Helping America Compete: The Role of

Federal Scientific and Technical

Information

June 1990

OTA-CIT-454

NTIS order #PB90-252537
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Helping America Compete: The Role of

Federal Scientific and Technical Information, OTA-CIT-454 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, July 1990).

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this report)
Foreword

This Special Report assesses how Federal scientific and technical information (STI) can

contribute to a more competitive America and what actions are needed to realize this potential.

The report was prepared in response to a request from the House Committee on Science,

Space, and Technology.

Global change is a fact of contemporary life—whether in the political, economic, or

technological spheres. U.S. leadership in all of these areas is being challenged. We need to take

actions that can help renew the U.S. competitive edge in the worldwide marketplace of ideas,

products, and services, and to provide leadership on global issues such as the environment.

A key area of U.S. strength could and should be our scientific and technical information.

The U.S. Government is the largest single source of STI in the world—ranging from technical

reports on aerospace propulsion and solar thermal electric systems to satellite data on oceanic

and atmospheric trends to bibliographic indices on medical and agricultural research.

Yet the United States is not taking full advantage of opportunities to use Federal STI as

part of a strategy to renew the U.S. competitive edge. STI is very important to scientists and

engineers in a wide range of research, development, and commercial activities. They spend

a lot of time on STI--time that is valued, conservatively, at several billions of dollars per year

just for federally funded researchers. When used efficiently, Federal STI pays off handsomely.

The Special Report has benefited from discussion at an August 1989 OTA workshop,

several rounds of comments on earlier drafts, and debate on related topics at recent executive

branch meetings and congressional hearings. OTA appreciates the participation of the Office

of Science and Technology Policy, Office of Management and Budget, and Federal agency

officials and members of the scientific, academic, library, business, and consumer

communities, among others, who provided useful comments and information. The report is,

however, solely the responsibility of OTA and not of those who assisted us.

,,. Ill
Reviewers and Contributors

August 8,1989, OTA Workshop Participants

Gerald Barton, NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center Jerry McFaul, U.S. Geological Survey

Patricia Berger, National Institute of Standards and Technology Kurt Molholm, Defense Technical Information Center

Jane Bortnick, Congressional Research Service Frank Reeder, Office of Management and Budget

Joseph Caponio, National Technical Information Service Harold Relyea, Congressional Research Service

Joseph G. Coyne, U.S. Department of Energy Phil Thibideau, National Aeronautics and Space Administration -

.

Robert Dugan, National Commission on Libraries and Mary Ann Wallace, National Archives and Records Administration -

.

Information Science Forrest Williams, Bureau of the Census

Lament Eltinge, Office of Science and Technology Policy Helen Wood, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Don Fossedal, U.S. Government Printing Office Ron York, Office of Science and Technology Policy

Larry Herrmann, U.S. General Accounting Office

August 9,1989, OTA Workshop Participants

Prue Adler, Association of Research Libraries Sandy Morton, Special Libraries Association

Jerry Berman, The Benton Foundation Robert Park, American Physical Society

William Carpenter, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. David Plocher, OMB Watch

Bonnie Carroll, CENDI Marc Rotenberg, Computer Professionals for Social

Joseph Coyne, U.S. Department of Energy Responsibility

Al Doroff, Institute for Scientific Information, Inc. Deborah Runkle, American Association for the Advancement of

Don Fossedal, U.S. Government Printing Office Science

Steve Frantzich, U.S. Naval Academy Mark Scully, U.S. Government Printing Office

Warren Glimpse, U.S. Statistics, Inc. Harold B. Shill, West Virginia University Library

Charles McClure, Syracuse University School of Information Daniel Wilde, NERAC, Inc.

studies

Other Reviewers or Contributors

Andrew A. Aines, Consultant

Kenneth B. Allen, Information Industry Association

Jack Arthur, Office of Management and Budget

Tom Bold, National Technical Information Service

Cynthia Carter, National Research Council Numerical Data

Advisory Board

Mike Chinnery, NOAA National Geophysical Data Center

Daryl Chubin, Office of Technology Assessment

Joe Clark, National Technical Information Service

John Clement, National Research Council Math Sciences

Education Board

Joseph W. Duncan, The Dun& Bradstreet Corp.

Fred Durr, National Information Systems Corporation

D. Kaye Gapen, University of Wisconsin at Madison Libraries

Bob Gellman, House Committee on Government Operations

Steve Gould, Congressional Research Service

Ann Heanue, American Library Association

Lisa Heinz, Office of Technology Assessment

Peter Hereon, Simmons College

Christopher Hill, Congressional Research Service

Joseph E. Jenifer, U.S. Government Printing Office

Brian Kahin, Harvard University

Joseph King, NASA National Space Science Data Center

Thomas M. Kurihara, U.S. Department of Defense

Barbara Lawrence, American Institute of Aeronautics and

Astronautics

Ralph E. Lewis, Lokheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc.

