Government Bill and background
Congress set to act on several science bills The first session of the 94th Congress is drawing rapidly to a close. Although about a dozen weeks are left in the year, for Congress the number of working weeks is much less. Indeed, if various Congressional holidays are taken into account, Congress now has about seven working weeks remaining for this session, which ends on Dec. 31. That's assuming that it doesn't quit sooner. And since not much is usually scheduled for either Monday or Friday of the Congressional work week, the time is still shorter. So, an assessment of several science and technology related bills that appear within striking distance of being enacted —and one that clearly isn't—is in order. First off, it now seems virtually certain that Congress will enact legislation authorizing a White House science advisory apparatus. Late last week the House Science & Technology Committee was slated to put the finishing touches on the committee's bill. A House vote on the committee bill likely will take place within the month. And there is every indication that once the House acts, a similar measure will zip through the Senate. In short, the House bill will call for a Presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed director of a new White House Office of Science & Technology Policy. The President would be allowed to appoint, without Senate approval, up to four assistant directors of the office. The language of the bill will be such as to allow an incumbent President to structure the science office any way he chooses: a single adviser arrangement as preferred by Ford, or a council arrangement that might be preferred by a subsequent President. When the bill is enacted, and the posts filled, the current arrangement under which the National Science Foundation director also serves as science adviser—and has been an object of considerable criticism—will be at an end. But an end to NSF's troubles with critics or with some elements of Congress is nowhere in sight. Introduction in recent days of a bill by Rep. John B. Conlan (R.-Ariz.)—fast becoming NSF's harshest critic in Congress—and by Sen. Jesse Helms (D.-N.C.) will help fuel the controversy. In short, the Conlan-Helms bill (H.R. 9892 and S. 2427) would set up a new Peer Review Office in NSF to run peer reviewing. The bill also would require research proposals to be evaluated by at least five peer reviewers, selected from a new NSF central listing of peer reviewers. The applicant would be given access to the names and verbatim comments of reviewers, could rebut negative comments, and appeal a negative NSF decision through a formal appellate process. Chances that Congress will enact the Conlan-Helms bill intact are exceedingly slim. At present, neither House nor Senate committees to which the bill has been referred have "immediate plans" to hold hearings on the measure, but that could change. Fiscal year 1977 budget hearings are to start by January or sooner, and if the measure doesn't get an airing before that time, it will then. On the other hand, environmental legislation in three areas of key interest to the chemical industry are within striking distance of enactment: a ban or limit on chlorofluorocarbon manufacture; extension of the federal pesticide control act; and a new toxic substances control law. The magnitude of the economic impact of implementing a tough toxic substances control law such as provided by S. 776 apparently has cooled Congressional fervor for an 16
C&ENOct. 13, 1975
Antitrust. (S. 1284, 1637, H.R. 39) Allow Justice Department in advance of a merger to obtain depositions, written interrogatories, documentary evidence on which to decide if the merger should be challenged (H.R. 8532) Permits states' attorneys general to obtain treble damages from companies for persons or political subdivisions injured by antitrust violations (S. 489) Prohibits oil producers and refiners from owning interests in other energy resources Consumer Protection Agency. (S. 200, H.R. 7575) Establish agency to represent interests of individuals in proceedings before federal agencies in the area of consumer affairs Copyrights.11 (S. 22, H.R. 2233) Provide for general reform of U.S. copyrights laws Economy. (S. 409, H.R. 8731) Extend the authority of the Council on Wage & Price Stability and allow it to require corporations to break down business information by each product line Energy. (H.R. 6860) Imposes mandatory oil import quotas, sets tariffs on crude oil, petroleum product imports, establishes auto efficiency standards (S. 622, H.R. 7014) Establish plans to curtail energy consumption, develop domestic supplies of oil and natural gas, set price ceilings on domestic oil. S. 622 was amended to include provisions of S. 349, 677, and 1883 Foreign investments. (S. 425, 1284, H.R. 2329) Require notification and, in some instances, prohibit acquisition by foreign investors of significant interests in U.S. companies Health. (S. 3, H.R. 1, 21, 93, 363) Provide for medical, hospital, dental care through voluntary national insurance system (S. 963, H.R. 6371) Ban feeding of diethylstilbestrol to animals intended for use as food
