The Chemical World This Week
SCIENCE COURT: IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME? The bottom line on a three-day "colloquium on the science court," in Leesburg, Va., last week, seems to be that an experiment of the concept ought to be tried. However, the concept—which, in essence, would have a panel of "scientific judges" in a formalized public proceeding to separate fact from fiction in value-laden science and technology issues—has a long way to go before it is institutionalized. If, indeed, it ever should be. And it's far from certain that an experiment will be performed. The idea of a science court has been around for some years. Most recently, it has been nurtured by Dr. Arthur Kantrowitz, chairman of Avco Everett Research Laboratory. He was also chairman of a task force on the science court experiment of the Presidential Advisory Group on Anticipated Advances in Science & Technology. The Presidential group has been advising the White House on setting up the new Office of Science & Technology Policy. In general, the task force's scenario for a science court experiment calls for setting up a Science Court Administration (SCA) to run the experiment. An issue would be selected, such as whether chlorofluorocarbons should be banned because of their effect on stratospheric ozone, and funds would be obtained from government or private sources to finance the experiment. "Case managers," whose work would be funded by SCA, would be selected for each side of an issue. They would compile the facts as their side sees the issue and would argue their case in an adversary hearing before a panel of scientific judges. If the case managers were unable to narrow their areas of disagreement through mediation, then the scientific judges would write opinions on the contested statement. The pros and cons of such a science court were well ventilated at the colloquium. Sponsored by the Commerce Department, National Science Foundation, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the colloquium was attended by about 250 lawyers, bureaucrats, and scientists from academia, industry, and government. Few at the colloquium viewed the word "court" as appropriate. Some said that title seems to imply a judi4
C&EN Sept. 27, 1976
cial process, that science and technology aren't amenable to such adjudication, and that a better name might be a science and technology inquiry board. Others voiced concern that a science court might become too authoritarian, stifle scientific inquiry, and squelch public interest science movements. Further, court proceedings might drag on interminably and result in inconclusive or poor judgments. And concerns were expressed that conducting an experiment might well be only a waypoint in the institutionalization of a science court.
On balance, proponents seemed to outnumber opponents at the colloquium. And the proponents included some federal officials with clout to get an experiment off the ground, such as Environmental Protection Agency administrator Russell E. Train, Commerce Secretary Elliot Richardson, and Presidential science adviser H. Guyford Stever. Train, for example, said test cases from his agency might include the extrapolation of animal carcinogen data to humans, and the consequences of acid rain. D
NAS ozone panel hit for making policy Stick to your science and leave the I policy making to us. That was the message that government officials delivered to scientists attending the International Conference on the Stratosphere & Related Problems last week at Utah State University, Logan. At a science and public policy session, Dr. R. David Pittle, a member of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, took issue with the National Academy of Sciences' committee report on the ozone problem. The NAS group concluded that some regulation of chlorofluorocarbons was inevitable, but there were still major uncertainties, and it shouldn't hurt too much to wait a while longer—up to two years—before taking action (C&EN, Peterson: stop using aerosols Sept. 20, page 6). Pittle lauds the NAS report as "a lucid assessment of administrative proceedings are likely the uncertainties remaining with re- to consume, I believe regulatory pro;ard to the effect of the release of ceedings should begin now." Regulators are accountable to the chlorofluorocarbons] on the environment and on man." But, he adds, courts and to Congress, but panels of the decision to regulate in the face of scientists are accountable only to uncertainty is not a scientific judg- their peers, Pittle says. Thus, such ment but a social one, requiring the panels shouldn't make decisions that weighing of many, sometimes con- go beyond the bounds of their expertise. "Your technical recommendaflicting, considerations. Although recognizing "the general tions are entitled to great weight," mandate of NAS," Pittle says, "I find Pittle told the stratospheric scienit difficult to accept the issuance of a tists, "but your recommendations as policy judgment that we can afford to to policy should not carry more delay the commencement of regula- weight than those of any other intory action for two years." He agrees formed and responsible citizen." that information from research now Dr. Russell W. Peterson, outgoing under way will be useful. "But in view chairman of the Council on Environof the apparent necessity for a ban of mental Quality, goes a step farther. at least those [chlorofluorocarbons] The regulatory process should begin used as aerosol propellants, and in at once, he agrees. There's no immiview of the two to three years that I nent crisis, so there's time for a well-
f