Katherine F. Mawdsley, University of California at Davis

Library

Gary Metz, USGS EROS Data Center

George Minot, Applied Information Technologies Research

Center

Mike Nelson, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation

Eni Njoku, NASA Earth Sciences and Applications Division

James Paul, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Villanova Law School

Thomas E. Pinelli, NASA Langley Research Center

Douglas R. Posson, U.S. Geological Survey

Joe Price, Library of Congress

Russell S. Rice, NASA Scientific and Technical Information

Division

G.D. Robbins, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.

Kenyon C. Rosenberg, National Technical Information Service

Al Saley, Society of School Librarians

Andrew Sherman, U.S. Government Printing Office

Elliot R. Siegel, National Library of Medicine

Jean Smith, Office of Technology Assessment

Kent Smith, National Library of Medicine

Tim Sprehe, Office of Management and Budget

Nick Sundt, Office of Technology Assessment

Al Teich, American Association for the Advancement of

Science

Kenneth Thibodeau, NARA Center for Electronic Records

Gene Thorley, USGS National Mapping Division

Mitchel B. Wallerstein, National Research Council International

Affairs

Lisa Warnecke, Syracuse University School of Information

Studies

Christine Wegman, House Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology

Alan R. Wenberg, National Technical Information Service

Roxanne Williams, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Joan Winston, Office of Technology Assessment

NOTE: OTA appreciates the valuable assistance of outside reviewers and contributors. These individuals do not, however, necessarily

approve, disapprove, or endorse this Special Report. The report is the sole responsibility of OTA, not of those who so ably

assisted us.

iv
OTA Project Staff-Helping America Compete

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

James W. Curlin, Manager

Communication and Information Technologies Program

Fred B. Wood, Project Director

Administrative Staff

Liz Emanuel, Office Administrator

Karolyn St. Clair, Secretary

Jo Anne Price, Secretary
Contents

Page

Chapter 1. Summary... . . 1

Chapter 2. Federal Scientific and Technical Information and the U.S. Competitive

Edge .

7

STI and Science and Technology Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

STI and Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..o.”.”...... 9

STI and Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“...”...”.”””o”o. 10

STI and Product Development and Manufacturing.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

STI and International Leadership on Global Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

STI and International Competitiveness: ASummation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter 3. Reaching Consensus on Principles of Federal Scientific and Technical

Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Federal Role in Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Principles of STI Dissemination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Chapter 4. Reaching Consensus on the Open Flow and Governmentwide Dissemination

of Federal STI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Open Flow of STI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Role of Governmentwide Dissemination and Archival Agencies in STI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Chapter 5. Framework for a Presidential Initiative on Scientific and Technical

Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Strengthening the OSTP Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Establishing Advisory Committees on STI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Redeeming OSTP-OMB Working Relationships on STI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Upgrading Agency STI Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Developing Standards and Directories for SKI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Launching an STI Education Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Improving International Exchange of SKI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Appendix A. Technological Opportunities for Managing and Disseminating Federal

Scientific and Technical Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Appendix B. List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0. 67

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....*O. . . . . . . . . . 68

Tables

Table Page

l. Cost Breakdown for illustrative National Geophysical Data Center CD-ROM Products . . . 28

2. Illustrative Use of Federal STI as Science Education Course Supplements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

3. Illustrative Weaknesses in Current Global Change Data Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

vi
Chapter 1

Summary

The United States must make better use of its

scientific and technical information (STI) resources, if it wishes to be competitive in world

markets and maintain its leadership. STI is an

essential ingredient of the innovation process—

from education and research to product development and manufacturing. It is a major product of

the $65 billion per year the U.S. Government

spends on research and development (R&D);

researchers need ready access to STI if they are

to stay at the cutting edge.l Many issues of our

time—health, energy, transportation, and climate change—require STI to understand the

nature and complexities of the problem and to

identify and assess possible solutions. STI is

important not only to scientists and engineers

but to political, business, and other leaders

who must make decisions related to science

and technology, and to the citizens who must

live with the consequences of these decisions.

The electronic collection, storage, and dissemination of STI is a vision of the future that

is rapidly becoming reality. Electronic STI

offers the prospect of fast, efficient, and inexpensive access to databases and documents.

Scientists now use online computer networks to

transmit STI around the nation and throughout

the world. Others are experimenting with compact optical disks that can store a quarter million

pages of text on one disk.2

The Federal Government has a golden opportunity to help the United States sustain a

competitive position in scientific and technical

information. The United States has, at the

moment, the necessary information and technology base on which to build a strong national

effort. Congress intended that the President’s

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP),

established in 1976,3 provide executive branch

leadership on STI; OSTP has thus far failed in

this mission.4

During the 1980s, STI was subsumed in the

larger debates over national information policy

and science and technology policy. The Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) dominated

executive branch information policymaking and

showed little interest in STI. OSTP failed to

recognize STI as an integral part of overall S&T

policy, and did not assert itself in many of the

policy issues that affected STI. Federal STI

programs suffered as a result.

