sponses amid the play and pull of the many varied forces of our society.

If we follow this course, we should eventually succeed in developing what the late J. Robert Oppenheimer would have called a national "style" for environmental control. As Dr. Oppenheimer put it:

It is style which makes it possible to act effectively, but not absolutely; it is style which... enables us to find harmony between the pursuit of ends essential to us and the regard for the views, the sensibilities, the aspirations of those to whom the problem may appear in another light; it is style which is the deference that action pays to uncertainty; it is, above all, style through which power defers to reason. (Quoted in The Automobile and Air Pollution, Part II, Report of the Panel on Electrically Powered Vehicles, page 109, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.)

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much, Dr. Bennett, for your very complete and interesting presentation.

You have covered this in a way in your statement but I will ask this first question.

SOCIAL NEEDS

The Congress has defined the social issues and needs involved in pollution control and abatement. Would you care to comment on whether the social needs for control technologies are adequately reflected in current Federal research and development program policies? Dr. BENNETT. Well, I have pointed out in the testimony that there are certain aspects of existing legislation that have made it very difficult to stimulate the private sector to invest its resources in the development of technologies.

PATENT POLICY

I have also pointed out that while existing patent policy allows some leeway in decisions, until now, this discretionary power has not generally been used for technology developed for use in the private sector with the support of Government funds. In certain existing legislation, even this discretionary power in the policy has been narrowed so that issuance of an exclusive patent is not possible even if, in the judgment of the contracting agency, this might be required to assure that the technology is utilized broadly in the public interest.

COORDINATION

So, I would say that while existing policy is adequate, with the exception of the legislative restrictions, it simply has not been used, until now, in the coordinated fashion that one would like to see.

I think that this is because there has been a failure of recognition that the application of these technologies in the civilian sector is a matter quite different from the use of most technologies that are developed for commercial or profitmaking use.

RESEARCH INCENTIVES

Senator SPONG. What kind of research incentives are presently available to both stimulate industry and protect the public interest?

Dr. BENNETT. I think it is important to differentiate between a specific applied research project that may be contracted out and technological development because there are certainly many institutions and establishments in the private sector that are perfectly willing to

carry out a piece of research on contract while few would undertake technological development.

The point that I would like to emphasize, however, is that if one looks at marketed product or process, we now know that the expenses of research and development constitute a very small proportion of the cost of getting that product onto the market. A major proportion of cost has to do with production engineering and marketing, once the research and development stage is completed.

The decision to actually produce and market is a decision that has to be based upon knowledge of the market and the possible return on a very large investment. Indeed, in the Charpie Report on Innovation prepared by the Department of Commerce in 1966, it was shown that when the cost of actually developing a product and getting it onto the market, is divided up, the money for R. & D. comes to between 5 and 10 percent of the total and the rest goes to production engineering, marketing and so on.

So, in the absence of a strong market stimulus it is very difficult, it seems to me, to expect that there will be spontaneous innovation in private industry as long as environmental standards must be set on the basis of existing technology.

SOLICITED RESEARCH

Senator SPONG. I think you covered that last statement in your testimony very well.

Do you think that the Department of Defense procedure of requesting research proposals from independent organizations has application to research and development programs in environmental pollution control?

Dr. BENNETT. Well, I would say that the Department of Defense has developed a contracting policy which is generally quite effective. On the other hand, I think it is important to emphasize that the Department of Defense generally contracts for the development and production of products for which it is the major or only market; therefore, a market is assured.

This is a very different situation from that where we are trying to us governmental funds to support the development of technologies for which the Government is not the main market. The main market will be industry and municipal governments and these will not be technologies that necessarily produce profits.

So, I simply think that what is needed is a careful examination of what the stimuli and incentives are that will lead industry to do this, with or without Federal subsidy.

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

Senator SPONG. There has been discussion before the committee on the need for a systems analysis approach to research in environmental pollution control.

Would you comment on the applicability of this?

Dr. BENNETT. Well, it certainly has become increasingly clear that the environment is a continuum. So, I would say that to apply the systems approach to problems of environmental control is, I think, quite justified.

On the other hand, to be more specific, the idea that one can take the techniques of systems analysis that have made it possible to develop weapon systems or specific hardware in the most economical or costeffective fashion and apply them at once to these more complex environmental problems, which are not only matters of science or technology but involve, as I have already stated, the whole array of economic, social, and political activities both within and without the Government is not likely. I think this analytic method may offer hope for the future but certainly, at present, it cannot be viewed as anything but a method of approach that perhaps in later years will offer additional help.

Now, there are certain specific problems in the area of environmental pollution that can be and have been attacked by a systems method. For example, one can take a certain municipal area and very carefully record everything that goes in and goes out to get some idea what the possible alternative approaches to control of wastes of certain types might be.

This is the type of systematically gathered information that we very much need. Once one has this information, the question of whether any new type of economic analysis or method of choosing technologies will give better insight into what is the best way to deal with a problem I think, remains to be answered.

I might also say that in OST, we have had a number of consultants who have been trying to develop a rationale for the use of a systems approach to more efficient management of broad programs of environmental control as opposed to more specific engineering judgments. Senator SPONG. Thank you.

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET

Does the Office of Science and Technology advise the Bureau of the Budget regarding environmental quality?

