Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
Dear Dr. Schles inger Tam writing to report on the 145th meeting of the Advisory Committee for Biology and Medicine held in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, atthe Oak Ridge lJationa1 Laboratory on January3 and 4, 1973. All members ofthe ACBM were present with the exception of Dr. Finch, who was in the Far East at the time ofthe meeting. Dr. Liverman arranged a n extremely interesting, important. and I believe most productive program involving work i n AEC national laboratories for other agencies. !le had arranged this meeting a t ORNL notto review i n depth any of the ORTL programs, but rather because OR!U’L is asite, as explained by Dr. Weinberg inhis welcome, where work for non-AEC agencies is perhaps as well developed as it isat any of the national laboratories with approximately 25% of the funding coming from these other agencies. Dr. Liverman asked for the advice and opinion of the ACBM in relation to the assessment of the impact of work for non-AEC agencies on programs of the Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research for possible identification of particularly qualified areas i n AEC laboratories and for the identification of programs t o be encouraged o r discouraged. I n connection with this general area the ACBM has been on record for a number of years as being in favor of encouraging individual scientists as well as programmatic laboratory areas t o seek funding from non-AEC agencies i n view of constricting budgets. The ACBY would also,at this time,like to reiterate its recommendation, made after the May 1972 meeting a t Srookhaven, to the effect that legislation or regulations be modified so that the AEC laboratories do not have t o demonstrate non-governmental participatory financial involvement in order to qualify for funding from non-AEC agencies. The ACR14 understands that some overtures in this regard have been made but urges that this he pursued vig & rou sly so as notto leave the scientists at the AEC laboratories in a disdvantageous posit fon in relation to their peer groups outside national laboratories.
Page 2
The questions raised by Dr. Liveman are not capable of simple solution but it is conceivable that some of the DBER's specific and generic problems can be improved, if not entirely resolved. t o have arisen by virtue of a primary emphasis upon the mechanism of funding rather than the nature of the problem being attacked. problem seems to be. If this question is answered affirmatively,then competence should be sought t o pursue them within the guidelines of the AEC's concerns i f equipment and facilities exist in the national laboratories. Some of the difficulty seems "Is the problem significant and a national need?" There seems t o be little question on the basis ofthe numerous presentations made to the ACBM at this meeting that the over all effect of the addition of support from non-AEC agencies has certainly been positive. The ACPM strongly supports increasing DUER flexibility by permitting competition for federal grants from non-AEC agencies on an equal footing with applicants from academia. Scientists in the national laboratories,thus, would be subjected to national priorities and evaluated in relation to the current health needs of the nation. There was some discussion concerning investigators who have developed substantial technical competence but have lost some of their investigative the interface between research and regulations. For instance,inthe preparation of environmental impact statements. The ACBM suggested that such individuals might be very helpful in I n an ear ' lier meeting with the Commission you indicated that the ACRM should undertake to define its own role.Inthe Fxecutive Session at this meeting the following points were discussed by the Committee with respect to its 1) Ttwas considered that the ACUM was most effective as a policy advisory committee and can be very useful in this manner rather than as a n in-depth review committee. Although the ACBM has the expertise to undertake in-dertli review, this has been the responsibility of the AEC staff, and time considerations alone would probably contra indicate apart - .time Advisory Committee attempting in-depth review on a regular bai is. 2) The consensus was that the Committee should be advisory to the Commissioners and should report directly to the Chairman of the AEC. It was felt that this arrangement would make the ACSM of greatest utility to the scientific fie!.ds which i t advised and of the greatest assistance to the Director of the Dlvision with which it is primarily concerned. 3 ) In amplification of its belief that it should continue t o be an advisory on policy,the Committee believes it has been particularly useful in this role in the past. Indeed, ifthe ACRM did not exist, as
Page 3
Dr. Liverman indicated might be the situation with re - evaluation of the roles of Advisory Committees, nome similar committee would probably have t o be invented. Some of the instances on which it has rendered advice i n the very recent past includes : with respect to the UCI A Laboratory operation(at the direct request of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy); b) Advice on the potential of the stable - isotope program a t Los Alamos; c) Advice on the significance of utilizing the negative pi-meson a t Los Alamos for medical research and clinical application ; and, d) Advice on the proper role and significance of personnel monitoring procedures and the limitation in the interpretation of such neasurements. a) Resolution of major intramural problems Complete minutes in relation to this meeting will be available at a later maiman. Advisory rommittee for Ciology and Yedicine