tools and provide unique capabilities that will certainly benefit the Advanced Ceramics program. Yet no one resource is critical. Providing NBS services to industry, government and academia will require utilization of all our equipment resources. Question. You request $3.0 million for work on industrial applications of biotechnology. Most of us think of genetic engineering and new medical advances when we hear the word "biotechnology," but I gather your initiative has more to do with the use of biotechnology to improve productivity and products in industry-particularly the chemical industry.

What economic opportunities exist in industrial biotechnology? What "technical barriers" now exist in this new field? What will NBS's initiative do to help overcome these barriers and help American companies?

Answer. Biotechnology will have major impacts on many sections of our economy. From 1980-82, ninety-one new biotechnology companies were established in the U.S. alone, and the number of U.S. companies is expected to increase dramatically by the end of the century. The global market for biotechnology-based products is estimated to be $100-200 billion by the year 2000. The commercialization of biotechnology will be heavily dependent upon measurement technology at all phases of R&D, processing quality assurance, occupational health and safety, environmental monitoring, regulatory applications and trade. Lack of measurement methods and large measurement variability are technical barriers inhibiting the commercialization of biotechnology. NBS can utilize its physical, chemical, and engineering expertise to focus on a few key measurement problems which are common to all applications of biotechnology ranging over a diversity of industrial sectors.

Question. Normally in science, proposed new programs go through a process of peer review, to ensure that they are technically sound and address key scientific

concerns.

What kind of peer review did the ceramics and biotechnology proposals go through? Are you confident that these proposals have the support of the scientific community?

Answer. NBS is involved directly and continually with industry, universities and other government agencies-from the time a program is first planned through the actual provision of measurement services resulting from Bureau research. The NBS Visiting Committee and the NAS/NRC Boards of Assessment of the NBS research groups where the biotechnology and ceramics work will be conducted include representatives from industry and universities. Through them, peer group review is conducted on a continuing basis, not only of the plans for providing measurement services and standards for biotechnology and ceramics, but also the quality of the scientific work itself. As it has with other programs, NBS management will communicate directly with industrial management and with representatives from trade associations and universities in planning and conducting the biotechnology and ceramics programs.

Question. I have two questions about the direction that the ceramics and biotechnology initiatives will take.

First, which concerns will you emphasize? Will immediate industrial needs or scientific merit be given top priority in these programs?

Second, how will you cooperate with other research programs, both private and corporate? For example, what other research labs are looking at ceramics and industrial biotechnology, and how will you interact with them?

Answer. The NBS program in biotechnology will concentrate on a system to measure and predict quantitatively protein structure and function; separate, detect, and measure accurately biomolecules, their substrates, and products in complex mixtures; and predict, monitor, and control the operating environment of bioreactors including devices for the separation and purification of products. Cooperation with other research programs will be carried out through solicitation of visiting scientists and industrial research associates placed at NBS by these programs. In addition, contact is being made with applications-oriented biotechnology research centers throughout the U.S. which need reliable measurement technology for effective development of their products and services.

The advanced ceramics program will focus on all aspects of the improvement of the processing cycle. The principle feature will be the understanding of flaws: e.g. at what step in processing do they originate, how can they be minimized or avoided, and what data and reference materials are needed by industry. Data evaluation efforts can be readily directed into areas of greatest industrial need. Data programs, such as the ceramic phase diagram and the x-ray powder diffraction reference data efforts, performed in collaboration with professional societies will be closely geared to industrial needs. In other areas such as fine-particle, ultra-high-purity synthesis there is a balanced need for research and creativeness. Coupled with this research

will be needs for improved measurement methodologies to accurately characterize the powders and to correlate their features with properties of ceramic products.

The advanced ceramics program has been developed in consultation with university-industry consortia (MIT and Rutgers), industry leaders, and with encouragement of DOE laboratories. In all cases, it is clearly recognized that NBS has a unique responsibility to fill within the national effort to support the national economic policy goals in advanced materials. Cooperative programs will grow between NBS and the university-industry consortia, professional societies, and with other government lab

oratories.

Senator GORTON. Our first panel, each representing one of the areas proposed either for elimination or reduction, consists of: Mr. John Gerard of the National Fire Protection Association; Mr. Vico Henriques, president of the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association; and Mr. John Bush of the National Institute of Building Sciences.

If they would come up there, and we will start with Mr. Gerard. Your formal written statements will be included in the record and we appreciate your limiting your opening statements to not more than 5 minutes.

STATEMENTS OF JOHN C. GERARD, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION; VICO HENRIQUES, PRESIDENT, COMPUTER AND BUSINESS EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION; AND JOHN BUSH, BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BUILDING SCIENCES

Mr. GERARD. Yes, sir, Senator. Thank you.

A very short synopsis of the National Fire Protection Association. We were founded in 1896. We are a nonprofit organization. We basically focus on technical and educational activities. We have been since our founding the principal public advocate for fire safety in the United States.

