327 tual and potential damage to society which
resulted. It sharply distinguishes between the advisory role of the scientists to society
and the decision-making role of the
citi-zenry.
To these concerns, no doubt, you could
add many others. Not the least of which
might be the increasing gulf between
na-tions which are technologically developed
and those which are not. Thus, despite an
absolute improvement in material
well-being of many of the underdeveloped
coun-tries, they are becoming increasingly
im-poverished on a relative scale due to the rapid technological advance in industrial-ized countries. A similar situation exists
be-tween favored and unfavored segments of
our own people. If these discrepancies
per-sist and grow, the political, economic and
racial antagonisms engendered as a
secon-dary consequence of technological
develop-ment may prove at least as damaging as the
direct consequences of misapplied technol-ogy.
Science is one of the highest products of
the human mind. Though it results in
mate-rial possession and material power, it is
fundamentally not a material possession
it-self. It is a method of thought and
commu-nication which, when applied to problems,
results in increasing the knowledge of the
mind and hence the power of the mind.
Science as a discipline, and its accomplish-ments, are possessions of all human beings, just as are art and music and literature. The
central challenge which science and
tech-nology pose is whether man can control and
use his own achievements for his benefit. In
more specific terms, the question is first
whether the scientist, the politician, and the citizen will demand, in fact guarantee, that their political institutions are employed in such a way as to ensure that those who will be affected by the power of technology will
have a voice in deciding how that power
will be used, and second whether the scien-tist will accept as his the responsibility to
create a public informed about science and
technology.
If these objectives are not accomplished, there is a sizeable possibility that
technol-ogy will strengthen the power of a few and
result in great damage to our natural
envi-ronment and perhaps to our democratic
in-stitutions. If they are realized, there is sub-stantial possibility of achieving a material
and political well-being which can only
barely be imagined.
DISCUSSION
DR. PEitnsoN: Dr. Holman has spoken
to the interaction between government,
science, and the citizen. His comments have
been mainly in general. I would speak
more specifically of the responsibility of the scientist iii his role vis a vis the government-citizen relationship.
The dual role of our political institutions
which Dr. Holman has described as both
regulatory and representative-big brother-ish on the one hand and purely Jeffersonian
on the other-has always been present.
Scientific discovery has always led to tech-nological application and thence to public,
usually commercial, utilization. What is
different today is the rapidity with which this progression occurs. If the development of science and technology proceeds, in
iso-lation from social and humanistic values,
then scientists are the individuals who must tear down the barriers that foster such iso-lation. Obviously, I believe that such
isola-tion is undesirable; I recognize that this
conviction is not universally shared.
I say that the scientist is the obvious agent to catalyze the interaction between science and society because it is usually he who first recognizes the possible implica-tions of putting a new scientific discovery
into rapid and widespread use. His
knowl-edge and training give him access to
infor-mation and understanding not so readily
available to his fellow citizens. Surely noth-ing illustrates this better than the
develop-ments in the radiation story. From Fermi
thread of special competence and com-prehension, and therefore special responsi-bility, is continuous. The limitations of the scientist’s special role should also be clear. When it comes to a decision involving
ethi-cal and political considerations, he is, of
course, no more competent than any other citizen.
The special role of the scientist in the
context lies in his ability to enhance and
ac-celerate general understanding of those
scientific and technological matters which are basic to the formulation of public pol-icies. If decisions of civil defense shelter programs, air pollution controls,
radiologi-cal health measures, and similar public
health issues involve balances between risks
and benefits-as we have heard repeatedly
today-and if we are to practice a
demo-cratic modus operandi in arriving at the
final expression of the various interests which a pluralistic society incorporates,
then communication of scientific and
tech-nological developments must be effected
with all possible speed to avert socially
un-desirable consequences. Some of these
con-sequences may be of an irrevocable nature,
changing the environment far more
drasti-cally or permanently than hitherto experi-enced.
I hope to illustrate how this
communica-tion can be achieved by describing how the
St. Louis Citizens’ Committee for Nuclear
Information has attempted to bridge one
part of the education or communication
gap. In 1958 this organization was
estab-lished by physicians (including pediatri-cians), scientists, and non-scientists in the
St. Louis area. The sole purpose of the
or-ganization is to educate the citizenry
re-garding scientific matters pertinent to
con-tamination of tile environment in order to
provide individuals with sufficient
under-standing that they can choose between
al-ternative public policies which affect the
environment. Aithougil initially organized
in response to public concern about
ra-dioactive fallout, the scope of the Commit-tee has since enlarged to include pesticides,
water pollutants, and air pollution
prob-lems. Communication with the public is by
means of direct appearances of the
scien-tists before service, religious, school, and
other audiences and by publication of a
monthly bulletin, originally under the name of Nuclear Information but more recently called Scientist and Citizen. In this manner
the Committee for Nuclear Information
presents critical reviews of the scientific
problems which underlie the social issues
mentioned earlier. The objectivity of scien-tific discourse is a requisite. Scientist and Citizen is intended for a readership of
non-scientists as well as scientists whose train-ing or primary interests lie outside of the technological, radiobiological, and chemical areas discussed. The written reviews of the
pertinent literature have been subjected to
repeated editorial and referee examination to insure accuracy, validity, and objectivity
to the greatest possible degree.
