The Honorable CHARLES A. MOSHER
CONGRESSIONAL MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES GROUP AT THE
MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SECOND SESSION Serial XX
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 68-493 WASHINGTON : 1976
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas, Chairman
KEN HECKLER, West Virginia CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio
THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia ALPHONZO BELL, California
DON FUQUA, Florida JOHN JARMAN, Oklahoma
JAMES W. SYMINGTON, Missouri JOHN W. WYDLER, New York
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas
ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey LOUIS FREY, JR., Florida
MIKE McCORMACK, Washington BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., California
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California MARVIN L. ESCH, Michigan
DALE MILFORD, Texas JOHN B. CONLAN, Arizona
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York DAVID F. EMERY, Maine
RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York LARRY PRESSLER, South Dakota
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California PHILIP H. HAYES, Indiana TOM HARKIN, Iowa JIM LLOYD, California JEROME A. AMBRO, New York CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut MICHAEL T. BLOUIN, Iowa TIM L. HALL, Illinois ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Michigan TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado
JOHN L. SWIGERT, Jr., Executive Director HAROLD A. GOULD, Deputy Director PmuT B. YEAGER, Counsel FRANK R. HAmMILL, Jr., Counsel JAmES E. WISON, Technical Consultant J. THOMAS RATCHFORD, Science Cols ntnt JOHN D. HOLMFELD, Science Consultat RALPH N. READ, Technical Consultant ROBERT C. KETCHAM, Counsel REGINA A. DAviS, Chief Clerk MICHAEL A. SUPERATA, Minority Counsel
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
HO-usE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C., September 27, 1976.
lion. OLIN E. TEAGUE,
Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am glad to submit to you a report on my attendance at the Fourth Parliamentary and Scientific Conference of the Council of Europe. This conference was held September 12, 13, and 14 in Florence, Italy and was attended by 140 paraliamentarians, scientists, and government officials from 18 countries.
The conference afforded an unusual opportunity to meet a number of European legislators and scientists and discuss with them the longterm impact of scientific and technological advances. I found many of these problems common to those which we in the Congress face. And I found the free and frank exchange of viewpoints, experiences, and judgments particularly valuable.
My report includes a description of the Council of Europe and its Committee on Science and Technology which sponsored this conference. It also includes some observations on the conference together with the paper prepared by the Director of the Office of Tech nology Assessment for presentation to the Conference. This paper, which describes how the American Congress has added an important new capability for dealing with the impact of developments in science and technology, produced a good deal of interest among the other legislators attending the conference.
I believe that the conference served to confirm one of the many ties of common interests which we in the United States have with the democracies of Western Europe. I hope you will find the report of interest, and that you, the Members of the Committee on Science and Technology, and of the House will find it useful.
I1 greatly appreciate the excellent assistance of Dr. John D. Holmfeld of the staff of our House Committee on Science and Technology, in the preparation of this report. You will note that Dr. Holmnfeld participated actively in meetings in Florence as one of our U.S. delegation.
CHARLES A. MOSHER,
Ranking Minority Member.
Letter of Transmittal ---------------------------------------------- III
Introduction ------------------------------------------------------ 1
U.S. Group at Fourth Parliamentary and Scientific Conference------ 1 Background of the Conference -------------------------------------- 3
The Council of Europe ----------------------------------------- 3
Administration of the Council of Europe ------------------------- 3
A European Science and Technology Policy ----------------------- 4
The Committee on Science and Technology ----------------------- 4
Meetings of Parliamentarians and Scientists ---------------------- 4
Shaping A European Science Policy ------------------------------ 5
A European Space 5
European Scientific Research ----------------------------------- 5
Polar Research -------------------------------------------- 6
Geodynamics --------------------------------------------- 6
Rhine Valley Water Table ---------------------------------- 6
Separation and Detection Techniques in Biology -------------- 6
The Computer Industry ------------------------------------ 6
The Fourth Parliamentary and Scientific Conference ------------------- 7
Opening Sitting, 12 November ---------------------------------- 7
First Working Sitting, 12 November ----------------------------- 7
Second Working Sitting, 12 8
Third Working Sitting, 13 8
Fourth Working Sitting, 13 9
Closing Sitting, 14 9
There of the Conference -------------------------------------------- 11
Summaries of the Basic Discussion Papers 13
General Declaration and Recommendations --------------------------- 19
General Declaration -------------------------------------------- 19
Recommendations ---------------------------------------------- 20
Recommendation No. 1 ------------------------------------ 20
Recommendation No. 2 ------------------------------------ 2
Recommendation No. 3 ------------------------------------ 23
Recommendation No. 4 ------------------------------------ 24
Observations on the Conference ------------------------------------- 25
Appendix l-"A New Approach to Decision-making: The Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress" by Emilio Q. Daddario ------------------------------------------------------- 33
Appendix 2-List of Participants ------------------------------------ 43
The Fourth Parliamentary and Scientific Conference was held from November 12th to 14th, 1975. The theme of this conference was "Science and the Future of Man in European Society." Because of the strong relationship between science and technology in the United States and in Europe, members of the United States Congress have been invited to participate in the earlier Parliamentary and Scientific Conferences of the Council of Europe, and for this conference, American legislators were again invited, to attend. In a technical sense, the United States participants attend as observers because the membership of the Council is lianited to Western European countries. However, like legislators from Canada, Japan, Israel, and Yugoslavia, who also attended as observers, the members of the U.S. group participated in the discussions and debates on an equal basis with their European colleagues.
U.S. GROUP AT FOURTH PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC MEETING
For the Fourth Parliamentary and Scientific Conference the Council of Europe *invited a member of the U.S. Congress, and, to provide a somewhat wider perspective, invitations were also extended to the heads of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. National Science Foundation. The U.S. group attending the meeting included the following:
Hon. Charles A. Mosher, Member of Congress; Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives.
Mr. Emilio Q. Daddario, Director, Office of Technology
Assessment, U.S. Congress.
Mr. David F. Beciler, Assistant to the President, National
Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Richard C. Atkinson, Deputy Director, National Science
Dr. Philip M. Smith, Special Assistant to the Director, National
Mr. Clyde McClelland, Counsellor for Scientific and Technological Affairs, U.S. Embassy, Bonn, Germany.
At the request of the Conference Chairman, Congressman Mosher served as Chairman of one of the four Working fittings, and Mr. Daddario presented a paper on "The Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress" (see Appendix 1).
This report provides a summary of the meeting together with the comments of the Congressional member of the group.
Digitized by the Internet Archive
BACKGROUND OF THE CONFERENCE
THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
The Council of Europe was created in May 1949 by Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Eire, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Greece. It has subsequently grown to include Iceland, Turkey, Germany, Cyprus, Switzerland and Austria. The aim of the Council is the promotion of closer unity among all like-minded countries of Europe through intergovernmental cooperation. Its spheres of interest include matters relating to economrics, social welfare, science and technology, law, administration, and human rights, and it maintains a corresponding committee structure to monitor these areas.
The Council was set up "to achieve a greater unity between its Members of the purpose of safeguarding and realizing the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress". It is to achieve this aim "by discussion of questions of common concern and by agreements and common action in economic, social, cultural, scientific, legal, and administrative matters and in the maintainance and further realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms". Only the military aspects of defense are outside its competence.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
The two organs of the Council of Europe are the Committee of Ministers, comprising the Foreign Ministers of the member countries, and the Parliamentary Assembly, consisting of representatives appointed by the national parliaments. Both organs are served by the Secretariat. The headquarters of the Council is at Strasbourg, France. Other bodies, permanent and temporary, some of them possessing a measure of autonomy, have been set up under Council of Europe conventions or by decision of the Committee of Ministers, and have in recent years considerably extended the Council's activities in a wide variety of fields.
Each member Nation of the Council of Eur'ope has one representative and one vote on the Committee of Ministers. T he Consultative Ass-embly is the deliberative organ of the Council. Neither the Council of Europe itself, its Committee of Ministers, nor its, Consultative Assembly has any powers other than those of recommendation. Such recommendations as are agreed upon by the members are taken back to their res.-pective Parliaments or comparable legislative body for deliberation and are also considered in the U.N. In many way-s, the Council of Europe parallels the work of the U.N.
While its primary purpose is the furtherance of European political unification, the Council also is responsible for formulatingo convention ,, especially in the field of human rights. The Council hts no political
or military responsibilities and possesses no power of sanction. It can function only in a limited field of activity where the consensus of all members can be obtained. The Counc2lworks at the intergovernmental level rather than the supranational level.
As a regional organization, the Council of Europe traverses the same ground as, but does not conflict with, the U.N. agencies. It can conclude agreements with other international bodies on matters within the scope of the Council. Agreements usually provide for an exchange of information or consultation on subjects of common interest. The Council also publishes its work program for perusal by other agencies.
A EUROPEAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
The Council of Europe Assembly acts as a parliamentary forum for all the international organizations dealing specifically with science and technology (OECD, NEA, the European Space Agency etc.) The Assembly therefore makes a major contribution to the shaping of European policy on science and, in particular, on key fields of advanced technology such as space and computers. The Assembly also conducts its own program of scientific research.
THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The Committee on Science and Technology was appointed as a general committee in 1967, although there had been a committee dealing with science since the early sixties. In 1961, the Cultural Committee had been broadened to include science activities and became the Committee on Science and Culture. Then, with increased interest in science and technology, the committee was changed back to the Committee on Culture in 1966 and a new Committee on Science and Technology was appointed in 1967. The Science and Technology Committee's functions include the following:
Prepare debates on science policy;
Draw up periodic reports on European trends and situations
in scientific and technical cooperation;
Follow the work of other active European scientific and technical organizations;
Propose ways of European cooperation in science and technology;
Follow national Parliaments and their developments in science
and technology; and
Prepare the Consultative Assembly's Parliamentary and scientific conferences.
MEETINGS OF PARLIAMENTARIANS AND SCIENTISTS
Prior to the meeting covered by this report, there have been three Council of Europe conferences of parliamentarians and scientists. The first of its kind took place in London in 1961 and afforded the initial opportunity for an exchange of views. The second such conference took place in Vienna in 1964 and dealt with the common tasks of parliamentarians and scientists in drawmig up a science policy. The third conference was held in Lausanne, Switzerland in 10-72 and was on the subject of "Science, Growth, and the Environment."
