Her misgivings about the science court were consistent with an observation she has made about social innovation generally — that eventually all social innovations are corrupted and she pointed out that it would be essential that the science court be carefully protected from early corruption. The science court was supported by numerous distinguished people and a transcript of the proceedings is available from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Washington, DC, Document No. PB-261 305. During the 1976 Presidential Campaign development of a science court procedure was endorsed by both President Ford and candidate Carter. It has received numerous other endorsements, among them the endorsement of the Committee of Scientific Society Presidents which includes twenty-eight of the leading scientific societies of the United States. During the 1980 presidential campaign, candidate Reagan promised (2): In addition, I will explore the feasibility of a ‘Science Court,' to help arrange public discussions of controversial scientific issues. This will help guide the public, the Congress, and the executive branch. The purpose would be public exposure, not decision making. The development of the science court procedure to a point of general utility is a substantial undertaking and thus far only tentative beginnings in this direction have been undertaken. Several examples of such tentative beginnings have come to my attention: [1 ] One interesting case was called to my attention by Dr. John C. Bailar then of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda. Bailar had been conducting a campaign to reduce the use of x-ray examination for detecting breast cancer in women under 50. He reported that some of the relevant medical organizations had refused to consider the possibility that this procedure was doing more harm than good. He let it be known that he intended to pursue a science court procedure to bring out the facts in this matter and he reports: . . . the very possibility of a science court may have a beneficial effect on the resolution of technical disagreement. The matter was settled, at least temporarily, and guidelines restricting the mass screening of women under 50 have been issued. |2| The claim has been made that low frequency electromagnetic fields have deleterious physiological effects on plants, animals and humans. These effects have been advanced as reasons for opposing powerful, extremely low frequency, radio transmitters and more recently long distance power transmission lines. A controversy arose in Minnesota concerning the impact of a transmission line with a group of farmers resorting to vigorous civil disobedience to prevent its construction. Minnesota Governor Perpich offered to form a science court to provide factual scientific information which might be helpful in resolving the dispute. He attempted to use the prestige of his office to persuade both the farmers and the utility companies to accept a resolution by a science court of the problems of health and safety. The farmers insisted on two alterations of the procedure, both of which were intended to politicize the process. First, they insisted that questions of need for the power line be brought up before a science court as well as
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==