economic value of a highway, or the hazard of radioactive contamination or of smog. The statement will usually be hedged with uncertainty, and the proper answer may sometimes be: "We don't know"; but in any case these separate questions do belong within the realm of science. However, the choice of the balance point between benefit and hazard is a value judgment; it is based on ideas of social good, on morality or religion-not on science.

There can be no scientific agreement on such judgments; answers will differ according to religious or political outlook. Scientists who present their own judgments on these matters as though they were scientific evaluations are simply forcing a disagreement which can never be resolved by scientific means. Such a disagreement appears as a perplexing exception to scientists' vaunted skill at winning truth. The citizen will be driven to ask a question which is now heard with increasing frequency, "How do we know which scientist is telling the truth?" This doubt can only impair confidence in the validity of the excellent methods which science possesses for getting at the truth— about scientific questions.

In the "informed judgment" of which the Federal Radiation Council so properly speaks, the scientist can justly claim to be "informed," but in my opinion he can make no valid claim for a special competence in "judgment." To act otherwise is to corrupt the meaning of science and to undermine its usefulness to society.

esses.

I believe that once the scientific evidence has been stated, or its absence made clear, the establishment of a level of tolerance for a modern pollutant is a social problem and must be resolved by social procIn these processes the scientist has one vote and no claim to leadership beyond that given to any person who has the gift of moving his fellow men. But the government official, whose task is to make these judgments, and the citizen-who must provide the social ideology which guides administrative decision-require for these purposes the necessary facts, and the relevant evaluations. Where these are matters of science, the scientist as the custodian of this knowledge has a profound duty to impart as much of it as he can to his fellow citizens. But in doing so he must guard against false pretensions, and avoid claiming for science that which belongs to the conscience.

In this discussion I have tried to show that the scientific and social difficulties that encumber the problems of modern pollution reflect a basic flaw in

the present relations between science and social processes. We have not yet learned how to apply modern science in a manner which is consistent with its enormous power and its present inadequacies. We have not yet learned to discern in these complex problems the proper roles of scientific knowledge and social judgment.

It seems to me that until effective means for dealing with these questions are developed, we will be in continuous danger from unanticipated and poorly understood hazards, which will grow in magnitude as the power of science advances. If we are to live securely with the new discoveries and inventions of modern science, we shall need as well new inventions to govern the relation between science and society.

Although the task of developing such new procedures is formidable, there are some useful guidelines in our recent experience. I believe, for example, that the scientific community might have done a great deal to mitigate the present conflicts about insecticides, fallout, and smog, if it had applied the customary principles of scientific inquiry to these problems at the right time. Clearly, the decisive time to evaluate the risks associated with a new technological program is before it is put into effect. The longer such an evaluation is delayed, the less its value to society, for once the process has become embedded in a vast economic or political commitment, it may be nearly impossible to alter.

In this task, the scientist's duty is plain, for it is no different from his responsibilities toward the development of all scientific knowledge. The scientists must examine all the evidence and summarize it in a statement of what is known, what is assumed, what is doubtful, and what is possibly erroneous. He must also describe the limits of the relevant knowledge, for these will reveal what new knowledge is needed and indicate when a proposed technological application may expose us to the dangers of acting in ignorance.

I make this proposal quite conscious of the obstacles which may block scientific evaluation of risks and benefits in advance of a proposed technological innovation. Perhaps the most serious of these is that the government's military or political necessities, or an industry's competitive position, may dictate secrecy. A recent scholarly review on the toxicology of herbicides, written to enlighten the scientific community and to encourage new work on this difficult problem states in its opening paragraph: "Many of the toxicological data underlying

assessment of the risks involved by using them [weedkillers] in practice originate from confidential, nonpublished reports placed at the disposal of the authorities concerned. Such data have not been included in the present survey." 2

We pay a steep price for this kind of secrecy. Scientific knowledge is not created whole in one man's mind, or even in the deliberations of a committee. Each separate scientific analysis yields an approximate result and inevitably contains some errors and omissions. Science gets at the truth by a continuous process of self-correction, which remedies omission and corrects errors. In this process, the key elements are open disclosure of results, their general dissemination in the community of scientists, and the resultant verification, criticism, and correction. Anything that blocks this process will hamper the approach to the truth. The basic difficulty with secrecy in science is that mistakes made in secret will persist. Every attempt to keep a scientific problem secret is paid for in the most expensive currency in the world-knowledge.

Science has great power to serve society. But it cannot properly perform this function if deprived of access to the facts. The time has come, I believe, for government and industry alike to consider with great care the relative benefits and risks associated with the avoidance of full and early disclosure of scientific evidence relevant to large-scale processes that may result in environmental pollution. I believe that the present confusion and controversy about these problems are part of the price paid for secrecy, and in my opinion the price is uneconomical for industry and the Nation alike.

