42 



indications in preliminary tests of the additive to restore a failing 

 submarine battery at the New London Submarine Base."* 



Dr. Laidler did not testify. He had assisted the committee late in 

 1952 in preparing a preliminary report on AD-X2, in which the results 

 of the MIT tests were interpreted by him as being favorable to 

 AD-X2. He had also served as a paid consultant to Ritchie both 

 before and after his work for the committee. Laidler was not named 

 by Dr. Astin in his testimony, which is discussed below, but he was 

 referred to indirectly, in the comment: "* * * the proponents of 

 AD-X2 began looking for minor flaws in the report and the testing 

 procedure [of the June 1952 tests], ignoring the major conclusions 

 of the report." "^ 



Testimony oj Dr. Astin on AD-X2 and NBS 



Dr. Astin took the stand the afternoon of June 23, and continued 

 until late in the afternoon of June 24. In his prepared statement, 

 Dr. Astin welcomed the scrutiny by the National Academy of Sciences 

 of the battery work of NBS, described the scope and functions of the 

 Bureau, cited its statutory authority for tests and information dis- 

 semination about commercial products, and then extensively dis- 

 cussed the testing function itself. In particular, he explained to the 

 committee the differences between laboratory and field tests, and 

 between controlled and uncontrolled tests. He acknowledged that 

 field tests were needed to confirm that an effect or improvement still 

 persisted under the "more rigorous conditions of actual use." How- 

 ever, the field test, he said, "* * * is not resorted to until some 

 improvement or effect is developed in the laboratory which would 

 then make the field test worthwhile." "^ 



Then Dr. Astin described the extensive work of NBS in storage 

 batteries, the correspondence ^nth Dr. Randall, analysis by NBS 

 of the chemical composition of AD-X2, and initial laboratory tests 

 of the material. In comment on the charge of unfairness on the part 

 of NBS in the testing of battery additives, he said: 



First, every action which the Bureau has taken with respect to the testing of 

 AD-X2 and the dissemination of information with respect thereto has been 

 brought about as a direct consequence of the representations and pressures of 

 the proponents of AD-X2. The Bureau became aware of the existence of the 

 product first by approaches made by the manufacturer, and initially declined to 

 make any tests on it because there was no reasonable evidence that the product 

 was, in fact, different from any of the other numerous additives the Bureau had 

 previously tested, and also because the Bureau does not evaluate jjroprietary 

 products for individual manufacturers. The initial tests made by the Bureau 

 came about largely as a result of inquiries and suggestions from the Oakland 

 Better Business Bureau and from Senator Knowland, their inquiries in turn being 

 instigated by Pioneers, Inc. The subsequent dissemination of information about 

 batterv' additives came about largely as a result of pressures applied to the Na- 

 tionaf Better Business Bureau to make unwarranted exceptions in the case of 

 Battery AD-X2.1" 



The response to the "pressures" from Pioneers, Inc., said Dr. Astin, 

 had led to the sequence of NBS tests made at the request of the FTC 

 and the Post Office Department. Periodically, there had been a spate 

 of correspondence ^^•ith Members of Congress in reference to these 

 acti^^ties. 



"< Ibid., pp. 508-510. An indication tliat tliis reference excited the interest of the committee is provided 

 by the letter the chairman subsequently ^vrote asking the Department of the Navy to advise him of the 

 results of the tests described by Goodwin. The Navy lias no record of any response to this inquiry. 



115 Ibid., p. 224. 



>i« Ibid., p. 217. Dr. Astin's testimony runs from p. 209 tlirough p. 335. 



1" Ibid., p. 221. 