The fourth conference took place in September 1975 in Florence, Italy on the general theme of "Science and the Future of MNan in European Society".
SHAPING A EUROPEAN SCIENCE POLICY
In 1971 the Council published an inventory of the activities of all the scientific and technological organizations, in Western Europe-the so-called "Perseus" report (Preliminary Examination of Research Sources in European Science). Based on this and other research, the conference of parliamentarians and scientists (Lausanne 1972) worked out guidelines for governments on how to organize scientific cooperation in Europe, both in fundamental research and applied technology. Among their proposals being examined by governments was an agreement on a common policy towards the multinational corporations which control a significant proportion of technological innovation in Europe. Another proposal of the Conference, viz, the creation of a European Science Foundation, has been agreed upon and the Statutes of the Foundation, to be set up in Strasbourg, were signed in Autumn 1974.
The Lausanne Conference also emphasized the importance of ensuring democratic control over science policy in view of the amount of power that science and technology today put at man's disposal. Governments are examining -Conference recommendations that they should decide on the most important problems facing society (the importance of man's physical and social environment, the depletion of the earth's resources, the application of science and technology to solving g social problems) and that they should set up the necessary decisionmaking structures so that quick and informed decisions can be taken and put into effect in the many crisis situations which are likely to be faced in the near future.
At the same time, the Conference recommended that parliaments must adapt themselves to fulfil their controlling function. The Assembly is following this up by encouraging a system of joint committees of parliamentarians and scientists in member States so that information can be mutually exchanged, national objectives more clearly defined and parliamentarians legislate with full knowledge of the facts. The Assembly itself has also created a joint committee of this kind, the European Joint Committee on Scientific Cooperation.
A EUROPEAN SPACE POLICY
The parliamentary Assembly has consistently worked for a joint European space program and the rationalization of a space organization.
EUROPEAN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
The Assembly acts as a catalyst for research programs. By bringing together interdisciplinary teams of scientists of diaer;ent nationalities on common research projects it makes the most of the scientific and technological potential in Europe and avoids duplication. It has established a link between politicians and scientists through the European Joint Committee on Scientific Cooperation on which sit
parliamentarians, research workers and observers from national research councils and international organizations. Polar research
As a first step, climatic environment will be examined during a pilot study to be carried out in the Arctic. The possibility is also under consideration of a longer-term, 5-year Antarctic research program (probably 1975-80 in the Queen Maud land area). Geodyn amics
Some 50 European specialists meet monthly in Luxembourg to compare scientific results and prepare research programs. These include studies on: European seismic profiles; transcontinental profiles of gravimetric tides; geodynamic applications of satellite observations and terrestrial geodysic surveys. Rhine Valley water table
Research groups are working on a synthetic map of the Rhine Valley between Basel and Manheim; a handbook on hydrocarbon pollution and means of intervention; hydrodynamics and the physico-chemical and biological problems related to the aquisphere. Separation and detection techniques in biology
Researchers, producers and users of such techniques will meet in Bruges in May 1975, and at the University of Surrey in September 1975 to discuss such subjects as safety in biological laboratories, large-scale production, concentration of rare chemicals, proteins, etc. The computer industry
Faced with the advance that American and Japanese technological industries have on Europe, the Assembly has concentrated on improving the situation in the key field of computers. On the basis of a fundamental report on the computer industry in Europe, the Assembly has proposed the merging of existing European computer firms, and measures to reinforce the position of European firms exg. government subsidies, and placing of public contracts with these firms rather than with American firms which now dominate 80% of the world market. Governments have reacted favorably to these proposals which will thus serve as guidelines for future European policy on computers.
THE, FOURTH PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE
The 1975 Parliamentary and Scientific Conference was the fourth such meeting. Previous meetings took place in London, England (1961), Vienna, Austria (1964), and Lausanne, Switzerland (1972). The intent is to hold future meetings at three year intervals.
Following the pattern of the first three parliamentary and scientific conferences convened by the Council of Europe, the fourth meeting brought together 140 parliamentarians, scientists, indus trial ists, science managers and administrators from 18 member countries of the Council of Europe, from other major international organizations, and from Canada, Israel, Japan, the United States and Yugoslavia (see Appendix 2 for list of participants).
The activities of the conference involved formal presentations of papers as well as both formal and informal discussions of these papers. The agenda of the conference indicates the variety of participants and subjects presented at the three-day meeting.
Wednesday, 12 November 1975; 9 am-10:30 am
Chairman: Professor Giuseppe Vedovato, Italian Senator, Chairman
of the Organizing Committee, former President of the Parliamentary Assembly and present Chairman of its
Political Affairs Committee
1. Welcome by Signor Elio, Gabbuggiani, Mayor of Florence.
2. Opening statement by Mr. Karl Czernetz, Austrian MP, President
of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
3. Address by Mr. Mario Pedini, Minister for Scientific and Technological Policy, representing the Government of Italy.
4. Statement by Mr. Georg Kahn-Ackermann, Secretary- General of
the Council of Europe.
FIRST WORKING SITTING
Wednesday, 12 November 1975-10:30 am-i pmn
Ckairran: Mr. Klaus Richter, German MP, Chairman of the Comnm ittee on Science and Technology, Vice-President of the
Parliam entary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
F irst Theme: The Ch allenge of Science and Technology to European
1. Introductory statement: Dr. Alexander King, co-founder of the
Club of Rome, Chairman of the Internaional Federation of Institutesi for Advanced Study-Prepared paper: "The Challengre of Science-based Technology to the Traditional Concepts of
2. Introductory statement: Professor Umberto Colombo, Director,
Corporate Research and Strategic Planning, Montedison SpA, M\'ilano, Chairman of the Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy of OECD-Prepared paper: "Will Science and Technology Bring the Answers to the Problems Which They
Have Created for Society?"
3. Keynote intervention: Mr. Andre BOULLOCHE, French MP,
(I airman of the European Joint Committee on Scientific Cooperation of the Parliamentary Assembly, former Minister of
National Education (France).
4. General discussion.
SECOND WORKING SITTING
Wednesday, 12 November 1975-3 pm-6.30 pm
Chairman: Mr. Rene' Radius, French MP, Chairman of the Committee
on Regional Planning and Local Authorities, Vice-President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Second theme: Evolution of the Decision-Making Machinery of
Government and Parliament (2).
1. Introductory statement: Mr. Emilio Q. Daddario, Director, Technology Assessment Office, Congress of the United StatesPrepared paper: "A New Approach to Decisionmaking: The Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress. 2. Introductory statement: Mr. R. Martin Lees, Directorate of
Science, Technology and Industry, OECD-Prepared paper: "The Adaption of Government in Response to the Problems of
3. Keynote intervention: Mr. Christian Lenzer, German MP, Spokesman for Science and Technology of CDU/CSU, Member of the Committee on Science and Technology of the Parliamentary
4. General discussion
THIRD WORKING SITTING
Thursday, 13 November 1975-9:30 am-i pm
Chairman: The Honorable Charles A. Mosher, Committee on
Science and Technology, United States House of
Third theme: International Co-operation and the Social Sciences in a
Technological Europe (3)
1. Introductory statement: Professor Jean-Jacques Salomon, Head of
the Science Policy Division, Directorate of Science, Technology and Industry, OECD-Prepared paper: by Dr. Michael Pollak, "European Society in the Technological Age and the Part to be
Played by the Social Sciences"
2. Introductory statement: Mr. Reinhard Loosch, Ministerialdirigoent, Federal Ministry for Research and Technology Federal Republic of Germany-Prepared paper: by Dr. Karl-Friedrich Scheid mann, "European Cooperation in Scientific Research: the
Need for Rationalization in the Work of Intergovernmental
Organizations, of Industry and of Universities".
3. Keynote intervention: Dr. Reginald Bennett, British MP, former
Chairman and present member of the Steering Committee of the
Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, United Kingdom.
4. General discussion-With the participation of His Excellency Mr.
F.H.P. Trip, Minister for Science Policy of the Netherlands.
FOURTH WORKING SITTING
Thursday, 13 November 1975-3 pm-6.30 pmi
Chairman. Professor Olivier Reverdin, Swiss MP, President, National
Research Council of Switzerland, Vice-President of the European Science Foundation, former President of the
Fourth theme: Science, Society and Man's Environment (4)
1. Introductory statement: Professor Pierre Pig aniol, President of the
International Futurible Association, former "De'legu6 G6n6ral A la Recherche Scientifique et Technique" (France) -Prepared paper: "European Science, Industrial Development, and the
Preservation of Man's Environment".
2. Keynote intervention: Professor Alessandro Faedo, President,
National Research Council of Italy.
3. General discussion-With the participation of Her Excellency
Mine. Hertha Firnberg, Federal Minister for Science and Research of Austria.
Friday, 14 November 1975-3 pm-6 pm.
Chairman: Mr. Karl Czernetz, Austrian MP, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
1. Presentation of the Draft Conclusions by Mvr. Klaus Richter,
German MP, Chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology of the Parliamentary Assembly.
2. Discussion and vote.
3. Statement by Sir Peter Smithers, General Rapporteur, former
Secretary- General of the Council of Europe, on the work of the
THEME OF THE CONFERENCE
The conference was organized around the theme "Science and the Future of Man in European Society." This theme was one which both legislators and scientists felt a deep concern about and which the discussions at the conference sought to illuminate and clarify. The theme and its many ramifications were discussed in a background paper by Sir Peter Smithers, General Rapporteur of the Conference, from which the following passages are extracted:
This conference is the only place, so far as I am aware, at which
parliamentarian and scientists meet as such upon an international basis and under the aegis of organizations established by international treaties. The agenda of the conference has therefore been drawn up by the Organizing Committee with a view to making use of this exceptional opportunity, by selecting for its theme a subject which is of the first importance, which is topical and urgent, and which concerns both parliamentarians and scientists in a very special manner, namely "Science and the Future of
Man in European Society".
Earlier conferences of scientists and parliamentarians were
concerned with how the legislators could better understand some of the newer lines of the advancement of research, on which their decisions would be sought and to foster a better appreciation of the problems and methods of each side. The Fourth Conference has a much wider scope and a deeper importance as it touches on some of the major problems of our times and, indeed,
on the future of society.
