurkleSchool of Humanities and Social

SciencesMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Ron UhligManager, Business & Services PlanningBell Northern Research Lab

Jacques ValleePresident, INFOMEDIA

Carl VorlanderExecutive DirectorNational Association of State

Information Systems

Fred W. WardenDirector, Telecommunications RelationsIBM

Willis WareThe RAND Corp.

Iram WeinsteinSystem Planning Corp.

Alan F. WestinGraduate Faculties for Political ScienceColumbia University

Electronic Funds Transfer AdvisoryPanel

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

Wayne BoucherCenter for Futures ResearchGraduate School of Business

AdministrationUniversity of Southern California

Roland R. Eppley, Jr.President, Eastern States Bank Card

Association

John FisherSenior Vice PresidentFirst Bank Group of Ohio, Inc.

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

Jeremiah GutmanAttorney at LawLevy, Gutman, Goldberg & Kaplan

Jerry HoganConsumer Federation of America

Michael LevineCiti-Bank

Allen LipisPresidentElectronic Banking Incorporated

John McDonnell, Jr.Eastern Regional ManagerTYMNET, Inc.

Susan NycumAttorney at LawChickening & Gregory

William RileyGrand Island, Nebr.


Jerry SvigalIBM

Willis WareThe RAND Corp.

Bob ZimmerCounsel, Electronic Money Council

National Information SystemsTechnology Advisory Panel

Paul Baran. ChairmanPresident, Cabledata Associates

Craig FieldsSenior Program ManagerARPA

Dean GilletteExecutive DirectorSystems Research DivisionBell Telephone Laboratories

Vico HenriquesCBEMA

Lance HoffmanDepartment of Electrical, Engineering,

and Computer ScienceSchool of Engineering and Applied

ScienceGeorge Washington University

Kas KalbaPresidentKalba Bowen Associates, Inc.

Daniel McCrackenPresidentAssociation for Computing Machinery

Theodore MyerSenior ScientistBolt, Beranek and Newman

Appendix E –List of Advisors and Panel Members ● 9 5

Phil NyborgComputer and CommunicationsIndustry Association

Dorm B ParkerSenior Management Systems

ConsultantSRI International

Ron UhligManager, Business & Services PlanningBell Northern Research Labs

Frederic WithingtonArthur D Little, Inc

Paul ZurkowskiPresidentInformation Industry Association

National Crime information CenterAdvisory Panel

Arthur S Miller, ChairmanProfessor Emeritus of LawThe National Law CenterGeorge Washington University

Joe ArmstrongArmstrong Associates

Jerry BermanLegislative CounselAmerican Civil Liberties UnionWashington Office

Gerald CaplanVice ChairmanThe National Law CenterGeorge Washington University

Robert GallatiCollege of Criminal JusticeNortheastern University

Space Program Advisory Panel

Willis M. Hawkins, ChairmanSenior AdvisorLockheed Corp

Fred E BradleyDirectorAdvanced Space and Special ProjectsMcDonnell Douglas Astronautics

Sam BrownDirector, ACTION

Lance HoffmanDepartment of Electrical Engineering

and Computer ScienceSchool of Engineering and Applied

ScienceGeorge Washington University

John KennedyScientists Institute for Public

Information

Steve KolodneyExecutive DirectorSEARCH Group, inc.

Barry MahoneyVERA Institute of JusticeInner London Probation and After-

Care Service

Jeffrey A. MeldmanSloan School of ManagementMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Arthur R. MillerThe Law SchoolHarvard University

J Francis PohlausCounselNational Association for the

Advancement of Colored People


Richard Schmidt

Radio Frequency Use andManagement: Impacts From the

1979 World Administrative RadioConference Advisory Panel

Thomas E Nelson, ChairmanYakima. Wash

Jacob BeamWashington, D C.

Nolan BowieWashington. D.C

Paul DemblingWashington. D C

John M. EgerWashington. D C

James C FletcherBurroughs Corp.

Walter R HinchmanWalter Hinchman Associates

Harvey J. LevinProfessor of EconomicsHofstra University

Ithiel De Sola PoolDepartment of Political ScienceMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Raymond E SpenceAshburn, Va

M. Jon VondracekDirector of Communications

~.c Center for Strategic and InternationalAmerican Society of Newspaper EditG,~ StudiesCarl VorlanderExecutive DirectorNational Association for State

Information Systems

[ram WeinsteinSystems Planning Corp

Elyce ZenoffThe National Law CenterThe George Washington University

SPACE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

John G. BurkeDepartment of HistoryUniversity of California

Hal Clement (Harry Stubs)Author

Terry Dawson, JrAhernate & ObserverThe Analytic Sciences Corp

Hugh DownsBroadcaster. American Broadcasting

co ,

Grover M. YowellAlexandria, Va

Daniel J. FinkSenior Vice PresidentCorporate Planning & DevelopmentGeneral Electric Co.

Arnold FrutkinDirectorMarket DevelopmentPacific-Canada DivisionThe Burroughs Corp


Eilene GallowayHonorary DirectorInternational Institute of Space LawInternational Astronautical Federation

Ivan GettingConsultant

Jerry GreyAdministrator of Public PolicyAmerican Institute of Astronautics and

Aeronautics

Ida R. HoosResearch SociologistSpace Sciences Laboratory

James A, LovellPresidentFisk Telephone Systems, Inc.

