Presidential science adviser Du Bridge Pressure to keep budget down
WHITE HOUSE SCIENCE:
Tasks of Du Bridge By now, any doubts the scientific community may have had about the prominent role President Nixon had in mind for his science adviser, Dr. Lee A. DuBridge, in the new White House scheme of things should be laid to rest. The new Administration is little more than a month old, but already the new chief executive, in his patented scatter gun fashion, has literally peppered Dr. DuBridge with directives, calling for virtually everything from a cram course for Interior Secretary Hickel on oil pollution control to a master plan for space exploration for the next decade. Eleven days ago, the vigorous 67-year-old former/ Caltech president slowed down long enough to update newsmen on his ever-lengthening Presidential assignment sheet. The recommendation for an overall U.S. space program for the decade following completion of the Apollo program should be ready to go to the President by Sept. 1, Dr. DuBridge says. As for his personal views on space, Dr. DuBridge would venture to say only that he favors "a balanced space program" for the next 10 years rather than one with a single major objective as has been the case during this first decade. Dr. DuBridge also says he has been assigned the task of evaluating the report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources which, among other things, calls for a significant boost in federal spending and pulling together of all of the Government's nonmilitary océanographie work under one roof (C&EN, Jan. 20, page 30). Among his other Presidential assignments, the new science adviser is justifying the need for the $100 million called for by former President Johnson in his fiscal 1970 budget for construction of the 200-b.e.v. Weston accelerator—a project physicist DuBridge admits he is "enthusiastic about/' Dr. DuBridge is not optimistic about the prospects for any upward revision of the fiscal 1970 federal 14 C&EN FEB. 24. 1969
budget for research as submitted by former President Johnson. "The pressure is to keep the budget down and not increase it," he stresses. And he says that he has no specific recommendations to make yet on how to heal the breach between the scientific community and the Department of Defense which, he said earlier, would be one of his main objectives as Presidential science adviser. He says now that he thinks the nature of the breach has been "exaggerated by the rather extremist elements among some of our university communities."
R&D FUNDING:
Nonprofit Groups' Role The General Accounting Office has recommended a Presidentially directed study to define the "proper role" of Government-sponsored, nonprofit research organizations, such as Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. The study would determine whether the Government's research and development missions could best be performed in-house, by sponsored nonprofit organizations, or other groups, says GAO in a just-released report. The recent increase in capabilities and numbers of nonprofit R&D groups, the increased use of such groups to serve nondefense needs, as well as improvements in the Government's R&D capabilities, make the Presidential study necessary, GAO says. The Congressional investigative agency also recommends establishing government institutes to supplement the work of nonprofit groups or, in some cases, to replace them. Another much bolder recommendation is that a government policy be established to guide federal agencies in contracting with research organizations. The policy would include guidelines on negotiating fees or management allowances. GAO explains that the guidelines should restrict the amount and use of fees but not to the extent of destroying the operational
flexibility of nonprofit organizations. GAO's report, "Need for Improved Guidelines in Contracting for Research with Government-Sponsored NonProfit Contractors," stems from the office's review of federal agency practices and policies for fee payment. Federal expenditures of these fees amount to $9 million annually. But the total annual expenditure is less important than the question of what organizations do with the fees, GAO says. It finds that the fees paid to nonprofit groups and methods for determining the fees vary significantly among government agencies. As an alternative to the Presidential study, GAO recommends that the Budget Bureau prescribe the contract guidelines and, together with the Civil Service Commission, determine what types of organizations could best assist the Government in fulfilling its R&D mission.
