Technology: Processes of Assessment and Choice (1969)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

T 2.1 .N25 1969 C.l 

[• itizedbyGoogle 

I I Technology: Processes of Assessment and Choice Digitized byGoogle 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Price 75 cents 11 Digitized by Goog Ie 

Technology: Processes of Assessment and Choice Report of the National Academy of Sciences COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES July 1969 oi9,tized by Google 

[CommiHee Print] COMMI'ITEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS GEORGE P. MILLER, California, Chairman OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas JAMES G. FULTON, Pennsylvania JOSEPH E. KARTH, Minnesota CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio KEN HECHLER, West Virginia RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH, Indiana EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Connecticut ALPHONZO BELL, California JOHN W. DAVIS, Georgia THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia JOHN W. WYDLER, New York JOE D. WAGGONNER, jR., Louisiana GUY VANDERJAGT, Michigan DON FUQUA, Florida LARRY WINN, jR., Kansas GEORGE E. BROWN, jR., California JERRY L. PETTIS, California EARLE CABELL, Texas D. E. (BUZ) LUKENS, Ohio BERTRAM L. PODELL, New York ROBERT PRICE, Texas WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Colorado LOWELL P. WEICKER,JR., Connecticut ROY A. TAYLOR, North Carolina LOUIS FREY, j R., Florida HENRY HELSTOSKI, NewJersey BARRY M. GOLDWATER, j R., MARIO BIAGGI, New York California JAMES W. SYMINGTON, Missouri EDWARD I. KOCH, New York CHARLES F. DucANDER, Executive Director and Chief Counsel joHN A. CARSTARPHEN, Jr., Chief Clerk and Counsel PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel FRANK R. HAMMILL, Jr., Counsel W. H. BooNE, Technical Consultant jAMES E. WILSON, Technical Consultant RICHARD P. HINES, Sta Consultant ff HAROLD A. GoULD, Technical Consultant PHILIP P. DICKINSON, Technical Consultant WILLIAM G. WELLS, Jr., Technical Consultant JosEPH M. FELTON, Counsel K. GUILD NICHOLS, Jr., Sta Consultant ff ELIZABETH S. KERNAN, Scientific Research Assistant FRANKJ. GI ROUX, Clerk DENIS C. QUIGLEY, Publications Clerk RicHARD K. SHULLAW, Assistant Publications Clerk jAMES A. RosE; Jr., Minority Staff lV Digitized by Goog Ie 

PREFACE In December 1963 the Committee on Science and Astronautics con­ cluded a formal agreement with the National Academy of Sciences. The purpose of the agreement, which evolved into the first series of contracts between Congress and the Academy, was the production of study and pilot programs designed to isolate and describe some of the critical policy issues which government must consider in its decisions to regulate, support or otherwise foster research in the United States. This report is the third submitted to Congress under the agreement. The first study, entitled"Basic Research and National Goals," was sub­ mitted in March 1965. The second study, entitled "Applied Science and Technological Progress," was submitted in June 1967. The current study addresses itself to what our committee has identified as one of the most urgent problems pressing upon society today. It is an area in which members of this committee have been working extensively for the past 5 years, and it will be of significant utility, we believe, in leading to effective legislation. None of these reports has been easy to undertake since each has required the careful evaluation of complex and elusive relationships including those . which arc constantly evolving between government, science, technology, society and individuals. In carrying out the terms of the agreement and in developing the form and substance of the report, we in the Congress are particularly indebted to Representative Emilio Q. Daddario who, as chairman of the Subcom­ mittee on Science, Research and Development, served as the congressional agent and focal point throughout, and to Dr. Harvey Brooks who, as Chairman of the Academy's Committee on Science and Public Policy, served in similar fashion on behalf of the Academy. GEORGE P. MILLER, Chairman, Committee on Science and Astronautics. v Digitized by Goog Ie 