Airport and Air Traffic ControlAdvisory Panel

Raymond L. Bisplinghoff, ChairmanVice President & Director of Research

& DevelopmentTyco LaboratoriesSelor D. Browne Associates

Jesse BorthwickExecutive DirectorNational Association of Noise Control

Officials

Jack EndersPresidentFlight Safety Foundation, Inc.

Robert R. EverettPresident, The MITRE Corp.

William T. HardakerAssistant Vice President, Air

Navigation/Traffic ControlAir Transport Association

Robert J. HermannAssistant Secretary of the Air ForceResearch, Development & Logistics

William Horn, Jr.National Business Aircraft Association,

Inc.

Jack D, HowellAir Line Pilots Association, Inc.

Victor J. KayneAircraft Owners and Pilots Association

Michael B. McElroyAbbot Lawrence Retch Professor of

Atmospheric ChemistryCenter for Earth & Planetary Physics

James A. MichenerAuthor

Bernard J. O’KeefeChairman & Chief Executive OfficerEG&G, inc.

Thomas O. PainePresident and Chief Operating OfficerNorthrop Corp.

Merton J. PeckChairmanDepartment of EconomicsYale University

Charles SheldonSenior SpecialistSpace & TransportationCongressional Research Service

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

Michael E, LevineCalifornia Institute of Technology

Janet St. MarkPresidentSMS Associates

Clifton A. MooreGeneral ManagerCity of Los Angeles, Department of

Airports

Robert E. PoliPresidentProfessional Air Traffic Controllers

Association

Gilbert F, QuinbyFort Washington, Pa.

David S. StemplerAirline Passengers Association

Richard W. TaylorVice PresidentBoeing Commercial Airplanes Co.

David ThomasAnnandale. Va

Automobile AssessmentAdvisory Panel

R. Eugene Goodson, ChairmanInstitute for Interdisciplinary Engineering

StudiesPurdue University

Martin Summerfie]dPresidentPrinceton Combustion Research

Laboratories, Inc.

Verner E. SuomiProfessorSpace Science & Engineering CenterUniversity of Wisconsin

Anthony F, C. WallaceProfessor, Department of AnthropologyUniversity of Pennsylvania

Roy A. WelchProfessor, Department of GeographyUniversity of Georgia

William G. AgnewTechnical DirectorGeneral Motors Research Laboratories

Leo BlatzExecutive OfficerESSO Inter-America, Inc.

John H, ByrneChairman of the BoardGEICO and Affiliates

B. J. Campbell (resigned)Highway Safety Research CenterUniversity of North Carolina

Frank W. Davis, Jr.Transportation CenterUniversity of Tennessee

Clarence Ditlow, IIICenter for Auto Safety (resigned)

Lament EltingeDirector of ResearchEaton Corp. Research Center

Norman EmersonExecutive Assistant to the MayorCity of Los Angeles

William Haddon, Jr.PresidentInsurance Institute for Highway Safety

(resigned)

Kent JoscelynHighway Safety Research InstituteUniversity of Michigan

Appendix E–List of Advisors and Panel Member ● 97

Joshua MenkesNational Science Foundation

Wilfred OwenThe Brookings Institution

Archie H. RichardsonPresidentAuto Owners Action Council

Angela RooneyUpper Northeast Coordinating Coun

Richard H. ShacksonAssistant DirectorTransportation Energy Conservation

Policy

S. Fred SingerProfessor of Environmental SciencesUniversity of Virginia

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

House

Howard YoungUnited Auto Workers

Advanced Group Rapid TransiAdvisory Panel

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

J. Edward AndersonDirector, Industrial EngineeringUniversity of Minnesota

Robert A. BurcoPresidentPublic Policy Research Associates

Catherine BurkeSchool of Public AdministrationUniversity of Southern California

Lawrence DallamDirector of Transportation PlanningTwin Cities Metropolitan Council

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

Douglas

George KramblesExecutive DirectorChicago Transit Authority

Robert MakofskiApplied Physics LaboratoryThe Johns Hopkins University

Impact of Advanced Air TransportTechnology Advisory Panel

Robert W. Simpson, ChairmanDirector, Flight Transportation

LaboratoryMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Jane H BartlettPresident, Arlington League of Women

Voters

Ray E, BatesVice President, Douglas Aircraft Co.

Norman BradburnNational Opinion Research Center

Frederick BradleyVice President, Citibank, N.A.

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

Secor D. BrowneSecor D. Browne Associates, Inc.

F. A. ClevelandVice President, EngineeringLockheed Corp.

Elwood T. DriverVice ChairmanNational Transportation Safety Board

James FletcherBurroughs Corp.

Charles R. Foster (Observer)Associate Administrator for Aviation

AdministrationFederal Aviation Administration

James J. KramerAssociate Administrator for Aeronautics

and Space TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space

Administration

William K. ReillyPresident, Conservation Foundation

David S. StemplerAirline Passengers Association, Inc.

Janet St. MarkPresident, SMS Associates

John WildExecutive DirectorNational Transportation Policy Study

Commission

Holden W, WithingtonVice President, EngineeringBoeing Commercial Airplane Co.

Michael YarymovychVice President, EngineeringRockwell International

Advanced High-Speed AircraftWorking Group

Richard A!paghChief. Nonhighway Transportation

BranchDepartment of Energy

Raymond A. AusrotasFlight Transportation LaboratoryMassachusetts institute of Technology

Jane H, BartlettPresident, Arlington League of Women

Voters

Frederick BradleyVice PresidentCitibank, N.A.

