APPENDIX C STATEMENT BY MR. HARVEY PICKER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, PICKER CORPORATION; FORMER MEMBER, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD The National Science Board asked a former member, Mr. Harvey Picker, to provide for the committee record a comment from the industrial viewpoint on the Board's 1972 report. His response, which follows, includes interesting observations on direct experience with Canadian Government aid in support of industrial technology. (56) STATEMENT BY HARVEY PICKER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, PICKER CORPORATION, WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK, TO THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE 1972 1 1 Thank you for permitting me the opportunity to furnish additional testimony for your hearings on the National Science Board's Report, "The Role of Engineers and Scientists in a National Policy for Technology." I believe that your Committee and the National Science Board deserve the appreciation of the American public for your foresight in selecting this problem to analyze. How it is resolved probably will vitally affect the quality of life in the United States. By examining the question now, before heated adversary claims cloud rational analysis, you are greatly enhancing the probability that the public will have the benefit of an early intelligent governmental decision based on adequate studies and, if desirable, pilot projects. I would like to speak on many aspects of the Report. I will limit myself primarily to the pragmatic aspects of some of its recommendations. Although I have been a Member of the National Science Board, my comments are based on my experience as Chairman of the Board of one of the largest companies in a high technology industry. Picker Corporation develops and manufactures X-ray apparatus, isotope therapy equipment, and clinical nuclear instruments. Although the major part of our development, engineering, and production is conducted in facilities in the United States, we also carry on these activities in Germany, Denmark, and Canada. Our experience provides rather dramatic support for the desirability of the National Science Board's Recommendation I, i.e., that the Government aid in the support of industrial technology. About ten years ago we reluctantly opened a small plant in Canada. The attitude of the Canadian Government toward purchasing from companies with manufacturing facilities in Canada made this appear to be a somewhat poor but necessary risk. A rather small domestic Canadian market led us to anticipate that this plant would depend on our United States facilities for its engineering, would produce simple products, would grow very slowly, and would continuously struggle to be at all profitable. A few years later the Canadian Government enacted a group of laws and implemented them to support applied research and development in industry. As a result, this small plant has grown to five times its anticipated size and employs many more engineers than we could possibly have expected even at its enlarged size. Our Canadian manufacturing facility has achieved world prominence as a result of having devised radically new types of X-ray apparatus that markedly increase the number of patients which can be examined per machine, while reducing the cost of X-ray examinations as well as the demands on the hospital staff. Far from producing only for the Canadian market, this small plant's Government-aided development program has resulted in its exporting a large proportion of its production. Besides 1 Effective August 1, 1972, Mr. Picker became Dean of the School of International Affairs, Columbia University. that, new Canadian laws have enabled this plant to undertake a cooperative applied research project with a Canadian university which has resulted in the increased employment of scientists at the university as well as in our factory. Without the Canadian Government's cooperation, such advanced work would not have been practical for an operation of that size, and the scientists might have had more difficulty in finding constructive employment for their talents. Thus, four Canadian Government projects-"Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology," "Industrial Research Development Incentive Act," "Industrial Research Assistance Program," and "Program to Enhance Productivity"-had, in our case at least, caused a more rapid growth of our Canadian facilities than our German or United States plants. These programs, which are similar to those recommended by the National Science Board, have actually led not only to increased worker employment but also to increased employment of engineers, university scientists, and Canadian leadership in an area of technology, with a resulting increase in exports. Indeed, the increased tax revenue alone for the Canadian Government has undoubtedly more than returned to it its costs of the assistance in this research and development work. Now let me hasten to add that I realize this is just one example. Probably the Canadian programs, as a whole, are not always this successful. Undoubtedly the Canadian Department of Industry. Trade and Commerce and the Canadian National Research Council, who are charged with these programs, must find many cases where manufac turers are inept, programs are not well analyzed or implemented, and manufacturers try to put development costs on the Government that they should bear themselves. Yet, I cite our story to indicate that the proposals of the National Science Board can be highly practical toward reaching the objectives of an improved economy and quality of life. Wisely directed Government partnership in development and applied research in civilian fields can work very well. A major part of the effectiveness and usefulness of the Report's recommendations, of course, will depend on how they are implemented. For example, encouragement of an industrial development project must be preceded by a careful market analysis. The customer is at least as important in the development process as the scientist, engineer, businessman, or Government official. I would like to comment quickly on other aspects of the Report. Clearly, there are hazards to each of the Board's recommendations. No group, no matter how sagacious, can avoid errors in providing technological support for public goods and services. Some projects will be failures. Errors of forecasting will occur in the Exploration of Future Alternatives. Technology Assessment will inevitably be more apt to prevent the development of a technology that might prove to be a boon in order to be safely on the side of not creating new unwanted problems. But none of these objections seems to be overwhelming. It seems to me that the evidence is largely in favor of trying to implement the valuable recommendations of this Report. I would have liked to comment more extensively. However, I hope that I have made my primary purpose clear. It is to praise the Board Report and your hearings, both of which are embarked on an analysis that is vital to the future quality of life in our country. APPENDIX D List of Federal Agencies Commenting on Draft Fourth Report of National Science Board DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (59) |