Executive branch leadership is imperative

because STI is generated by many Federal R&D

agencies that must be coordinated if the government’s STI efforts are to be successful. Agencies have set up a variety of ad hoc coordinating

mechanisms for specific aspects of STI; but an

overall, integrated approach is lacking. One of

these existing committees could be expanded

and chartered to serve a broader purpose.

Alternatively, a new high-level interagency

committee on STI could be established, with

representatives from the R&D programs that

generate STI, the agency data centers and

technical document distribution offices, and

governmentwide dissemination agencies such

as the Government Printing Office (GPO) and

National Technical Information Service (NTIS).

Whether through an interagency committee,

OSTP and OMB guidance, or other means, the

ISee, for exmple, U.S. Conwss, House, Comm.imx on Science and Technology, The Impact ofInformation Technologyon science, SCiCZU policY

Study, Background Paper No. 5 prepared by the Congressional Research Service, 99th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, September 19&6); and National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Information Technology and the

Conduct of Research (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1989).

2s= the appn~ for a discussion of technological oppo~ties.

s~blic ~w 94-282, the “Natio~ Science ~d Technology Policy, Organization, ~d Priorities Act of 1976,” my 11, 1976.

4os~ is ~ he Pmwss of deciding how t. address s~ issUe5 in the Bush Administratio~ see rern~~ of OSTP D&tor, D. AhII Brornley, before

a March 21, 1990, forum of the Federal Library and Information Center Committee, Washington, DC.

–l–
2 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

Photo credit: EROS Dzta Canter, USGS

The Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center in Sioux Falls, SD, receives and stores data from Landsat and

other Earth-observing satellites. The total earth sciences data volume managed by Federal agencies (primarily NASA, USGS, and

NOAA) is projected to increase over two orders of magnitude by the year 2000 to about 10,000 terabytes. NASA’s Earth Observing

System alone will generate an additional terabyte of data every day; this is equivalent to 10,000 Washington, DC telephone books

(white pages) or 520,000 text books (at 200 pages each) per day.

success of the Federal STI program will depend 4. end-user involvement in all agency STI

on progress in four key areas: programs, so that Federal STI is dissemi1.

2.

3.

technical standards for databases and documents (graphics as well as text), so that

STI can be electronically moved among

agencies and users with ease and efficiency; 5

indexing of databases and documents, so

that STI users in and out of the government

know what and where STI exists;6

funding for basic STI activities in agency

nated in user-friendly formats that meet

user needs and are compatible with the

equipment and technical capabilities of the

users.

Electronic media offer the only way to manage the massive volume and complexity of

Federal STI; yet Federal agencies must avoid

“technophoria," i.e., unrealistically optimisR&D budgets, to ensure the quality of STI, tic expectations of the technology. 8 The transiits proper storage, and dissemination to tion to electronic formats, while inevitable, will

users;

7

be difficult for many users.9

Smc stid~ds-sctfig effort would heavily involve the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the designated lead Stantid.$ agencY for

the Federal Government, and rely to the maximum extent possible on standards developed by private sector and international standards-setting

organizations.

s~de~g would be ~~r~ted with related activities by the National Technical Information Service and Governrnmt -bg OffIce; howev=,

preparation of keywords and abstracts could, in any event be the responsibility of the R&D agencies and their contractors and grantees.

7For a discm510n of the severe probl~s tit re~t from ~d~d~g of agency s~ activiti~, see U.S. &nerd kCOUllt@ ~lCC, spUCe

Operations: NASA Is Not Properly Safeguarding Valuable Data From Past Missions, Report to the Chairmq Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, GAO-C-90-1, March 1990. GAO is conducting similar audits of NOAA and USGS data archives.

S’rem ~fied by C.R. Mc_Jue of Spacuse u~versl~ & testimony ~fore an Oct. 12, ]989, h-g of tie House C!ommittw 011 sCkXICe, spaCt3,

and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, ResearcQ and Technology.

%Vhile OTA projects a dominant role for electronic formats, paper (and to a lesser extent micmfiche) formats will be heavily used for the fomweable

future. But most paper documents will be produced by electronic printing from computerized databases; the same electronic database can be used to

dissemina te STI online over networks, on magnetic tape or diskette, or on compact optical disk as well as on paper or microfiche. In this way, it will

be possible to accommodate both high-tech and low-tech needs of STI users.
Chapter 1--Summary . 3

Photo credit: National Space Science Data Center, NASA

The National Space Science Data Center in Greenbelt, MD, is the largest space data-archive in the world, with about 120,000

magnetic computer tapes of digital data currently on file. The computer tape is still the dominant medium for storing space data, but

the tapes are difficult and expensive for many researchers to use. New technologies make it possible to carry out a gradual transition

from magnetic tapes to higher density storage media such as optical disks or tapes and digital tape cartridges.