David BrewsterBabcock and Schmid Associates, Inc.Arlington League of Women Voters

Secor D. BrowneSecor D. Browne Associates, Inc

Tulinda DeeganDirector, Government RelationsCommuter Airlines Association of

America

Marcy FannonRetired. Formerly Vice PresidentEastern Airlines

Richard D FitzsimmonsDirector, Advanced Program PlanningDouglas Aircraft Co.

Joseph M. FugerePresident, Pilgrim Airlines

Stanley GreenGeneral Aviation Manufacturers

Association

Jack 1. HopeGeneral Manager, International Engine

GroupGeneral Electric Co.

Harry W. JohnsonGeneral Aviation OfficeNASA Headquarters

Adib KanafaniInstitute of Transportation StudiesUniversity of California

William SensPratt and Whitney Engine Co.

Armand Siga!laChief, Technology Preliminary DesignBoeing Commercial Airplane Co.


Robert W. SimpsonDirector, Flight Transportation

LaboratoryMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Davis S. StemplerAirline Passengers Association, Inc

Janet St. MarkPresident, SMS Associates, Inc

Barney VierlingRetired, Formerly with the U.S. SST

Program Manager

John WeslerActing Director for Environment and

EnergyFederal Aviation Administration Low

Density Working Group

Shirley YbarraSmat, Helliesen, and Eichner

Air Cargo Working Group

Keith G. BradyManager, Innovative Concepts

DevelopmentBoeing Commercial Airplane Co.

Douglas A. FisherAssistant General ManagerEmery Air Freight

Joel H. FisherDirector and Washington CounselSeaboard World Airlines

E. R. HichensManager, Traffic SystemsSears Roebuck and Co.

William H. KuhlmanDouglas Aircraft Co.

Dennis J. MarshallManager, Development and Operatior

EngineeringFederal Express Corp.

William T. MikolowskyManager, Operation Research

DepartmentLockheed Georgia Co.

George A. PasquetScott Air Force Base

William F, PieperDirector, Technology DevelopmentFlying Tiger Line

Ray SiewertTechnical Specialists for Aeronautical

TechnologyPentagon

Nawal K, TanejaMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Matthew M. WinstonNASA Langley Research Center

Shirley YbarraSimat, Helliesen, and Eichner

Automobile Fuel EfficiencyAdvisory Panel

Michael J. Rabins. ChairmanMechanical Engineering DepartmentWayne State University

Maudine R. CooperAssistant Vice President for Public

PolicyNational Urban League, Inc.

John FerronExecutive DirectorResearch & Dealership Operations

GroupNational Automobile Dealers

Association

Donald FriedmanPresident, Minicars, Inc.

Herbert FuhrmanNational Institute for Automobile

Service Excellence

James M. GillThe Ethyl Corp.

R. Eugene GoodsonProfessorInstitute for Interdisciplinary Engineering

StudiesPurdue University

Charles M. HeinenFormer DirectorResearch & Materials EngineeringChrysler Corp.

John B. HeywoodProfessorMassachusetts Institute of Technology

John HoldenEnergy PlanningFord Motor Co.

Mary Ann KellerVice PresidentPaine, Webber, Mitchell & Hutchins

Robert D. KnollConsumers Union

Paul LarsenChief EngineerGMC Truck and Coach Division

Kenneth OrskiVice PresidentGerman Marshall Fund of the United

States

Howard YoungUnited Auto WorkersSolidarity House

NATIONAL R&D PRIORITIES AND POLICIES

National Laboratories AdvisoryPanel

Leo Goldberg, ChairmanDirector, AmericasKitt Peak National Observatory

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

Commission

Richard S. Berry Harvey BrooksProfessor Benjamin Pierce Professor ofFearle Chemistry Laboratory Technology and Public PolicyUniversity of Chicago Airken Computation Lab

Lewis M. Branscomb Harvard University

Vice President & Chief Scientist Solomon J. BuchsbaumIBM Corp. Executive Vice President, Customer

ServiceBell Telephone Laboratories

Appendix E– List of Advisors and Panel Member ● 99

Robert A CharpiePresident, Cabot Corp.

Donald W CollierSenior Vice President, Corporate

StrategyBorg-Warner Corp.

Martin GolandPresident. Southwest

Jerry GreyPrivate Consultant

Donald F, Hornig

Research Institute

Director, Interdisciplinary Programs inPublic Health

Harvard University School of PublicHealth

Richard M KrauseDirectorNational Institute of Allergy and

Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of Health

Claire NaderPrivate Consultant

Technological Innovation andHealth, Safety, and Environmental

Regulations Advisory Panel

Donald F Hornig, ChairmanDirector, Interdisciplinary Programs in

Public HealthHarvard University School of Public

Health

John R BartlitState ChairmanNew Mexico Citizens for Clean Air &

Water

Joseph B. BidwellExecutive DirectorGeneral Motors Research Laboratory

John R. BlizzardManager, Consumer Affairs, Corning

Glass CorpVice Chairman, Environmental Industry

Council

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

David J FogartySenior Vice PresidentSouthern California Edison Co

Victor H. FrankelDepartment of OrthopedicsUniversity of Washington

Herbert 1. FusfeldDirector, Center for Science &

Technology PolicyGraduate School of Public

AdministrationNew York University

R. Eugene GoodsonDirector, Institute for Interdisciplinary

Engineering StudiesPurdue University

Peter Barton HuttCovington and Burling

Joseph T. LingVice President for Environmental

Engineering and Pollution Control3M Co.

