Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION The 102nd meeting of the Advisory Committee for Biology and Medicine was held at HQS and "H" Street offices on January 10 and 11, 1964. Twentyseven staff members from the Division of Biology and Medicine and other AEC Divisions attended the open sessions, and Dr. Dunham called upon most of them to present matters pertaining to budget, various legal of the Technical Analysis Branch program, civil defense,and ' a summary of advance plans for the Division of Biology and Medicine. Once again the Committek was,impressed with the reported accomplishments of Mr.Hollister ' s group (TAB) in attacking the matter of analyzing and defining problems relating to the probable effects of atomic weapons. This type of advance planning should contribute much to the efficiency of continuing research in this field. Confused relationships between AEC and NASA i n matters which involve radio biology area source of concern tothe Committee. It appears to us that improved communications through a single contact point at NASA rather than many could eliminate much confusion and lead to meaningful cooperative effort in solving problems of radiation protection in manned flight projects. contribute much by way o f its aqcumulated factual data and its research capabilities to the bio logic phases of NASA operations. A report by a staff member of the Division of Biology and Medicine on advance planning for DBM activities that included his personal recommendati on sled the Committee t o formulate their own thoughts on this subject. These thoughts, summarized by Dr.Philip Cohen, are enclosed a s anaddendum to this letter. The Division of Biology and Medicine could The Committee is i n agreement with the present direction of AEC licensing procedures as they relate tothe medical use of radioactive isotopes. Further reports concerning the accomplishments of the Harbor Project and the future of AEC in civil defense are awaited with interest.
Page 2
The Coi mitte e is pleased to observe that research in the field of ecology is receiving the active support of the Division. The centrifuges designed,and built as a joint venture (National Insti - tutes of Health and DBM) excited the deep interest of our Committee members. The performance of these in;truments, capable of operating at speeds up t o 100,000 rpmto produce gravitational forces as high as 1%m ill i ong ’ s , was described by Dr. Ray Bryan, of NIH. His work i n the study of viruses has benefited greatly through use of these cent ri - fuges. Because workers in biological laboratories everywhere are certain t o want and t o need to obtain these instruments the Committee urges AEC to take all possible steps to make them generally available as soon as possible. This entire venture is a splendid example of effective cooperative effort and afine accomplishment for both agencies. -Your earlier telephone request for advice as to the desirability of adding a member with biological background tothe General Advisory Committee was discussed with the Pull committee as promised. The Committee considered it to be unlikely that any one individual could authoritatively represent all of the bio logic disciplines which comprise ACBM and that he would of necessity report back for consultation and advice. This would probably prove to be a cumbersome and inefficient channel o f communication. The Committee were agreed on the desirability of alerting GAC to the ubiquitous biological aspects of atomic energy, but as a preferable alternative the Committee suggests that interlocking sessions of GAC and DBM be arranged by Dr. Dunham for the consideration of major biological and medical matters of AEC interest. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Page 3
of his proposal for long-kange plans for DBM-102nd ACBM Meeting in his presentation of proposed long-range plans for the Division of Biology and Medicine. b e more definitively spelled out and should represent a series of specific projects or programs t o be pursued. approach would permit an easier construction of future budget requests and further would permit easier assessment of needs when the budgets are One of the issues raised is that the plans should It was Dr. Claus' view that this One cannot take exception to the value of Dr. Claus' proposal if the only purpose of the DBM is that of underwriting scientists and technicians for pursuit of specific objectives as developed by the ACBM and the staff of the DBM. It is my feeling that the DBM has a larger and i n some ways more important mission and goal which go beyond that of merely attempting to solve a number of limited objectives. Our goal, or long range aim, while made up in large part of specific and usually attainable objectives, includes dimensions bey'ond the sum of these objectives. main goal to be that of trying to understand from all standpoints the effect of radiation on biological systems. Progress toward this goal, which may not be attainable in the absolute sense,cannot be rest rt c ted to the direct approaches usually employed with projects of limited objectives, such as surveys, construction of special equipment, narrowly focused experiments, etc. Significant progress towards this goal may necessitate back tracking, sidetracking and efforts which a t any given moment do not appear to be immediately related to the apparently defined goal. While the members ofthe DBM, and the ACBM have a breadth and depth of It is l thus important that we not restrict ourcompetence which i s impressive, programs, ideas, novel experimental approaches and designs often emerge from outside the limits which define the area o f interests of these groups. selves in our long range plans to merely a series of limited objectives which might appear t o be easier to ;'sell" to the administration. On the other hand, i t Ls important that we commit ourselves tothe mission of " selling " the larger dimensions of,our program i n terms of our goal. In other words, the ACBM and the DB M,must plan for the "unplanned and the unanticipated " and thus must take the responsibility to educate the reviewers of our budget and to get across the idea that the complex area of biology will not yield its important secrets except in a limited way if we support only projects of limited scope. Conversely, we must interest those from whatever discipline who have the scientific talent and imagination t o contribute more than the solution of a particular project by offering them ,support from the DBM t o pursue the "uqianned" under ci rum stances
Page 4
which may encourage them t o recognize the relevance of their idea to the problems of radio biology. enlist the interests of imaginative scientists as well as project-minded technicians. The i mag in at i ye scientist is likely to have little interest in being supported to pursue projects cf limited scope and yet we must encourage them to bethinking about the problems of radio biology by supporting them - or being prepared to support them - without the rigidity which a packaged project demands. precious resource and we must on the one hand be prepared to exploit his talents and on the other to provide the kind of support which allows him the freedom and scope t o develop new ideas. While this may involve overlap with other areas of categorical support, such as cancer research, etc., I see no serious objection to this. No matter what categorical basis is devised for support of research,there will be areas of overlap. After all,nature sets no boundaries nor does i t reveal an inherent classification. Man-made classifications are mere artifacts which reflect more ignorance than knowledge. Only in this way can we be sure that we will The imaginative scientists is our most In last analysis,ifthe ACBM and the DBM take the position that the problems of the effect l of radiation on biological systems can be solved merely by supporting a series - of projects of rigidly defined and limited scope, we w f ll in effect be taking the position with both the scientist on the one hand and the administration on the other that we really believe that this is all that is needed. This position,in my judgment, is While Iam sure that Dr. Claus would not insist that we pursue only J lm it ed objectives (and the fact that the question was raised at all indicates that the ACBM and DBM have not been narrowly oriented) it seems appropriate in the face of Dr. Claus’ challenge that we reflect on our goal and, i f necessary, clarify our role and purpose.