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OPFICit CP THE PRESIDENT WASHINGTON, D.C. July 28, 1969. Hon. GEORGE P. Mlu.ER, Chairman, House Science and Astronautics Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MILLER: I have the honor and privilege of submitting to you the attached report, Technology: Processes of Assessment and Choice, prepared by an ad hoc panel of the Committee on·Science and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences. This study was undertaken in response to a request from Representative Emilio Q. Daddario, chairman of the Sub­ committee on Science, Research and Development of your committee. The membership of the Academy joins me in expressing gratitude to the Congress, whose recognition of our Nation's requirements for the develop­ ment of institutionalized techniques and programs for technological assess­ ment was the stimulus for the deliberations of our panel. I share with the members of the panel and the Committee on Science and Public Policy the hope that this report will prove useful to the Congress as it deliberates and acts upon the challenges of our impressive technological advance. Sincerely yours, PHILIP HANDLER, President. Vl Digitized by Goog Ie 

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES CoM MinE£ ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC PoLICY 2101 CONSTnvTION AVENUE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20418 Dr. PHILIP HANDLER, President, National Acaiemy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. DEAR DR. HANDLER: I take pleasure in transmitting to you the final report of the ad hoc Panel on Technology Assessment, created by the Com­ mittee on Science and Public Policy in response to a request from the House Science and Astronautics Committee. The report represents the con­ sensus of the ad hoc panel and has been reviewed by the members of the Committee on Science and Public Policy. The ad h oc group, while in agreement with the general philosophy and thrust of the report, has differed in certain matters of detail, especially pertaining to the organization of a possible technology-assessment structure within the federal establishment. The pros and cons of each point of view concerning this are discussed in the report. To illustrate, while there was agreement that the technology­ assessment structure should have close ties both to the Congress and to the Executive, there was disagreement as to whether the central responsibility should be tied to the executive or the legislative branch. Similarly, although the report recommends that certain parts of the technology-assessment responsibility rest in both the President's Office of Science and Technology and the National Science Foundatiop, there were varying degrees of skep­ ticism as to the ability of those agencies, as presently staffed and organized, to fulfill adequately the responsibilities suggested for them. The ad hoc group embarked on its efforts with the idea of a case-study approach, in an effort to see what lessons could be learned from past efforts anechnology assessment and from past failures to anticipate the impact of emerging technologies. We hoped to answer the question: If we had it to do over again, how could we do it better? However, we soon found this approach to be impractical. The problems of technological impact are so diverse, and the variety of technologies so great, that it proved impossible to find a reasonable number of cases that could be said to be truly repre­ sentative of the problem. We did assemble a great deal of case material, varying widely in detail and completeness. This material was used, however, only for background in our discussions, and it was decided not to include it in the report. Instead, we concentrated on the structuring of the problem Vll Digitized by Goog Ie 

and on the design of an organizational framework for the technology­ assessment function within the federal government. It must be emphasized that technology assessment in some form and extent is already ubiquitous in American society, most obviously in industry and in government. It lies at the core of all decisionmaking with respect to the generation, application, or regulation of technology and its applica­ tions. Thus the panel ea1ly rejected the idea of a highly centralized mech­ anism. The primary purpose of such new mechanisms as might be recom­ mended would be to identify priorities among problems and opportunities of technological impact, and to begin to develop greater breadth and con­ sistency in the criteria and methods used in all the diverse technology assessments going on at all levels of government and in many agencies. In other words, what we saw as needed was an agency, appropriately placed in the federal structure, that could provide leadership in developing a more coherent, consistent, and comprehensive approach to technology as­ sessment throughout government and ultimately in the private sector as well, and that could draw public and scholarly attention to the relevant issues and problems. In conclusion, I think it is worth remarking how much we enjoyed our assignment. Many members of the ad hoc panel began the task with a good deal of skepticism, feeling that the problem was impossibly broad and diffuse, or that the diversity of backgrounds of the participants would make a consensus either impossible or hopelessly platitudinous. As our meetings proceeded, most of this skepticism evaporated and the members approached the task with increasing enthusiasm. We learned a great deal from each other, and found that we could impose an unexpected measure of structure upon the problem. We must all acknowledge a great debt t o Representative Daddario, who stimulated u s t o undertake this effort, and whose vision of the problem turned out to be more realistic than most of us had originally thought. Sincerely yours, July, 1969. HARVEY BROOKS. Vlll Digitized by Goog Ie 