Claire NaderPrivate Consultant

Roger C. NellDirector. Division of Humanities and

Social SciencesCalifornia Institute of Technology

Frederick J RarigResearch LaboratoryRohm and Haas Co.

Russell E Train, PresidentWorld Wildlife Fund. Inc.

Charles H TupperDirector. Safety DepartmentInternational Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers

Jacqueline WarrenNatural Resources Defense Council

James W YoungManager of Regulatory AffairsZoecon Corp

John HammockExecutive DirectorACCION International

Mary HoughtonExecutive Vice PresidentSouth Shore National Bank

Byron KennardCommunity Organizer

David LawrenceChairman of the Executive CommitteeBoettcher & Co

William NicosonCounsel

Lynn PrestonActing Head, Problem Analysis GroupNational Science Foundation

Lola RedfordPresident. Consumer Action Now

Constantine Safilios-RothschildProfessor of Human DevelopmentPennsylvania State University

Steve SerflingPresident. Solar Aqua Systems, Inc.

Martha StuartPresidentMartha Stuart Communications, lnc

Richard P TaubAssociate Professor & Chairman of

Public AffairsUniversity of Chicago

Sean Wellesley-MillerAssistant Professor of Environmental

ControlMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Appropriate Technology

Technology for Local DevelopmentTask Force

Advisory Panel Lola Redford, ChairpersonPresident, Consumer Action Now

Dan Tessler, ChairmanTessler & Cloherty, Inc. Tom Bender

Freelance Writer, Energy & TechnologyRoger BlobaumPresident Robert S BrowneRoger Blobaum and Associates

George BurrillCo-DirectorCenter for Studies in Food Self-

Sufficiency

Patricia ClohertyPresidentTessler & Cloherty, lnc

Director. President of the BoardBlack Economic Research Center

Wilson ClarkEnergy AdvisorThe Governor’s OfficeState of California

Kye CochranCoordinator. Alternative Energy

Resources Organization


John ColeAuthor and Contributing Editor

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

Nicholas Georgescu-RoegenDistinguished Professor EmeritusVanderbilt University

Jerome GoldsteinEditor & Publisher, The J. G. Press,

Inc.

Hazel HendersonEx officioMember, Technology Assessment

Advisory Council of OTA

Karl HessAuthor, Community Technology

(Harper & Row)

Joyce A. HughesProfessor of LawNorthwestern University School of Law

Byron KennardEx officioCommunity Organizer

Elizabeth KingmanConsultant in Energy Communication

Merle LefkoffEx officioSenior PartnerEplan, Roark, Lefkoff and Allen

(ERLA)

Arthur S. ObermayerEx officioPresident, Chairman of the BoardMOLECULON Research Corp.

Thomas SheridanProfessor of Engineering and Applied

PsychologyMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Henryk SkolimowskiProfessor of Philosophy, Department of

HumanitiesCollege of EngineeringUniversity of Michigan

Barry SteinPresidentGoodmeasure, Inc.

Charles B. TisdaleFederal CoordinatorCities in Schools Program

Nancy Jack ToddCo-DirectorThe New Alchemy Institute

Appendix F

Technology Assessment Act of 1972

P u b l i c L a w 9 2 - 4 8 49 2 n d C o n g r e s s , H. R. 10243

October 13, 1972

A n A r t

To establish an Offlee of Technology Assessment for the C’mlgrws as an aid inthe identitlcation and consideration of existing and probahle impacts of tech-nological application ; to amend the >“ational Science Foundation Act of1950; and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the ,’$enate and 170use of A’epreaentativea of t?wL’nited ~$’tates o America in Congreaa as~ernbled, TM this Act rna,y

4be cited as the” echnology ~~ssessment Act of 1972”.

PINDI.N~S AND DECI..iR.\TION OF PURPOSE

SEC. 2. The Congress hereby finds and declares that:(a) As technology rontinues to change and expand rapidly, its

applications are—(1) large and growing in scale; and(2) increasingly extensii’e, per~’asi}e, and critical in their

impact, beneficial tinri adt’erse, on the n a t u r a l a n d socialen~ironrnent.

(b) Tllerefare, it is essentitll thtit, to the fullest extent possible. the~.o~~sequences of technologies] Nppl icat ions be ~nt icipated, understood,tind considered in determination of puhl ic pvl icy on existing and+mergillg nnt ionnl problems.

(c) The (’ol]gress further finds that:( 1 ) tlie Federnl n~encies presently lwponsible directly to the

( ‘otlgress iire Ilot deslglled to provide tl]e legislative branch withadequ~lte and t i mel~’ in form~t ion. independently developed,rela? in:~ to tile potential impact of tech nolcgica] nppl icat ions,Nnd

(2) tile preset)t mech}illisms of the (’ongI~ss do not and are nottiesig]~ed to prey’ide the Iegisli{t ii.e bri~]l~h with such information.

