For each case, after a brief synopsis of the chi'onology, these steps 

 Avill be identified; the "scientific" contribution of information bearing 

 on each step \^^ll be characterized as to vahdity, appropriateness, 

 certification, and impact; the total effect of the "scientific" testimony 

 will be assessed; and the significance of the event will be discussed 

 from the vantage point of hindsight. To achieve this "hindsight," 

 some attention wUl be given to the subsequent history of the issue, 

 but no effort will be made to present a complete historical account 

 up to 1969. 



With reference to the above sequence of steps in political decision- 

 making, the questions to be researched at each point will be about as 

 follows : 



(a) Issue identification 



From what source did the indication come as to the need for action? 

 What institutional and substantive form did it take? 

 Did the source or form of the indication have bearing on its recep- 

 tion? 



How was the indication validated? 



How was the need for action made evident? 



How was the urgency of the action characterized? 



(6) Issue assessment 



What organizational arrangement was made to place the asserted 

 need for action in proper perspective? 



What evidence was provided for this purpose? 



What persons and groups were consulted? 



What was the time relationship of this assessment to the initial 

 indication as to the need for action? 



What form did the findings of the assessment take? 



(c) Definition of alternatives 



What alternative courses of action were proposed? 

 Were they presented in the form of legislative proposals? 

 Wliat different sources did they come from? 



What organizational arrangement was made to collect data needed 

 for decisionmaking? 



How did it relate to the way the issue was structured? 



(d) Technical data on alternatives 



What quantitative data were presented bearing on the alternatives? 



What sources were used? 



How were these data validated? 



Was quantitative evidence presented that conflicted, or seemed to 

 be in confhct, with other quantitative evidence or testimony? 



How were such conflicts resolved? 



Were all relevant questions asked, and was all available information 

 at hand, bearing on the decision? 



(e) Action decision 



What decision process was employed, and what organization? 



Was decision to act separated from selection of preferred alterna- 

 tive? 



How was technical information presented to the decisionmakers? 



What was the decision? 



Did the decision respond primarily to scientific evidence, to political 

 evidence, or to a melding of the two? 



