SCIENCE, RESEARCH WD TECHNOLOGY, 1970-79 529 



committee in support of the Conlan amendment, which was defeated 

 232 to 160. 



SCIENCE FOR CITIZENS PRO( i R \ \i 



Once the Senate had passed the NSF Authorization bill late in 

 May 1976, the conference committee started a struggle which stretched 

 over a 3-month period before full agreement was finally reached in 

 September. On June 4, Symington and Mosher dispatched a 4-page 

 letter to their conference counterparts — Senators Edward M. Kennedy 

 (Democrat of Massachusetts) and Paul D. Laxalt (Republican of 

 Nevada) — contending that the many new provisions added by the 

 Senate perhaps should be considered in new legislation for these 

 reasons: 



Our proposal does not mean that we are opposed to all of the additional measures 

 proposed in the Senate amendments. But we are seriously concerned because our 

 Committee and the House have not had an opportunity to develop a legislative basis 

 for these additions. We believe public hearings, and thorough analysis of the premises 

 and policy bases upon which to make considered judgments, are required before 

 the House could be expected to act on them. 



Among the many new Senate amendments were a science for 

 citizens program, special provisions for minority, women, and handi- 

 capped, an Office of Small Business Research and Development, and 

 State science, engineering, and technology programs. The Senate 

 initiative on funding citizen action stirred strong opposition among 

 House conferees, particularly McCormack, who viewed the proposal 

 as Federal funding of environmental activists to be accorded the 

 status and handed the weapons to fight certain energy programs which 

 he strongly advocated. McCormack told Science magazine that he 

 considered it "appalling" that the Federal Government should subsi- 

 dize groups to intervene against programs which the Government 

 itself had authorized. McCormack stated: 



The intervening groups are rubbing their hands and drooling over this. 



As originally passed by the Senate, this provision earmarked $3 

 million for the NSF to improve public understanding of public policy 

 issues involving science and technology and also "facilitate the partici- 

 pation of scientists, engineers, graduate and undergraduate students in 

 public activities aimed at the resolution of public policy issues having 

 significant scientific and technical aspects." The program differed from 

 run-of-the-mill public information or other NSF programs to educate 

 or inform the public in this way: (1) Some public service internships 

 were planned for scientifically trained individuals who would work 

 directly with and supply scientific expertise to local citizen organiza- 

 tions, trade unions, or chambers of commerce; (2) forums, workshops, 

 and conferences were organized to bring scientists and nonscientists 