( d ) .lccordil~~lj, it is ne$essary for the (’(n~ress t*( 1 ) equip itself with new and effertl~’e rneuns for securing

(’ompete]]t, u]~hiased information concerning the ph~’sical, bio-logical, ecm]omic, sfwinl, ilnd polit ic;~l effects of such applications;iln d

(Y) utilize this informtition, whenever appropriate, as onefactcr il) the le~isltltive wwssment of matters pending before the( ‘ongress, p~irticu!crlj in those instances ~~”here the Federal Gov-ertl nw~it n);Ij’ be CI1l led upon to consider support for. or manage-nwnt or regu 1}1 t ion of. tech no]ogic:l 1 app] icnt ions.

: ;Et. :3. ( 8 ) III u{mrdu])ct~ with the findings and declaration of pur-post’ i n stwt iol] ~. t }Iert. is her(~by cleated the office of Technolo ..issessmel]t ( hereil]after referred to as the “Office”) which shall E\\-it hi]l UI~d ]eslml}sible to t ht~ legislat i J.P brunch of the (government.

(b) TINI OfficP shall cm~sist of a Technology Assessment Board( hereinafter referred to M the bb130nrd’-) which shall formulate andpron~l]l~att~ tht~ policiw of th~ OfficP, and a. I)irector who shall carryi)llt sllc]l 1~:)1 icies and n(lm inist~r the op~rat]ons of thy Office.

(c) ‘l%’ basic flll~ction of t}le Office shall be to provide twrl-y indica-t Iol\s of t tw probable bel]eficlal and nd~’erse impacts of the applica-t ions of ttwhnoiogs’ and to develop other coordinnt~ information whichn]ay assist tht> (’oIIgIvss. II) cnrr?”ing mlt sIlch f]l]wtion, the OfficvSt)n 11 :

( 1 ) ldent ifj’ exist II\g or ])rohnhl~ i mpncts of ttwllnf]log,v orttwhnological programs;

Teohnolo~Ass essment Aotof 1972.

TeohnologA SS essmentBoard.

Duti es.

101

Pub. bW 92-48486 STAT. 798

- 2 - Oc tobe r 13 , 1972

Infomatl O%a v a i l a b i l i t y .

81 stat. 54.

Meaberahip.

Vaoarmi es.

Chairman andvloe chai man.

(2) where post)le, ascertain cause-a] ~d-effect relationships:(3) identify alternative technological methods of implementing

specific programs;(4) identify alternative programs for achieving requisite

goals;(5) make estimates and comparisons of the impacts of alterna-

t ive methods and pro=~ams;(6) present findings of completed analyses h the appropriate

!egislnti%-e tiutlwritles:.(7) identify areas where additional research or data collection

is required to provide adequate support for the assessments andeatimates described in paragraph ( 1 ) through ( 5 ) of this sub-section; and

(8) undertake such additional associated activities as theappropriate author$les specified under subsection (d) ma,y direct.

(d) Assessment activkles undertaken by the Office may be initiatedilpon the request of:

(1) the chairman of any standing, special, or select committeeof either House of the Congress, or of an}’ joint committee ofthe Congress, acting for himself or at the request of the rankingminorit~’ member or a majority of the committee members;

(2) the Board; or(3) the Director. in consultation m-ith the Board.

(e) .ks.essments made b? the Office, il~cltlding information, sur-veys, studies. reports. and findings related thereto, shall be madeavailable to the initiating committee or other appropriate commit-tees of the Congress. In addition, anv such information, surveys.studies. reports, and findings produced by the Office may be madeti}viilable to the public exce t where-

Y(1) to do w would vio ate security statutes: or(2) the Board considers it necessary or advisable to withhold

such information in accordance with one or more of the numberedparagraphs in section 55Z?(b) of title 5, I’nited States Code.

TECHh-OLOOY A S S E S S M E N T ROARD

SEC. 4. (a) The Board shall consist of thirteen members as follows:( 1 ) six Members of the Senxtcq appointed by the President

pm tempore of the Senate, three from the majority party andthm from the minority party;

(2 six Members of the House of Representatives appointed byAthe ~ker of the House of Representatives, three from the

majority party and three from the minority party; and(3) the Director, who shall not be a voting member.

(b) T“acancies in the membership of the Board shail not affect thepower of the remainin members to execute the functions of the Board

%and shall be filled in t e same manner as in the case of the original}Ippointment.

(c) The Board shall select a chairman and a vice chairman from~mong its members at the beginning of each Congress. The vice chair-man shall act in the place and stead of the chairman in the absence ofthe chairman. The chairmanship and the vice chairmanship shallalti~ati between the S~nate and the Houw of Representatives witheach Congreas. The chairman during each even-numbered Congressshall be selected by the 3fembera of the House of Representatives onthe Board from among their number. The vice ch~irmnn dnring each

Oc tobe r 13 , 1972 - 3 - P u b . L a w 9 2 - 4 8 4 86 sTA~ ,%●

( ‘ongress shall be t.hosen 111 the same ma]mer fro)ll that HOU.W ofCongress other than the Holwe of C’ongress of which the chairman isa 31ember.

(d) The Board is authorized to sit and act at such places and timesduring the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of Congreas, andupon a vote of a majority’ of its members. to require by subpena orotherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of suchbooks. papers, and documents, to administer such oaths and affirma-tions, to take such testlmrm}.. to procure such -printing and binding,and to make such expenditures. as it deems advwable. The Board maymake such rules respecting its organization and procedures as it deemsneressary, except that no recommendation dlall be reported from theBoard unl,w a majority of the Board assent. Subpens,a ma,v be issuedo~-er the signature of the rha irman of the Board or of an~’ voting mem-her designated b~’ him or by the Board, and may be wrved by suchperson or persons as may be designated by such chairman or member.The chairman of the Board or an~: ~’oting member therenf may~dminister o~tl~s or affirmations to wltnwses.

