49 



experience behind the "hardheaded" test of the marketplace and the 

 testimonials of real-life users, over the theoretical or laboratory find- 

 ings. Fourth was a tendency to accord respect to a finding held by a 

 unanimous faction (satisfied users) over a faction in conflict (the 

 laboratory testers). 



The decision of the committee on this issue was to defer to the 

 findings of the Committee on Battery Additives of the National 

 Academy of Sciences, endorsed in advance by both Dr. Astin and Dr. 

 Weber. Secretary Weeks had indicated his intention of asking for a 

 review of NBS battery additive testing by the best qualified scientists 

 available.'^'' Dr. Astin had told the committee that Secretary Weeks 

 had sought the advice of tiie National Academy of Sciences on this 

 matter.^*'' He had also described the Academy and its special qualifi- 

 cations, and had assured the members of the committee that on the 

 issue of the reliability of the NBS tests he "would prefer that this is a 

 question you let the National Academy committee settle." ^^^ 



The decision, however, was a tacit one. The Academy committee 

 was proceeding on the basis of a request from the executive branch. 

 The Small Business Committee might have ignored this development 

 and gone ahead with its own report. That it did not do so, and the 

 open-ended manner in which the chairman terminated the hearing, ^*- 

 suggest that the committee had reached no fu-m conclusion of its own 

 onthe merits of AD-X2 nor as to the reliance to be placed on battery 

 additive testing by NBS. 



The decision method in the regulatory issue 



With respect to the regulation of small business in battery addi- 

 tives, three quite separate issues confronted the committee. There was 

 the summary issue of the Post Office fraud charge, the more formal but 

 less clear-cut case of the FTC complaint, and there was the role of 

 NBS in the regulatory process in general. 



In the Post Office case, a copy of the hearings was sent to the Post- 

 master General with a letter which said, in part — 



The committee has concluded that further hearhigs should not be held for the 

 time being. It could not, in the present state of the testimony, make a finding of 

 its own. * * * This committee sends you for whatever consideration you care to 

 give it, the testimony presented at its hearings. The decision as to what action 

 your Department should take with relation to the suspended fraud order, the 

 committee emphasizes, is yours. ^^^ 



According to the Lawrence account of the controversy, when the 

 Post Office Department did not find in the record of the hearings a 

 sufficient justification for "expunging" the case from the record at 

 once, the Senate committee staft' "urged the Post Office informally to 

 remove the fraud order." It needed documentation to show cause, 

 however, which the staff supplied in a memorandum which drew the 

 following conclusions : 



1. A scientific controversy does exist over the merits of AD-X2. 



2. The military and commercial users of AD-X2 feel very strongly that this 

 product does all that the manufacturer claims it should do and that they are 

 satisfied that the product can effect large savings in terms of time and money. 



139 Ibid., p. 4. 

 •« Ibid., p. 226. 

 i«i Ibid., pp. 326, 244. 



•" Ibid., p. .510. Concluded the chairman: "* * * and, therefore, we wiU have to discontinue the hearings 

 for a few days. For the present this will conclude the hearings." 

 143 "The Battery Additive Controversy," op. cit., p. 26. 



99-044—69 5 