PANEL ON TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT HARVEY BROOKS, Harvard University, Chairman HENDRIK W. BODE, Harvard University RAYMOND BOWERS, Cornell University EDWARD C. CREUTZ, Gulf General Atomic, Inc. A. HUNTER DUPREE, Brown University RALPH W. GERARD, University of California, Irvine NORMAN KAPLAN, Northeastern University MILTON KATZ, Harvard University MELVIN KRANZBERG, Case Western Reserve University HANS H. LANDSBERG, Resources for the Future, Inc. GENE M. LYONS, Dartmouth College g LOUIS H. MAYO, The Geor e Washington University GERARD PIEL, Scientific American HERBERT A. SIMON, Carnegie-Mellon University CYRIL S. SMITH, Massachusetts Institute of Technology MORRIS TANENBAUM, Western Electric DAEL WOLFLE, American Association for the Advancement of Science LAURENCE H. TRIBE, Harvard University, Executive Director IX Digitized byGoogle 



COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY HARVEY BROOKS, Harvard University, Chairman W. 0. BAKER, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. LIPMAN BERS, University of California, Berkeley PRESTON E. CLOUD, jR., University of California, Los Angeles HARRY EAGLE, Albert Einstein College of Medicine CARL ECKART, University of California, San Diego HERBERT FRIEDMAN, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory RALPH W. GERARD, University of California, Irvine J. G. HARRAR, Rockefeller Foundation STERLING B. HENDRICKS, Department of Agriculture MARK G. INGHRAM, The University of Chicago CLEMENT L. MARKERT, Yale University GEORGE A. MILLER, Rockefeller University KENNETH B. RAPER, University of Wisconsin HERBERT A. SIMON, Carnegie-Mellon University ROBERT E. GREEN, National Academy of Sciences, Executive Secretary Xl Digitized by Goog Ie 

Google o191tized by 1 

CONTENTS Page Chapter I. Introduction . . . . . . Origins of the Report . Nature of the Problem 8 Defining the Inquiry 8 Two Preliminary Distinctions 15 Technologies and Supporting Systems 16 Perception and Response . . I7 Chapter II. Existing Processes of Assessment and Decision 20 Chapter III. Founulation of Objectives . . . 29 The General Welfare . . . 29 The Preservation of Options 32 The Burden of Uncertainty 33 The Creation of Constituencies 39 The Achievement of Consistency 41 Chapter IV. Problems and Pitfalls . . . . . . . 43 Conceptual Constraints . . . . 43 Shortcomings of Modes of Analysis 43 Failures of Imagination . . . 44 Inadequacies of Fundamental Understand- ing . . . . . . . . . . 49 Deficiencies in the Data Base 51 Institutional Constraints . . . . 52 Constraints upon the Scope of Individual Interests . . . . . . . 52 Market Externalities . 53 Competitive Pressures 56 Contraction of Goals . 59 Jurisdictional Limitations 62 Constraints upon the Representation of Af- fected Interests . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Constraints upon the Coordination and Fo- cusing of Relevant Efforts . . . . . . . 67 xiii Digitized byGoogle 

Page Chapter V. Approaches and Recommendations . 72 General Principles 72 Pluralism . 75 Neutrality 80 Caution 85 Institutional Guidelines 89 Specific Functions . . 90 Organizational Arrangements 94 Executive . . . . . . 95 Congressional . . . . . 100 Joint Committee . . 104 Congress-wide Mechanism 105 Independent flO Military Technology . Ill Chapter VI. Summary and Conclusions 115 References and Notes . . . . . . . . . 119 Appendix A: Structuring the Tasks of Assessment and Response 122 Appendix B: Statement of Morris Tanenbaum . 148 Appendix C: Notes on Contributors 151 XIV Digitized by Goog Ie