It is only in the very recent past that the nineteenth century
vision of mankind steadily improving the society in which it lives has been replaced by serious doubts about the future of our race, and as to the benevolent influence of applied scientific discovery. Whatever the validity of these doubts, the apparent grounds for their existence are a matter of great concern to thoughtful people throughout the world, and certainly mark an important psychological change in man himself, subtly influencing his attitude towards innumerable problems and situations. Indeed life itself takes on a different perspective in the
light of uncertainty as to the future of man.
The life of man in advanced societies is very largely a reflection
of the work of scientists during the past three centuries. Their discoveries, when placed in the hands of technicians, have given to man the mastery over the material world which he now enjoys and on which his existence in his present numbers depends.
But decisions regarding the management and exercise of this mastery rest in the hands of the politicians. It is curio and unfortunate-that the two groups on the whole know and under(11)
stand so little of one another's work and problems. For example, the time scale of the world of science is vastly different from the time scale of the world of politics. This conference, however, is not designed simply to further that understanding, although like its predecessors it will make a contribution in that respect. Rather, it seeks to center attention upon the major group of fundamental problems which underlie all others and in which both groups are mtimately involved, that is to say, the problems which confront man in the management of his affairs in an age dominated by scientific discovery and scientific method.
SUMMARIES OF THE BASIC DISCUSSION PAPERS
1. THE CHALLENGE OF SCIENCE-BASED TECHNOLOGY TO NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
- Dr. Alexander King, co-Founder of the Club of Rome and President of the International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study, discussed the impact of science and technology on the interdependence of nations throughout the world. While noting that the interdependence of nations is no new phenomenon, being brought about in varying degrees over past centuries through trade, religion, ideology and military alliance, he thought that the relatively recent widespread diffusion of science-based technologies had led to a critical point being reached in the erosion of national sovereignties. This is reflected in growing world opinion that no state has the right to act unilaterally in areas of technology where there are probable repercussions beyond its frontiers. Dr. King called for a new style of government, based on an increasingly global vision of the complexity and interrelatedness of world problems. To this end he urged that governments should establish an independent transdisciplinary centre of reflection and research (a kind of global 'think-tank') to study the complexities and interactions of the world considered as a single system, to assess the global implications of projected technological developments, and to advise generally on research priorities with a view to settm*g up worldwide programs for energy, long-range weather forecasting, food production, raw materials, the oceans, protection of the environment, and general ecological surveillance.
2. 'CAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HELP TO DEVELOP AN ADEQUATE
RESPONSE TO CURRENT WORLD PROBLEMS?
Professor Umberto Colombo, Director of Strategic Planning at Montecatini-Edison, Milan, Italy, and Chairman of the Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy of OECD, set out to refute the idea that science and technology are, in some unexplained way, "responsible" for the damaging side-effects caused by policies of uncontrolled economic growth.-' Though perhaps misused b3T national governments as instruments for promoting growth, science and technology are indispensable as instniments for remedying the situation which has been created. Whereas Dr. King called for t fe setting up of global research programs, Professor Colombo called for the framing and implementation by governments of global policies for science and technology, this being the only means of solving the problems now facing humanity in a way compatible with balanced world development. A key global policy objective is to improve the process of technology transfer from rich to poor countries, so that technique,, and industries are implanted appropriate to the varying social and ctiltural conditions and development aims of third world nations. Governments
also need to develop suitable short- and medium-term strategies at supranational level in the fields of energy, food production, raw materials and the environment. They should use the best available methods for forecasting and assessing the impact of technological developments, and should make a sustained effort to render the general public better-informed and aware of the aims to which such strategies are directed. On these conditions, Professor Colombo maintained that science and technology can play a decisive role in solving world problems.
A NEW APPROACH TO DECISION MAKING: THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY
ASSESSMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
(See appendix 1 for the complete text of the paper)
Emilio Q. Daddario, Director of the United S tates Congress Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), gave an account of the work and functioning of his Office, as an example of how the methods and resources of science can be brouelit in to aid the legislative branch of government. OTA is the latest' 'of a series of agencies created by Congress in order to improve its decision-making ability. It began its
-work in November 1973 and now has a staff of 87. It draws on expertise available in all areas of national life (government, industry and the universities). Its work is shaped to the needs of users in Congress., As examples of short-term technology assessments carried out for Con,gressional Committees, Mr. Daddario cites the issue of the bio-equivalence of drugs undertrade names and generic names and the fush in-depth analysis made of the Energy Research and Development Administration's annual budget within the two weeks from the time the budget was made public by President Ford to the start of Congessional authorization hearings. Two current large-scale assignments are the Oceans Assessment Program and the Transportation Assessment Program. The former, directed to the discovery and production of additional domestic energy resources, has resulted in a recommendation for "site specific" assessments of the probable impacts of offshore technologies. One such assessment is now being done off the coasts of New Jersey and Delaware, where oil and gas prospecting may be combined with the offshore siting of nuclear power plants and deepwater ports for super-tankers. The Transportation Area Programme aims at the conservation of energy through changes in present fuel consumption patterns. Other fields of study by'OTA include energy, materials, food, health, international trade, and overall research and development. Its work has aroused interest within the parliaments and governments of Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands Sweden and the United Kingdom. There have been contacts with the State Committee on Science and Technology of the Soviet Union. The role of this new advisory mechanism for the American legislature is to help Members and Committees of Congress to take account of the secondary effects of science and technology on society. before these secondary effects accumulate and combine to ,create an unacceptable situation.
4. THE DECISION-MAKING MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENTS AND PARLIAMENTS
Mr. Martin Lees of the OECD Secretariat, writing in a personal capacity, described the increasing scale, range, complexity and interrelatedness of the problems now confronting governments, in a time of rapid technical advance and changing public expectations. He reviewed the efforts which some governments are now making, in response, to strengthen their analytical and planning capabilities, tG. improve budgetary procedures, and to coordinate better the processes of planning, budgeting and policy review. He warned governments W guard against concentrating too much on the technical aspects of major decisions, to the detriment of properly presenting to the general public the values, assumptions and calculations of risk underlying' their policies. Notwithstanding pressures arising from the increasingscale, complexity and interrelatedness of problems, more pluralistic arrangements should be made for the preparation and making of decisions. New wavs should also be found for securing greater public, involvement in tlie orientation of science and technology towards, social objectives, and for stimulating greater awareness by scientists and technologists of the political, social and economic relevance of' their work.
5. THE ROLE OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
Dr. Michael Pollak, of the OECD Secretariat, discussed the difficult. relationship between research and politics as exemplified by the social sciences. Decision-makers tend to expect research to provide them with arguments in support of predetermined policies, whereas scientists have to protect their concerns and values from becoming at'any time subordinate to the interests of dominant social groups. Clearly, if the social sciences axe to be responsive to the whole of society and not just to the requirements of governments, they must have a diversified base of financial support Yet in practically all European countries nine-tenths of the research carried out is state-financed. Moreover, American work continues to be the general reference point for European scholars, whereas European work of equal quality often remains unknown in neighboring countries. National councils and agencies for social science research should greatly expand the intra-European exchange of information, not only on the results of projects but on conceptual developments and experience in improving project design and methodologies. International cooperation should be encouraged in the areas of data collection and anah-sis, and perhaps in the building and sharing of high-cost facilities. If closer association between the social sciences and government decision-making is, in itself, desirable, it means that access to research findings becomes of critical importance to national parliaments for proper democratic control of the executive. There is a need also for governments to promote a broader diff vision of the knowledge and insights deriving from research findings throtiabout society, in terms that can be understood by the non-specialist.
6. THE NEED FOR RATIONALIZATION IN THE WORK OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, INDUSTRY AND THE UNIVERSITIES
Dr. Kari-Friendri-ch Scheidemann, Director of the German Federal Ministry for Research and Technology, assessed the need for further rationalization in Europe of the arrangements made for scientific cooperation in industry, the universities and especially the international organizations. The extent to which political factors place, constraints on and determine the scope of scientific and technical cooperation is often underrated. Given these constraints, the close though disparate arrangements for cooperation in certain -specific sectors-such as energy, space, particle physics, and basic research generally-are per se satisfactory. The main criticisms are that (a) in certain key sectors of technology (such -as data-processing) there are no adequate arrangements, and (b) that there is still no sign of an emergent overall R & D policy for Europe. From a survey of existing frameworks for co-operation Dr. Scheidemann concludes that prospects remain better in the field of basic research than for industryrelated/application-oriented programs; further progress here depends on better coordination of industrial policies. In regard to the intergovernmental and nongovernmental transnational organisations, there is some danger of overlapping when new policy concerns suddenly arise-as has been the case with environmental protection, technology assessment, multinational enterprise, etc. In 'general, however', such dangers are offset by the differences of aim and membership of the organizations, and by the desirability in some fields of nurturing a variety of approaches to the same problem. There should be more contacts and a better exchange of information between international secretariats, as an essential means of supplementing efforts made by member states towards the most effective use of the total resources devoted to multilateral cooperation. Such efforts should include the clearer definition of objectives, the introduction of phased planning,, and the training and re-training of qualified international executives, who are still not available in sufficient -numbers. In the present economic climate, rationalization may be the only means of rendering, cooperation in scientific research between European countries more productive.
7. SCIENCE, INDUSTRY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Professor Pierre Piganiol, President of the 'FUTURIBLES' International Association, addresses the problem of how to maintain and improve industrial production while at the same time protecting the environment and ensuring good husbandry of natural resources. Some measure of corrective action (though perhaps less than is generally imagined) is required in respect of the functioning of market economies. But the main need is to integrate policies for science, industry, the environment and natural resources. This can only be achieved on the basis of an enlightened public opinion and better mutual understanding between politicians and scientists. Parliaments should have an independent capability for forecasting technical progress and future needs and fer assessing the implications of alternative technologies, so as to provide a proper check on the executive branches of government. Professor Piganiol regretted the slackening of research efforts in
European countries, at a time when the global ramifications and interdependence of problems and issues confronting European society are increasingly apparent. He called for European joint transnational action in applied research, not just (as hitherto) in order to attain specific technological objectives, but as part of a general policy for strengthening Europe's overall potential for industrial innovation. A first step could be the setting-up of 'federations' of European laboratories in particular industrial sectors.
