self? You are making a study of this kind? What good reason, psychologically, legally, or any other base you want to use, would you have for denying the information that you have received as a result of investigating his particular situation, for denying it to him? Mr. Ross. That is a delicate question of ethics. I agree

Senator HARTKE. Why is it a delicate question of ethics? I don't think ethics is involved.

Mr. Ross. You do, you were pointing up an ethical issue.

Senator HARTKE. No, I'm not asking ethics at all. I am asking you why a man who is involved in an accident should be denied on any ground the material which you have been able to adduce through research on his particular case? Why isn't this his personal right, not a question of any ethics? Why is he not told it as a matter of right? Mr. Ross. That is a fair question and it has been asked repeatedly and I would give the answer that has been given you repeatedly. Senator HARTKE. What is it?

Mr. Ross. That only by making a precommitment to the man in the situation, that the evidence will not be so used, can one consistently

Senator HARTKE. I am not asking about being used. Here is a man involved in an accident. You go out and make an investigation. You have gone into so-called delicate areas. I am going to be quite honest with you, that I am not nearly as apprehensive of going into these delicate issues as you are. But I will give you the benefit of every doubt you can find."

You tell me how you can, in good conscience, withhold that information from the very person from whom you elicited it?

Mr. Ross. Well, the issue here is very clear, and it has been our experience, and this is not conjecture, this is research experience with people who have done research and I have heard a little too much conjecture in the area, that we cannot, except as we make a precommitment to local authorities

Senator HARTKE. I didn't say anything about local authorities. I haven't mentioned local authorities. I mentioned one man.

Mr. Ross. All right.

You have an implied precommitment to him, if you are doing this kind of research, but you will not disclose the data in court, because he doesn't know

Senator HARTKE. Wait a minute. Just a minute. Nobody has mentioned court. Every time you come in with an extraneous factor. I want to know why can't you give it to him?

Mr. Ross. All right. That is a fair question.

Senator HARTKE. Sure it is. I have asked it three times. It ought to be fair. Come on, let's get with it.

Mr. Ross. Well, I think that the question that you ask, and I have attempted to answer, is still clear in my answer, that if I-if it becomes a matter of my practice, that when I investigate an accident, I will give the results of my findings, in depth, to the man involved in the accident

Senator HARTKE. You will give it to him?

Mr. Ross. If it is found that that is my practice, if I make that my practice

Senator HARTKE. I'm not asking about making it your practice. I didn't ask about any contracts, practice, or anything else. I just want

to know why, in good conscience, here is a man, let's say, involved in an accident. You are now going into research, being funded through somebody else, on the man involved in the accident. You are going into his personal life and investigating his personal life.

Why, in good conscience, isn't this man personally entitled to whatever you find out about him? This is his personal life you have invaded. You invaded the sanctity of his personality. Why is he not entitled to it?

Mr. Ross. I don't believe in performing the work-you are now asking me to defend the Harvard procedure, which I can't do.

Senator HARTKE. I didn't mention Harvard. I mentioned you. Mr. Ross. You are asking me prospectively. We have not yet started this work.

Senator HARTKE. No; you have said you do not agree with this. It is all through your statement here, a hundred times, repeatedly. You defend your position in the statement. I am not saying you are not entitled to your opinion, but I want to know why.

Do you have a reason? If you don't have, say so.

that.

I will accept

Mr. Ross. No; I have attempted to tell you why. Because I feel that if I give this man-we are now talking of our first investigationI give this man the data you asked about, I will be blocked in my next investigation by the fact that I have done so, and I consider I have an obligation to the public at large, which is fully as great as my obligation to that man.

Senator HARTKE. How is the public at large involved, to its detriment? If a man's personal privacy is invaded, which you admit you are doing under authority of this type of research, you are invading the privacy of his own operation. At least that is the basis upon which you say it cannot be revealed, because it involves a privileged matter, which involves him personally. Why is the man not entitled to it?

I know of nothing in the law which says a man cannot waive his own personal privileges, nothing.

Mr. Ross. I think in the first instance you are construing our remark a little narrowly, in this matter of doctor-patient relationship. It is not what you describe

Senator HARTKE. No. Let me back up.

Do you say that a man, who is involved in an accident that you are investigating, is or is not entitled to this information as a matter of right?

Mr. Ross. I do not feel that he is entitled to it as a matter of right if he has had no part ni gathering it, and it has not been gathered with public funds, in the case you are citing here.

Senator HARTKE. Suppose by virtue of this he could save himself, and could prove as a result of this information you gathered that he was guilty of no criminal action, but if this was denied to him, he would be found guilty. You still say he has no rights?

Mr. Ross. You ask me a very difficult question, putting it in those terms. It is a difficult question. You are trying to answer for yourself, and I sympathize with you in asking.

Senator HARTKE. You don't have to sympathize with me; let's get that straight. I'm trying to find out some information. This deals

61-090-66-23

with section 307 of the bill. And it will have to be decided before we write a bill.

Mr. Ross. That's right. And I have given you my views.
Senator HARTKE. And you are just opposed to it?

Mr. Ross. I am opposed to it.

Senator HARTKE. În other words, you do not think he is entitled to this information, even to defend himself civilly, or defend himself criminally?

Mr. Ross. It is a delicate question of law you raise. I am not a lawyer.

I have, myself, had the impression it is not the obligation of both sides in a law case to exchange information so freely as you here describe.

Senator HARTKE. All right. I just assume we don't get a very good answer to that.

Now in regard to this new program, this new study, when we get those reports, to whom are they going to be made available?

Mr. Ross. The study we are doing for the Automobile Manufacturers Association?

Senator HARTKE. Yes.