Another important aspect of the activities
of the Committee has been the initiation of
the first study of strontium9#{176} content in de-ciduous teeth of children. Dr. Rosenthal has
already described for you this scientific
study. The analyses and research design are in the hands of scientists at the two dental schools in St. Louis. However, the Commit-tee for Nuclear Information is responsible for the collection of teeth. Its community
relations program has been successful in
bringing in approximately 30,000 teeth per
year.
It is evident from the many comments
and references to the “St. Louis Group”
which have already been made at this
con-ference that this organization provides a
necessary forum and one which furnishes
impetus to discussions of the type we have
heard here.
I do not suggest that ours is the only
way. It is nevertheless a new effort on the
part of scientists to educate those who
must, in a democratic state, bear the
bur-dell of responsibility for environmental
contro-versial. The dissemination of the scientific
information itself, therefore, sometimes
be-comes controversial and even unpopular,
but that is the nature of the course to truth.
Dr. Holman has eloquently discussed
many of the other aspects of this very
difficult problem and has shown how fallout is providing a difficult test of the political institutions in this country. In this context
the scientist becomes more than a
discov-erer; he is a link in the expression of demo-cratic government.
A scientific discovery may be made in
isolation when it is utilized by society;
widely and rapidly affecting the environ-ment, it is no longer isolated. Wise control of the utilization of science will be guided
by social values but must also be based on
understanding of scientific implications. Only the scientist can provide this base.
DR. EI5ENBun: I was mentally
compli-menting Dr. Holman on his presentation
until he came to the part about the Atomic
Eenrgy program. I had to make a few notes.
I am sorry Dr. Holman that you did not
recognize publicly today what you must
surely know; namely, that many, you call them “major dangers from applied
technol-ogy,” have been recognized for a long time.
Silicosis has all but been eliminated as an
occupational disease in this country. Heavy
metal poisoning is almost unknown. The
processing of heavy metals is now carried
on in such a way that to my knowledge
there has never been a recent public case
of heavy metal poisoning in the
surround-ing community. These developments came
about as a result of a very dedicated corps
of public health people in surrounding
communities that sometimes were not
sup-ported by the public or by the professional health groups or the government.
With respect to the atomic energy
pro-gram, the facts are: in the first 40 years of
this century there was about 2 pounds of
radioactive material in the world and it
killed over 100 people. Since the Atomic
Energy program was organized in the
country in 1942, the record has been quite
good, because of the efforts of some very
dedicated people. I had no role in this as I
had very little to do with the establishment of the early policies. Apart from that there is the question of facts. I know of no
radio-nuclide contamination in New London or
Boston Harbor that is of public health
significance. I should know about these
things. I can recall only one nudide whose biological significance wasn’t identified by
the people in the Atomic Energy program
and that was C’4; it was picked up by a
Russian.
Finally, I certainly don’t want to take a
position on the Bodega Bay controversy
be-cause I don’t know enough about it. I
would point out that the Bodega Bay
reac-tor was not built because the company
withdrew its application on the basis of
in-formation introduced by the public in
ac-cordance with procedures established by
the government. The Bodega Bay
contro-versy developed within procedures
estab-lished by the government by a very astute
group of government officials, who have
provided a system for licensing for reactors
that I think we should be proud of.
DR. SAENGER: I suspect Dr. Eisenbud does not believe that the public committee would have done any better on the
environ-mental controls we attribute to the U. S.
Public Health Service and the Industrial
Hygienists.
I was agreeing with Dr. Holman until he
got to a point, that is, the idea of this big
government pushing the citizen around. In
the first place, I see a great many people-various doctors, master degrees, etc.-going
from our institutions to government and
eventually we get some of them back in our
laboratories so that the difference with
what they do in the evenings or how they
think are rather fine.