Progress on STI also depends on resolving primary responsibility for dissemination of ingovernmentwide information dissemination pol- formation generated for agency missions, with

icy issues. During the 1980s, OMB used its an important supplementary or complementary—

authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act to rather than preemptive—role for the private

favor private-sector responsibility for Federal sector. 10 This legislation also addresses inforinformation dissemination. The OMB view was mation management, pricing, public access, due

controversial and sent mixed signals to the process, and other policy matters that would

Federal R&D agencies about whether electronic directly affect STI.ll

STI should be aggressively pursued. Legislation The U.S. scientific and technical enterprise

pending before Congress would rebalance gov- depends on the open exchange of STI. Until the

ernment policy to emphasize that Federal agen- 1980s, the premise of openness was generally

cies (including the R&D agencies) have the violated only in narrowly defined areas of

losee S. 1742, tie “Fede~ wo~(ion Resources Mamgement Act of 1989,’ IOlst Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 6, 1989; ~d H.R. 3695, tie “PaWrwo*

Reduction and Federal Information Resources Management Act of 1989,” IOlst Cong., 1st sess., Nov. 17, 1989, ordered to be reported by the House

Comrrdttee on Government Operations, Mar. 13, 1990. Also see Office of Management and Budget, “Second Advance Notice of Further Policy

Development on Dissemination of Information” Federa/Register, vol. 54, No. 114, June 15, 1989, pp. 25554-25559; U.S. Congress, House, Committee

on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Government Information Justice, and Agriculture, Federal Information Disse?ru”rum”on Policies and

Practices, Hearings, IOlst Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 18, May 28, and July 11, 1989 (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989); and U.S.

Congress, Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Government Information and Regulation, Reauthorization of the Paperwork

Reduction Act, Hearings, IOlst Cong., 1st sess., June 12 and 16, 1989 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, 1989).

Ilsee OTA comments On s. 1742, p~pwed for a Feb. 21-22, 1990, hearing of the Semte Committee on Governmental Afftis.
4 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

Photo credit: National Space Science Data Center, NASA

NASA and other Federal science agencies are currently

experimenting with optical disks-primarily the 12-inch

WORM (Write Once-Read Manytimes) and 4.75-inch

CD-ROM (Compact Disk-Read Only Memory). A typical

CD-ROM can store up to about 600 megabytes. This is

equivalent to roughly 300,000 text pages (at 250 words per

page), 1,650 floppy diskettes, 30 of the 20-megabyte hard

disks, or 15 of the 1,600 bits-per-inch 9-track magnetic

computer tapes. For many applications, CD-ROM is much

less expensive than computer tapes, and requires only a

microcomputer and CD-ROM reader rather than a more

expensive mini- or main-frame computer needed for tapes.

national security. In recent years, the bases for

restrictions on open dissemination of information have been extended to: a) so-called “unclassified but sensitive" STI that might compromise national security; b) the transfer of control

over federally funded technical data and technology from the government to the private

sector to promote commercialization; and c)

limitations on access by foreign governments

and companies to Federal STI to maintain the

economic competitiveness of the United States.

Globalization of the economy means that a

growing fraction of U.S. domestic R&D companies operate under foreign ownership or with

foreign partners, just as many U.S. corporations

have their own foreign subsidiaries or partners.

Similar trends are evident in the commercial

information sector, to the point where one

cannot assume that a U.S. information vendor

operates under domestic rather than foreign

ownership, and vice versa. Under these conditions, the old approaches to controlling the flow

of STI do not work and need to be revisited.

Many of them may not be needed at all.

Another vexing issue is the role of the

governmentwide dissemination and archival

agencies in the decentralized, increasingly electronic environment of Federal STI. The creation,

storage, and dissemination of electronic STI is

decentralized within the R&D agencies for

several reasons:

●

●

●

The volume of STI is vast. Centralizing all

STI in one databank is not technically or

administratively feasible.

The technical systems for creating, storing,

and disseminating STI are typically closely

tied to agency automation systems. Centralizing STI could foreclose innovation

and opportunities for improving productivity in the agencies.

The diversity of STI uses spans a number

of disciplines and research areas. Centralizing STI would complicate communications between the STI process and the

users.

A key challenge is how to preserve and

strengthen the indexing, archiving, and distribution roles of the: 1) GPO; 12 2) Depository

Library Program (DLP); 3) NTIS; and 4)

National Archives and Records Administration

(NARA). These agencies realize the need for

change, but have thus far failed to develop

workable strategies for electronic STI. If they

are to flourish in the unfolding electronic

environment, GPO, DLP, NTIS, and NARA

must become innovative, flexible, and competitive in anticipating and meeting electronic

information needs.13

l%cludingrhe Superintendent of Documents (SupDoes), who administers cataloging, sales, international exchange, and depository librwprogr-,

among others.

lsForba~k90*d discussio% see U.S. Confless, Office of T~~olo~ Assessmen4 I~fo~ing theNafion: Federalznformtion Dissemination in an

Electronic Age, OTA-CIT-396 (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, October 1988). For pending legislation see H.R. 3849, the

“Government Printing Office Improvement Act of 1990,’ IOlst Cong., 2d. sess., Jan. 23, 1990, which centrally addresses GPO and DLP; S. 1742, op.

cit., footnote 10, and H.R. 3695, op. cit., footnote 10, which touch on GPO, DLP, and NARA; I-I.R. 4329, the “Ametican Technology Preeminence A@”
Chapter 1--Summary ● 5

A Presidential STI initiative could focus

attention on these important issues. The list of

designated presidential science and technology priorities, such as science education, 14

technology transfer, 15 high. performance computing and networking, 16 international competitive18 justifies addi- ness, 17 and global change,

tional emphasis on STI. STI is crucial to the

success of each of these initiatives, starting with

the role of STI in science education.

