News of the Week The report breaks very little new ground. Indeed, most of its information is drawn from previously published studies, and nearly all of its conclusions and recommendations sound a familiar note. It is, however, probably the most comprehensive examination of U.S. engineering to be undertaken in many years as well as the most prestigious. The major problem facing U.S. engineering today is most likely the shortage of engineering faculty and the consequent overcrowding of undergraduate classes, the report says. Doctoral enrollments, which have been seriously low for many years, are beginning to increase. Because these are the candidates for future engineering faculty positions, the increase may mean that faculty shortages will ease up in a few years. However, 40% of graduate engineering students are foreign students on temporary visas who, presumably, do not intend to remain in the U.S. Enrollment of women in engineering programs is now greater than 15%, up from 1% in 1970, the study finds. However, this number appears to have plateaued at a level considerably below that of women in other scientific fields and below their representation in the total population. Enrollments of members of minority groups—with the exception of Asian Americans, who are heavily represented in engineering schools—are actually declining after steady growth during the 1970s. Copies of the report, "Engineering Education and Practice in the United States: Foundations of our Techno-Economic Future," are available for $13.95 from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418. D
Rules for lab animal care and use tightened With the clash between biomedical researchers and animal-rights activists growing ever more intense, the Public Health Service has tightened its rules regarding the humane care and use of laboratory animals. Certain provisions for animal protection that previously were merely recommended will now be required. 6
May 13, 1985 C&EN
The new policy will take effect in November. It will supplant the present rules, which have been in place since 1979. The revised policy is expected to have a broad impact on the biomedical research community because almost half the research projects supported by the National Institutes of Health—the primary biomedical research agency in PHS—involve the use of live animals. Five major areas will change under the revised policy: • Institutions conducting animal experiments will be required to identify the persons ultimately responsible for the care and use of animals in PHS-supported projects. • Each institution will be required to include a qualified veterinarian, a nonscientist, and a person not affiliated with the facility on an oversight committee that must approve all arrangements for animal handling and use. • These institutional oversight committees must approve protocols for animal care and use as they are described in research proposals submitted to PHS for funding. PHS
will not fund such research without this approval. • Each facility must submit detailed information on how it plans to use and care for research animals in PHS-supported activities. This information must include the "rationale for involving animals" in the research. • Institutions not accredited for laboratory animal care will be required to assess their own animal research program and report deficiencies to NIH. NIH director James B. Wyngaarden has encouraged institutions conducting animal research to implement the new provisions even before the official effective date. Some animal-welfare activists have pooh-poohed the new government guidelines as "a lot of verbiage. " They claim the policy does not address the fundamental issue of the morality of experimenting on live animals. Some also would like to see NIH review research proposals from the standpoint of whether the data sought from animal experiments really are needed in the first place. D
ËPA to avoid land disposal m waste site cleanup The Environmental Protection Agency has taken action to assure that the cleaning up of abandoned and leaking hazardous waste disposal sites doesn't result in creating new ones. It has directed that for both short- and long-term response actions, all of its regional offices seriously consider treatment alternatives—such as incineration, land treatment, and neutralization—to reburying the waste in some other facility. If treatment is not feasible or costeffective in the long term, and offsite land disposal is necessary, the agency says that wastes covered by Superfund will be sent only to facilities that meet all the requirements of the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act, including those for groundwater monitoring. That raises the question of where such wastes will go. Several studies, including a recent one by a House Energy & Commerce subcommittee (see page 16) indicate that most
currently operating disposal facilities don't meet those requirements. EPA admits that this may well cause problems, at least until more disposal facilities come into compliance with RCRA. But it also believes that waste incineration will be seen as a cost-effective alternative. Currently, it's cheaper just to put a clay containment cap over a site. However, when the costs of monitoring the site for 30 years and cleaning up any groundwater contamination are considered, incineration may well be the cheapest longterm cleanup solution. EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas says the new policy "represents an important first step in promoting remedies that will lead to the ultimate destruction of the chemicals cleaned up from Superfund sites. And [the policy] assures that, where we must use land disposal, it is used in a manner that provides maximum protection to groundwater." D