GENERAL DECLARATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The General Declaration points to the need for a concerted international response to the problems of global dimensions confronting societies and governments throughout the world-such as food, energy, raw materials, and the needs of the developing countries. Recommendation No. 1 spells out the types of action which are now required. Action on an adequate scale by European countries will need the support of an enlightened and sympathetic public opinion; how this is to be achieved and the urgent need to strengthen the role of parliaments are the subjects of Recommendations 2 and 3. Recommendation No. 4 points briefly to the value of the conference in providing a unique international framework for parliamentarians and scientists to meet and discuss in a broad and long-term perspective the policy issues which they find of common concern: with the growing impact of science and technology on governmental decision-making, regular meetings of this kind, at national as well as at international level, are indispensable to the proper functioning of democratic societies.
The conclusions of the conference, which are reproduced on the following pages, were debated by the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly at its session in Strasbourg in May 1976.
1. The Fourth Parliamentary and Scientific Conference, meeting in Florence from 12-14 November 1975, considers it urgent to draw the attention of the general public to the increased complexity and interrelatedness of the problems confronting man in society throughout the world. Whatever the part played by science and technology in contributing to this situation, the lack of agreed objectives among national and political groups, which must nevertheless live together within the context of finite planetary resources, renders the solution of those problems difficult or impossible. Against this must be balanced the proven and immense capacity of man for adaptation, organization, innovation and complex planning. The question, therefore, is whether this known capacity can now be directed to the longer term needs of mankind as a whole, and in particular how the short-term problems facing society such as unemployment and inflation can be handled without sacrificing due consideration of fundamental and long-term issues.
2. Complex social arrangements are required to sustain mankind in its present rapidly growing numbers on this planet. If society is to continue to be viable, these arrangements must be rapidly established, otherwise the necessary structures and programs required for the solution of its problems will not be achieved.
3. The considered view of the conference in respect of its general theme "Science and the Future of Man in European Society" is that failing an adequate and concerted response to the problems of global
dimension now confronting society and governments throughout the world, a critical position for the future of man will soon be reached. The conference believes that a greater public awareness both of the dangers involved in a society largely dominated by technology which is often misapplied, and of the measures needed to meet these dangers, are essential to the adoption of policies required to secure the future of man on this planet.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 1
ON INTERNATIONAL ACTION
The Fourth Parliamentary and Scientific Conference"
1. Welcoming the growth of interdependence between nations and, affirming the consequent need for furthr cooperation between them particularly in the fields of science and technology;
2. Believing, that no state ought to act unilaterally in areas of technology where there may be adverse repercussions beyond its frontiers;
3. Convinced of the need for a new approach to the responsibilities of government, based on an increasingly global vision of the complexity and interrelatedness of rgoal and world problems;
4. Aware, however, of the liied ability of forecasting techniques to foretell accurately what is going to happen to society;'
5. Believing that European programs of science and technology could make a decisive contribution to solving problems in a way compatible with balanced world development;
6. Regretting therefore the slackening of research efforts in European countries;
7. Deploring the fact that there is still no effective, research and development policy for Europe as a whole;
8. Welcoming the establishment, as recommended by the Third Parliamentary and Scientific Conference, of a European Science Foundation for the promotion of cooperation. and coordinated' pIanning in the field of basic research, adntn ihstsato h
Foundation's recent decision to create a Standing Committee for the Social Sciences;
9. Welcoming also the formation of the European Space Agency,. as consistently recommended by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe;
10. Convinced that joint transnational action on. the part of European countries in applied research should be. seen not merely in terms of specific objectives but as part of a policy for strengthening Europe's overall potential for technological innovation.
11. Convinced moreover that the, escalating cost of advanced technological programs, and the limitations of available highly qualified scientific and technological manpower, make- a European approach to such programs essential, if the available financial and human resources are to be adequate to f future needs;
12. Believing that technological innovation should not. be pursued for its own sake but should be directed to the needs. of society and particularly towards improving the quality .of life;
A. that European governments should take the initiative in develODing global policies for science and technology, and in particular, should concert their efforts through existing intergovernmental agencies
(i) to secure the adoption of long-range energy, raw materials
and food research and development programs;
(ii) to promote the recycling of materials as a means of conserving scarce resources and reducing pollution;
(iii) to study the relative merits of centralized and decentralized
systems for the production of energy and processing of raw
(iv) to improve the process of technology transfer from industrial to developing countries, -so that tecliiliques be evolved and industries implanted which are appropriate to the social and cultural conditions and the development aims of the receiving nations, and that such techniques and industries should be labor-intensive and low-cost in those countries where labor rather than capital is the most abundant factor of production;
(v) to ensure that, in transferring technology, damage to the
biosphere and waste of natural resources axe minimized;
(vi) to deal with problems of environmental degradation in a
regional and world context, and to ensure, for example, that the industries of ecologically more progressive countries are not
unduly penalized in competition on world markets;
B. that European governments should promote concerted arrangements for transdisciplinary research
(i) to study the position of Europe considered as part of a
single world system;
(ii) to integrate technological, economic, social, political and
human considerations, as recommended by the Third Parliamentary and Scientific Conference, within the context of the
(iii) to identify research priorities with a view to the setting-up
of international programs, which would rely on the speciaJ skills and facilities 6f' research institutes and centers already
operating in various countries;
(iv) to cooperate in worldwide programs of research on global
C. that taking into consideration existing activities such as those of the European Industrial Research Management Association (EIRMA), European governments should provide incentives for the setting-up of federations of European laboratories working in particular industrial sectors, and that the efforts of these laboratories should be enlisted in joint European projects;
D. that the executive heads of the international organizations working in Europe in the fields of science and technology should meet for consultation at regular intervals, with a view to concerting their activities and medium-term planning (notably, for example, with respect to policies for public health and the social sciences).
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2
'-ON THE NEED TO PROMOTE PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE CHANGING
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIETAL DECISION-MAKING
"The Fourth Parliamentary and Scientic Conference
1. Aware of the increased scale, range, complexity and interrelatedness of the problems confronting European governments, at a time of rapid technical -advance and changing public expectations;
2. Welcoming the efforts of those governments which have taken steps to strengthen their analytical and planning capabilities (with particular reference to technology forecasting and assessment), to improve budgetary procedures, and to achieve better coordination of planning, budgeting and policy review;
3. Noting, however, that analyses made as a basis of major policy decisions depend on information which is often inadequate in. depth, range and quality, on the choice of particular methodologies, and on
-sets of subjective assumptions;
4. Recognizing the growing contribution of the social sciences to the processes of political and administrative decision in generating insights into how these processes work;
A. that governments should guard against concentrating on the technical aspects of major policy decisions to the detriment of properly presenting to parliaments and the general public the values, assumptions and estimations of risk underlying such decisions.;
B. that further research should be undertaken on the frontiers between the natural sciences and technology on the one hand, and between these and the human and social sciences on the other, with a view to casting light on the processes of change and development in European society;
C. that the use of social indicators in conjunction with economic indicators should be developed, with a view to the more accurate perception and evaluation of trends and changes in society, and to facilitate the weighing of social in addition to economic costs and benefits;
D. that free access to research findings and statistical information Should be insured
(i) so as to render the policy-making process as transparent as
may be compatible with the need to protect the privacy of
(ii) so as to bring the public face to face at the earliest possible
moment with the issues underlying the decisional processes engaged in by governments and parliaments;
E. that governments and parliaments should explore new ways of improving information to the public and of securing public involvement in the orientation of science and technology;
F. that governments and parliaments should take steps to encourage awareness by scientists and technologists of the economic and social relevance of their work, and of the expectations and anxieties of the public in regard thereto;
G. that governments and parliaments should develop programs of education in order to promote wider awareness of progress in
science and technology, and of their potential contributions to solving the problems faced by society as well as to the hazards in certain technological developments.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3
ON STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF PARLIAMENTS
The Fourth Parliamentary and Scientific Conference
1. Concerned at the growing disparity in Europe between the formal constitutional functions of parliaments and their real capacity for control and for taking initiatives;
2. Convinced that parliaments and international parliamentary assemblies have inadequate apparatus for the in-depth analysis of complex problems, for making independent forecasts of technical progress and future needs and for assessing the implications of alternative technologies, and noting with interest the progress made in providing the Congress of the United States with information machinery designed to enhance the relevance and effectiveness of its work;
3. Convinced moreover that closer association of the social sciences with the decision-making process means that access to research findings becomes of critical importance to national parliaments for proper democratic control of the executive;
4. Consid that an adequate response to some of the key issues confronting 10rropean governments (in particular, the protection of the environment and the husbandry of natural resources) will depend not only on corrective action in respect to the functioning of national, economies but on the fullest possible integration of policies for science, technology, industry, the environment, and natural resources; and believing that the integration of policies in these different sectors can only be achieved with the support of an enlightened public opinion based on a better mutual understanding between parliamentarians and the scientific and technological communities;
5. Welcoming the decision of the Council of Europe's Parliament ry Assembly to hold a conference on the evolution of democratic institutions in 1976;
A* That parliaments should have access through common European facilities to modern information and analytical systems in order that they may exercise their functions of scrutiny and control in a more effective manner at the national and European level;
B. furthermore, that these facilities should be so developed as to make possible the creation of a Iona-term technology forecasting and assessment instrument to serve par laments in Europe so that parliamentarians can have access through common facilities to objective information;
C. that parliaments should scrutinize the introduction and exploitation of new social science techniques with a view to asse-,sing their impact on society and to safeguarding the rights, and privacy of individuals;
D. that the recommendations of the Fourth Parliamentary and Scientific Conference shoidd be presented to the Cotincil, of Europe's conference on the evolution of deniocratic institutions, in 1976;
E. that the Council of Europe continue to promote the setting-up, of associations of parliamentarians and scientists in those European' countries where they do not as yet exist, with a view to encouraging cooperation and joint activities at the European level
F. that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should devote one of its debates to the follow-up action to be taken on those conclusions of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (Helsinki, August 1975) which concern scientific cooperation.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 4
ON FUTURE ACTIVITIES OF THE PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE
The Fourth Parliamentary and iScientific Conference
1. Considering that the conference has provided a unique and valuable framework for parliamentarians and scientists both to form personal contacts and to discuss together current problems of mutual concern during a period when such contacts have become essential to the further development of mankind in a democratic society; .2. Thanks the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for their continued support over the years for the work of the conf erence;
3. Recommends that the Committee on Science and Technology of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should follow up the outcome of the Fourth Conference, and should propose the holding of a Fifth Conference in due course, for which preparations should now be started through the setting-up of an ad hoe organizing committee of conference participants.
OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONFERENCE
We of the United States Group at the Fourth Parliamentary and Scientific Conference found it an interesting and useful meeting. I will report here, first, a number of factors which combined to make the conference particularly worthwhile, but then also several aspects in which I believe it fell short.
The sub jects discussed under the conference theme "Science and the Future of M an in European Society" might well have been discussed in terms of science and the future of man in "Western Societies." We in the United States, no less than our friends in Western Europe, have witnessed the emergence of scientific advances on a broad front and the associated massive technological developments. We have seen the broad range of consequences which have resulted in our own country. Members of the U.S. group, therefore, found much of interest in the experiences and approaches taken in the countries of Europe. Conversely, we found that our European colleagues were very interested in understanding how we in the United States were dealing with many of the same problems.
The meeting afforded a unique opportunity to meet and exchange views with a number of European legislators and scientists. In an appendix to this report there is included a list of all those who attended the Conference. A glance at this list will show that those present included a significant number of legislators, cabinet rank officials, and scientists, many of whom are in leadership positions. Both our formal and informal exchanges of information and opinion were stimulating and useful, whether in those areas where our problems and experiences were similar or where we discovered that they differed. It was particularly notable that only on the rarest occasions did any of the individuals we met feel constrained by their own Government policies, as is frequently the case at international conferences. All of our exchanges seemed frank and wide-ranging.
The U.S. group found a good deal of interest on the part of our European colleagues in the steps recently taken in the United States Congress to understand and deal with the rapid advances in science and technology. A paper by the Director of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, Mr. E. Q. Daddario, provided a basis for lively discussion, including questions which ranged from simp le operating and staffing aspects to the long-term impact of the OTA on the democratic processes.
The broad interest in the need, development, and use by legislatures of forecastingy mechanisms was reflected in recommendations adopted at the conclusion of the conference. Recognizing the growing di-sparity between the formal, constitutional functions of legislative bodies and their real-life responsibilities in the twentieth century, it was recommended that analytical forecastig capabilities be made increasingly available. The recommendations emphasized the desirability of ap;proaching many of these questions oni a common, international basis.
The conference took an important step toward improving the capabilities of European parliaments for technology assessment. The conference report noted the progress made in providing the U.S. Congress with information machinery designed to enhance the relevance and effectiveness of its work, drawing on the excellent paper and statement by Mr. Daddario. Th.e following recomm nation was adopted:
"A. that, parliaments should have access through common
European facilities to modem information and analytical systems in order that they may exercise their functions of scrutiny and control in a more effective manner at national and European
B. furthermore, that these facilities should be developed as to
make possible the creation of a long-term technology forecasting and assessment instrument to serve European parliaments 'so that parliamentarians can have access through common facilities
to objective information;"
Such analytical facilities serving parliaments of all 18 member states of the Council of Europe could provide a common frame of reference for national action on long range problems of mutual concem. Since the establishment of technology assessment offices servmg national parliaments seems unlikely, a technology assessment mechanism. under the Council of Europe could strengthen the hand of those parliamentarians who would otherwise be uninformed and unable, to take an -independent stand.
An important underlying theme of the conference was European cooperation in many different fields of science and technology. Many of the speakers alluded to the need and desirability of a further expansion in this field. Rwas pointed out that in several areas the European countries have developed highly successful cooperative programs. These include space research, where the European Space Agency has made solid progress, and basic research, where especially the CERN accelerator in Switzerland has been a model for European cooperation.
Although similar efforts in the computer field have not had the same degree of success, it was generally felt that in the field of energy research and development much could be accomplished by international cooperation among the European countries. While many of these activities have been exclusively European, and while there is undoubtedly still a feeling in Europe that American science and' technology may have predominated in some fields, nevertheless the feeling, expressed by the Conference chairman in his concluding remarks, that cooperation with the. United States is desirable, appears to prevaiL
But I suggest there also were less successful aspects of the con ferei,,ce. Inevit, ably, there were shortcomiEs.
The Council of Europe has no formal legislative functions, and its resolutions carr only the weight of recommendations. The same applies to the committees of the Council, including its Committee on Science and Technology which sponsored this meeting. Thus the lack of rigid adherence to individual Government policies, which -served to encourage informal exploration of issues, has another'side to it, namely a certain degree of remoteness from national and political realities.
That factor undoubtedly also contributed a certain amount to the preoccupation with the "technical" aspects of how legislatures can deal with science and technology. It was sometimes not fully recognized that technology forecasting and assessment are necessary but rarely sufficient for problem solving. The conference emphasized the technological forecasting and assessment function. At the same time, the shortcomings of ."technical" analysis and the need for parliaments to weightechnological options in a broader context of social, political and economic considerations must be recognized.
Another shortcoming of the conference, I suggest, was its preoccupation with the world "problematique" and dangers of scientific and technological approaches. There was handwringing about the magnitude and complexity of the problems traceable to rapid progress in science and technology, and the burdens on traditional political processes.
The general theme of this conference was "Science and the Future of Man in European Society." In his Introduction to the conference, Sir Peter Smithers, the General Rapporteur, observed:
"[Man] appears to have passed the point where he is master of his achievements and is threatened by dangers against which the instincts of self-preservation adequate in the past, will not protect him. It is only by a further immen e and collective intellectual effort that man can regain control of his own destiny. If the conference can draw from the scientists some guidance to the politicians in that direction, it will have been worthwhile."
Applying the foregoing test to the proceedings and outcome of the conference, one woufd have to conclude that it did not fully meet these high expectations. The scientists were not prepared to provide the guidance called for by Smithers, and the conference Drovided little evidence of a willingness in European countries to make4he "immense and collective intellectual effort. On the other hand, neither the background papers nor the speakers made a convincing case that calamity is on mankind's horizon.
The resulting General Declaration and Recommendations, while largely philosophical, do provide a comprehensive and reasonably balanced set of general objectives for European cooperation in science and technology.. But, with some exceptions, -the statement suffers, from lack of specificity as to feasible measures, mechanisms and procedures for achieving those objectives.
Throughout the.conference, there was an air of frustration concerning the virtual impotence of European parliaments to take *'initiatives, marked by a bit of envy of the U.S. Congress. Several speakers noted that many European parliaments, operate' under severe handicaps. Government programs axe presented as a whole to parliaments on short notice, without real opportunity for line item debate or refutation. Parliamentarians have little or no staff capabilities, and seldom fire there committee hearings with expert witnesses. Top governmental officials are also elected members of the parliament, and pressures to preserve party unity allow scant room for divided opinion among the majority party members. Minority members have little power to intervene on specific issues.
The conferees had the benefit of a number of thoughtful background papers, but the debates failed to reflect much of the substance and balance of those papers. In my view:
(1) There was inordin ate emphasis on science and technology
per se with insufficient attention to innovation and decisionmaking processes.
(2) Too much reliance was placed on central governments for
decisions on the development and use of science and technology.
No mention was made of the responsibility of governments to create a climate conducive to beneficial technological innovation by private enterprise through appropriate economic and regulatory policies.
(3) In discussing cooperation among governments in applied
research, there was failure to distinguish between public sector technologies where the market mechanisms are inadequate and commercial technologies that best respond to the demands of the marketplace. Where4 European governments have jointly financed applied- research and development of commercial importance, there has been conspicuous lack of success.
(4) Considering the magnitud 'e of the world food and population problems and the growing confrontation between developed and developing -countries, there was, relatively little attentioni to the role of governments in promoting technological developments favoring the developing countries.
(5) It would seem useful to devote a future conference to the
formulation of a research and development policy for Europe, the' absence of which was deplored in the conference report.
The statement of national science and technology policy con-L tained in the "National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of' 1976" (P.L. 94-282) could
Perhaps the principal weakness of the conference was the tacit assumption that European countries hold common interests and, objectives in science and technology. The conclusions and -'recommendations of the conference seem unlikely to be realized not only because most ,parliaments are unable to initiate -policy changes, but also because diverse and divergent national interests thwart cooperation within a trans-European framework.
After the Parliamentary Assembly considers the results of the Parliamentary' and Scientific Conference, it makes recommendations to the Committee of Ministers who decide on the joint action to be taken. Thus, the fate of the conference recommendations lies in thel. hands 'of government officials, not in national parliaments.
For these reasons, not many delegates appeared to take the conference seriously, when queried individually. There was little confidence tha t the conference would lead to effective action.
However, these less than successful aspects of the Conference, do not detract from its overall success. It provided a most stimulating" opportunity to meet with many leaders from Western Europe who, like the- members of the U.S. group, are dealing daily with the problems of science and technology. For that reason alone the conference, must be called a success.
The Parliamentary and Scientific Conferences have provided a unique forum for discussing issues of science and technology affecting the future welfare of Europe.
In his closing remarks, Sir Peter Smithers declared that the invitation to U.S. representatives to the conference meant more than hospitality. He noted that the impact of the U.S. economy and technology is vital to Europe, that U.S. policies are of greatest interest and importance, and that there is an enormous dependence on what happens in the United States.
I came away from the conference with renewed faith in the U.S. system of democratic government and in the "checks and balances" provided by our Constitution. Despite occasional false starts, inefficiencies and divided opinions, the U.S. Congress has demonstrated a willingness to tackle the problems looming in the future with confidence in our scientific and technological capabilities to meet the challenges ahead.
One of our delegation mentioned to Sir Peter Smithers that in the United States "parliamentarians" would spend less time agonizing over the "problematique" and more time framing action-oriented programs. He replied, "Europe is old."
iffappily, we in the United States are still a young and dynamic, evolving people!
"A NEW APPROACH TO DECISION-MAKING: THE OFFICE OF
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF THE UNrrE STATES CONGRESS"
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT UNITED STATES CONGRESS BY Exmio Q. DADDARIO (Presented to the Fourth Parliamentary and Scientific Conference
of the Council of Europe, September 10, 1975)
A NEW APPROACH TO DECISION-MAKING: THE OFFCnE OF TECHNOLOGY
ASSESSMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
I. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND ORIGINS OF THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
1. The United States Congress has a long history of seeking ways to improve its own decision-making machinery. At various points in its comparatively brief 200-year history the Congress has changed its procedures and in some cases added special research organizations to improve its decision-making ability.
