WEAPONS:
ABM Ends Honeymoon President Nixon's successful courtship of a scientific community which largely had spumed him during the campaign has been one of the few tangible accomplishments the new Administration could boast of. The President's selection of physicist Dr. Lee A. DuBridge, one of academic sciences most respected elder statesmen, as his science adviser . . . his boost of the National Science Foundation's fiscal 1969 expenditure ceiling . . . his policy of seeking out scientific advice on national problems— these and other early moves had won over many former critics. Last week, however, it appeared that the brief affair had come to an abrupt and unhappy end. The President's decision 10 days ago to go ahead with the deployment of a modified antiballistic missile system (ABM) in the face of strong scientific opposition has stirred emotions from Cambridge to Berkeley and threatens to undo much of what the White House has accomplished in its attempt to establish closer ties with the nation's scientific leaders. In the vanguard of scientific opposition to the ABM are all four previous Presidential science advisers who fear, among other things, that deployment of the proposed "thin" ABM system would further spur the arms race and increase the danger of an all-out nuclear holocaust. Only a few days before the President announced his decision, all four had pleaded with Congress to delay deployment of the ABM. In a telegram to Sen. Albert Gore (D.-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Disarmament Subcommittee, chemist Donald F. Homig said that, after studying the ABM question extensively during his five years as science adviser to President Johnson, he has concluded that the deployment of "any" of the proposed systems would impair the security of the U.S. and retard progress toward a stable, peaceful world. "If our IBM, Polaris, and bomber forces are adequate to deter the Soviet Union, which possesses very large nuclear forces of its own, the deterrent against China is overwhelming for the foreseeable future," Dr. Homig contends. As for an ABM defense against the Soviet Union, the Eastman Kodak executive says that any system he examined was "vulnerable in various respects . . . [and] could be countered relatively easily by new developments in offensive weapons and tactics." Whatever system is deployed initially will have to be improved upon constantly as the other side improves its offen-
sive capability. The U.S. would be forced to rely on a "fantastically complicated system which could never be tested full-scale and whose overall reliability may never be known," Dr. Hornig points out. The net effect, as he sees it, would be to decrease national security. Thus, the former Presidential science adviser sums up the basic positions of his three predecessors, Dr. Jerome B. Weisner (perhaps the prime mover behind the scientific opposition), chemist George Kistiakowsky, and Dr. James R. Killian, who appeared in person on Capitol Hill to oppose the ABM deployment. Dr. Hornig also backs Dr. Killian's proposal that a broadly based commission be created to study the total ABM problem.
Dangers from Genetics While one weapons system controversy raged center stage last week, a new and potentially even more emotionally charged one—genetic alteration—stood in the wings. Dr. George B. Kistiakowsky, science adviser to former President Eisenhower, told a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee that discoveries in genetics could lead to new and more potent biological warfare agents. The House panel has been studying the impact of new military weapons on national security. Dr. Kistiakowsky pointed out that a major breakthrough in military technology before the end of the seventies is unlikely. But when pressed for his outlook on new weapon developments after that, the Harvard chemist predicted that genetics would be the next major breakthrough area. To stress his argument that misuse of genetic achievements could become "the greatest challenge of the century," Dr. Kistiakowsky suggested that scientists have come up with a mechanism to allow a Hitler "to reproduce hundreds of his own replicas." He explained that biologists have experimented with frog cells and ovaries to produce carbon copies of donor frogs. As for nuclear weapons, Dr. Kistiakowsky looked forward to modest but not spectacular progress because nuclear weapons technology is already "far advanced." "To squeeze the last ounce of practical value out of certain general principles is a very difficult task and the development time becomes longer." He explained that the first and crude practical uses of scientific discoveries involve relatively little engineering development. And subsequent projects aimed at higher performance normally require greater development efforts, he said.
POLLUTION:
Profit from Wastes The foundry industry is examining its dusty wastes in hopes of turning them, after collection and pelletization, into chemical raw materials. Studies at Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute indicate end-use possibilities that include paint pigments, trace metals for agriculture, and insulation for chemical reaction vessels. The findings were reviewed by IITRI geochemist Eugene Aleshin during a meeting on foundry air pollution in Birmingham, Ala. The meeting was cosponsored by Birmingham's Southern Research Institute and the Alabama Community and Technical Services Agency. Possible future uses for foundry dusts cited by Dr. Aleshin also included construction material insulation, epoxy resin filler, soil stabilization material, decorative glaze, and the most obvious potential, metallic re-use. Dr. Aleshin reported to the meeting that finely ground furnace dust produces a deep red-brown ("burnt umber") color when mixed with white, linseed oil-base, paint. Sand reclaimer dust, which comes from foundry molds, is softer than furnace dust but is equally compatible with linseed-based paint, he said. Among the trace elements detected in foundry dusts are copper, manganese, sodium, nickel, aluminum, lead, magnesium, tin, calcium, and vanadium. Most of these trace elements are essential to crops except vanadium, which is toxic, and aluminum, which is inert in minute concentrations. So for agricultural purposes, removal of vanadium and aluminum would be required, Dr. Aleshin said. Both types of dust, said Dr. Aleshin, might make effective insulating material for chemical process reaction vessels. After perusing density and volume data, he concluded that the material could be poured between the outer and inner walls of those vessels.
IITRI's Aleshin Finding uses for foundry wastes