I) IRI.:( “D IR \\’l) l) F. PI-TI- I) IR}:(-T( )1{

S}:(’. 3. ( a ) The 1 )i rector of t h e OfiiCII of Techllolog~” .Maessment+a]l be appointed b~. th~ Board and shall sert-e for ~ term of sixt“ea[s unless sooner r~nwl”ed by the Board. He shall receive basic pay;it the rate pro~-ided for level III of the F.xecut ive Schedllle underwction 5.314 of title .5, I_-n ited states Code.

(b) In addition to the powers and duties \-ested in him b}” this Act.the Director shall exercise such powers and dutips M ma}- be delegatedto him by the Board.

(c) ‘rhe Director ma}. appoint with the approval of the Board. al)eputy Director who shall perform such functions as the Directormav prescribe and WI]O shall be .U, ting Director during the absence(jr incapacity, of the Director or in the event of n vacancy in the o5ceof Director. The Ihput~, Director shall recei~”e basic pa]- at the rateprof.ided for level 11’ of the F;xecutive Schedllle Ilnder section 5315 oftitle ,5. I’nited States Code.

(d) Seitller the Director nor the Deput}’ I)irector shal] engage inimy other business, vocation, or employment than that of serving assuch Director or De uty Director, as the case may be; nor shall theDirwtor or Deputy fiirector, except with the approval of the Board,hold anv office in, or act in anv ca acity for. ally or~nizntion. agency,or institution with which the 8fire mrike.s nn~” contratt o r o t h e rnrrangernent under this .Ict.

.\rrHORrrv Im. mm i }FFI{T;

S E C. 6. (a) The Office shall ha}.e the nllthorit~-l withi]l tbr limits ofti}’ailable appropriations, to do all things necessary to carry out thel)rovlsions of this .\rt. including. but without being limited to. the>t ut}]ority t~

(1) make full IN, of competent person]]el nnd organizationsoutside the OffiCe. public or prl~.ate, and form specinl ad hoct~sk forces or make other arrangements when approprintc;

(2) ~nter into contracts or other rtrrangements as m~y be neces-sary for the conduct of the work of the ?fice with any ngencyor i nstr~lmentnlitv of the l-n itwl .Stntes, w]tl~ :]]]}- .Stntp, territory,

Meet lnge.

Subpena.

Appointment.

Canpensation.

83 Stat. 863.

Rnploymentrestriction.

Contmcts.

P u b . L a w 9 2 - 4 8 4 - 4 - O c t o b e r 1 3 , 1 9 7 2 O c t o b e r 1 3 , 1 9 7 2 - 5 -00 =JIA1 . Q-

(Jr posstaIoI~ or rtIIv po]lt Ical SIIbd I \.lsI 01) t IIt, reef, or with RUV

00 stat. 499;93 stat. 1 9 0 .

Reootikeepl~

Agenoyo oope mti on.

Perllonneldetai 1.

Meinberehip.

. .person, firm, assoc~at ion, c{)rpornt Ion, or educat ionul institution,\$” Ith or wlt }Iollt re I mbu rst,rn~,nt, wit }lollt pertormrrnce or othertxmrls, and wlthol]t regard to wction :11’~)fl of the Re\-ised Statutes(41 [“.s.(’. :)) :

(3) make ad~’ance. prl)grt’ss. and other pa}ments which relat~to technology mwssrnent w]thout regrtrcl t o t h e pro~. isions o fsection 364H of the Rev]sed Statutes ( 31 (“. S. C’. .529) ;

(+) accept and utilize the services of voluntary and uncompen-sated personnel necessary for the conduct of the work of the Officennd prot’lde trunsportatwn and subsistence m authorized bysection 5703 of t]tle 5, l-nited States (’ode, for persons ser~-ingwithout compensation;

(5) acquire by purchase, lease, loan, or gift, imd hold and dis-pose of by sale, lease, or loan. real aud personal property of allkinds nece.csar)’ for or rmultlng froru the exercise of authoritygranted by this .Act; und

(6) prescribe such rules and r~~ulations w it deems necessarygovernin g the operation and organlzrrtion of the Wice.

(b) Contractors and other pnrties entering into contracts ~ind othertirrangernents under this sect itm which in~-ol \e costs to the (io~’ernmentshall maintain such books and related records as wi II faci [itate an effec -tl~’e audit in such detail and m such maru]er as shall be prescribed bythe Office, and such books and records ( ti)d related dcxunlents andpapers) shall be available to the Wliee and the (’ornptrollcr Generalof the L“nited States, or an~. of their dul}’ authorized reprcsentati~-es,for the urpose of audit and-examination.

(c) fhe Office, m carrying out ther

rovlsions of this .tct, shall not,Itself. operate any laboratories. pilot p ants, or test facilities

(d) The (Mice is authorized to secure directly from any executive(iepa rtment or agency information, suggestions, estimates, statistics,and technical asmstance for the pur

rse of carrying out its functions

under this .ict. Each such executive epartment or agency shall furnishtl]e Information, sug(~est Ions, es t imates . statistic=. and te{hnicalw+wstance directly to t\e (Mice upon its request.