And our 32,000 members represent all facets of fire protection. We are not a trade or an industry association. We are basically focused on improving fire and life safety in the United States.

But we are not here to talk about the NFPA. We are here to talk about the Center for Fire Research, or at least I am. And as you accurately pointed out, for the third year in a row the Center for Fire Research is threatened with extinction.

It is our view that the existence and the continued functioning of the Center for Fire Research within the NBS is absolutely essential. Since 1904, the National Bureau of Standards has done fire research, when they began to do some work on standardization of fire hose couplings, which incidentally is still going on in some of the smaller communities in the United States. This work was begun at NBS a long, long time ago.

Dr. Ambler pointed out that NBS priorities are adjusted each year to reflect the changing priorities and attitudes of the American people, and I can tell you, Senator, that the attitudes of the American people are stronger now than they have ever been in their concern for fire safety. Just in the past several years, with some of the major hotel fires and some of the other major industrial fires that have occurred throughout the world, the American people's concern for fire safety is greater than it has ever been. So if anything, the National Bureau of Standards should be adjusting

their priorities in a direction opposite from eliminating the Center for Fire Research.

The Center is not simply an abstract scientific experimental laboratory. The Center for Fire Research activities go beyond initial research and they produce practical tools that have great benefits for the American people.

The Center for Fire Research did the original studies on smoke detectors in 1972. As a result of the work that the Center for Fire Research began in 1972, last year for the first time, for the first time since we have been keeping statistics, the loss of life due to fire was under 6,000 people a year, a very direct reflection of the work done by the Center for Fire Research in developing smoke detectors so that we can all have a smoke detector in our home. Until they began their research, residential smoke detectors were virtually nonexistent.

When you go home this evening, I suggest that you take a look at the carpet that you are standing on. In 1970 the National Bureau of Standards began research and completed studies that developed carpet standards that would keep carpets from igniting from small ignition sources and cigarettes.

No mattresses sold since 1973 can be ignited by a cigarette, as a result of research done at the Center for Fire Research.

Today the Center is doing research in the area of toxicity, in the area of fire-safe cigarettes. In fact, they are the lead organization developing a fire-safe cigarette. Given the highly charged nature of this type of research, it is absolutely essential that that work be done in Government. It is not possible for this work to be done in the private sector.

Now, in addition, I find it interesting, this is the second hearing I have been to where the illusion is to transfer this activity-they say it very fast so it sounds like one word, "to the private sector, State and local government." Saying it fast does not make it real.

Before I came to Washington in 1982, I was with the Los Angeles Fire Department. I retired as the fire chief there. The Los Angeles Fire Department, as the Seattle Fire Department, is very innovative, at the very forefront of activities. We did research in Los Angeles. The Seattle Fire Department just completed some research on smoke movement in buildings.

That sort of thing is not funded by local government. It is funded by the Federal Government. That research is done under grants from the Federal Government. Local government does not have the money to do that, even if they had the capability. In addition the type of research that is done by the Center for Fire Research cannot be done by any local government, because they simply do not have the laboratories.

It cannot be done by the private sector because it is basic research that ultimately leads to product developments.

Dr. Ambler referred to the meeting that was held on research in Massachusetts. The National Fire Protection Association was a cosponsor of that study and I would like to read for you, and then I am going to shut up, just one of the recommendations.

It is the second recommendation that came out of that study. Dr. Ambler was absolutely correct, they did not recommend assuming

that research in the private sector. What they recommended was that:

The Center for Fire Research, fulfilling the crucial role of spearheading and coordinating basic and generic applied fire research through independent research within the Center, by provision of grants, fellowships, and technical support to independent researchers and universities and similar institutions, and by serving as an objective forum for reviewing and coordinating the national research effort.

In other words, that study said: keep the Center for Fire Research; it is not possible to transfer that activity to the private sector or to State and local government.

I thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. [The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. GERARD, NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) expresses its opposition to the Administration's FY'86 budget proposal that would provide zero funding for the Center for Fire Research (CFR) within the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) and, thus, eliminate this important scientific research unit within the Federal Government.

The NFPA, founded in 1896, is a non-profit, technical and educational membership organization. It has remained the principal public advocate for fire safety since its inception. The Association's membership of over 32,000 is drawn from the many disciplines involved in, and concerned about, the national fire problem. NFPA is not a trade or industry association. No one group or interest is dominant. The only common membership denominator is a concern for fire safety. Members include fire service personnel, fire marshals, electrical inspectors and city managers; architects, engineers and educators; health care facility operators and similar groups from commerce, industry, insurance and the Federal Government. The NFPA is best known for its voluntary safety standards, collectively known as the National Fire Codes which, in whole or in part, are incorporated by reference into numerous federal, state and local laws and ordinances.

Thanks to action by the Congress last year and the year before the CFR was saved. This year the elimination of the Center for Fire Research is once again proposed.

