Minutes - 145TH Meeting of the AEC Advisory Committee for Biology & Medicine, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1/3-4/73

Page 1

ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Page 2

The 145th meeting of the Advisory Committee for Biology and Medicine was held at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee on (Scientific Secretary). Headquarters personnel in attendance included and Dr.Charles Edington, of the DBER staff. The following biomedical program directors from other AEC laboratories also attended and made pre - sent at ions to the ACBM: Drs.William Bair, Chester Richmond, and Eugene Cronkite,Dr. Richard Benson and Mr. Joseph Lenhard from the Oak Ridge Operations Office were also in attendance. Chairman Moseley opened the meeting a t 9:00 A.M. and turned to - Dr. Liverman to conduct the presentations to be made before the ACBM. Dr. Liverman made some announcements of general interest. The Committee apparently will go out of existence on midnight January5, and i f it is t o continue it must be reappointed. Apparently no decision has yet been made concerning the continuance of the Committee. The specific area i n which Dr. Liverman requested the advice of the Committee concerned work for other agencies conducted i n AEC laboratories.He pointed out that Oak Ridge was a particularly appropriate place to consider this problem since the Oak Ridge National Laboratory does about one-half the total AEC work for others exclusive of weapons work. Further,Dr. Alvin Weinberg, Director of ORNL, has been a leading spokesman for making the laboratories truly nL c ional Dr. Weinberg welcomed the Committee and reviewed briefly some of the history of work for others.He pointed out that in 1955 he suggested that the AEC laboratories should consider moving into new areas of research on problems of national concern. From 1959 t o 1962 when he wasa member of the President ' s Scientific Advisory Committee,the future of the national labors - tories was considered in detail.At about this time a report was made t o the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy recommending that the laboratories should attack national problems. At present ORNL does about $18 million worth - o f work for others exclusive of any research on weapons. Dr. Weinberg felt strongly that a big push would be forthcoming i n biomedical sciences in general which might very well have a major impact on DBER and on the national laboratories.He suggested that the increased emphasis on cancer research might be a n example of a program having such major impact. On questioning,Dr. Weinberg pointed out that while ORNL does $18 million worth o f work for others the AEC budget is about $75 million and work for others is still therefore a small fraction of the total effort.

Page 3

One of the problems with this type of non-AEC support is that the support levels may vary sharply which makes - the administration of such work diffi - cult.At the present time,there are 125 separate pieces of work for others which must be kept track of.He feels it takes as much effort to obtain and administer $10,000 worth of support as it does $10 million. Proposals t o do research for others are sometimes generated by the staff and sometimes the other agencies approach the laboratory. Dr. Liverman then asked the Committee t o keep i n mind three specific questions on which he desired advice. These questions were as follows : 1) What has the impact been of the Work for Others Programs in the bio - medical and environmental areas with respect to DBER's programs and what has the effect been on the laboratories conducting such research ? 2) Are there particular program areas for which the AEC laboratories are particularly t o be applied to the question of modifying research programs, initiating new research programs, and terminating old programs? - well qualified ? 3 ) Could the Cm it tee provide guidelines and criteria Dr. Liverman pointed out to.the Advisory Committee that not only did the AEC watch closely the research effort of its laboratories but other agencies as well kept a watchful eye on this research. ment and Budget, for example, watched carefully for duplication of effort. The General Accounting Office looked at relevance to mission, adequacy of management, etc. Other agencies watched the programs from the point of view of whether there was an encroachment on their particular mission.Private industry is sensitive to the possibility of competition. Beneficiaries of the work anxiously followed its progress in anticipation of practical app li - cations. The private sector of the population, because of its interest in science generally, also follows with interest the accomplishments ofthe The Office of ManageThere i s adequate enabling legislation to permit the AEC laboratories t o perform work for others as well as many precedents. economy act of 1932 enabled the inter agency transfer of funding for research work. During President Truman's administration it was determined that government laboratories and facilities were t o be used among agencies.In L967 the Atomic Energy Act was broadened to specifically allow health - related and environmental research under AEC auspices. More recently,the Act has again been modified to enable research on energy in general rather than just on nuclear energy. The attitude of the AEC has been that the laboratories should be permitted t o work for other agencies provided the work i s of mutual interest and does not interfere with AEC programs. distributed two handouts showing the extent of work for others in the various AEC o n - site laboratories. dilute the loyalty of the staff to the AEC and asked that the Committee He indicated that working for others may

