Among the first questions which occur to a scientist who has decided to concern himself with the potential dangers posed by a rapidly developing technology are: (1) How effective is the Federal Executive's enormous and often distinguished science-advisory establishment in helping bring about rational decision making for technology? and (2) how effective in comparison can individual or small groups of independent scientists be in affecting crucial decisions by taking the issues to the public? In a number of case studies we have found: (1) In cases where an Executive Agency has large political or bureaucratic interests at stake, unfavorable reports of science-advisory panels are often ignored, kept confidential, and even misrepresented to the public as supporting official policy; and (2) it has been established repeatedly that a small dedicated group of independent scientists can bring to public attention a policy which represents a major threat to the public health and welfare. If the danger is sufficiently clear, the issue is often taken up by politicians or made into a legal issue with a good chance for a modification of official policy being the result.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
von HippelF. and PrimackJ., The Politics of Technology. Copies are available for $7.50 from SWOPSI, 590 Old Union, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.
2.
MacGruderWilliam M. Director, Supersonic Transport Development, Department of Transportation testifying on the environmental impact of the SST to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, 27 August 1970). As quoted in the Congressional Digest49, 304 (1970).
3.
From the Introduction to the AEC Rep. “Underground Nuclear Testing” presented to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during its hearings on the safety of underground nuclear testing, 29 September 1969 (Atomic Energy Commission Rep. TID 25180, p. 1).
4.
FosterJohnDr., Director of Defense Research and Engineering before the Subcommittee on Arms Control, International Law, and Organization of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee testifying on the capabilities of the Safeguard ABM System, 4 June 1970. “ABM, MIRV, SALT, and the Nuclear Arms Race,” Hearings before the Subcommittee on Arms Control, International Law and Organization of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, March–June 1970, p. 442. The same quote is included in a discussion by Senator Fulbright of the record of Defense Department claims that the Safeguard System had been approved only after independent outside review. In the course of this discussion, Senator Fulbright inserted into the Congressional Record a newly declassified version of the report to which Foster had referred, Congressional Record, 6 August 1970, pp. 12909–12.
5.
The reports and the angry letters of those committee members who found that the committee chairman's summary report belittled their concerns were introduced by Congressman Sidney Yates into the Congressional Record, 31 October 1969, pp. H10432–46. Some of this material is also reproduced as an appendix to the SST and the Sonic Boom Handbook by ShurcliffW. A. (Ballantine/Friends of the Earth Book, New York, 1970). Congressman Reuss tells how he used the Freedom of Information Act to force the release of the reports in the Congressional Record, 18 November 1969, p. E9733.
6.
A suit has been filed under the Freedom of Information Act to force the release of this report (Soucie vs Edward, Court of Appeals District of Columbia No. 24, 573), as reported in the Friends of the Earth magazine Not Man Apart, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1971).
7.
Public Law 91–190. Following Congressional Hearings, the President's Environmental Quality Council has announced that it will require Federal agencies to publicly disclose environmental impact statements by certain times. In the case of administrative actions, the release will have to be 90 days before action is taken and 15 days before any public hearings. In case Congressional actions are required, the release will have to occur before the time of the corresponding Congressional Committee hearings (KenworthyE. W., New York Times, 25 January 1971).
8.
New York Times, 2 December 1970 (93:1); 9 December 1970 (109:1), (page:column).
9.
New York Times, 7 December 1970 (13:1).
10.
Ref. 3, p. 51. The reasons why the report was not released until its release was forced by Senators Gravel and Fulbright are debated in “Underground Weapons Testing,” Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, SenateU. S., 29 September 1969, pp. 31–33, 78–79.
11.
Ref. 3, p. 52.
12.
See declassified version of the “O'Neil Report” entered in the Congressional Report, 6 August 1970, p. S12909 by Senator Fulbright.
13.
See e.g., Statements by Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Robert Finch (New York Times, 19 October 1969 (58:1) and Assistant Secretary Egeberg (New York Times, 19 October 1969 (1:16).
14.
New York Times1970 Encyclopedia Almanac, p. 38.
15.
A review of the situation along with references to an quotes from the original documents may be found in the Nader Study Group Report; The Chemical Feast by TurnerJames S. (Grossman, New York, 1970), Chap. 1.
16.
The Bionetics Laboratory results (some of them dated 11/66) were released in the “Report of the Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and Their Relationship to Environmental Health,” U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, December 1969. Part of this report including the tabulated data is reproduced in an Appendix in Defoliation by WhitesideThomas (Ballantine/Friends of the Earth Book, New York, 1970). The data are also presented in a paper by the scientists who did the work, CourtneyK. D., Science168, 864 (1970). Whiteside discusses (in pp. 16–22 of his book) the efforts made to obtain this report by outside scientists and by the Insiders on the HEW Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and their Relationship to Environmental Health.