( ~ ) On request of the (Mice, the head of an}’ exccutl~e department orIlgerlcy. nlaJ- detail. with or without relmbumement. nn]’ of its person-]iel to assist the Office in carrying out Its functions under this .~et.

(f) The Director shall. in accordance w]th such policles M the Boardshall prewrlbe. a~)point and fix the cotnpensat Ion of sl]ch ‘personnel rtslna~. be necessary to rarry out the provisions of this .\ct.

I:sT.t81.lSH3fE5’T ~ ~F Tfl E TECH >-OLOOY .lSSES83fE3”T ADI’160RY [“l)L_>-CIL

~w. 7. ( a ) The ~ Mire shall e.stabllsh a T e c h n o l o g y .lsw+sment.ldii~ry ( ‘f~ulwil ( herell~after rpferred to as tile ‘$( ‘ounr]l ”” ). Tile(’ourwl 1 shall he r{mllmwd of the followln~ t.~velve members:

( 1 ) ten memhers ~rom the publ]r. to be ap]>Olntf’d by the BoaId.iiho shall be pelxons eminent m one or more fields of the l)h~’sical.blolcygcal. or ~(jclal sciences or engineering or expf, rienced In theadrnln )st rat]{)n of tech nol(}glral art I \lt lPS, or who mnv be ju(lg~’d(Iuill ifiwl on t Ilf’ hasis nf cnnt rlhllt Ions madf, to fy]llrat ii)lla] ,)l. pIIij.

1 ic ~(t l~lt]w:(2) tlrf (’comptroller Genera]: and(3) the Dirertor of the [ ‘n]]gressirmal Ilesearrh Sery]ce of the

l.ihrnry of (’ongrew.

(1) ) ‘1’Iw ( ‘o(iti,il, (] N)l] rwluest bl the Board, slIall-( 1 ) re~”iew tin d’ make recommendations to the Board on activ-

it~es undertaken by tl]e Office or on the initiation thereof inaccordanc~ with section :}(d) :

(~) review and make recommendations h the Board on thetindings of anJ’ asswsment made b~’ or for the Office; and

(3) undertake such add itional relatwi tasks }JS the Board maydlrw=t.

( c ) The Council, by majority vote, shall elect from its members}Lppointed under subsection ( a ) ( I ) of this section a Chairman and a\ ice L’l]airman, who shall serve for such time and under such condi-tions as the (’ouncil may prescribe. In the absence of the Chairman, orin the event of his incapacity, the ~“im Chairman shall act as(’hairman.

(d) The term of oflice of each member of the Council appointedunder subsection (a) ( 1 ) shall be four years except that any suchmember appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expmationof the term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointedfor the remainder of such term. X-o person shall be appointid a member{~f the council under subwction ( a ) ( 1 ) more than twice. Terms of themembers appointed under subsection ( a ) ( 1 ) shall be stag ered so as

ito establish a rotating merribersh~p according to such met od as theJJoard may devise.

(e) (1) The mcnl~rs of the t’oyllcil other than those appointedl~nder subsection ( a ) ( 1 ) shall recel ~.e no pa~’ for their services asrnernbers of the Council. but shall be allowed necessary tra~’el expenses

~ or, )n the alternwt]~e, rnilea~w for use of prliatel} owned ~ehicl~and a per diem in Ileu of subsistence at not to exceed the rate prescribedIn sect Ions 5702 and ~’io~ of title 5. I-nited St*tes Code), and othernecessarl expenses incurred by them in the performance of duties~.ested in the Council. without regard to the pro~.isions of subchapter 1of chapter .-)7 and section .5731 of titlv .5. I-nited States Cl&, and regula-t ions promulgated thereu]~der.

(~) The members of the Co(lnci] appointed under subjection (a) (1)shrill recei t.e compensation for each da} engaged in the actual per-formar~ce of duties \ested ir~ the Council at rates of pay not in excesst~f the daill. eclui~,alent of the hlvhest rate of basic pa~’ set forth in theGner-a] Schedule of sect ion .t.%?~(a ) of title 5, [-nited States Code.and in addition shall be rei mbllrsed for travel. sllbsistence. and other]lecc.swtrv e~penses irl t+c m~ n ner- pro~-lded for other members of the(’ollncil llnrler paragrttph ( 1 ) of this suhswtion.

[7_lLIZAl”10S (IF ‘[’HE I. IBRARY ( )}- ( ‘O X’(;RESS

.<Fx. K ( a ) TO c>arr\. out the objtwt I ~es of this .Ict, the I.ibmririn of( ‘ougress is authorizeii to make a~-ailable to the office surh services and,(sslstanre of the Corlgressiorml Rwearrh Ser\”ice as may be appropri -nte and feasible.

(b) Such .+r%”im ard assist~nc’e nmde a~ri~lable to the (Mice shallIIIC1 u(de, but uot be Iim ited to, Nll of the services and assistance whicht i l e (’ongrYssionN] ~esear. ch ~ervlce IS nt}wrv.-ise a u t h o r i z e d t o pro-

\. I de t o the (Tongrwjs.

( c ) Sothing in this w)tioli shall alter <Jt tnodif~, anv services orI r-.ponsibl I it ies, other t hrrn t hose performpd for the OfR;e, which t 11P( “on~messinnnl Re.serrnh +rj i(e ~l]]der lrr w performs for or on hehrrlf

Duties.