Low-cost, user-friendly electronic STI could

stimulate computer-based science, mathematics, and engineering education. Pilot projects

here and abroad indicate that junior and senior

high school students (and even some in the

elementary grades) can handle electronic databases as part of the science curriculum. Computerbased STI can help capture the interest, imagination, and enthusiasm of students through "handson" science that could improve the quality of

science education.

Improving the ‘‘information literacy’ of

scientists and engineers must go hand-in-hand

with upgrading STI; otherwise, the best STI

systems will fall short. By integrating STI

access, retrieval, and use into science education

at all levels, the research skills and productivity

of U.S. scientists and engineers could be strengthened in the long-term.

footnote 13 continued

IOlst Cong., 2d. sess., introduced and ordered to be reported by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Mar. 21, 1990, which

addresses NTIS modernizatio~ indexing, and electronic disseminatiou statements of Fred B. Wood, OTA, and other witnesses before a Mar. 7-8, 1990,

hearing on H.R. 3849 by the House Committee on Administration Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing; statements of Fred B. Wo@ OTA and

other witnesses before a Mar. 8, 1990, hearing on NTIS modernization by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on

Science, Research and Technology; OTA and other comments provided on S. 1742 in comection with a Feb. 21-22, 1990, hearing of the Senate

Committee on Governmental Af%.i.rs; statements of Joseph E. Jenifer, Acting Public Printer, and other witnesses before a Feb. 7, 1989, hearing of the

House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the legislative Branch, a May 23, 1989, hearing of the Committee on House AdrninistratiorL

Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing, and a July 11, 1989, hearing of the House Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on

Government Information Justice, and Agriculture; and the statement of Robert HoulG Public Printer, before an Apr. 6, 1990, hearing of the Senate

Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the @@ative Branch. Also see U.S. Congress, House, Committee on House Administration

Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing, Title 44 U.S. C.-Review, Hearings, IOlst Cong., 1st sess., May 23 and 24, and June 28 and 29, 1989

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, 1989), and U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, American

Technology Preeminence Act, Report 101-481, Part 1, to accompany H.R. 4329, IOlst Cong., 2d sess. (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing

office, 1990).

ldForbackgrol,md discussion, see AmericmAssOciatiOnfOr the Advancement of Science, ScienceforAllAmen”cans: Project2061 Reporf on Literacy

Goals in Science, h4athematics, and Technology (Washington DC: 1989); U.S. National Research Council, Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation

on the Future of Mathemaa”cs Education (Washingtorq DC: National Academy Press, 1989); and U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment

Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad SchooZ, OTA-SET-377 (Wtshingtom DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988),

and Power On/ New !RooZsfor Teaching and~arning, OTA-SET-379 (Washingto@ DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1988).

lsFor related dis~ssio~ see uS. Congress, office of Technology Assessmen4 Technology and the Amen”can Econow”c Transition: Cbicesfor the

Future, OTA-TET-283 (Washingtorq DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, May 1989), Holding the Edge: Maintaining thel)~ense Technology Base,

OT.4-ISC420 (Wasbingtoq DC: U.S. Government Printing Oflice, April 1989), and Arming Our Allies: Cooperation and Competition in D#ense

Technology, OTA-ISC-449 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1990). Also see H.R. 4653, the “Export Facilitation Act of 1990,”

IOlst Cong., 2d sess., Apr. 26, 1990, ordered to be reported by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, May 10, 1990.

IGFor discussion see S. 1067, the “High-Performan ce Computing Act of 1990,” IOlst Cong., 1st sess., May 18, 1989, ordered to be reported by the

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Apr. 3, 1990; H.R. 3131, the “National High-Performance Computer Technology Act

of 1989,” IOlst Cong., 1st sess., Aug. 3, 1989; H.R. 4329, Title VII, the “National High-Performance Computer Technology Program Act of 1990,”

IOlst Cong., 2d sess., introdu~d and ordered to be reported by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Mar. 21, 1990; U.S. Congress,

Office of Technology Assessment, High Pe~ormance Computing & Networking for Science, OTA-BP-CIT-59 (Washingto% DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, September 1989); and Executive OffIce of the President, OffIce of Science and Technology Policy, The Federal High Pe?jiormance

Computing Program, Sept. 8, 1989.

ITFor related discussio~ see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessmen4 Making Things Better: Competing in Manufa@~”ng, OTA-~3

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, February 1990) and Critical Connections: Communication for the Future, OTA-CIT-4Q7

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1990).

