47 



writing, with environment and circumstances properly characterized, 

 and appropriate controls devised, the committee did not raise these 

 questions in taking testimony from witnesses describing favorable ex- 

 perience with AD-X2. Data were almost entirely qualitative. On the 

 other hand, the voluminous quantitative data from the various tests 

 that the committee collected were virtually unmanageable. The tests 

 themselves added up to an inconclusive total, and the information 

 they provided was not usable in resohing the issue. 



VI. The Decisionmaking Method 



An analysis of the AD-X2 case reveals that it hivolved three sets 

 of issues. One had to do with the testing process, a second with the 

 regulatory mechanisms of the Government, and a third with broader 

 science policy. The bulk of the evidence was relevant to the first issue, 

 and much less was relevant to the second; the third issue remained 

 largely undefined and was resolved only indirectly. The three sets of 

 issues were as follows: 



1. The testing process: 



(a) Was AD-X2 a useful product? 



(b) Was NBS qualified to test it? 



(c) Had the NBS tests been adequate? 



2. The regulatory process: 



(a) Was it desirable to invoke the postal regulations, and 

 was Pioneers, Inc., engaged in a fraud? 



(6) Was it desirable to invoke the fan- trade authority of 

 FTC to moderate the advertising claims of Pioneers, Inc? 



(c) Was the regulatory process as it involved NBS arbi- 

 trary or discriminatory, such as to give unfair treatment to 

 Pioneers, Inc? 



3. The science policy issue: 



(a) Should NBS personnel become involved in contacts 

 with private industry involving evaluation of the merits of 

 commercial products — i.e., give an appearance of interest? 

 (6) Should NBS functions in the regulation or testing of 

 commercial products be more sharply defined and delimited? 

 (c) Shoidd the emphasis of Government sponsorship of 

 science be on the regulation of consumer products or on new 

 discovery and the development of new technology? 

 These tlu-ee sets of issues called for tliree different kinds of treatment. 

 The first set, which had received the bulk of the committee's atten- 

 tion, had given rise to so much information of a detailed and seemingly 

 conflicting nature that the committee saw no way of resolving it, and 

 was content to leave the issue to resolution by the leadership of the 

 national scientific institution. 



The regidatory issue, on which Dr. Astin and Ritchie had testified 

 at some length, was of primary concern to the committee because it 

 involved the question of fairplay to small busmess. It was of particular 

 salience at this time, moreover, because of the emphasis of the new Ad- 

 ministration on the need to redress the balance between bm'eaucratic 

 regulation of business and Government encouragement of free enter- 

 prise. In part, the resolution of this second set of issues seemed to hinge 

 on the findings in the first set. However, as will be seen, the regulatory 

 decision was not resolved automatically by the decision as to the merit 

 of the additive. 