The second point is, if I feel strongly
about something that big government is
doing, and I can make the proper pitch, it
is perfectly delighted to do it my way. I
think there is sort of an attitude that
gov-ernment should come to my home or to my
The point of the matter is, government thinks we are all a little bit busy. I think
even people in government are a little bit
busy, and I think it is our place to meet in the market place or in the forum, and, then,
if we don’t like the way the government has
done things or if the majority decides they
do like the government way, we have no
one to blame but ourselves.
DR. HOLMAN: I did not mean to imply that the contributions of the U. S. Public Health Service workers or others in radiation protection were misdirected or ineffective insofar as they went. The point of this dis-cussion is not the specifics of individual cases, but the pattern or relationship which
we need between the body of science,
in-cluding the scientists, and the citizens as
we become an increasingly technological society. The main vehicle for this
interac-tion up to this time has been the
govern-ment. There are many examples of leading
scientists on the government side, and on
the other as well, assuring the public of
lack of danger in a particular exposure or
perhaps of an extreme danger in a particu-lar exposure without explaining the level of
their lack of knowledge. Each time this
oc-curs we damage the relationship of
con-fidence and trust between science and
so-ciety. The point is that the scientific
in-formation which was presented to the
pub-lie was inadequate and the public was not
told of this inadequacy.
I certainly am not arguing in favor of big
government. If the government is wise and
uses the resources of non-governmental
scientists and other bodies to help educate the public, it would seem to me we will not
need to increase the governmental
estab-lishment.
DR. CHARLES: I want to support what Dr. Holman had to say in the sense that recent experience shows a lack of representation
of the medical profession. Many of the
agencies making crucial decisions on public
health have no medical representative.
There is no medical representative on the
Atomic Energy Commission. There is no
medical representative working in the
pub-lie interest in the decisions of the Federal
Radiation Council. The Atomic Energy
Commission does not always protect the
public interest. Witness the recent hearings
in New Jersey on a new reactor when one
of the attorneys for the government was
speaking about all the engineering and
other protective devices they were thinking
about-someone from the audience asked,
“What about public health?” The attorney
turned around and said, “Who said that?” A
small gentleman stood up. “Who are you?”
asked the attorney. The gentleman replied,
“I am the Commissioner of Health of the
State of New Jersey.” They did not report to
us with candor and honesty with regard to
the Spanish bomb incident. They denied for
many days, 13 months almost, that they
were just looking and no one knew what
was going on. I think this lack of candor
and honesty is a failure of communication
at heart. Many of these problems we have
been trying to solve at this conference, could be done with better communication, better representation of the medical
profes-sion who can really speak for the people
and properly exercise this role of scientists concerned for the public welfare.
DR. LERoY: Dr. Brues, as a
physician-scientist associated with the Atomic Energy
Commission for some years, would you care
to comment?
DR. BRuis: I will comment with regard
to the sanctity of physicians, of which I am
one, associated with the Atomic Energy
Commission. I am reminded of a colleague
of mine who read into the record of one of
the early Congressional Hearings on fallout
the fact that the National Committee on
Radiation Protection was doing such a
careless job and endangering the lives of
people because it was loaded with
physi-cians.
DR. ToMPiuiss: Having been associated
with the Atomic Energy program almost
from the day it started, not quite but
al-most, I would like to get into the record the history of some of these things. Strontium9#{176}
as a potential hazard to people was
331
of strontium9#{176} were undertaken at Chicago while the whole Manhattan Project was still under security wraps. Strontium9#{176} as a po-tential worldwide health hazard was recog-nized before the first thermonuclear test by
Commissioner Libby. The fact that public
policy as written into the Atomic Energy
Act has placed very severe restrictions on
the release of information affecting the na-tional security, I do not think, can be con-strued as a lack of candor. This applies also to the situation in Spain. I think the accusa-tions are lacking full information of the
en-vironment within which the technologies
are developing.
DR. LEROY: I should like to offer a
personal value judgment. I have been
asso-ciated with the Atomic Energy program
since it was established. The only criticism1 I can make is that there was a protracted delay in the distribution of information
about fallout from high-yield weapons until
about a decade ago. The Commission’s
atti-tude toward the release of information that was clearly defined as not having weapons’
value has improved considerably since the
accident in the Marshall Islands in 1954. I
must also say-again a value
judgment-that I have been profoundly impressed with
the personal character and the integrity of
the members of the Advisory Committee
for Biology and Medicine, and of the
suc-cessive Directors of the Division of Biology and Medicine. This agency stands as a
shin-ing example of what the government can
do when it does things well. I consider most of the criticisms that I have heard today as essentially frivolous by people who are
sim-ply unaware of the amount of effort,
thought, and consultation which went into
the Atomic Energy Commission policy
