EDITORIAL
Editor: Russell F. Christman Associate Editor: Charles R. O'Melia WASHINGTON EDITORIAL STAFF Managing Editor: Stanton S. Miller Associate Editor: Julian Josephson Assistant Editor: Lois R. Ember MANUSCRIPT REVIEWING Manager: Katherine I. Biggs Editorial Assistant: Karen A. McGrane MANUSCRIPT EDITING Assistant Editor: Nancy J. Oddenino Assistant Editor: Gloria L. Dinote GRAPHICS AND PRODUCTION Production Manager: Leroy L. Corcoran Art Director: Norman Favin Designer: Alan Kahan Artist: Linda M. Mattingly Advisory Board: Robert J. Charlson, Arthur A. Levin, Roger A. Minear, James J. Morgan, Sidney R. Orem, Frank P. Sebastian, C. Joseph Touhill, Charles S.Tuesday, William E. Wilson, Jr. Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1155 16th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 872-4600 Executive Director: Robert W. Cairns BOOKS AND JOURNALS DIVISION D. H. Michael Bowen, Director
Charles R. Bertsch, Head Editorial Department Bacil Guiley, Head, Magazine and Production Department Seldon W. Terrant, Head, Research and Development Department Marion Gurfein, Circulation Development ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT Centcom, Ltd. For offices and advertisers, see page 830
Please send research manuscripts to Manuscript Reviewing, featuremanuscripts to Managing Editor.
The adequacy of research programs conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency has been the subject of review by various groups, including the National Academy of Sciences and the House Subcommittee on the Environment and Atmosphere. The latter in particular found . . serious problems with the quality and management of EPA research programs in the past." Similar conclusions were reached by an independent review of EPA's 1976 Five-Year Research Plan conducted by the Office of Technology Assessment. Congress has interpreted this criticism of a single agency as a general deficiency in our national commitment to longterm environmental research and has responded (H.R. 6379) with a proposal for a creation of a new National Center for Long-Term Environmental Research to be funded at $50 million/annum. This unfortunate plan could seriously interf'ere with the development of sound environmental research. What exactly are the problems? First, there is a serious lack of coordination among the current leading agencies: the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (HEW), the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (HEW), the National Center for Toxicological Research (FDA/ HEW), Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration. The combined health-related research expenditures of these institutions currently exceed $200 million. Each is competing for research personnel from the same talent pool, justifying expansion of its stake in environmental research, and none has emerged as a source of enlightenment for protecting the environmental heritage of future generations. It could be argued that we need fewer national institutions, not more, as present management problems preclude the possibility that any incremental change will be successful. Second, the separation of personnel and facilities into shortterm problem-solving units and longer-term basic-research units will lead to scientific sterility in both groups, even if the role ambiguities between competing agencies were to be clarified. Innovation, utility, and scientific creditability do not automatically result from the artificial manipulation of scientists within their organizations. Congress should demand the delineation of objectives, require the coordination of efforts among existing agencies, and not add obstacles to the research delivery system. I'.
For author's guide and editorial policy, see June 1977 issue, page 575, or write Katherine I. Biggs, Manuscript Reviewing Office f S & T
Volume 11, Number 8,August 1977
737