It should be possible, I believe, to find ways of bringing the full force of scientific knowledgewhich is something that only the total community of scientists possesses-to bear on these problems. An important first step might be the organization, in advance of any large-scale technological innovation of an open Scientific Inquiry to consider the state of knowledge about the associated benefits and hazards. This, or any other, procedure must be established soon, for new proposals are being advanced constantly. Suggestions have been made for the use of mutagenic (and therefore also carcinogenic) chemicals for controlling insects by inducing sterilization. This may entail new biological hazards. Surely the scientific community can ar

range to discuss these openly and widely before the proposal is put into effect.

If we develop such new means for orderly consideration of the problems of environmental pollution, they will have a much wider usefulness. Consider, for example, a proposal which is about to be considered by the Government to develop airliners designed to fly at two or three times the speed of sound. Such an airliner flying across the United States will produce in a zone 25 miles wide a continuous series of intense sonic booms. Where in our social processes have we weighed whatever benefit is involved in traveling from coast to coast in 2 hours against the hazards associated with the effects of sonic booms?

I can report that in my own city the resolution of this balance has taken a rather curious form. For a period of weeks earlier this year, St. Louis endured sonic booms, sometimes at hourly intervals and often in the small hours of the night. The hazards were clear: the Air Force was besieged with claims for broken windows, cracked walls, and fallen ceilings. Citizens complained about children awakened or frightened while awake. Protests began to mount, but not enough to counterbalance the military benefits of the flights-for they continued. I offer as a possibly useful piece of evidence regarding the weight to be accorded such benefits and hazards that when two gazelles in the St. Louis Zoo became so startled one night as to die in the ensuing upset the flights were abruptly halted.

Is this the proper measure of the sonic boom hazard? Do we know enough about the number of babies that will be awakened every night by a supersonic airliner to make an "informed judgment" on its social usefulness? Do we really understand the physiological effects of the rather sudden compression associated with a sonic boom to be capable of evaluating the basic medical hazard? If these factors are not yet understood, how can a government agency, or the citizen, make the necessary informed judgment? If we invest nearly $1 billion in an airliner before we have determined whether its social usefulness will outweigh its social harm, will the step become thereby an irreversible. one? Surely we need a scientific inquiry into this project before it is committed to action.

But no amount of advance information will suffice if it is not in the hands of those who must serve as the final arbiters of social good-the citizens. Can this be done? Can we expect our citizens to comprehend the benefits and hazards of nuclear

reactions? Can they understand the relationship between hydrocarbons, sunlight, and smog?

I am convinced that this is possible-providing citizens accept the duty to learn, and scientists accept the duty to teach. The task will not be an easy one, but I believe that we have the resources at hand. This vast educational task is not one that ought to be delegated alone to those scientists who have already devoted their professional energies to the problems of environmental pollution. These problems are so large and range so widely across the spectrum of science, that all scientists, regardless of their immediate professional interests, are intimately concerned with them. Pollution of the environment touches the work of every meteorologist, ecologist, or chemist; the possible hazards are of interest to every biochemist and to every specialist in the biological and medical sciences.

Knowledge of these problems, and the willingness to explain them to the public, should, I believe, be the responsibility of each of the more than 100,000

scientists of this Nation. Given this army of teachers, which is available to almost every community in the country, this educational task can surely be accomplished. Already in a number of cities, groups of scientists are educating their fellow citizens about radiation problems; I believe that given adequate support and the broad participation of all scientists, such groups should be capable of expanding their work to encompass the broad range of problems of environmental pollution.

Nor should we be discouraged by the difficulties and disagreements that now burden these problems. The attention which these controversies generate can serve as a timely warning that we must learnnow, before the hazards of unwitting action overtake us how to live in the new world that science is creating. Science has placed enormous new powers at the hand of man. If we accept with these powers the new responsibilities which must govern their use, science can serve its true goal— the welfare of man.

JERRY MCAFEE Vice President Gulf Oil Corp. Pittsburgh, Pa.

Having had the privilege of serving as one of the petroleum industry's representatives at the 1958 National Conference on Air Pollution, I am particularly pleased to be able to speak today from the somewhat broader standpoint of industry in general.

What I shall say is entirely my own responsibility; I am not speaking officially on behalf of any industrial group. I have reason to believe, however, that the thoughts I shall try to express are shared by a substantial segment of American industry.

In many previous discussions the point has been ably developed that our atmosphere is a precious asset with a large but finite capacity for supporting life and for absorbing many of the waste products of our accelerating civilization. Undoubtedly at this conference there will be presented for consideration much additional information concerning the demands now placed on the atmosphere as a waste receiver and the rapid increases in these demands which are likely in the future.

There can be no effective denial of the fact that achieving optimum use of this vital asset-the atmosphere is a matter of grave and vital concern to the Nation. Indeed, in this day of space exploration, rapid communication, and nuclear development, limitation or wanton misuse of our air resources has truly international aspects.