Dr. BENNETT. The Office of Science and Technology advises the President upon matters of environmental quality, particularly those matters that relate to the scientific and technological aspects of the environmental quality.

We do consult with the Bureau of the Budget on these matterssometimes at their request, sometimes on our own initiative-but in general we work in parallel with them and, as do they, we often present independent views to the President.

FEDERAL POLICY

Senator SPONG. Has your office attempted to establish a comprehensive Federal policy for environmental quality issues?

Dr. BENNETT. Well, we have made a certain number of attempts. by using the instrumentalities available to us to establish principles. The report of the President's Science Advisory Committee that I have referred to was probably the first comprehensive statement of the overall environmental problem in this country and it contains within it, in considerable detail, the elements of a national policy or, at least, the principles of control.

The need for a national policy certainly has been recognized. It will require, however, action on the part of more than the Executive Office

95-825-68-10

since not only is there a division of responsibility for environmental problems among the Executive agencies but there is also a divided responsibility in Congress for these problems.

Until we have an officially stated and accepted national policy for environmental control, which makes possible or even mandatory a systematic examination by each agency or by each congressional committee of its specific actions in relation to the overall national goals for the environment, it will be exceedingly difficult to achieve the desired coordination and control of our overall effort.

We do not have at present as the result of the work of the Office of Science and Technology or of any other group that I know a true national policy for environmental control, in an operational sense.

AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY

Senator SPONG. Would you care to comment on the extent to which pollution control technology is available and whether society is willing and ready to assimilate and pay for the result?

Dr. BENNETT. Well, I would point first to something that is not a matter of science and technology. The availability of matching funds for the building of municipal sewage plants under existing legislation, intended to stimulate the construction of these needed facilities has, in actual fact, tended to inhibit and slow down the construction of these plants. This is because the possible availability of Federal funds has made municipalities less and less willing to expend their own funds until Federal matching funds become available.

I would presume that the reluctance of municipal governments to spend their own funds for the entire cost of these needed facilities, in the absence of an expected Federal subsidy, is indicative of a certain unwillingness of society to pay these expenses.

POLITICAL STRUCTURE

Senator SPONG. I suppose it is also related to the political structure of our Government.

Dr. BENNETT. Well, I think it is very understandable that if one has to raise the tax rates to build the sewage plant and then can be accused of doing this prematurely, it does raise an issue of considerable political risk.

I think when it comes down to brass tacks that there is probably a general desire to see the environment improved but in specific instances, there is a singular lack of desire to spend one's own funds to accomplish this.

It is for this reason that I emphasize so strongly the need for some sort of incentive or sanction that will apply broadly so that everyone will have to conform. It is my personal belief, I cannot say that it is necessarily the view of the Office of Science and Technology, that this would be a far more effective method of stimulating action than tremendous sums of Federal money as subsidies.

Senator SPONG. I suppose I was thinking that the political sensitivity of the officeholder is directly related to his proximity to his constituency. For instance, the city councilman has a much more difficult job being responsive than the State legislator or the Congressman. I think this relates to some degree to the difficulties in bond issues.

HEALTH

Dr. Rene Dubos has defined health as the sources to meet the needs of the future.

Would you care to comment further on the extent to which health, well-being and welfare of man must be considered in the formulation of national policies in environmental quality planning?

Dr. BENNETT. I would only say that I certainly agree with that particular definition of health although I have agreed with other definitions that have been promulgated, also.

I think, though, that it is quite clear that in the health area, we are faced with a paradox. While it is possible to define numerous actions that may make for better health or for poorer health, it is exceedingly uncommon for individuals in our society to take or avoid those actions purely from a preventive viewpoint.

Consequently, despite the fact that one can define these with certainty, many, if not most individuals, until they develop an obvious illness, tend to act on the basis of preference. As objectively as we may define the state of health or as objectively as we may define beauty, we find that individual actions are based on individual preferences.

I think that the definition of health will have no more effect or no more impact on society's tendency to go in one direction or the other direction so far as environmental quality is concerned than will the definition of beauty or whether one prefers a landscape or whether one prefers a park in the middle of the city or whether one prefers to live in the country or in an apartment in the city, and so on.

So, while I really agree with the definition, I cannot say that I think that to define health in this or any other fashion makes a substantive contribution to the solution of the social and political problems that we face in controling environmental quality.

Senator SPONG. Thank you again, Dr. Bennett, for your very thorough and complete statement.

Dr. BENNETT. Thank you.

Senator SPONG. Dr. Eliassen.

Dr. Eliassen, Dr. Bennett said that you would be testifying before the subcommittee; I was not aware that you would be the next witness. Very happy to have you here this morning.

STATEMENT OF ROLF ELIASSEN, PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, STANFORD UNIVERSITY

Dr. ELIASSEN. Thank you, sir.

I want to congratulate the committee on the excellence of the selection of assistants. As a Stanford professor, I am glad to see that you have two ex-Stanford students on your staff-Messrs. Grundy and Cummings.

I appreciate the privilege of being invited to address your subcommittee today. You have heard much testimony on air and water pollution and the need for their control. I will talk a little bit on the subject of solid waste management. This is what Dr. Bennett said we were working on in OST, where I have been engaged as a consultant.