News of the Week
CONGRESS MOVES ON INNOVATION LEGISLATION The flag rose a little higher on the innovation pole last week when the House passed its version of the Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (S. 1250) and a House subcommittee began hearings on the controversial National Technology Foundation Act (H.R. 6910). S. 1250, passed by the Senate on May 28, isn't controversial because innovation and reindustrialization is more American than apple pie. Slight differences exist between the House and Senate versions, and it seems likely that the bill will become law before Congress adjourns Oct. 4 for the national elections. The House version, in the words of Rep. George Brown (D.-Calif.), calls for "links between generators of knowledge (universities and federal laboratories) and users of knowledge (industry and state and local governments); and second, to build into the federal government a positive concern for the welfare of industry." Cost would be $169 million over five years. It would establish centers for industrial technology by the Commerce Department and National Science Foundation with the goal of combining university and industry talent for the development of new technologies. An Office of Industrial Technology would be created in the Commerce Department to administer industrial technology programs. Also, a Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology would be set up in Commerce (something Commerce already is doing anyway) presumably to ease the transfer of ideas generated in national laboratories to private industry. The House bill alters certain antitrust and patent policy provisions in the Senate version on grounds that if they remained they would conflict with various policies already being formulated. The proposed National Technology Foundation, however, is a matter of high politics in the scientific and technological communities. All the major engineering societies want the bill, feeling that practical engineering and technology have neither a comfortable nor sympathetic home in the National Science Foundation despite what NSF officials say. As one House staffer puts it, "The joke is that unless an engineering re4
C&EN Sept. 15, 1980
Brown: positive concern for Industry
search proposal has a triple integral in it, the foundation won't support it." The joke is overdrawn, because NSF is supporting technological development of various sorts, but its heart extends massively in the direction of basic research. The NTF bill would remove all the engineering and applied science programs from NSF and take from the
Commerce Department such technological entities as the Patent & Trademark Office, National Bureau of Standards, and National Technical Information Service. It would consist of an Office of Small Business, Institutional & Manpower Development, Technology Policy & Analysis, Intergovernmental Technology, Engineering, and National Programs. Its budget would begin at $500 million for the current fiscal year and rise to $875 million by fiscal 1982. Needless to say, the National Science Foundation opposes it but is sufficiently aroused so that it is in the process of searching for a way to continue serving both the scientific and technological communities. The major scientific societies such as the American Chemical Society and National Academy of Sciences haven't taken stands. But the president of the National Academy of Engineering, Courtland Perkins, said in testimony that he likes the idea. The likelihood is that the bill eventually will pass. The time is ripe, especially given the not unlikely prospect that the technological balance will continue to move away from U.S. pre-eminence in coming years. Hearings in the House continue this week with three sessions. D
OSHA loses round in fer ility hazards case The government's first attempt at protecting worker fertility has been stalled temporarily. Last October the Occupational Safety & Health Administration issued citations against American Cyanamid for violating health standards at its Willow Island, W.Va., chemical plant. Last month, these citations were dismissed quietly by two administrative law judges. OSHA has appealed one deoision, which eventually will be reviewed by the independent Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission. The second decision becomes final Sept. 19 if the commission does not undertake review. The citation that will be reviewed is one involving Cyanamid's management policy that allegedly forced fertile women workers to be sterilized or be removed from higher paying production jobs in the lead-pigment
I areas. Five women claimed that they had been sterilized voluntarily to retain these jobs. This citation, based on the general duty clause of OSHA's 1970 charter, carries a fine of $10,000. Administrative law judge William Brennan, sitting in Hyattsville, Md., dismissed this citation on technical grounds. He argued that a six-month statute of limitations had expired and, furthermore, that OSHA had no jurisdiction in the matter. Brennan's arguments are viewed as rather flimsy both within OSHA and the review commission, and his decision is expected to be overturned by that commission.. The work of the commission is logjammed, and a decision could take a year or more. If the commission upholds Brennan's decision, OSHA can further appeal the matter to the I U.S. circuit court.
