deals with the toxic effects of chemicals on individual organisms.

Another topic treated by the report is environmental management, including monitoring, simulation modeling, estab­lishment of standards, and risk estima­tion. The panel emphasizes the need for more knowledge in all environmental areas. "It is difficult to see how best to improve the environment without first establishing fundamental facts,· such facts will also serve to offset the interminable speculation frequently passing for knowledge."

However, the report notes, a compre­hensive global environmental monitoring system, endorsed by the UN Conference

Scientists called to action on

A "call to action"—urging scientists and engineers to help move the world away from awesome threats to its future— was sounded at the final session of the symposium held in Washington, D.C., in conjunction with the General Assembly of the International Council of Scientific Unions. Prepared at a meeting in Bella-gio, Italy, by a panel of 17 prominent and "concerned" scientists from eight countries, the appeal focuses with "guarded optimism" on the possibilities of solving over the next 25 years such major science- and technology-related world problems as food supply, envi­ronmental control, materials and energy supply, and arms control and nuclear proliferation. The panel was chaired by Dr. Lewis M. Branscomb, vice president and chief scientist of IBM and former director of the National Bureau of Stan­dards.

The report, according to the panel, "is not a view of impending doom, but nei­ther is it a view that justifies compla­cency or procrastination. Rather, it is a sobering view of a great challenge, to­gether with an assertion that the world can reach the goal of a better life for all humankind, if it can chart a prudent course through troubled times." Suc­cess, the panel adds, will depend not on a single dramatic effort or institutional invention, but rather on "a long se­quence of small, correct decisions," with science and technology as "nec­essary agents" in making these deci­sions and in carrying them out.

Much of the scientific knowledge and technological tools for improving living conditions worldwide are already avail­able, the report notes, but their appli­cation is often frustrated by political, economic, and social constraints. Sci­entific and technical skills must be much better distributed globally to deal with world problems, for example. And many uses of science and technology con­tribute short-term benefits, but do so at the expense of future resilience— "leaving an ominous legacy for future generations."

Nevertheless, the panel's recom-

22 C&ENOct. 25, 1976

on the Human Environment in 1972, is still not being set up. The delay may be caused by deficient understanding of how to go about monitoring in practice, SCOPE says, and it suggests ways of remedying such deficiencies.

One of the panel's key points is that when scientists gain knowledge about the environment and its possible threats, they must be willing and able to communicate their knowledge in an understandable fashion to scientists in other disciplines, policy makers, and the public, including use of the mass media. "They must not ponder this knowledge in the detached and rarified atmosphere of the intellectual ivory tower," notes Holdgate. "This

world problems

mendations assume no major changes in world institutions and attitudes, "however much such changes might be welcome." But the report does strongly urge revamping of the traditional roles of scientists and scientific institutions, to do far more than just contribute new knowledge.

Successful management of human affairs will "depend strongly on the in­volvement of scientists and engineers with the social and political institutions that determine the use of technology," stresses Branscomb (himself a leading science adviser to Presidential candidate Jimmy Carter). And the panel empha­sizes "the responsibility of the engineer to be alert to consequences of his technological contributions." Indeed, it says, "failure of the world's technical community to commit itself" and to in­sist on "development of needed policies . . . and cooperative activities could make the pessimistic view of doom-sayers a self-fulfilling prophecy."

The panel thus urges creation of new problem-oriented institutions for scien­tific and policy research to provide facts and analysis enabling "anticipatory de­cisions" and contingency planning be­fore hazards become critical. Such in­stitutions, together with scientific so­cieties, international scientific unions, and academic institutions, will have to learn to deal credibly and as rigorously as possible with incomplete information and problems "so riddled with uncer­tainties that hypothetical situations must be modeled as the basis for public de­cisions."

And it is urgent that scientists learn to communicate their conclusions relevant to policy making to the general public, because "the public's sense of priorities and values limits the decision options of its leaders," the panel points out. "The public must understand the alternatives before it is asked to forego a near-term benefit" for the sake of later gain or safety, Branscomb stresses. "In the past, the scientific community has sometimes taken an elitist view of its role."

of science is not just addressed to scien­tists." Indeed, SCOPE has an ongoing research project bringing together scien­tists and policy makers to examine the difficulties of actual use of scientific evi­dence in environmental decisions.

The tone of the SCOPE report is one of "cautious optimism," despite the many environmental threats. "No other attitude is sensible," says Holdgate, "unless we doubt our own powers and understanding so much that we are left with no other recourse but despair." There are already many success stories of wise management of natural resources, he points out. And the impacts of human activities "will certainly not all continue to grow at [an] exponential rate."

What about implementation of the re­port's recommendations? Highest priority for further research "should clearly be given to those problems whose solution is being impeded by lack of scientific knowledge" rather than by deficient social or political will, Holdgate stresses, and a multidisciplinary approach must be taken. ICSU and its unions and com­mittees are already working in some areas discussed, and may undertake cooperative research efforts in additional ones.

"I'm optimistic," concludes Kovda. "But you have to pressure governments, you have to create social opinion" in order to get a comprehensive network of global monitoring stations, exploratory research, modeling, environmental legislation, and other efforts. "What is the point? Action is the point. Action, action, and action.' Richard J. Seltzer, C&EN Washington

Antimalarial research proposals sought As part of its antimalarial drug develop­ment program, the Army is seeking re­search proposals for synthesis of new an­timalarial agents. Proposals, the Army says, should be supported by a compelling chemical, biochemical, biological, or pharmacological rationale. Proposals that request support for basic chemical re­search not related to the antimalarial program, it notes, will not be supported.

Proposals should include a title page; organizational and administrative infor­mation; a budget sheet; a technical pre­sentation, including methods of approach; résumés for key personnel; and a de­scription of facilities. The Army says that proposals may be written to cover re­search for more than one year but that contracts are funded on a yearly basis. Also, all proposals are subjected to peer review by a study group.

Proposals should include an original and two copies and should be sent to: Commanding General, U.S. Army Medi­cal Research & Development Command, Attn: SGRD-SSL, Washington, D.C. 20314. Inquiries on technical matters can be sent to: Division of Medicinal Chem­istry, Walter Reed Army Institute of Re­search, Walter Reed Army Medical Cen­ter, Washington, D.C. 20012. D