EDITORIAL
THE SATCOM REPORT IS MUST READING
The Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication (SATCOM), established in early 1966 by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in response to a request by the National Science Foundation, has surveyed the interrelationship of Federal information activities with those of scientific societies and others. The results of the three-year survey and the committee’s 55 recommendations are the subject of this report (available as Publication 1707 from the National Academy of Sciences). Ten chapters (285 pages) and a three-part appendix (22 pages) with 172 references comprise this report on how we might communicate and use scientific and technical information more effectively than we can now. I n a direct sense, the SATCOM charter or commission implied that the classical information services are not equal to the needs of the scientific and technological communities. Or if they are equal to the needs, they could not be in the face of the rapidly increasing demand. Another implied objective imposed on information services by the charter was the need “to serve all the individual scientists and engineers in the United States and their organizations.” Although SATCOM did not discover evidence of critically inefficient operation or catastrophic failure of current information services, it supports the premise that they may not be able to maintain high-quality services under unstructured coordination and without leadership. Nevertheless, SATCOM is not in favor of placing scientific and technical communication under a centralized management. I t recommends the establishment of a Commission to provide guidance in the coordination of information services and formulation of needed national policies. As the SATCOM report explores the proper mechanism for the planning and coordination responsibilities, the reader expects, then hopes for, a critical evaluation of COMSAT’s success or failure in effecting cooperation and coordination among Federal agencies and of the relative accomplishments of NSF in “developing systems for the collection, organization, and dissemination of information.” The reader’s hopes, unfortunately, are not satisfied. Yet he will be happy with the conclusion that the proposed Commission be under the responsibility of the National Academies rather than directly with a Federal agency. I suspect even the Federal agencies would prefer to have the responsibility reside with the National Academies. In view of the emphasis that SATCOM places on the need for cooperation between information services, it is surprising that the report failed to take a critical look a t the factors present in so many of these services which may make cooperation a hazardous venture.
The report makes a strong case for R & D planning that includes early consideration of information and data handling, for greater involvement of experts in international meetings, for the consideration of copyright problems, for being aware of standards that pertain to the transfer and processing of information, and for assignment of high priority to mission-oriented information services. Because SATCOM felt that it would be too costly to provide each scientist and engineer with an individualized information system, a strong recommendation is presented for information systems that relate to a group of reasonable size-a thousand or so. This is an important recommendation. I t recognizes that the need is not satisfied except to the degree that these groups may have set up systems separate from the larger systems. But, if the larger systems do a good job in covering sources and devote more time, energy, and thought to their indexing philosophies and operations, they might be able to serve the needs of these groups and even of many individuals. How well they do these now is worth a thorough examination. In recognition of the value of and need for critical reviews and data compilations, SATCOM recommends that these be motivated by fiscal support and prestige inducements. I t would have been helpful if SATCOM had explored the extent to which this need is being met, and a t what cost by book publishers, whose output is expanding a t a greater rate than most other forms. SATCOM’s proposal, however, places control in the hands of scientists more directly and ensures a better financial return than now realized. But will the product really be much different from the current inundation? Many of the 55 recommendations are now being practiced to some degree. But coordination and cooperation are the missing links which the SATCOM report provides, if implemented. The road to nowhere is paved with many good reportsand many not so good. The SATCOM report is a good one, probably the best so far produced on this subject. Although it does not say anything really new on a subject that has been reported almost to death, the reports so far have not had an appreciable effect, except to proliferate new panels and new committees with more and more money provided by the government. Because the SATCOM report presents the story with fresh clarity and conviction and within the compelling context of the world’s community of scientists and engineers, it is must reading for all in this community. Most important, it is must reading for those who can react with manpower and funds to what may be accomplished by the coordination and cooperation suggested by SATCOM.
HERMAN SKOLNIK
194
JOURNAL OF
CHEMICAL DOCUMENTATION, VOL. 9, No. 4, NOVEMBER 1969