Mr. Ross. I believe we have no limitation on the publication of those. It is certainly true that this work initially will be done for that group, and I would assume we would make our reports available first to them. But I recognize no limitation.

Mr. Wolf, have we any limitation on that?

Mr. WOLF. That is correct. When we have findings, which of course, will be our judgment, we will intend to publish. This is the agreement on this new project.

Senator HARTKE. You will do what, again, with them?

Mr. WOLF. When we derive findings from these cases, we will publish the cases. Now we anticipate, just to clarify this, in this kind of program there will be some time lapse before we begin to get repeat cases, which will begin to indicate any sort of trend.

We also realize that we are not entering, in the early stages, a statistical type of study, as described under the ACIR project, which is statistical, because it has been in existence for so many years, and also it collects a great amount of data.

In the other, the indepth type of study, we anticipate about 200 cases a year, perhaps.

Senator HARTKE. All right.

Mr. WOLF. I don't know how many repeats we will get.

Senator HARTKE. At this moment I am not trying to make a determination of how you will conduct the study. What I am trying to find out is what you are going to do with the information which is elicited from your study.

You say when you have findings, they are going to be made available generally?

Mr. WOLF. Yes, sir.

Senator HARTKE. To the public?

Mr. WOLF. Yes, sir.

Senator HARTKE. Are they going to be distributed in accordance with what you call audience coverage? That is a reference to your statement, your paper.

Mr. Ross. We make no limitation on the distribution of our ACIR reports. They are available to anyone who has a nontrivial interest in them. We can't respond to every request, naturally.

Senator HARTKE. In other words, you are going to make this study available not alone to the industry itself?

Mr. Ross. That is correct.

Senator HARTKE. But you are going to make it available to anyone who basically has a nontrivial interest, is that right?

Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.

Senator HARTKE. In other words, other research organizations, and the Federal Government or Federal agencies?

Mr. Ross. Yes.

Senator HARTKE. And State agencies?

Mr. Ross. Yes.

Senator HARTKE. Now will there be a submission of data as a result of this investigation to the automobile industry, that will not be available to the general public?

Mr. Ross. I should think that that would be appropriate, and as I say, I would rather not make policy here across the table, but in general I think we will do that, yes.

Senator HARTKE. In other words, you will make certain findings which will not be available to the public generally?

Mr. Ross. We have done this in ACIR. Is this clearly understood? In ACIR we have made available to each manufacturer, only to the manufacturers themselves, microfilms of all of the file evidence on his automobile, not on the other makes, that he might study them for whatever he might get out of them, on the stipulation that he shall not use that evidence except for his own study and research.

Now I would assume that in this situation we might follow a similar policy, and then we publish any findings from those research data, from those data, generally.

Senator HARTKE. And upon theory is this partial revelation released?

Mr. Ross. On the basis that, as I tried to state earlier, that indishall not use that evidence except for his own study and research. vidual cases have no validity for broad conclusions. But individual cases do lead the individual investigator, perhaps, into some corrective action of his own. If he is the manufacturer of the automobile, we think he is entitled to do his own speculation about his product, and see what he can do.

I think that is the thrust of all of the remarks here, that we wish the industry would do more of this.

Senator HARTKE. But you don't feel a State, for example, which is investigating safety generally, would be entitled to make such conclusions based upon such information?

Mr. Ross. Upon individual data, it is not a question of entitlement. I don't feel there is a mechanism for doing that at this time.

Senator HARTKE. Well, if the mechanism is developed; in other words, say the agency is created that we are setting up here, do you think all information that comes from this $800,000 study, as well as the others, should be released to them for their individual assessment?

Mr. Ross. That could be a development. I reassert our policy on publishing has been a viable thing, which has developed as we have found levels of publication useful in our judgment.

Senator HARTKE. You understand that it is open to suspicion, do you not?

Mr. Ross. I understand that it has been suspect, yes.

Senator HARTKE. And it is only fair to infer that whenever you have information released only to an agency or part of an industry, which is paying part of the bill, information not released to the public generally, that there is a natural inference that there is something to hide, otherwise the public generally would have it?

You can see that, can't you?

Mr. Ross. I can see that inference in some minds and not in others. Senator HARTKE. Now you have said you would like to see the method changed in regard to how these fundings are handled, that is, rather than on a grant basis, that you would prefer they be on a contract basis.

Would you explain that?

Mr. Ross. The distinction is that the whole theory of grants, of course, is that an organization like our own has a piece of research it proposes to do, has its own funds of some kind, or funding otherwise available to it than the grants to do the work, and is prepared to undertake it, and it is the purpose of the grant to supplement that funding and to reinforce the work.

This does raise a question, which has been repeatedly raised here, of who is in charge, who calls the shots, to whom do you make a report, who is responsible for your work.

I think the situation would be somewhat cleaner in a straight contractual relationship with the Government, where the right of the Government to the data, the manner in which the thing is done is complete, and when one works for the industry, again under their guidance and with some response to their wishes.

It seems to me it is a cleaner situation, and avoids many of the questions which have been bandied about here today about divided ownership.

Senator HARTKE. How would you differentiate between them where the item for which you are contracting and the item from which you are receiving funds from private agencies are overlapping? How would you handle that situation?

I mean the distinction is not clear cut. There is no sharp division of investigation of automobile accidents the nature of which could make you say this is a Government contractual operation and this other is a private contractual operation.

Mr. Ross. I pointed out earlier, only a relatively small part of our effort is in this field. We do extensive work for the Defense Department, and the aircraft industry, and generally for industry. And we are constantly faced with this question, that what one learns in one investigation must be used with discretion in relation to another.

This is a problem of a counsulting engineer or anyone who works for several people, he has to be careful his clients don't overlap.

In general we would not take a contract from the Government and industry to do the same type of work, so closely allied, that these prob