2. These improvements have always come in response to the special needs of the time. This is particularly true in the area which is the focus of this paper, the area of special support and advisory mechanisms for the Congress.
3. In the early years of the Congress, when the need was for basic information, the Congress established a library to meet this need. The Library of Congress, begun modestly in 1801, has since become, in effect, the American national library. However, it continues to serve the Congress through its extensive collection of books in many languages.
4. A hundred years later the Congress found that the simple availability of a good reference library was not enough. Within the Library of Congress a Congressional Research Service was therefore set up. This is a separate organization located within the Library of Congress. Today the Congressional Research Service has a staff of 703 and provides a wide range of services to the members and committees of the Congress. These services range from the compilation of bibliographies, data, legislative histories and background papers to speech drafts, development of pro and con analysis, and in-depth reports on diverse issues. For the most part this work is based on the extensive use of the resources of the Library of Congress.
5. Immediately following World War I the Congress became conscious of a need for improved control and oversight over the financial affairs of the government. It therefore established an office with special competence in financial auditing, the General Accounting Office. The General Accounting Office today has a budget of $124 million and a staff of 5,188. This staff includes 2,493 accountants, 486 business administration and management specialists, 186 lawyers, 147 economists and social scientists, 33 computer specialists, 31 engineers and a number of other specialists. Like the Congressional Research Service, it works exclusively for the members and committees of the Congress. In recent yeais it has branched out from the narrow auditing function to include in the services it performs for the Congress economic analysis of military, social and other programs.
6. Just last year the Congress, in an effort to further strengthen its ability to cope with the annual government budget, established new budget committees in both the upper and lower chambers. These
committees each have a staff of between 60 and 70, and they will be supported by a Congressional budget office which is expected to grow to about 100 people.
7. In the years following World War II the American Congress came to the realization that developments in the post-war years presented yet an other demand on the legislative process. A new dimension of profound importance was added to a wide spectrum of the policy issues facing the Congress. This new dimension was the massive impact of scientific and technological advances which led to the establishment of the Office of Technology Assessment.
8. The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) began its work in November 1973. It now has a diversified staff of 87. Of these 11 are consultants on various subjects who are with us for, a fixed timeperiod. We have also on loan to us from several different agencies of the government 5 specialists on various subjects, and we have a' group of 5 scientists who come to us from universities as One-year fellows. The remainder are permanent professionals who are supported by 21 secretaries and other staff support people. In each program area OTA appoints a panel of informed people from the private sector, expert consultants as needed, and often contracts for qualified assessment and study. It is, thus, a combination of internal management and staff activity, coupled with private sector involvement, that must get the work done.
9. The product of our work takes a number of forms. We are very conscious of the need to shape both content and format to the needs of the users in the Congress. Let me give a few examples.
11. TWO EXAMPLES OF SHORT-TERM ASSESSMENT: HEALTH AND THE
ANNUAL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET
10. Last year one of the Committees iin the Senate was well along with the development of legislation in the field of health. At that pomi, t it became clear that one of the important policy issues which had to be resolved was Ithe issue of generic names versus trade names for prescription drugs. In simple terms, the issue was whether drugs sold at high prices under the private label of individual 'companies are medically equivalent to drugs sold at much lower prices under the Latin or generic names.
11. The Senate Committee needed an evaluation of this particular policy issue. In order to respond, the OTA brought together a panel of 10 scientists to review the scientific evidence. A distinguished professor of medicine from a prominent university was appointed to serve as Chairman of the study panel. Within 3 months this group produced a report which concluded that current standards and regulations practiced do not insure bloequivalence for drugs, and there were other recommendations as to how to bring this about. ii. Energy research and development
12. The Office of Technology Assessment has done a number of similar short-term assessments for the Congress. Earlier this year, for example, at the, request of a Committee of the House of Representatives, we -did a in-depth analysis of the annual budget'for the Energy Research and Development Admimistration. In this case the Congres-
sional Committee had scarcely two weeks from the time the budget was made public by President Ford to the time that authorization hearings before the Committee were to begin. The OTA assembled a panel of energy experts- and a working task force of skilled consultants who analyzed all '.aspects of the proposed budget, identified pro and con arguments for each program element, raised questions that needed to be answered, and prepared brief background papers on each issue.
13. While originally intended as a-rush effort to help prepare committee members and'staff for the hearing process, this analysis has. since developed into a printed document published under the heading of the 3 separate committees which found it useful in their legislative work. During the course of the hearings in one of the House Com.mittees, the'-information in this assessment served to justify the Committee's 'approval of an addition of $250 million for increased research and development in the areas of energy conservation, solar energy and geothermal energy sources. This analysis has been followed by a summer-long evaluation of the ERDA plan and program which is now being used by various congressional committees and which is particularly appropriate in view of the major influence these goals and priorities will have -on this nation' s economy, quality of life, environment, etc.
III.- THE OCEANS ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
14. The Office of Technology Assessment is also engaged in a number of much larger assessment studies. These are. of course much more comprehensive in scope and therefore much more extended in time. Let me discuss here only one of these: our'Oceans Assessment Program.
i. Designation of a priority area
15. In February 1974., the OTA Congressional Board designated the oceans area as one of its highest priorities and authorized the OTA staff to proceed with the development of specific assessment proposals. Congressional needs for independent information in this critical area increased over the ensuing months and additional assessment requests were submitted by 3 different Senate committees.
16. The OTA project management staff,, which includes individuals with expertise in issues inoving oceans technology, performed an analysis of the already existing studies on this subject, including those recently performed at the request of other government agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the Council on Quality. Information previously developed through congressional hearings was reviewed, on-going hearings were monitored, and North Sea oil drilling and staging sites were observed at first hand.
17. This staff effort culminated in Mlay 1974 with the convening of a 3-day meeting between the OTA staff and a 9-member "ad hoc" panel of experts, headed by Professor Don E. Kash of the University of Oklahoma. Professor Kash had headed an earlier assessment of outer continental shelf oil and gas technologies, done for the government. Legal, environmental, economic and biological experts were included, as were spokesmen for industrial and governmental interests. This panel conducted an intensive review of the strengths and weaknesses of the existing "Bonus Bid" leasing system employed by the Depart-
ment of Interior for assigning exploration and production rights to lands lying beyond the 3-mile limit. Under the Bonus Bid system private companies bid for the drilling and production rights to a specific, 9-square mile tract of the ocean floor. The highest bidder pays the government an initial cash bonus and royalties on oil production only. While this system is administratively simple, it is less efficient than drilling exploration of an entire undersea structure, and the risk to the, individual company is substantially higher. A rep ort answering specific questions raised by the Judiciary Committee of the, House of Representatives was prepared by the panel. ii. The recommendkation for "site specific" assessment of the probable
impacts of offshore technologies
18. From the viewpoint of subsequent OTA activities, the significant recommendation provided by the OTA ad hoc outer continental shelf advisory group was that any detailed assessment be limited to a specific coastal region. The panel pointed out that the outer continental shelf surrounding the United States from Alaska to New England is a vast and varied region, which does not lend itself to generalized study.
19. Accordingly, the OTA staff proposed-and the OTA Board approved-a "site specific" assessment of the probable impacts of offshore technologies proposed for use off the coasts of the states of New Jersey and Delaware. This particular site was chosen for two critical reasons. First, it was apparent through OTA's staff analysis that the Interior Department's earliest nominations for accelerated outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing would be targeted for the "Baltimore Canyon" region lying along the Atlantic coast adjacent to the mid-Atlantic shores. Secondly, the area was picked because two other technologies-offshore siting of nuclear power plants and deepwater ports for super-tankers-had been proposed for the coasts of. these two states. While studies of these individual technolgies had been undertaken, no analyses had been performed which took into. consideration the possible combined effects of siting these three technologies within a common coastal region. 1
20. In Iorder to obtain strong expert guidance, and to afford an opportunity for participation by various parties from industry to consumer, an 11-member citizens' advisory panel was appointed for the project. This panel is under the chairmanship of Dr. Richard. Sullivan, former Commissioner of Environmental Protection for the, state of New Jersey and now a lecturer at Princeton university. Included on the panel are representatives of the oil industry, private power utilities, labour unions, public interest groups, experts on public policy issues, marine geology and'ecology, fisheries, resources, and state officials of both New Jersey and Delaware. This very active panel assisted the OTA project staff in designing the study plan, in selecting contractors to assist. performance, of the assessment, and is continuing to assist in overseeing the study as it progresses.
21. The assessment of new use demands on the coastal zone and offshore areas of New Jersey and Delaware was formally begun in November 1974 and is scheduled for completion this October. A twoway flow of communication has been established between the elements giving guidance to the assessment and the team which has been assembled to carry out the basic study tasks. The three "guidance" elements are the OTA oceans project staff, the congressional com-
mittees interested 'in the 'Study, and the project advisory panel mentioned previously.
22. The overall contract team is headed by Dr. Hans B. Schecter, Director of Energy Systems and Civil Programs 'for the private research firm of Braddock, Dunn and McDonald. This company was the successful bidder for the project. Included in Dr. Schechter's team are two sub-contractor firms and more than a balf-dozen consultants recruited to provide expertise in a variety of technical, social and policy areas. As these resources have come to ether and the initial phases of the assessment have been performed, OTA has been able to marshall preliminary data and informed manpower to respond to related congressional inquiries.
iii. The parallel exploitation of data and information obtained from
23. One of the interesting developments which we have experienced in the work of the DTA has been the desire and the need to use the data and information which is obtained while an assessment is still in progress. In many -cases we are not waiting until an assessment is completed before we make use of the expertise we have built up to begin closely related studies. For example, although the basic assessment is still some months from final completion, OTA has expanded its activities in the oceans area to include 5 additional projects, each of which builds on the base of expertise developed in the performance of the, on-gomg major study. These "add-on" projects include-.