Metric.1 (S. 100,1882, H.R. 3510) Convert U.S. to the metric system. House bill calls for voluntary conversion, sets no time limit for changeover Ozone. (S. 1982, H.R. 3118) Provide for one- or two-year study of the effects of aerosols containing chlorofluorocarbons on the atmosphere, ban or limit manufacture after two years if deemed dangerous. House bill requires Congressional approval of any ban Patents/ (S. 2235) Reforms and modernizes U.S. patent law Peer review. (S. 2427, H.R. 9892) Require NSF to set up new peer review office, supply names, institutional affiliations of reviewers, and complete copies of evaluations to grant applicants and Congress, upon request Pesticides. (H.R. 8844) Extends EPA's power to regulate pesticides to Sept. 30, 1976, sets up new scientific advisory board, allows self-certification of noncommercial pesticide users (S. 2735) Extends EPA's pesticide regulatory powers for 45 days, to Nov. 30 Science policy.b (S. 32, 79, 1987, H.R. 9058) Establish a Council of Advisers on Science & Technology in the White House Toxic substances.' (S. 776, H.R. 7229) Regulate hazardous chemical substances, require premarket testing
House committee
House floor
Senate committee
Senate floor
Judiciary. Subcommittee on Antitrust & Monopoly approved, amended, for full committee action 7/27/75
Judiciary. Subcommittee on Monopoly resumed hearings 7/25/75
Enactment unlikely
Enactment unlikely
Judiciary. Ordered reported 7/24/75
Judiciary. Subcommittee on Antitrust & Monopoly resumed hearings 9/23/75 Government Operations. Amended, reported 7/30/75
Government Operations. Amended, reported 4/9/75
Judiciary. Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties & the Administration of Justice began hearings 5/7/75
Judiciary. Markup scheduled to begin 10/7/75
Enactment unlikely Amended, passed
Enactment likely
5/15/75
Banking, Currency & Housing. Amended, reported 7/24/75
Amended, passed 7/31/75
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs. Amended, reported 4/18/75
Ways & Means. Amended, reported 5/15/75
Amended, passed 6/19/75 Amended, passed 9/23/75
Finance. Began markup 7/21/75
Interstate & Foreign Commerce. Amended, reported 7/9/75
Outlook
Interior & Insular Affairs. Amended, reported 3/5/75
Enactment likely Amended, passed 5/6/75
Approved 8/9/75 P.L. 94-78 Enactment likely
Amended, repassed 9/26/75
Enactment likely
Banking, Currency & Housing. Subcommittee on International Trade, Investment & Monetary Policy began hearings 9/24/75
Commerce. Subcommittee on Foreign Commerce began hearings 5/17/75. Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs. Subcommittee on International Affairs continued hearings 7/23/75
Enactment unlikely
Ways & Means. Subcommittee on Health began discussions but focused on no specific bill 7/13/75
Finance. No hearings planned
Enactment unlikely
Interstate & Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Health & the Environment has tentatively scheduled hearings for late October
Labor & Public Welfare. Amended, reported 7/7/75
Science & Technology. Reported 7/17/75
Amended, passed
Enactment likely
9/9/75 Passed 9/15/75
Science & Technology. Subcommittee on Environment & the Atmosphere approved, amended, for full committee action 9/17/75
Science & Technology. No hearings planned
Commerce. Hearings scheduled to begin 10/8/75
Enactment likely
Aeronautical & Space Sciences. Subcommittee on the Upper Atmosphere began hearings 9/8/75
Enactment likely
Judiciary. Markup scheduled to begin in late October
Enactment likely
Labor & Public Welfare. No hearings planned
Enactment unlikely
Enactment certain
Agriculture. Amended, reported 9/30/75
Pending
Agriculture & Forestry. Hearings planned
Agriculture. Ordered reported 9/23/75
Amended, passed 9/30/75
Agriculture & Forestry. Reported 9/18/75
Passed 9/23/75
Enactment certain
Science & Technology. Markup scheduled to begin Oct. 9
Labor & Public Welfare, Aeronautical & Space Sciences, Commerce. No hearing date set
Enactment certain
Interstate & Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Consumer Protection & Finance concluded hearings 7/11/75
Commerce. Additional hearings scheduled for 10/21/75
Enactment likely
a ACS policy developed, b ACS policy being developed.