18see, for example, he dismssion of global C,hange ~~ management needs in u-s. Feder~ coordinating co~c,il for science, -RShg, and

Technology, Committee on Earth Sciences, Our Changing Planet: The FY 1990 Global Change Research Plan (Washington DC: Oftlce of Science

and Technology Policy, July 1989), pp. 91-99; and U.S. National Aeromutics and Space Administration Earth Systems Science Committee, Earth

Systems Science.’ A Closer View (Washington, DC: NASA, January 1988).
6 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

Photo credit: Office of Scientific and Technical Information, DOE

The Department of Energy’s Office of Scientific and

Technical Information is implementing information systems

that use magnetic, optical, and online electronic technologies. DOE alone generates about 30,000 technical documents and articles per year; the governmentwide volume is

about 200,000 items annually. New technologies are

essential to cope with the burgeoning scientific and

technical literature; for example, one double-sided 12-inch

WORM can store about 1.2 million text pages or 6,000

technical documents (at 200 pages each).

Photo credit: National Library of Medicine

This “Electronic Cardiology Textbook” represents the

state-of-the-art in the use of electronic imaging to communicate scientific and technical information. The “textbook”

stores images and sounds of the human heart on an optical

disk; the user turns the pages electronically with a mouse

and microcomputer.

Photo credit: Government Printing Office

Online information networks serve several important needs

of the scientific and technical community. GPO uses an

online system, shown here, to receive documents from

remote locations; users simply “dial-up” the GPO system

and transmit their material to GPO for processing. Online

networks are used by several Federal science agencies to

transmit documents, data, and messages; search bibliographic databases; transfer large streams of data; and

remotely access large-scale high-performance computers.
Chapter 2

Federal Scientific and Technical Information

and the U.S. Competitive Edge

The drumbeat of political, economic, and environmental change around the world presents the United

States with perhaps its greatest challenge since

World War II. The global society is more competitive with respect to scientific and technological

achievement, educational attainment, market development, and political leadership in addressing international issues. This Special Report examines in

detail one key element in restoring U.S. competitive

strength-the role of scientific and technical information (STI) developed by or for the Federal

Government.

The importance of STI stems from its critical role

in all phases of the innovation process. These

include education, basic research, applied research

and development, product development and manufacturing, and the application of science and technology to meet the needs in the commercial, not-forprofit, and governmental markets.

STI and Science and Technology Policy

STI policy is a component of overall Federal

science and technology (S&T) policy. The latter

includes the range of Federal actions that can

influence the conduct of U.S. research and development (R&D) and conversion of R&D results into

products and services to satisfy domestic needs and

compete with foreign suppliers. Federal S&T policy

is diverse, and includes: direct Federal finding (e.g.,

for basic research); the conduct of research in

Federal laboratories; tax incentives for private sector

R&D (e.g., accelerated depreciation and tax credits

for technology investments); and rules or guidelines

to waive antitrust laws for industry R&D consortia,

among others; as well as policies and actions for

collecting and disseminating STI.

This Special Report focuses primarily on the STI

component of Federal science and technology policy. Related OTA studies address other aspects of

S&T policy.l STI is an indispensable part of the

R&D infrastructure. But more than that, it is a

national asset that can contribute to strengthening

the technological foundation of the U.S. economy.

Debates may rage over the role of the Federal

Government in promoting industrial competitiveness. But clearly it is incumbent on the government

to improve the STI base on which many public and

private R&D decisions are made. The challenge is to

help STI more fully serve national priorities.

STI frequently has been lost in the broader debates

over: U.S. technology policy; the role of science

advice in the White House; and, in recent years, the

need for and shape of a national information policy.2

During the 1980s, the case for STI has been

bolstered by considerable research (discussed later

in this chapter) that has documented the role of STI

in priming the pump of R&D and innovation. STI is,

indeed, at the heart of the process by which science

generates new ideas that in turn fuel technological

innovation. The concern over U.S. competitiveness

gives new impetus to the need for a sound STI

policy.

Discussions of U.S. competitiveness typically are

dominated by the international economic dimension, i.e., the ability of U.S. companies to compete

Isee tie ongoing U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment studies, “Basic Research for the 1990s,” scheduled for completion in winter

1991, and “InformationResearch and Technology: High Performance Computing and Networking for Science, ‘‘ scheduled for completion in fall 1990.

Also see, for example, Office of Technology Assessmen4 The Regulatory Environment of Science, OTA-TM-SET-34 (Washingto@ DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, February 1986); Technology andtheAmerican Econom”c Transition: Choicesfor the Future, OTA-TET-283 (Washington

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1988); Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad School, OTA-SET-377 (Washington

DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, June 1988); Holding the Edge: Maintaining the D#ense Technology Base, OTA-ISC-421 (Washington DC: U.S.

Government Printing OffIce, April 1989); High Performance Computing & Networking for Science, OTA-BP-CIT-59 (Washington DC: U.S.