In NFPA's view, the existence and continued functioning of the NBS Center for Fire Research is essential. Historically, the NBS has had a fire research capability since 1904, at which time standardization of fire hose couplings was an issue. In subsequent years, the Fire Resistance Section was established within NBS. With the enactment of the Fire Research and Safety Act of 1968 the organization was formalized. Subsequently, Section 18 of the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 amended the NBS Organic Act thereby creating the Center for Fire Research in its present form.

It would be a mistake to view the workings of the NBS Center for Fire Research as simply abstract, scientific experimentation. Although the Center is a community of scientists and engineers and much of the work is, in its initial form, relatively abstract, one of the distinguishing features of this particular part of NBS is that the Center goes beyond this initial research to produce practical tools that have great benefits.

For example, the Center began fundamental studies of residential smoke detection in 1972. At that time, home smoke alarms were virtually unknown in this country. Two years later, a test method for residential detectors was published by NBS and adopted by Underwriters Laboratories as the basis for that organization's certification and labeling program. These developments set the stage for the explosion of smoke detector sales in this country. Today two out of every three homes in the United States has this life-saving device and life loss due to fire is on the decline. That would not be the case if it weren't for the pioneering work of the Center for Fire Research.

One reason we feel safe in most buildings is that we are fairly confident that a fire will not cause them to collapse before we can get out. Buildings don't just happen to be built that way-the concepts of fire endurance, which are the bedrock of modern fire protection, were developed at NBS fifty years ago.

46-508 0-85--3

When you go home this evening, take a moment to look at your carpet; work completed at NBS in 1970 has ensured that carpet manufactured since that time will not ignite from a dropped match or similar small ignition source.

No mattresses sold since 1973 will ignite from a cigarette-again thanks to work done at NBS.

There is scarcely an area of practical fire protection which does not show the imprint of work done by the Center. Fire fighters wear improved protective clothing; buses, subways, trains and airplanes are more fire safe; hospital and nursing home fires are increasingly uncommon-all due to research done and put to practical end use as a result of the work of the Center for Fire Research.

NFPA doesn't think anyone can seriously suggest that the Center doesn't earn its keep-a single famous hospital in Massachusetts saved more money by applying CFR-developed fire protection technology than it costs to operate the Center for eighteen months. Rather, the issue is whether the private sector can do as well or better in providing this technology. In our view, it cannot-in fact, it can't even come close.

It takes money to do this work, and in the private sector, one cannot spend money unless there is a clear financial return. Safety standards, such as those of NFPA, invariably involve product exclusions. This means that the research that often underlies the standard must be technically sound and free from bias. Even when privately funded research meets these tests, the conflict level that accompanies standards development will be raised. That level is already high, and the risk is run of having fire safety being finally determined in the courtroom, not the laboratory. By the same token, the costs of standards development would increase dramatically.

The crucial and irreplaceable element that NBS brings to the fire safety community is credibility. Private funds doing the same research could not have the same impact.

Furthermore, the Center is an interdisciplinary organization. No single industry would be willing to support such a diverse collection of specialities. Yet, without that diversity, the breakthroughs are not going to be realized.

For example, mention was made that the Center had developed cost-saving technology for hospitals. That involved the concept of the Fire Safety Evaluation System (FSES) for Hospitals and Nursing Homes, a concept that is now also part of the National Fire Codes. Using this system, building owners and developers can meet code requirements with far more flexibility and, therefore, at much lower cost than was previously the case. The savings potential for health care facilities alone in the United States is in the billions of dollars-and comes at a time when other health care costs are skyrocketing. On one hand, the Center had assembled the physicists, psychologists and engineers to compare and evaluate fire protection methods and, on the other, the Center had the credibility in the building and regulatory community to gain review and acceptance of the concept from those who would use it dayto-day.

In summary, considering the highly-charged nature of the work done by the Center for Fire Research, it is absolutely essential that this work continue within government, and not in the private sector, as this possibility is being proposed by the Administration. It cannot be transplanted without creating a vacuum in essential independent research and opening a door to judicial challenges.

Further, the locus of the Center for Fire Research within the NBS, and not in some other government agency, is fully justified because of the universal recognition of NBS' scientific stature and because of the beneficial synergistic effects that comparison and correlation with other scientific disciplines in NBS provides. Not one university or private research institution in the United States is able to provide this inter-disciplinary approach.

As we are sure the Subcommittee will realize, the Center's work products not only benefit the NFPA, but also underlie much of the private sector's product certification activities.

To emphasize our point once agein, even if the NBS Center for Fire Research could be physicially duplicated within the private sector, the credibility of such an entity would be far less than that of the existing NBS organization. Much more can be said on this subject, and we have tried, in an attachment ot this statement, to deal briefly with a few of the most important aspects of the question: "What if the CFR is shut down?"

In conclusion, the NFPA urges the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee to recommend continuation of the Center for Fire Research at the FY'85 funding level.