Page 4

consider whether this feeling is justified. At this point a series of presentations were made by a number o f bio- - medical program directors from Oak Ridge and from other AEC laboratories. The first presentation was made by Dr.Chester Richmond from the Los Alamos strengthened his research program. clearly of interest to the AEC. others was that the lines of authority were not always clear - cut. o f the programs in his laboratory came through Headquarters and others came through the local Operations Office. with the other agencies had been cordial and in fact the Department of Agriculture had a man stationed on site to be their liaison for the work being done for that department. Dr. Richmond felt strongly that the work for others had He did not feel it was detrimental in H e gave several examples o f work for others that would seem One problem that he had had with work for He indicated the relationships Dr.William Bair from Battelle Northwest Laboratory pointed out that BNW has a unique arrangement with the Commission in that they can do'work for other agencies and for private industry in AEC facilities. of the agreement, the AEC i s reimbursed for use of such space. Dr. Bair cited a number of examples of work for others. of its own and when research is conducted in this space, AEC rents it. Sixty percent of the support at BNW is from AEC and forty percent of the support is from other sources. base of support was not only very helpful to his research program but helped the work done for AEC. Dr.B air argues strongly that this broader Dr. Moseley stated that in the past the Advisory Committee had strongly urged the laboratories to seek increased outside support. More recently,it requested the AEC to explore the possibility of eliminating the cost - sharing requirement for NIH grants. The Committee suggested that this might be done by a change in the legislation or by administrative rulings.Dr. Moseley felt that there was no problem of the loyalty of the staff to the AEC. universities in this country have coped with this problem for many years. Many of their staff are supported by research grants and contracts. is insured by good administration and strong support of the staff. Dr. Edington expressed the concern that the best staff members within a laboratory might take on work for others and less able staff members might stay on AEC programs. Dr. Liverman countered by pointing out that an effort would be made to force the laboratories to remove any substandard staff if Dr.Mitchell raised the question of why the laboratories wanted grant support rather than contracts. The answer was that contracts tended t o be more ofthe "job shop" type with very limited possibilities for the laboratories to explore exciting leads.Further,the size of contract funds is limited, and the laboratories felt they should be able to compete for grant funding.

Page 5

At this point there wasa broad general discussion of grants,contracts, and attitudes of various agencies toward the laboratories and toward the grant and contract methods o f funding. Dr. Adler point4out that in effect doors are closed to investigators who are limited to the contract route. Scientists in the national laboratories feel they are competitive with their peers in universities and feel that they should be allowed t o compete on the same bas i s as their outside co 1leagues. Dr. Eugene Cronkite, from the Brookhaven National Laboratory, described the situation in his Department with respect to grants and contracts. d o have a limited number of grants but the amounts and numbers are sharply curtailed by the cos t - sharing requirement. He indicated that Brookhaven would prefer the inter agency transfer method of funding whenever this is agencies made it very difficult to take a reduction - i n - force when funding levels fell. It should be pointed out, however, that the drop in funding levels is not always with the other agencies but In many cases may originate inthe AEC programs. Dr.Cronkite did not feel that loyalty to the AEC posed any - particular problem. He indicated that multiple support from various the work of his Division for outside agencies,particularly the Department of Defense and t h e Department of Housing and Urban Development. H i s Division over the past several years has had a great variety of outside support. It is interesting to note that some of these programs would last only a year o r two and then would be replaced by funding from some other agency. support from any one of these agencies fluctuated a great deal,the total support from other agencies remained relatively constant and stable. Dr. Ruth Kemper described research being done i n ORNL under support from ’ HUD. The research is concerned principally with predicting urban growth patterns. ORNL i s one of five sites that will receive the 1970 census data tapes. She described the data base that they are using to provide planning papers to HUD. Her operation is hampered by the limited size of the.staff. Apparently under the ground rules,the AEC laboratories can undertake work for others in areas of existing competence. InDr. Kemper’s case the number %f peo.ple with the specialized competence is limited. This leads to a diff i - cult problem. Should the laboratories be allowed to recruit the necessary people i n areas of competence not strongly represented ? The opinion was expressed that the over - riding consideration should be whether the problem i s of national importance not whether a laboratory happens t o have people trained in the particular disciplines needed for its solution. Dr. G. Ulrickson described the activities of environmental information service which i s supported by a number of agencies. computer setup that can provide data for technological assessments, predic ti ve modeling, etc. Basically they have a

Page 6

Dr. Norman Anderson of the Molecular Anatomy Program a t ORNL described his work inthe area of instrument development o r biotechnology. his problems has been lack of as table level of support either from AEC o r from other agencies. Dr.Stanley Auerbach, Director of the Environmental Sciences Division, discussed his Division ' s research under National Science Foundation and AEC support. The $4 million in support from the NSF has enabled a much better and broader based research program than would have been possible had the support been solely from AEC. Dr, Howard Adler,Director of the Biology Division, ORNL, discussed the impact of work 'for the NIH and FDA on AEC programs inthe Biology Dr. Liverman then asked each of the Program Directors whether the impact o f work for others had been beneficial or deleterious. unanimous agreement that its effect had been beneficial both to their laboratory and tothe DBER programs. Dr. Edington discussed the method of Headquarters processing of proposals for research supported by other agencies. The initiative for instituting such proposals usually comes from the laboratories although sometimes the agencies approach either the laboratory or the AEC Headquarters. Usually prior to submission of a proposal there is an informal discussion. between the laboratory and the agency involved. He indicated that DBER wishes t o be informed of such discussions even when they are in the very preliminary stages. Once a formal proposal is prepared,it must go through proper channels. The laboratory director should submit it tothe cognizant Operations Office which will in turn submit it toDr.English,Assistant General Manager for Research i n AEC. At that time a copy should also be provided to the Director of DBER. DBER staff reviews such proposals and makes a determination of whether it should be recommended that the proposal go to the particular agency. The criteria used are 1) Is the research of joint interest and 2)will it interfere with ongoing AEC programs? If DBER approves the proposal, it recommends toDr.English that it be transmitted t.0 the.,other agency. DBER also wishes to be informed of any renewal of contracts with these other agencies. At this point the Committee adjourned for the day. The Committee reconvened a t 8:OO A.M. inthe Biology Division in executive session. The uncertain future status of the Committee was useful pur?ose over the years but conceded that the Committee has not been as effective as it might have been. The reasons for this seemed t o be that the Commission rarely requests advice from the committee and i n many The members believe that the Advisory Comnittec has served a