Government Printing OffIce, September 1989); Computer Software andlntellectud Property, O’E4-BP-CIT-61 (Washington DC: U.S. Gov ernment

Printing Office, Much 1990); and Making Thing$ Better; Competing In Manufacturing, OTA-HE-443 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, February 1990).

Zsee, for example, J.M. bgsdo~ “Toward a New Policy for Technology: The Outie Emerges, ” Technology Review, October/November 1972,

pp. 36-42; U.S. Department of Commerce, OffIce of the Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Technology Policy: A Dr@ Study

(Washington, DC: National Technical Information Service, March 1977); U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment Computer-BasedNationaI

Information Systems: Technology and Public Policy Zssues, OTA-CH’-146 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1981); C.R.

McClure and P. Hernou United States Scientific and Technical Information: Views and Perspectives (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1989).

–7–
8 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

STI is an indispensable part of the R&D

infrastructure. But more than that, it is

a national asset that can contribute to

strengthening the technological foundation of the U.S. economy.

effectively in the international marketplace. STI is

multidimensional and involves a “life cycle’ approach to competition ranging from education to

research to manufacturing to marketing and public

policy. When viewed in a total competitive context,

STI is the backbone of our competitive edge.

STI is linked with several national goals. STI

resulting from Federal R&D is intended to promote

the advancement of scientific knowledge and technical applications of that knowledge. It also serves

other national goals, including: improving the ability of U.S. industrial firms to compete in the

international economy; strengthening the U.S. defense and civilian technology base; improving U.S.

science and engineering education; promoting international cooperation on global science and technologyrelated problems; and enhancing the free flow of STI

required by an open, democratic society.

America’s ability to achieve these national goals

in part through STI has been limited by our inability

to clearly define the contribution of STI to these

goals and to reconcile the conflicts over competing

goals that inevitably arise. The policy framework for

STI dissemination must recognize and spell out the

role of STI at each stage of education, research, and

application. For example, STI about solar photovoltaic energy can be structured in terms of what

is needed for: educating future solar energy scientists and engineers; supporting basic research on the

physics and electronics of- photovoltaic energy;

facilitating applied research on photovoltaic cells;

enhancing the development of prototype and commercial photovoltaic energy systems, and the manufacturing technology for production of such systems; encouraging the integration of photovoltaics

into U.S. commercial and defense energy applications; and informing the national and international

debate on alternative energy and environmental

policies.

The U.S. competitive challenge is epitomized by

the so-called “technology-intensive’ industrial sectors, such as computers, telecommunications, electrical machinery, instruments, chemicals, and transportation. These sectors have been the mainstays of

the U.S. post-World War II economy, due to high

rates of growth in real output, productivity, and

employment, and for many years contributed to a

positive trade balance. Recently, even the strongest

U.S. industrial sectors have come under intensified

competition. This is due in part to the rise of the

global economy and dominance of multinational

companies (that operate across national boundaries),

the continuing Federal budget deficit and negative

trade balance and resulting effects on international

monetary exchange rates, and the partially offsetting

growth of the service sectors (where the United

States competes strongly in some areas, notably

information services). But the new competitive

realities have spurred attention to other root causes.3

In a world of rapid technological change, successful competition is driven as much by the information

skills of the work force and by the timing of

information access, as it is by the brute intellectual,

financial, and natural resources of the competitors.

Scientific and technical advancements are informationintensive, and those who know how to obtain and use

STI will have a competitive edge-whether the

competition is over market share or over intellectual

leadership on global issues.

In this context, the role of electronic technologies

takes on significance, since the generation, location,

STI is multidimensional and involves a

“life cycle” approach to competition

ranging from education to research to

manufacturing to marketing and public

policy. When viewed in a total competitive context, STI is the backbone of our

competitive edge.

sFor a cOmprehe~ive a~ysis, see U.S. con~ess, office Of TechnO]O~ Assessment, Technology ad the Amen-can Economic Transition: Choices

for the Future, OTA-TET-283 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1988); and OTA, International Competition in Services,

OTA-ITE-328 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1987).
Chapter 2-Federal Scientific and Technical Information and the U.S. Competitive Edge ● 9

Scientific and technical advancements

are information-intensive, and those who

know how to obtain and use STI will

have a competitive edge-whether the

competition is over market share or over

intellectual leadership on global issues.

and retrieval of STI can be vastly speeded up.4 STI

users need to be better educated about how Federal

(and other) STI may help, how and where Federal

(and other) STI maybe accessed, and use of the tools

that facilitate access (e.g., online databases, compact

optical disks, and bibliographic and search and

retrieval software). And science agency managers

need to do a better job at including STI dissemination and use as integral parts of agency R&D

programs.