CANCER:
High Risk for Chemists Grim statistics presented at last week's ACS Middle Atlantic Regional Meeting in Washington, D.C., tend to confirm what many in the profession suspect: Chemists are more likely to die from cancer than are other professional men in the U.S. And the frequency of cancers of the lymph organs and pancreas are significantly higher. The statistics, based on an analysis of deaths of ACS members which were announced in C&EN between April 1948 and July 1967, were compiled by Dr. Frederick P. Li of the National Cancer Institute. No other detailed study of the causes of death among chemists exists, Dr. Li claims. To arrive at his findings, the young physician/internist tracked down death certificates for 3637 or 78% of 4644 ACS members. Dr. Li found that 70.9% of the group were listed as chemists, chemical engineers, and scientists at the time of death. The remainder were largely administrators and managers in the chemical industry. Next Dr. Li calculated for male chemists, ages 20-64, the number of deaths from various causes as proportions of deaths from all causes. These relative frequencies of death, expressed as percentages, were then compared with similar data for deaths in 1950 among U.S. professional men, ages 20-64 (see table). In deaths from all cancers, the relative frequency among chemists, 20.6%, compared to the frequency among professionals, 15.6%, is statistically significant, Dr. Li argues. Equally significant is the nearly
THE CHEMICAL WORLD THIS WEEK
Chemists face a higher risk of death from cancer than other U.S. professional men Relative frequencies of death, by causes, among male American Chemical Society members, 1948-67, and U.S. professional men, 1950, ages 20-64 ACS members
Cause of death
No. of deaths
Malignant neoplasms* Neoplasms of the digestive organs and peritoneum Neoplasms of the stomach Neoplasms of the intestines and rectum Neoplasms of the biliary passages and liver Neoplasms of the pancreas Neoplasms of the respiratory system Neoplasms of the urinary organs Neoplasms of the bladder and other urinary organs Neoplasms of the lymphatic and hematopoietic tissues Lymphosarcoma, etc. Leukemia and aleukemia Diabetes mellitus Vascular lesions affecting central nervous system Diseases of the heart and rheumatic fever Diseases of respiratory system Cirrhosis of liver Accidents Suicides
Professional men
Relative Relative frequency frequency (%) (%)
444 143 20 68 13 36 74 24
20.6 6.6 0.9 0.3 0.6 1.7 3.4 1.1
15.6 5.8 1.2 2.7 0.6 0.9 3.0 1.0
10
0.5
0.5
94' 61 33 21 117 995 30 17 155 97
4.4 2.8 1.5 1.0 5.4 46.2 1.4 0.8 7.2 4.5
2.2 1.2 1.0 1.3 6.8 46.5 2.5 2.1 6.7 3.4
•Total includes other categories not listed. Source: Dr. F. P. Li, National Cancer Institute
doubled frequency for cancers of the lymph organs and pancreas. Dr. Li's data don't identify which types of chemists face the highest risk of cancer nor do they specifically pinpoint the causes. But there's an inference that long-term occupational exposure to chemicals is the cause. The NIH scientist admits that his studies are still exploratory. But they do indicate the need for greater evaluation of the possible hazards from chronic exposure to chemicals.
WEED CONTROL:
Legislation Is Lagging Legislation needed for preventive weed control is lagging, in fact, is at about the stage where laws on insect and disease control were early in the century. But this legislative gap may soon be filled, a USDA official told a meeting of the Weed Science Society of America in Las Vegas, Nev. Many preventive measures are used in the U.S., but there is little legislation coordinating control efforts. Also, present laws are not very helpful in preventing new kinds of weeds from being introduced into the country. Russian thistle, Johnson
grass, water hyacinth, and, more recently, witchweed have migrated to the U.S. And America has given to Europe ragweed, buffalo bur, goldenrod, sunflower, and witchgrass. In his report to WSSA (delivered by D. R. Shepard), Dr. Robert J. Anderson of USDA's Agricultural Research Services described the efforts of an interagency ad hoc committee on preventive weed control. The group investigated the problem and found large areas where necessary legislation is nonexistent. The committee reports, for example, that there is little authority for preventing the import or interstate movement of noxious weeds, weed parts, and seeds. Also, present laws are not enough to stop movement of materials containing these things. There is also no authority to keep weed seeds from moving from farm to farm. There is a Federal Seed Act, but this and.state seed laws permit a wide tolerance of weed seeds in crop seeds sold commercially. One third of the states, moreover, have no limitation on the percentage of weed seeds permitted in crop seeds sold. Those that do have limits that range from 1 to 4% by weight. As a remedy, USDA is considering
two possible approaches. One would be to amend the Federal Seed Act to prevent crop seeds containing weed seeds from being imported or moving interstate and to lower the level of weed seeds permitted either to zero or to the lowest practical tolerance. As an alternative procedure a USDA committee is drafting a completely new noxious weed control act. It would assure federal-state cooperation in control programs and authorize specific measures to keep noxious weeds from spreading either from abroad or within the country. Another goal is a uniform noxious weed control law in every state. Such a uniform law has been prepared by representatives from WSSA, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, USDA, and other federal agencies.
DRUG INDUSTRY:
The Best Attack Is . . . The beleaguered drug industry last week attempted to defend itself against the latest frontal assault on its public image—this one launched by former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner James L. Goddard. Responding to Dr. Goddard's highly critical article on drug industry practices in the March issue of Esquire, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, in a letter to the magazine, calls the article a "shallow and misshapen commentary." "With few changes, it could be revamped into a diatribe against a host of other industries," said PMA president C. Joseph Stetler, whose group represents 136 member firms which account for 95% of the sales of ethical drugs in the U.S. In his article, "The Drug Establishment," Dr. Goddard presents the same old attacks against drug makers that have been leveled over the yearsalleged profiteering, duplicative research, and excessive promotion. He defines the "establishment" as a "close-knit, self-perpetuating power structure" of drug manufacturers, government agencies, and select members of the scientific and medical Attack and counterattack Goddard
Stetler