A detailed analysis of the Interior Department's announced plan for accelerated outer, continental shelf leasing;
A task force study of the feasibility of separating exploration from production of outer continental shelf oil and gas;
A basic primer of policy issues raised by the growing use of supertankers carrying large volumes of petroleum products ;
An experiment in public education and assessment of public attitudes regarding the impacts, both positive and negative, of coastal zone technologies;
A planned study of the effects on national growth patterns that may result from the establishment of major new energy facilities -within the coastal zone.
iv. The challenge of public participation
24. OTA's -effort to provide new opportunities for public participation has been particularly challenging. The problems of reaching a broad range of citizens and the difficulty of fully explaining, not only the technologies proposed, but the objectives of the -assessment process, require a good deal 'of effort. Questionnaires, meetings, the media, and person f contacts are all being employed in this task, and a brochure has been forwarded to some 15,000 people from whom there has been considerable response. v. The use made by Congress of the results so far obtained
25. Information which has been independently developed for the Congress by the OTA Oceans Assessment Program, has already been directly utilized in Congressional deliberations. Last January, reliminary information from the OTA super-tanker study provided background information for hearings by a Senate Committee on that issue, as a committee print of the Senate National Ocean Policy
Study by the Senat e Commerce Committee. The OTA task force analysis of alternatives for outer continental shelf exploration formed an information base for joint hearings held earlier this year by the Senate Interior. and Insular Affairs Committee and Senate Commerce, Committee. The subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, which deals with the Department of Interior, utilized the OTA. study on accelerated leasing in preparing for its departmental hearings and requested a briefing on the subject by OTA staff personnel.
26. The issues which Congress has asked OTA to address furtherinclude:
How can federal offshore petroleum deposits be identified and quantified so that they can intelligently be included in our overall national energy planning?
How can the development and subsequent depletion of these resources be managed so as to best serve the long-term. national interest including a fair return to the US Treasury?
How can such resources be recovered most effectively and with least harm to the environment?
How can the interests of the citizens and their state and 'local governments in the coastal zone best be taken into account in setting national policy for the utilization of outer continental shelf petroleum resources?
27. All of these technology assessments by the OTA, of course, are only pieces in the total information picture assembled by the committees of the Congress. However, these contributions have been particularly timely and particularly relevant to public policy issues of urgent national concern, not only to coastal zone residents but to energy consumers across the country.
28. The final answers to the questions which the OTA receives, and the important policy decisions that attempt to resolve them, can only be made by elected representatives in the Congress. OTA's role is to provide objective information and to identify alternative courses of policy action. Since the completion on 1 April of the OTA study of alternative approaches to outer continental shelf oil and gas expl6ration, there has been an indication of a shift among Senate leaders away from a proposed federal oil and gas survey program and towards a proposed joint exploration-development venture in which government would join with several Private oil companies, including some of the smaller independent firms, to undertake comprehensive and co-ordinated drilling programs covering entire geological structures considered likely to contain petroleum.
IV. THE TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
29. Discovery and production of additional domestic energy resources is only one side of the coin. Energy conservation and changes in our present fuel consumption patterns are matters of equal urgency and concern to the Congress: Accordingly, OTA has developed an active assessment program in! the area of transportation, where congressional leaders are seeking information about potentially more efficient ways to meet the travel needs of the American people..
30. The transportation study has been devoted chiefly to a series of questions in the field of fixed rail and guideway transit. We found that this field is characterized by the existence of number of different technological alternatives, few of which have been placed *in actual
service in American cities. Our assessment of "automated guideway transit" was completed in the spring of this year, and was ready in time to be used by the committee in the Senate which was reviewing the budget of the government transit agency. The results of our study were presented by the OTA staff and consultants to this Senate Committee, and, as a result, the need for demonstration projects in our cities to test and demonstrate these alternate automated rail transit systems was accepted by the Senate Committee and funds were included in the budget.
31. Our transportation assessments have also included studies of "automobile collision data" and "automatic train control technology". More recently, we have conducted an assessment of how local governments, such as cities and regional governments, plan and make decisions about the kinds of public transit system they want to construct and operate. We have found that the Committees of both the Senate and House of Representatives have been receptive to our work and have made extensive use of our data and analysis in their own legislative work, ranging from committee reports to legislative hearings and floor debate.
32. Other major technology assessment studies now being done by the OTA, or about to be started, cover such subjects as energy, materials, food, health, international trade and overall R. and D.
33. We have been pleased that parliamentarians in other countries have shown an interest in our work. In the three years of our existence we have had a number of visitors from other countries to our offices in Washington. They have included both parliamentarians and government officials from Canada, England, France, Germany, Holland, Japan and Sweden, as well as officials from the Common Market. We have also had some contacts with officials of the Soviet Union's State Committee on Science and Technology. We welcome these contacts because they offer us an opportunity to exchange views and experiences with policy makers and policy advisors who face the same basic questions which we face in dealing with policy issues that have a strong science and technology component. We have learned from these visitors, and we hope that they, too, have found their visits useful.
34. The OTA was established by the American Congress to meet a new need. The legislators, most of whom are without extensive specialized competence in matters of science and technology, felt that they must have a source of independent advice on questions in this field. They were particularly aware that science and technology produce not only the direct results which lead man to pursue research and development, but also secondary effects which in the past have only been taken into account when thev became overpowering. At the OTA we are attempting to assist the Congress in becoming aware of both the primary and the secondary effects, so that legislation can be written to take both into account.
35. We are taking the first tentative step down this difficult path. Much has yet to be learned, but I am confident that this new advisory mechanism for the American legislature will make a substantial contribution to the deliberations of the Members and Committees ,of the Congress.
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Mr. Onder Alabey Turkey
First Secretary Responsible for Science, Turkish Embassy, Rome.
Mr. Stig Alemyr Sweden
Member of the Riksdag, Chairman of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Professor Dr. Milton J. Allen United Kingdom
Professor of Biophysics, Electro-physiology and Electro-chemistry, Shell Research Center, Sittingbourne.
Dr. Richard C. Atkinson U.S.A.
Deputy Director, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Professor Dr. T. van Autenboer Belgium
Geologist, Belgian Antarctic Expeditions, Brussels.
Mr. Kurt Bachtold Switzerland
Representative, Council of States, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Dr. Francois Barlier France
Astronomer, Mendon Observatory.
Professor F. Bassani Italy
Institute of Physics, University of Rome.
Mr. Paul Beaulieu Canada
Scientific Counsellor, Canadian Embassy, Brussels.
Mr. David Z. Beckler U.S.A.
Assistant to the President, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Reginald Bennett United Kingdom
Psychiatrist, Surgeon, Lt. Cdr. R.N., Member of Parliament Discussant, Former Chairman and present member of the Steering Committee of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, London.
Professor Paolo Bisogno Italy
Discussant, Scientific Director, National Research Council of Italy, Rome.
Mr. Ren6 Bost France
Engineer, National Center for Space Studies, Pais.
Mr. Serge Boucheny France
Senator, National Assembly, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Mr. Andre Boulloche France
Discussant, Representative, National Assembly, former Minister of Education, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Mr. Hector de Bruyne Belgium
Senator, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Professor Dr. Horst Bucker Germany
University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt.
Professor Ren6 Buvet France
Laboratory for Energy in Biochemistry, University of Paris at Val de Marne, Paris.
Professor Nestore B. Cacciapuoti Italy
International Council of Scientific Unions, Paris.
Professor Jacques Caen France
Professor of Medicine, University of Paris Medical School, Paris.
Mr. Ren6 Caille France
Representative, National Assembly, Vice-Chairman, Committee on Cultural and Social Affairs, National Assembly, Paris.
Professor Alfonso Caracciolo Italy
Aquilla University, Rome.
Professor Guido Carobbi Italy
Professor of Mineralogy, University of Florence, Representing the President of the National Academy of Lincei, Rome.
Professor Umberto Colombo Italy
Author, Director, Corporate Research and Strategic Planning,
Montedison SpA Milan, Chairman of the Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy of OECD.
Mr. Gherardo Cornaggia Medici Castiglioni Italy
Ambassador of Italy to the Council of Europe
Mr. Karl Czernetz Austria
Session Chairman, Member of the Nationalrat, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Mr. Emilio Q. Daddario U.S.A.
Author, Director, Technology Assessment Office, Congress of the United States of America, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Jean-Marie Daillet France
Representative, National Assembly, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Professor Ren6 Dejaiffe Belgium
Astronomer, National Observatory of Belgium.
Mr. Bernard Delapalme France
President, National Association of Technical Research, Paris.
Mr. Andre Delers Belgium
Associate Secretary, National Foundation for Scientific Research, Brussels.
Mr. Claude Delorme France
Representative, National Assembly, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Professor Eric G. Derouane Belgium
Department of Chemistry, University of Namur.
Mr. Kay Dessau Denmark
Secretary General, International Center for Environmental Debate and Action, Waldegg-Beatenberg, Switzerland.
Mr. Gaston Deurinck Belgium
Managing Director, Industry- University Foundation, First ViceChairman, National Council on Scientific Policy, Brussels.
Dr. Klaas von Dijk Holland
Member, Second Chamber, Member of the Committee on Science Policy, The Hague.
Mr. Aryeh Dvoretzky Israel
Professor of Mathematics, President, Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem.
Mr. Erling Fjellbirkeland Norway
Secretary-General, Central Committee for Norwegian Research, Oslo.
Mr. Jean Fleury France
Senator, National Assembly, Member, Committee on Cultural Affairs, Paris.
Professor Dr. med. Theodor Fliedner Germany
Professor of Clinical Physiology, University of Ulm, Representing German Research Association, Bonn.
Mr. Paul Gehler Switzerland
Representative, National Council, Chairman, Committee on Scientific Research, Bene.
Mr. Raymond Georgis Belgium
General Secretary, European Foundation for Cultural Affairs, Amsterdam.
Mr. Roy Gibson United Kingdom
Director General, European Space Agency, Paris.
Mr. Olle Goeransson Sweden
Member of the Riksdag, Chairman of the Swedish Parliamentary and Scientific Association, Stockholm
Dr. Yves Goldschmidt-Clermont Belgium
Senior Physicist, European Organization for Nuclear Rese'arch (CERN), Geneva
Professor Yves Graff France
Professor of Organic Chemistry, University of Nantes,' President of the European Association for Interaction between Universities, N antes
Mr. George Hampton United Kingdom
Director of Administration, European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva
Professor Walther Hofer Switzerland
Representative, National Council, President, Committee of European Non-Members of the Council of Europe
Dr. John D. Holmfeld U.S.A.
