479 



After the cases were selected, a literature search was conducted on 

 each successive topic, and an overview of the case obtained. The central 

 focus of t)he issue or case was identified. The external circumstances 

 bearinc: on the case were examined- — and the historical events leading 

 up to the emergence of the issue, including the way in which the case 

 was presented as an issue for resolution by the Congress. Then the 

 various legislative proposals offered as alternative possible solutions 

 were examined. An overview was obtained of the congressional hear- 



CD 



ings on the issue — mcluding sometimes both investigative hearings and 

 hearings on legislation. Examination was made of the qualifications of 

 witnesses who gave testimony with scientific or technological content, 

 and as to the kinds of infonnation they provided. Attention was given 

 to the ultimate stmcturing of the issue for final decision, to the decision 

 itself, and to its implementation. Finally, an examination was made of 

 subsequent developments relating to the decision, to provide a basis for 

 assessing the effectiveness of the information process, the decision 

 process, and the decision rendered, an each particular case. 



/Scientific and political hehavior in contro^st 



The general impression gained from these cases is that the Congress 

 expects the sdientist to be positive, to deal in quantitative infonnation, 

 to supply authoritative answers to questions of fact and reliable recom- 

 mendations on matters of policy. In point of fact, the scientist deals in 

 probabilistic quantities and probabilistic facts ; when he recommends 

 political policy he steps beyond being a scientist because policy depends 

 on considerations beyond the scope of science. As a professional man, 

 the scientist accepts the obligations of his discipline — including the 

 degree of self-restraint required by the scientist to hold himself within 

 the bounds of 'liis subject. 



Scientists sometimes disagree as to the facts ; when this happens, the 

 matter is resolved by the accumulation of more facts to confirm or 

 refute — to make the weight of the evidence adequately conclusive in 

 one direction or another. Scientists frequently disagree as to the correct 

 interpretation of the facts; when this happens the matter is resolved 

 by further review of the rigorousness with which the data were col- 

 lected, the examination of the data by additional scientists, and per- 

 haps the accumulation of more data or a finer sensitivity and precision 

 of observation of data. 



To the scientist, factual quantitative relationships define general 

 principles. These are not invented, but discovered. '\'Vlien the data are 

 insufficient to narrow the possibilities down to a single principle, 

 alternative hypotheses may be held. Scientists may search for further 

 confirming evidence of each possible hypothesis, until all but one are 

 eliminated. Scientists, being also human, are inclined to favor the 

 hypothesis in which they are investing their effort. The discipline of 

 science requires, however, that t\\&y recognize this bias, and be pre- 

 pared to accept contrary e^ndence. This is a process that Dr. Jeffries' 

 panel on battery additives of the National Academy of Sciences-Na- 

 tional Research Council described as the test "in the marketplace of 

 ideas." However, the ability to analyze scientific evidence and draw 



