formation exchange on the problems of women, minorities, and handicapped people in science. Last week's conference was part of a larger AAAS study on women scientists commissioned by the National Science Foundation. Last year a similar conference that had been planned was canceled because the NSF approval process hadn't moved along far enough. The purpose of the conference is twofold, says Brown. The first is simply to describe the participation of women in science, and to find out what patterns exist. The second is to make policy recommendations to NSF and other government officials. The 60 invited participants, most of whom have received their Ph.D.'s since 1971, broke into small working groups to discuss such issues as women's participation in science education, job opportunities, and such special problems as combining a family with research. The recommendations of these groups will be a major input into the final draft of a new bill, Kennedy told the conference. The legislation will be developed over the next eight weeks, and will be introduced on the first day of the new session. The statistics on women in science are largely inadequate or nonexistent, says Betty Vetter, executive director of the private, nonprofit Scientific Manpower Commission. Vetter has compiled the available data for AAAS and finds little to be sanguine about. "With affirmative action we've had the gut feeling that things are getting better," she says, "but this doesn't show up in the statistics." In 1973, for example, the salary gap between men and women Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers was 17%, she says. In 1975, it was 19%. Anne Strauss, a staffer on Kennedy's Subcommittee on Health & Scientific Research, agrees. "The world at large is unaware of the problem," she says. "And the scientific establishment mostly doesn't care." D
Aptitudes of graduate candidates stay steady The drop in aptitude scores of high school students over recent years has achieved some notoriety. Has a similar trend occurred with potential science and engineering graduate students? Last week, the National Science Foundation provided the answer: No. The answer derived from a study performed for NSF by Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J. NSF had wondered whether recent devel6
C&ENOct. 24, 1977
opments had influenced negatively the career choices of students with the potential to be scientists or engineers. The study's major findings: • For the period from 1970 to 1975 there were no changes of practical significance in aptitude-test mean scores among prospective graduate students in science and engineering fields. • Mean scores of candidates in each of the broad science and engineering fields studied have remained essentially stable. • Major differences observed were between students in different fields. Candidates in science and engineering, for example, averaged more than one standard deviation higher in quantitative ability than those in nonscience fields. The study was based on analysis of scores on the Graduate Record Examination for the study period. A one-to-15 sampling was made of scores on the aptitude part of the examination that yields a verbal and a quantitative score. Students were classified according to the field of the department to which their scores were to be sent, rather than by their undergraduate majors. Ten groupings were made, five in science (physical sciences, mathematical sciences, engineering, life sciences, and basic social sciences) and five in nonscience fields (health professions, education, arts and humanities, applied social sciences, and other nonsciences). D
U.S. to provide storage for spent nuclear fuel The Department of Energy has decided that the U.S. government should take over responsibility for storing spent fuel rods from commercial nuclear power plants. But the program will be voluntary. And, although the government will take title to the spent fuel rods, utilities will have to pay a hefty fee for the privilege of having the rods taken off their hands. Spent fuel from the nation's 65 operating commercial reactors currently is stored in large pools of water at the plant sites. But many utilities are running out of storage space. Congress' General Accounting Office recently estimated that 3000 tons of spent fuel had been discharged into storage pools by the end of 1976 and that the total could rise to 13,000 tons by 1983. In addition, the law says that utilities must either reprocess their spent fuel within 10 years or return it to the federal government. President Carter closed off the reprocessing option earlier this year
Spent nuclear fuel rods, as above, will be stored by the government.
when he decided to indefinitely postpone nuclear reprocessing in the U.S.; thus, the new government provision for interim storage and permanent disposal of spent fuel. Utilities would have to pay a fee to cover the cost to the government of providing storage sites. Since reprocessing has been deferred, utilities would not be given credit for the plutonium and uranium contained in the fuel. If a future decision were made to go ahead with reprocessing, spent fuel could be returned to the original owners with a refund of that part of the original fee intended to cover permanent storage costs. Energy officials are uncertain as to where the interim storage sites will be located and about the cost to utilities. The preferred site would be near a permanent disposal site for nuclear materials. Such a site has not been chosen. Another possibility would be to build storage pools on government reservations, perhaps at sites where military radioactive wastes are already being stored. The government also will try to determine the interest of private firms in providing storage sites. It is believed that no more than two or three storage pools, costing between $50 million and $100 million, depending on size, will be needed for interim storage. Cost to utilities is estimated at about $3 million per year for a 1000-Mw plant. The U.S. storage option will be offered to foreign countries, if such action supports the Administration's nonproliferation goals. But no great influx of foreign spent fuel is expected. Even the extent of U.S. utility participation is unknown at this time. A meeting will be held Oct. 26 in Washington, D.C., to explain the program to interested parties. D
