News of the Week by the federal district court in Loui siana in January 1985, and that de cision was upheld in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District in December. The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments on the case this fall. The amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief filed last week by the scientists says the court should re ject any attempt to legislate teaching of creationism, because it is essen tially religious dogma and there fore violates the Fourteenth Amend ment to the Constitution. The brief contends that orthodox "creation sci ence" as prescribed in the Louisi ana law embraces religious tenets and favors a particular religious be lief. The brief says that argument that the law will require teaching of the idea of the "abrupt appear ance" of life in complex forms is just an attempt to avoid the reli gious background of creationism. "Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to science education: It sets up false conflicts between science and religion, mis leads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby com promises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world," the brief says. The effort to get scientists to sup port the brief was organized by physicist Murray Gell-Mann of Cal ifornia Institute of Technology. Chemistry Nobel winners involved include R. Bruce Merrifield, Henry Taube, Roald Hoffmann, Paul Berg, Walter Gilbert, Herbert C. Brown, William N. Lipscomb Jr., Christian B. Anfinsen, Robert S. Mulliken, Melvin Calvin, Linus C. Pauling, Glenn T. Seaborg, and John H. Northrop. Π
Reagan space decisions draw sharp criticism Since the space shuttle disaster last January, the Reagan Administration has been wrestling with the need for a complete reforging of U.S. space policy. Explosion of the shut tle, subsequent revelations of space program mismanagement, and acci dents to two key unmanned rockets have brought U.S. space launchings 6
August 25, 1986 C&EN
to a virtual halt. Moreover, many observers—including the Advisory Council to the National Aeronau tics & Space Administration in a recent report—cite an atmosphere of drifting, indecision, and lack of requisite resources and leadership in the space program, endangering U.S. pre-eminence in space. Now, after months of sharp de bate among his advisers, President Reagan has announced the U.S. will build a fourth shuttle, to replace Challenger. Costing about $2.8 bil lion, it will be completed by 1992. In addition, the Administration will promote development of a pri vate space-launching industry us ing unmanned rockets—removing launching of "routine, commercial satellites" from NASA. The private sector can do the job "better and cheaper," Reagan says. NASA will focus instead on "payloads impor tant to national security and for eign policy" and on scientific re search. The Department of Trans portation will encourage growth of the new industry. Several firms, in cluding Martin Marietta and Gen eral Dynamics, show interest. First
launches might start by 1989, DOT says. (In the meantime, note critics, U.S. firms will have to use foreign launching services.) The two decisions are being de nounced by many observers as too little, too late—as one editorial puts it, "not a real decision, just a way to keep shuffling forward without a long-term space policy." Indeed, the shuttle decision is called "inadequate and indefensible" by three Repub lican Senators holding key spacepolicy-making posts—Slade Gorton (Wash.), Jake Garn (Utah), and John Danforth (Mo.). The trio points out the "vague" or "nonexistent" funding sources the White House specifies for build ing the new shuttle—from delay in existing shuttle use until 1988, cuts in other space programs, and un spent money from other federal agencies. "There are no savings from the shuttle delay," they note. And along with Rep. Bill Nelson (D.-Fla.), chairman of the House space sub committee, they oppose cutting oth er space programs: "We cannot can nibalize NASA for funds, weakening an already distressed agency." D
EPA moving to reduce healthrisksfrom radon The Environmental Protection Agen cy continues to move ahead with its programs to help homeowners and others deal with high levels of radon gas. Preliminary survey data released by the agency indicate that the radon level in as many as 12% of U.S. homes may exceed the agen cy's action level of 4 picocuries per L of air and that high exposures might be causing 5000 to 20,000 lung cancer deaths per year in the U.S. EPA d e p u t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r A. James Barnes says, "The goal of EPA's program is to significantly reduce the health risks from radon. We need a program that educates the public about the risks at hand and helps citizens reduce those risks." To this end, EPA has pub lished two brochures available to the public on request. One brochure, "A Citizen's Guide to Radon: What It Is And What To Do About It," offers general information. The sec ond brochure, "Radon Reduction Methods: A Homeowner's Guide,"
gives EPA's currently best informa tion on how to mitigate radon lev els in a house. Data are still being collected as part of EPA's national assessment program. The agency is spending about $4 million this year on radon programs, and many states also have made large investments. Pennsyl vania, New Jersey, and New York have especially active programs un der way because of the very high radon levels found along the urani um formation, called the Reading Prong, running through those states. In a related action, EPA has an nounced final regulations under the Clean Air Act limiting emissions of radon from operations at uranium mills. Operators of the three mills still in use in the West will have to limit the size of their tailing piles to reduce concentrations of radon. Also, they will not be permitted to use existing mill tailing piles after a phase-in period during which new impoundments must be built. D
