Another signer of the letter, Russell C. Drew, president of the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, points out that it's time for technology to receive more public attention. This is one reason the societies advocate including technology in the title of the Presidential adviser's position. The American Chemical Society, not a signer of the letter, is drafting its own letters with a similar theme for the candidates. David Hanson Morton Thiokol makes final test firing of redesigned shuttle booster rocket other six astronauts are believed to have received more than $1 million each, and the Smith estate may have received considerably more. Only one legal battle growing out of the Challenger disaster remains: two multibillion-dollar lawsuits filed against Thiokol by former Thiokol engineer Roger M. Boisjoly (C&EN, June 15, 1987, page 4). These suits,
filed in January 1987, have been transferred from the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to Utah, at Thiokol's request. Progress has been extremely slow, with the pretrial "discovery" process currently suspended while the judge considers Thiokol's motions to dismiss certain charges. Richard Seltzer
Candidates urged to get science act together A group of 23 scientific and engineering societies is urging Presidential candidates George Bush and Michael Dukakis to form a coherent science and technology policy, and, if elected, to choose a science and technology adviser quickly. "The most urgent problems confronting the U.S. and the world today ranging from the destruction of the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect to the spread of AIDS and the restoration of U.S. competitiveness depend on effective utilization of the nation's science and technology resources," the group says in a letter to the candidates. With respect to the science adviser, the letter states: "That person should be a distinguished scientist or engineer who would enjoy not only the confidence of the President but the respect and trust of the science and technology community." Without that trust and respect, the societies claim, the adviser is "isolated and ineffective." Howard K. Schachman, president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology and
one of the letter's signers, says that the letter represents an attempt to get the candidates to start thinking early about how science and technology can best be utilized for the nation's benefit. Referring to such problems as public acceptance of genetic engineering, Schachman says, "National policies cannot succeed if they contradict scientific fact and logic in biology as well as in physics, engineering, chemistry, and the other sciences." Similarly, Val L. Fitch, president of the American Physical Society, warns about the large percentage— he says 75%—of research and development funds that are used for military projects. This is drawing talented people out of the private sector, he says, where they are not being replaced. With respect to the problems of setting scientific priorities, Fitch says that if the U.S. spent as large a percentage of its gross national product on civilian R&D as Japan and some of its other trading partners do, there would be no need for priorities. Everything could be funded.
Computer network for research gains support Moves are afoot that could lead ultimately to a major National Research Network that would provide a computer network infrastructure to support the scientific research community. With increases in computation power outpacing network advances, the current situation has been described as analogous to limiting high-performance automobiles to footpaths. A National Research Council committee, in a recently issued report, has thrown its support behind the concept of such a network proposed last November by the Office of Science & Technology Policy. Making the most of existing and anticipated high-performance computing resources is among the justifications for a national research network noted by the NRC committee. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has announced that it is planning to develop a new national network for research to replace its ARPANET, first demonstrated in 1969. The new network, the Defense Research Internet (DRI), folds into the overall national research network concept. The proposal made by OSTP and supported by the NRC committee envisions the network as emerging through three successive phases. Phase 1 calls for interconnecting existing networks, which the NRC committee says are fragmentary, overloaded, and poorly functioning. Phase 2 looks toward upgrading and expanding existing U.S. networks August 29, 1988 C&EN
5