Chairman andVioe Chal nman.

Term ofof fioe.

Tmvel expene es.

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

Zompen9ati on.

86 STAT. 802 Pub. biW 92-484 - 6 - O c t o b e r 1 3 , 1 9 7 2

Soi entifio‘programs,rim ing.92 Stat. 360.

64 Stat. 156;32 Stat. 365.42 USC 1873.

of the (’ongresa. “1’lw librarian is, however, >Iutl)orized to establishwithin the Congressional Research Ser}. ice such additional divisions,groups, or other orgnnizaticmal entities as may be necessary to carry{~ut the purpose of this .4ct.

(d) Servmes rmd assistance made av~ilable to the CMice hy the Con-gressional Resenrch service in accordance w-ith this section may beprovided with or without reimbursement from funds of the Otlice, asngreed upon by thv Board and the I.ibraritin of Congress.

L-TILIZATIOX- OF THE ( 3 E\-}:RAL ACCot”X-TIN”(; ( )FFI(.P’

SM. 9. (a) Financial and administrative services (including thoser~]ated to budgeting. accounting. financial reporting, personnel, andprocurement) and such other ser\’ices as may be appropriat~ shall beprovided the Office by the General Accounting Office.

(b) Such services and assistance to the Office shall include, but notbe limit~d to, all ,of the ae,rvices and assistance which the ~ene~l.~ccountmg Office 1s otherwise authorized to provide to the Congress.

(c) Sothing in this section shall alter or modif~’ any serwces orresponsibilities. other than those performed for the Office, which the(lenernl Accounting Otlice under law performs for or on behalf of t}w(’on ress.

(~) Ser}-icvs and a=istance made a\ailable to the office b.v the Gen-eral Accounting (Mice in accordance with this section may h pro}’ided\\-ith or without reimbu~ment from funds of the ofikw. as ngreedIIpon by the Board and the Comptroller Gneral.

( ’ (X )IU)INATIOS- 1$’ITH TIIE NATIOSAL SCI}:>’{”E H IL- X” DATIOX

SEC. 10. (a) The (Mice shall maintain a continuing liaison w“ith the>“ational Science Foundation with respect&

(1) grants and contracts formulated or activated by the Foun-dation which are for purposes of technology assessment; and

(!2) the romotion of coordination inareasof technology aasess-YIment, and t e avoidance of unnecesa ry duplication or overlapping

of research activities in the development of technology’ assessmenttechniques and pro rams.

‘?(b) Section 3(b) of t ~e National Science Foundation Act of 1950,M amended (42 U.S.C. 1862(b) ), is amended to read as follows:

“(b) The E’oundation is authorized to initiate and support specificscientific activities in connection with mutters relating to internationalcfwperatiol~, national security, and the effects of scientific applicationsllpon society bj- making contracts or other arrangements (includinggrants, loans and ~thel. forms of assistance) fo r t he conduct of suchactiviti~. Mien initinted or supported pursuant to requests made byany other Federal department or agwcy, including the Office of Tech-IIolog~’ Assessment, such activities shall be financed whenever feasiblefrom funds trnmsferred to the Foundation by the requesting official asprovided in section 14( ), and any” such activities shall be unclassified

fitl)d shall be identified ~. the Foundation as heing undertaken at therequest of the tipprnprinte otlicial. ”’

. \ N>-~.4L REP! IRT

SE(. 11. The Ofliw shn]l submit to the (’ongress WI wnual report%hich shall include. b~lt not br 1 imitwl to. an v~”aluation of technologyiwwsme]lt techniques nnd identi ticat ion, insofar w may be feasible.of twllnologic~l arvas tind programs requiring futurw anal?’sis. .Suchr e p o r t s h r i l l be sllbmittvd not inter than 31a rch 1.“) of each yetir.

O c t o b e r 1 3 , 1 9 7 2 - 7 - P u b . L a w 9 2 - 4 8 4 86 STAT ~o~.

.43TROPXUATION8

SEC. 12. (a) To enable the 05ce to carry out iti powers and duties,there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Office, out of anymoney in the Treasury not otherwise$5,000,000 in the aggregate for the two L

a propmati, not to exceed1 years ending June 80,

1973, and June 30,1974, and thereafter suchsums as may be necessa .(b) Appropriations made pursuant to the authority rovided?’n

subsection (a) shall remain available for obligation For expendi-ture% or for ob!i

x“oil m periods asticn a~d ~R&tGm fOr ~~C~ ~~.

may be specifi in the Act making such appropmatlons.Appr~ved O c t o b e r 1 3 , 1972.

LEGISLATIVE KfSTORY:

HOUSE REPf)RTs: No. 92469 (Cam. on Soienoe and Astmnautios) endNo. 92.1436 (Caren. of Conferex?ae).

SENATE REPORT N o . 9 2 - 1 1 2 3 (Comn. on Rules and Adn lrdstratlon).2ONGRFSS1ONAI, RECORD, vol. 118 ( 1972) :

Feb. 8, ooneldered and passed House.Sept.14, considered and passed Senate, amended.S ept .22, S crate agreed to eonferenoe repoti.Oot. 4, Houe e agreed to oonferenoe report.

o

Annual Report to the Congress for 1980 - Princeton University

Documents

Transcript of Annual Report to the Congress for 1980 - Princeton University