30 



When the Post Office decision on AD-X2 was made public, Secre- 

 tary Weeks actively intervened. By correspondence and interdepart- 

 mental meeting he encouraged the suspension by the Postmaster 

 General of the ruling against Pioneers, Inc/^ He also acquiesced in 

 the action of Craig R. Sheaffer in requesting the resignation of NBS 

 Director Astin/^ When this action was represented in the press as a 

 political assault against "science" as symbolized by NBS, the Secre- 

 tary appeared before the Senate Small Business Committee to advance 

 his philosophy as to the interface between private business and Gov- 

 ernment science. He made a brief but emphatic statement, expressing 

 sympathy for Ritchie, criticizing the NBS as not "sufficiently objec- 

 tive," and indicating dissatisfaction with Du'ector Astin. He said: 



We have felt rather strongly about this particular situation. It is one of many 

 phases of that particular picture that caused us to decide that it would be well to 

 have a change in the administration of the department.^" 



Weeks pledged to the committee that he would obtain the best 

 scientific advice available to evaluate the role and mission of NBS, 

 that he would have new tests of AD-X2 performed by "scientists in 

 the Bureau who have never had an}^ connection with this matter," 

 and that in the meantime he would suspend all NBS circidars dealing 

 with battery additives. 



The forced resignation of the Director of NBS brought sharp critical 

 response from the scientific community. "With the criticism mounting, 

 the Secretary turned to the Visitin;^," Committee of the National Bureau 

 of Standards." ^^ A meeting of the full Committee was held A})ril 14. 

 That same day. Dr. Detlev Bronk, president of the National Academy 

 of Sciences and a member of the Visiting Committee, wrote Weeks 

 urging that Astin's dismissal not take effect until the AD-X2 issue 

 had been studied. 



Weeks announced April 17 that Dr. Astin would remain temporaril}- 

 as NBS Director, and that Dr. Mervin J. Kelly, president of Bell 

 Telephone Laboratories and a member of the Visiting Committee, had 

 been asked to form a group to evaluate the general situation of NBS. 

 Weeks had already discussed A\-ith Dr. Bronk the possibility of a 

 separate study to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences 

 to clear up some technical imcertainties as to the merits of AD-X2. 

 A formal request was made by Weeks to the Academy on this matter, 

 May 3, 1953.^^ The response of the Academy was a report by the 

 Committee on Batter}^ Additives, of the NAS, October 30, providing 

 two conclusions: NBS had done excellent work in battery testing, and 



5' Lawrence, op. cit., p. 19, describes a departmental meeting on the Post Office action. Solicitor's 

 docket No. 2, op. cit., at 3-2-53, notation reads: "Letter from Secretary of Commerce to Postmaster 

 General, advising that it has come to liis attention that there is available certain credible and pertinent 

 evidence not introduced in the hearings of POD concerning respondent corporation; and requesting that 

 the POD suspend the fraud order of 2-24-53." 



M Ibid., p. 21. 



60 Hearings, op. cit., pp. 1-5, especially 5. 



61 Lawrence, op. cit., p. 23. According to the ofTicial history of NBS, the sequence of events was as 

 follows: "Uln April 1953, in the midst of the impasse raised by the controversy over AD-X2, Secretary of 

 Coimnerce Weeks asked the National Academy of Sciences to convene an ad lioc committee to evaluate 

 the functions and operations of the National Bureau of Standards in relation to the current national 

 needs * * *. H * * * In March 1953, anticipating Secretary Weeks' own request by almost a month, the 

 Director of the Bureau had written liim to seek the counsel of the National Academy of Sciences on the 

 current program and operations of tlie Bureau." (U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of 

 standards. "Measures for Progress: A History of the National Bureau of Standards." By Rexmond C. 

 Cochrane, editorial consultant— James R. Newman (Washington, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1966, 

 p. 495.) 



62 Lawrence, op. cit., p. 27. (According to tliis source, the letter noted that "the matter has been discussed 

 over the phone and othenvise on an informal basis," but that the letter was judged necessary by Weeks to 

 fimi up the assignment.) 



