69 



at least conceivably attributable to the battery industry? Did the battery industry 

 use this regulatory complex for its own purposes? 



How could the committee ascertain the technical competence of persons offering 

 testimonials? The competence of NBS scientists? The relevance of MIT test 

 procedures? 



What conclusions could the committee draw from the detailed descriptions of 

 fimction and service of a battery additive provided by accomplished salesmen 

 of this product? 



Was the committee, after being exposed to much scientific evidence of seemingly 

 conflicting nature, and descriptions by salesmen and users, able to accept the 

 judgment and assessment of test data by a committee of scientists chosen by the 

 National Academy of Sciences? 



Other questions raised by the controversy have broader impHca- 

 tions, and are hkely to recur in a new context. For example — 



If it is decided that the Government should maintain a regulatory mechanism 

 to protect the citizen or business from fraud, misrepresentation, and unsatis- 

 factory products, how can the mechanism be designed to be immune from political 

 reprisals following complaints from aggrieved parties, and at the same time 

 maintain its objectivity, and also provide continuous assurance to the Congress 

 that it is maintaining this objectivity? Can an impartial testing laboratory be 

 exposed to political pressures without losing its objectivity and disinterestedness? 

 On the other hand, should science and scientific institutions have immune status, 

 apart from political pressures? Can any group be safely insulated from political 

 stress? Yet — can science be objective and creative if it is subjected to political 

 stress? 



In the building of a science institution with esprit and reputation, is this charac- 

 ter accompanied sometimes by a sense of superiority and bias against "outside" 

 experts? How does this development influence the objectivity of the "in-group" 

 and the "out-group"? Is there a danger that there may develop a scientific "estab- 

 lishment" infected vvith this kind of bias — the sort of attitude that scientists 

 themselves have labeled the "NIH (Not Invented Here) Syndrome"? 



What policy should govern the relationships among professional people in the 

 same discipline but representing conflicting or competitive commercial interests? 

 In particular, what should be the relationship between civil service scientists and 

 persons in private employment sharing the same scientific discipline? 



Many patterns of questioning were observable in the AD-X2 

 heai-ings, reflecting both the interests of committee members and their 

 responses to the testimony. This combination of prepared statements 

 and subsequent interrogations is a tried and proved method of eliciting 

 information. However, its effectiveness is maximized by advance 

 planning, and systematic preparation to insure that the questions 

 asked bring out most thoroughly the most important aspects of an 

 an issue. In the AD-X2 hearings there was no overall systematic use 

 of the technique to develop factual information relative to major 

 themes or issues. There was no preliminary staff report (except for 

 the brief issuance in December 1952, based mainly on Ritchie's 

 allegations and the MIT report as interpreted by Dr. Laidler), to 

 establish what the issues really were. In more recent years there has 

 been evident a more systematic approach to congressional investi- 

 gations involving scientific and technological issues. This approach 

 may be gradually evolving into an institutionalized procedure, along 

 approximately the following sequence: 



1. Statement of the issue. 



2. Structuring of the issue. 



3. Identification of the implications and ramifications of the 

 issue. 



4. Establishment of the priorities or ordering of the aspects 

 of the issue, ranked in terms of relative significance and import. 



5. Definition of the information needs of the Congress relevant 

 to each aspect of the issue to be investigated. 



