232 
DR. DAVIS: I do believe, as I indicated, that the discussion in the 
last two days in that respect has been somewhat unbalanced, but there is 
great pressure for time, and there have been many statements made under 
other circumstances about the benefits. I don't know what would be Dr. 
Fredrickson's pleasure. I think it would take up quite a bit of time to 
start going into detail on the potential benefits. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: I think it wouldn't be appropriate to try to do it now. 
I think the benefits probably would take too much time to cover — the potential 
benefits. If you would submit, however, a summary for the record in response 
to Dr. Sturgis, I think that would be very helpful. Would that be all right, 
Dr. Sturgis? 
Mr. Helms. 
MR. HELMS: I am wondering if in conjunction with that, something 
couldn't be done to follow up Dr. Gustafson's suggestion. He made a sug- 
gestion along those same lines, except with respect to a mathematical 
probability analysis. I am wondering if you had any thoughts on that or 
whether you could manage that. That is probably not your field, but whether 
you could collaborate with someone to implement the suggestion made by Dr. 
Gustafson? 
DR. DAVIS: Are you perhaps referring to — maybe I am not clear on this 
— to Dr. Rosenblith's suggestion that experts in risk analysis be brought 
into it? 
DR. FREDRICKSON: No, I think he is talking about the probabilities of 
potential benefits. 
MR. HELMS: The probabilities of benefits as opposed to simply the proba- 
bilities of risks or disasters. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: Any successful scientist is an expert in probabili- 
ties. 
(Laughter . ) 
PROFESSOR ROSENBLITH: On a rather intuitive level. 
DR. FREDRICKSON: An intuitive level, I agree. And lacking ordinal 
precision. 
PROFESSOR ROSENBLITH: Yes, just numerals. 
MR. HELMS: So if you could undertake that, that would be of some use. 
In other words, not only present the benefits as you see them, but the 
probabilities of their being attained. 
[ 436 ] 