Science Policy Staff, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Erik Hoist Denmark
Member of the Folketing, Member of the Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe
Mr. Gerhard Huigens Holland
Consultant, Science and Space Committee, Western European Union
Mr. Charles Hummel Switzerland,
Ambassador of Switzerland to UNESCO, Vice-President of the Committee for Cultural Cooperation, Council of Europe
Professor Gabrielle Illuminati Italy
Member, Committee on Higher Education and Research, Council of Europe
Mr. Hisao Ishino Japan.
Member of Parliament, House of Representatives, Tokyo.
Dr. Roger Kaiser MnsrofIdsranReachPri.France Executive Director,MiityoInutyadRsrcPi.
Mr. Temel Karamollaoglu Turkey.
General Director of Incentives and Implementation, Ministry of Industry and Technology, Ankara.
Mr. Per Karstensen Norway
Member of the Storting, Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Education and Ecclesiastical Affairs, Chairman of the Norwegian Parliamentary and Scientific Association, Oslo.
Dr. Josef Kates Canada
Chairman, Science Council of Canada, Ottawa.
Mr. Masahiro Kawasaki Japan
Director of Research Division, Atomic Energy Bureau of Science and Technology Agency of Japan, Tokyo.
Dr. Alexander King United Kingdom
Author, Co-founder of the Club of Rome, Chairman of the International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study.
Mr. K. Kolmtoff Holland
Member, Second Chamber, Member of the Committee for Science Policy, The Hague.
Professor Dr. C. A. Koopman Holland
Member, First Chamber, Member of the Committee for Science Policy and Higher Education, The Hague.
Mr. Cemal Ktilahli Turkey
Member of the National Assembly, Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Professor Dr. agr. Jul LAg Norway
Professor at the Norwegian Agricultural University, Vice-Chairman of the Norwegian Parliamentary and Scientific Association, Oslo
Mr. Maurice Lamontagne Canada
Senator, Member of the Senate Special Committee on Science Policy, Ottawa.
Mr. R. Martin Lees United Kingdom
Author, Directorate of Science, Technology and Industry of OECD.
Mr. Christian Lenzer Germany
Discussant, Member of the Bundestag; Member, Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Dr. Halvor Lervik Sweden
Liaison Officer, Technical Secretariat, The Swedish Institute for Surface Chemistry, Stockholm.
Mr. Jim Lester United Kingdom
Member of Parliament, Member of the Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Mr. Ignaas Lindemans Belgium
Director, Department of Education, Federation of Christian Labor Unions, Brussels.
Professor Ernst F. Liischer Switzerland
Professor of Biochemistry, Theodor Kocher Institute of the University of Bern.
Dr. Manfredo Macioti Italy
Director for Science Policy, Directorate- General for Research, Science and Education, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
Mr. Clyde McClelland U.S.A.
Counsellor for Scientific and Technological Affairs, U.S. Embassy, Bonn.
Mr. Masao Maeda Japan
Member of Parliament, House of Representatives, Tokyo.
Dr. Frank Maine Canada
Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa.
Professor Dr. Ljubisev Markovic Yugoslavia
Dean of the School of Political Science, University of Belgrade.
Mr. Giancarlo Masini Italy
Science Editor, Milan.
Dr. Boaz Moav Israel
Member of the Knesset, Biologist and Biochemist, Senior Lecturer at Tel Aviv University, Jerusalem.
Mr. Alfredo Moneti Italy
Vice-Chairman, Committee on Relations with National Parliaments and the Public, Council of Europe.
Mr. Pierre de Mon tesquiou France
Chairman, Committee on Science, Technology and Space, Western European Union, Paris.
Prof. Silvie Moravia Italy
International Council of Women (CND) Florence.
Mr. Charles A. Mosher U.S.A.
Member of Congress, Session Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Dr. GUnther Muller Germany
Member of the Bundestag, Member of the Committee on Culture and Education, Council of Europe.
Professor Anders Munk Denmark
Dr. Philos., Biology, Teachers' College of Denmark, Copenhagen.
Professor S. Nikitine France
Spectroscopy Laboratory, Louis Pasteur University, Strasbourg.
Mr. J. Nittel Holland
Ministry for Science Policy of the Netherlands, The Hague.
Mr. Zeki Okur Turkey
Member of the National Assembly, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Professor Anders Omholt Norway
Director, Norwegian Industrial and Research Association of the Norwegian Federation of Industries, Secretary-General of the Council of European Industrial Federations, Oslo.
Mr. David van Ooijen Holland
Member, First Chamber, Member of the Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Professor Keichi Oshima Japan
Director for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD, Paris.
Mr. Antonio Pecoraro Italy
Senator, Vice President, Parliamentary Assembly, and Member, Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Mr. Mario Pedini Italy
Minister for Science and Technological Policy of Italy, Rome.
Mr. Thomas Pendry United Kingdom
Member of Parliament, Member of the Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Professor Dr. philos. Erling Petersen Norway
Professor of Economics and Statistics, University of Oslo, former Chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe and Founding Chairman, Norwegian Parliamentary and Scientific Association, Oslo.
Professor Eva Philbin Ireland
Member of National Science Council, Dublin.
Professor Pierre Piganiol. France
Author, President, International Association on the Future; former Representative to the Council on Science and Technology, Paris.
Professor Dr. philos. Mogens Pihl Denmark
Professor of Physics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.
Mr. Frederik Piket Holland
Member, Second Chamber, Member, Committee on Culture and Education, Council of Europe.
Professor Hubert Planel France
Professor of Medicine, University of Toulouse.
Dr. Michael Pollak Austria
Author, Directorate on Science, Technology and Industry, OECD, Paris.
Mr. Rene Radius France
Representative, National Assembly, Chairman, Committee on Local and Municipal Administration, and Vice Chairman, Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe.
Professor Olivier Reverdin Switzerland
Session Chairman, Representative, Council of States, President, National Council of Switzerland for Research, Vice-President, European Foundation for Research, former President of Parliamentary Council of Europe.
Mr. H. H. IRhee Switzerland
Mr. Klaus Richter Germany
Session Chairman, Member of the Bundestag, Vice-President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Mr. Paul Riviere France
Representative, National Assembly, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Sir John Rodgers United Kingdom
Member of Parliament, Vice-Chairnman of the Political Affairs Committee, Council of Europe.
Mr. William Ryan Ireland
Senator, Member of the Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Professor Jean-Jacques. Salomon France
Discussant, Head, Science Policy Division, Directorate on Science, Technology and Industry, OECD, and Associate Professor of Political Science, National Conservatory of the Arts and Professions, Paris.
Professor Dr. Kurt Sauer Germany
Director, Soil and Conservation, Baden-Wiirtemberg.
Dr. Karl-Friedrich Seb eidlemann Germany
Author, Executive Director, Federal Ministry for Research and Trechnologyr, Bonn.
Professor Dr. Erwin Schopper Germany
Director, Institute of Nuicear Physics, University of Frankfurt.
Mr. N. P. van Schouwenburg Holland
Ministry for Science Policy of the Netherlands, The Hagrue.
Mr. Norman Scott United Kingdom
Director, Trade and Technology Division, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva.
Professor Elisabet Sjovall Sweden
Dr. of Medicine, Hospital Director and Head Physician, Gothenburg.
Mr. Philip M. Smith U.S.A.
Special Assistant to the Director, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Sir Peter Smithers United Kingdom
General Discussant, Former Secretary-General, Council of Europe.
Mr. Peter Snape United Kingdom
Member of Parliament, Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Dr. Finn Sollie Norway
Director of Research, Fridtj of Nansen Foundation, Oslo.
Dr. Henk van Stiphout Holland
Dr. Sociology, Member of Scientific Council for Government Policy, The Hague.
Mr. Kolbj6rn Stordrange Norway
Member of the Storting, Member of the Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Professor Meredith W. Thring United Kingdom
Head of Department of Mechanical Engineering, Queen Mary College, London.
Mr. Renato Treu Italy
Senator, Vice Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Dr. A. A. Th. M. van Trier Holland
Chairman, Science Policy Council for the Netherlands, The Hague.
Mr. F.H.P. Trip Holland
Minister for Science Policy of the Netherlands, The Hague.
Mr. Konstantin Tsiuplakis Greece
Member of Parliament, Professor at the University of Patras, Thessalonika.
Mr. Orhan Tugrul Turkey
Senator, Chairman of the Committee on Economic and Financial Affairs of the Senate of the Republic, Ankara.
Professor Dr. Hans Tuppy Austria
President, Foundation for the Advancement of Scientific Research, Vienna.
Dr. Jan Uhler Sweden
Director of Planning, The National Swedish Board for Technical Development, Stockholm.
Mr. Turhan Utku Turkey
Member of the National Assembly, Chairman, Committee of Industry and Technology of the National Assembly, Ankara.
Mr. Giuseppe Vedovato Italy
Session Chairman, Senator, Chairman of the Organizing Committee, former Chairman, Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe, and currently Chairman, Political Committee, Council of Europe.
Dr. Joze Vilfan Yugoslavia
Member, Federal Assembly, Vice-Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Belgrade.
Mr. Louis Villecourt France
Division Director, General Directorate of Research, Science, and Education, Commission of The European Community, Brussels.
Mr. Kenneth R. Warren United Kingdom
Discussant, Member of Parliament, Member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Commons, Honorary Secretary of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, and Member, Committee on Science and Technology, Council of Europe.
Mr. Leo Wery Belgium
Advisor, State Minority for Scientific Affairs, Office of the Prime Minister, Brussels.
Dr. T. C. D. Whiteside United Kingdom
Group Captain and Medical Officer, Royal Air Force, RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine, Farnborough.
Dr. Gerard Ter Woorst Holland
Member, Second Chamber, Member of the Committee for Science Policy of the Netherlands, The Hague.
Mr. Vladeta Zunic Yugoslavia
Secretary, Committee on Foreign Policy, Federal Assembly.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
Mr. Georg Kahn-Ackermann
Mr. Sforza-Galeazzo Sforza
Deputy Secretary- General.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT OF THE CONFERENCE
Mr. Hans-Christian Christensen Executive Secretary of the Conference, Secretary of the Committee on Science and Technology.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Massue, Scientific Counselor.
Mr. John Hartland Deputy Secretary.
Mr. Mario Heinrich Deputy Secretary.
.. . ........
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 09114 3197