17.
Figures from Military Assistance Command Vietnam Reports on the acreage defoliated and the acres of crops destroyed each year from 1962 through the first quarter of 1969 are reproduced in an Appendix to Whiteside's book. Similar figures and an excellent discussion of the effects of the herbicidal operation in Vietnam with extensive references to the literature may be found in the chapter entitled “Warfare with Herbicides in Vietnam” by Arthur Galston in the collection Patient Earth, edited by HarteJohn and SocolowRobert (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1971).
18.
Public Law 89–487, reproduced in Ref. 19.
19.
As quoted in the “Attorney General's Memorandum on the Public Information Section of the Administrative Procedure Act,”U. S. Department of Justice, June 1967.
20.
This quote is displayed on the bulletin of Missouri's Freedom of Information Center (according to SteinM. L., Saturday Rev.54, 93 (1971).
21.
See the account on page 21 of Whiteside's book. This account has been confirmed by Matthew Meselson to one of the authors (F. v. H.).
22.
New York Times, 30 April (14:1), 3 May (19:1), 12 June (26:3), 5 November (6:1), 7 (14:7), 8 (66:1), 18 (29:3), 19 (39:2), 30 December (1:3) 1969.
23.
Science171, 549 (1971). The address is Clearing House for Professional Responsibility, P. O. Box 486, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D. C. 20044.
24.
“Socialization” is discussed by PerlM. L. in “Scientists in Washington: Some Observations” [to be published in Science (1971)].
25.
CarsonR. (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1962).
26.
A good account of the successful campaign (by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Citizens' Natural Resource Association of Wisconsin) to ban DDT in Wisconsin may be found in the chapter entitled, “The Trial of DDT in Wisconsin” by Orie L. Loucks in the collection edited by HarteJ. and SocolowR., Patient Earth (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1971).
27.
Preface to “Use of Pesticides,” a report of the President's Science Advisory Committee, 15 May 1963.
28.
New York Times, 21 November (1:4) 1969.
29.
KenworthyE. W., New York Times, 19 March 1971. The case is WellfordHarrison, Friends of the Earth, et al., vs Clifford M. Hardin, Secretary of Agriculture, District of Columbia Court of Appeals No. 24, 434 (as reported in Not Man Apart, January 1971).
30.
BrodyJ. E., New York Times, 20 July 1970.
31.
It has still not been possible to do a study which will establish definitely the impact on the incidence of birth defects of herbicide operations in Vietnam. For a preliminary summary of the information which the AAAS Herbicide Assessment Commission was able to establish, see the article by Terri Aaronson in Environment13, 34 (1971).
32.
The duBridge statement is reprinted on pp. 94–95 of Whiteside's book.
33.
BeecherW., New York Times, 23 June 1970.
34.
New York Times, 24 October 1970.
35.
BoffyP., Science171, 43 (1971).
36.
We wish to thank Robert Williams for giving us access to the CCEI records and two volumes of newsclippings and articles.
37.
CCEI News Release, 15 August 1968.
38.
ReedR., New York Times, 21 May 1969.
39.
RapoportD., UPI, 7 May 1969.
40.
The NAS report was entered in the Congressional Record, 27 June 1969, pp. H5364–67 by Representative McCarthy.
41.
CCEI News Release, 28 July 1969.
42.
CCEI News Release, 31 August 1969.
43.
RipleyA., New York Times, 17 March 1970.
44.
See e.g., KenworthyE. W., New York Times, 28 January 1970.
45.
As quoted by MetzgerPeter, New York Times Magazine, 22 February 1970.
46.
New York Times, 5 March 1971.
47.
New York Times, 25 June 1969.
48.
We have arrived at this estimate using the figure of $20 million worth of plutonium burned reported by an AEC spokesman (Denver Post, 4 June 1969) and the price of $40/g for “weapons grade” plutonium.
49.
HuberB., Denver Post, 8 June 1969.
50.
CCEI Letter, 4 June 1969.
51.
Denver Post, 18 June 1969.
52.
RipleyA., New York Times, 11 February 1970.
53.
PearceK., Denver Post, 17 February 1970.
54.
Denver Post, 24 February 1970.
55.
Rocky Flats plant Union Local 15440, District 12 News Release, 12 February 1970.
56.
BetheH. A. and GarwinR. L., “Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems” in Sci. Amer.218, 21 (1968).