Nor can anyone seriously question the fact that responsibility for striving toward optimum use of this valuable natural resource rests inescapably upon all of us, whether we be government representatives, scientists, industrial people, or just individual private citizens-as of course we all are.

No useful purpose is served by finger pointing, name calling, or blame fixing. Rather, it is up to each of us as individuals or as members of one or more groups concerned to assume our fair share of the responsibility for "keeping our nest clean" and appropriately assisting and encouraging others to do likewise. As aptly put by the Engineers Joint Council, "Our common goal is to maintain a reasonable degree of purity of our air consistent with: (a) the public health and welfare and public enjoyment thereof, (b) the continued industrial development of our country, (c) the protection of plant and animal life, and (d) the protection of physical property and other resources."

It is entirely fitting that a portion of the first day of this important conference should be devoted to reviewing the responsibilities of several segments of our society with respect to air utilization. Perhaps from this consideration can come a little better appreciation of the goals, the problems, and the needs of these groups, with the result that our efforts toward achieving optimum use of the air will be more effective, better coordinated, and ultimately more successful. To the extent this objective is achieved, our time and effort today will have been well spent.

Industrial Accomplishments

It is a temptation to use the time which has been allotted to me in enumerating the strides which have been taken-especially in recent years-by industry in general and by certain industries in particular in combating air pollution. But everyone with enough interest in air pollution abatement to be present today must be at least quali

tatively aware of the millions and millions of dollars which have been spent by industry for air pollution control facilities. You recognize, of course, that while there are instances in which air pollution abatement equipment pays its way by recovery of materials which would otherwise be lost, frequently such facilities are without economic justification and therefore their cost must ultimately be borne by the consumer. You know something of the tremendous expenditures and efforts devoted by many companies and industrial groups to research directed not only toward developing methods for controlling their own operations so as to avoid giving unnecessary offense but also toward providing the users of industrial products with the understanding and equipment necessary for their lawful and considerate use. And you are undoubtedly aware of the contributions of members of the industrial community to the endeavors of such organizations as the Air Pollution Control Association, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Engineers' Joint Council, and others which are concerned in part with the development and dissemination of information relating to air pollution control and abatement. Furthermore, many of these accomplishments by industry will be covered in some detail in other sessions of this conference.

Accordingly, it seems to me that our time this afternoon might best be spent in examining some of the responsibilities which necessarily fall on the shoulders of industrial management and in setting forth some guidelines which I believe may be helpful in meeting these responsibilities as they pertain to air pollution control.

The nature of modern industry is such that management clearly and properly is responsible to at least three groups: the stockholders, the employees, and the community. The inherently different interests of these groups lead to a diversity of sometimes opposing forces and pressures which seek to influence management decisions. Very briefly, let us explore some aspects of these areas of management responsibility and the forces they generate. Management's Responsibilities to Stockholders

Industrial management's most obvious responsibility is to the stockholders, the people who have invested their savings in the business in the confident and wholesome expectation of earning an appropriate return. Sometimes these stockholders are the manager himself and maybe a few close asso

ciates or members of his family. But more commonly the shareholders, the real owners of our companies and the people whom the president, the vice presidents, and all levels of management really work for, are thousands upon thousands of owners who rely upon the professional managers they employ to operate the business in their behalf.

Management's first and clearest duty to the shareholders is to see to it that the business earns an adequate profit in order to provide the funds for modernization and expansion, and to permit the payment of dividends which will compensate the investors for the use of their money. This means minimizing costs, eliminating waste, avoiding unnecessary capital and operating expense, increasing efficiency by installation of cost-saving equipment, adopting new techniques of production and distribution, and the myriad other steps which are essential to profitable operation in this fiercely competitive world we live in.

But a broader, longer range, and less obvious duty is also involved: to insure the perpetuation of the business, to make certain that the shareholders' interests will be protected not only now but in the future, and that the enterprise in which they have invested will be a continuing source of adequate return. Obviously this requires alert attention and response to changing conditions, willingness to adopt new developments, intelligent diversification, and aggressive expansion. It also involves carefully nurturing the public acceptance of the industry and its products and, conversely, avoiding those practices and policies which might lead to public censure as expressed either in the marketplace or through legal channels.

So far as air pollution abatement is concerned, in discharging its responsibility to the owners, management is necessarily torn between two opposing forces. On the one hand, all unnecessary costs must be avoided; but, on the other, those expenditures which are essential to the long-term operability of the plant and acceptability of the product must be made. A plant manager who, in his zeal to produce maximum immediate profits, allowed his plant to become such a nuisance as to risk its being shut down as a result of public opinion or legal requirements, would not have served his shareholders well. But equally unfortunate would be the case of the manager who was so carried away by his enthusiasm to adopt the newest air pollution control methods and equipment, whether needed or not, that his plant suffered competitively and eventually had to