extra stringent measure. Estimates of the cost of implementing S. 776 range from Dow Chemical's $2 billion, to the Manufacturing Chemists Association's $358 million to $1.3 billion, to the Environmental Protection Agency's $80 million to $140 million. The Senate Commerce Committee has been meeting for weeks on an irregular basis for marking up a toxic substances bill. And apparently unsatiated by the mountain of testimony that has accumulated on toxic substances legislation over the past several years, the committee now intends to hold additional hearings Oct. 21. After that, apparently, the committee will renew its efforts to crank out a bill. In the House, the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection & Finance has concluded hearings on toxic substances but hasn't started marking up a subcommittee bill. Nor has it set a date to begin markup, although a committee staffer indicates markup may begin by late November. Foot-dragging by either or both House and Senate committees clearly could result in the haggling over toxic substances control legislation spilling over into yet another session. One piece of environmental legislation that apparently will 13 enacted before the end of the first session is concerned with alleged depletion of the earth's ozone layer by chlorofluorocarbons. In essence, both S. 1982 and H.R. 3118 provide for a one-year study of the effects of the chemicals on the atmosphere and a limit or ban on their manufacture if a dangerous effect is found. Enactment appears to hinge on how fast the legislation grinds its way through the Congressional process. Legislation to extend the federal pesticide control law also stands a good chance of enactment by the end of the first session. However, unhappiness with the way the Environmental Protection Agency has been implementing the pesticide control law has resulted in the law's being extended only on an interim basis. Among other things, heated controversy has developed over the amount of attention paid to the concerns of the agricultural community in regulating pesticides. Current thinking is to extend the law for one year rather than several years. The upshot of whether a bill does or doesn't get enacted by the end of the first session is that measures carried over get caught up in the more highly politically charged second session. Next year is a Presidential election year. And all House and one third of the Senate seats are up for re-election. That always changes things. Attempts by Democrats and Republicans to one up each other for the favors of the electorate result in either the legislative process's being generally stagnated or in legislation being enacted that during less politically charged times would not be and vice versa. Fred H. Zerkel and Janice R. Long, C&EN Washington 18
C&EN Oct. 13, 1975
Technology transfer plan aims at schools The Federal Council for Science & Technology has come up with a plan for speeding and increasing the transfer of technology from universities to industry. Basically, the plan, developed by the council's ad hoc committee on university patent policy, calls for a governmentwide policy of allowing universities to obtain patents on inventions developed under government contracts and grants. Three agencies already have patent policies similar to the subcommittee's plan. But the subcommittee expects that extending its policy to all federal agencies will have far-reaching results. First, by giving universities the right to grant licenses to their technology, industries are provided with at least some assurance that any investment they make to commercialize that technology will be protected. That's a factor the subcommittee considers critical to the technology transfer process. Industry usually must make a substantial investment to bring university inventions to the market place since, the subcommittee points out, inventions arising from university research at best involve compositions of matter with no clear utility, prototype devices, or processes that have been tested only in the laboratory. Second, the ability to grant licenses will create the necessary incentive to induce universities to seek actively industrial development of their inventions by allowing the universities to retain the royalty income generated from their patents. This income, the subcommittee says, should first be used to cover the costs of administering the technology transfer program and to provide an incentive awards program for inventors whose inventions reach the market place. But universities would be free to spend the rest of the money for other educational and scientific research programs. However, not all universities would be eligible for the right to license their inventions. According to the subcommittee, the government should enter into Institutional Patent Agreements (IPA) only with those universities that have an established technology transfer program. Such a program should at least include a formal patent policy administered on a continuous basis by an officer or organization responsible to the institution, a program for obtaining patents on inventions, a system for licensing and marketing inventions, and assurance that university employees will be legally obligated to assign to the institution or the government any inventions made under government contracts or grants. Even when obtained, an IPA would not give a university a wholesale license to do whatever it wants with its inventions. The subcommittee recom-
mends that such agreements include provisions requiring prompt reporting of all inventions to the applicable federal agency and decision as to acquiring patent rights, enabling the agency to exempt individual contracts or grants from the operation of the agreement, prohibiting assignment of inventions without government approval, and permitting termination for convenience of either party upon 30 days' written notice. Further, licenses granted by universities normally would have to be nonexclusive. An exclusive license could be granted only when the desired commercial application is not likely to be "expeditiously" achieved without it. Exclusive licenses would be limited to a period not substantially greater than necessary to provide the incentive for bringing the invention to the point of commercial application and to permit the company involved to recoup both its costs and to make a reasonable profit. Changing the government's patent policy alone is not enough to accelerate the technology transfer process, the subcommittee says. There is also an acute need for universities to ensure early reporting of inventions if technology is to be transferred at an optimal rate. This could necessitate a fundamental change in attitude by the university community. Patents, as the subcommittee points out, traditionally have been regarded by the university community as irrelevant at best, and at worst as an indication of unworthy commercial motive. As a result, very few university researchers bother even to file patent disclosure statements. The publish-orperish syndrome also works against university efforts to transfer technology· In the U.S. a patent application must be filed within one year of publication of the discovery and it is not uncommon at universities for patent disclosure to be made months after publication of an article describing the work. Publication before filing of a patent application also bars issuance of valid patent protection in most foreign countries, which may detract from the product the university has to offer industry. Although the council has recommended implementation of the subcommittee's plan by all government agencies, implementation will not be accomplished overnight. The National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense and the Department of Health, Education & Welfare all now have patent policies similar to the plan. But its implementation by the Energy Research & Development Administration would require an act of Congress. And getting the other federal agencies to agree with it probably will require formation of an interagency committee and, at the least, months of discussion. D