STI and Science Education

Science and technical education is the foundation

for the technological and economic competitive

posture of the United States. Congress in enacting

the “Education and Training for a Competitive

America Act of 1988” noted:5

●

●

“our [Nation’s] standing in the international

marketplace is being further eroded by the

presence in the workforce of millions of Americans who are functionally or technologically

illiterate or who lack the mathematics, science,

foreign language, or vocational skills needed to

adapt to the structural changes in the global

economy;

‘‘our competitive position is also being eroded

by declines in the number of students taking

advanced courses in mathematics, science, and

foreign languages and by the lack of modern

technical and laboratory equipment in our

educational institutions;

● “restoring our competitiveness and enhancing

our productivity will require that all workers

possess basic educational skills and that many

others possess highly specific skills in mathematics, science, foreign languages, and vocational areas. ”

Recent OTA studies have identified a wide range

of actions to improve science education: upgrade the

quality of elementary, secondary, and higher education with respect to science and engineering; increase student interest in science and engineering;

and expand the number of science and engineering

students (and ultimately the pool of trained scientists

and engineers).6

Several of these actions relate directly to Federal

STI. For example, OTA found that “hands-on”

computer-based science learning can increase student interest in the subject matter and enhance

student learning. OTA also noted the growing role of

computer-based science in science museums, science centers, and science fairs around the country.

Overall, availability of Federal STI in low-cost,

user-friendly electronic formats could add an important dimension to computer-based mathematics,

science, and engineering education. School libraries

can serve as a focal point for teacher and student

training in the use of online and compact optical disk

media, and can provide a shared computer resource

available to support the science curriculum.7 This

could be an extension of the role already performed

by library staff at many college and university

libraries and at some of the larger and better-funded

public libraries. In general, strong library media

programs at the elementary and secondary levels

dsee, for exwple, J. Bofick and N.R. Miller, T’he Znzpact ofZnformation Technology on Science (waSbgtOn, Dc: cWW$sio~ Res~ch ‘emi&S

July 1985); National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Information Technology and the Conduct ofResearch

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989); and U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, High Pe~ormance Computing and

ZVetworh”ng for Science, OTA-BP-CIT-59 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1989).

Sfiblic bW 100-418, the “Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988,” IOOth Cong., 2d sess., Aug. 23, 1988, Title VI-Education and

Trainin g for American Competitiveness, sec. 6002(a) (3-5).

6see us, Conge.s, office of Tec~OlOgy AS.SeSSrne@ i%kwting Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Gr~ School, 0~-SET-377

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988); Power Onl New Tools for Teaching and Learning, OTA-SET-379 (Washington DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1988); Elementa~ and Secondq Education for Science and Engineering, O’E4-TM-SET-41

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1988); and Higher Education for Science and Engineering, OTA-BP-SET-52

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1989).

TSee, for example, J.W.Leisner, “~“ g at Risk: School Library Media Programs in an Information World,” School Libraq Media Quarterly,

Fall 1985, pp. 11-20; B.K. Stripling, “Rethinkm“ g the School Library: A Practitioner’s Perspective, ” School Library Media Quarterly, Spring 1989, pp.

136-139.
10 •. Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

School libraries can serve as a focal

point for teacher and student training in

the use of online and compact optical

disk media, and can provide a shared

computer resource available to support

the science curriculum.

correlate with improved student skills in use of

library and information resources, and in student

achievement both overall and in specific science

subjects.8

Pilot projects have shown that junior and senior

high school students can readily handle computerbased bibliographic searches as an aid to coursework. 9 Teachers concluded that database searching

enhanced student thinking and research skills. Online searching was also used to augment the science

education curriculum. For example, students conducted online searches on topics such as the

Armenian earthquake, space sickness, and the climatic effects of tropical deforestation.

Integrating STI access, retrieval, and use into

science education at all levels could improve the

research skills and productivity of U.S. scientists

and engineers in the long term. Various studies have

highlighted the “inadequate information gathering

and management skills of the R&D community’

and the lack of skills and/or motivation to use

available bibliographic tools.10 Electronic dissemination of Federal STI could assist in attacking this

problem.

Improving the “information literacy” of U.S.

scientists and engineers must go hand-in-hand with

upgrading STI. Even the best STI system would fall

short if the users lack the skills to search bibliographic databases, retrieve and manipulate data, and

scan documents. In many fields of science and

technology, STI developed by other countries is

increasingly important. Foreign patents now account

for about 50 percent of all U.S. patents. The number

of foreign scientific journals and articles is growing

much faster than those published in the United

States. ll U.S. researchers must learn to utilize

foreign STI, while making better use of domestic

STI. The experience with Japanese STI suggests that

U.S. researchers are, by and large, not well-trained

in foreign languages and, generally, in techniques

for accessing and utilizing foreign STI, and largely

fail to recognize the need for doing so.12

STI and Research and Development

The creation of new information and knowledge

is the major objective of R&D. This information

takes many forms: information from basic research

on AIDS conducted by Federal laboratories; design

and testing of prototype photovoltaic solar energy

cells by the Department of Energy (DOE); or the

synthesis of satellite data collected by the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

to improve understanding of the interaction of the

atmosphere and oceans in climate change.

Scientists and engineers involved in R&D often

spend between one-quarter and one-half of their time

Ssee J.c. .MMCN, ‘<AU overview of Reswch on the Impact of School Library Media Programs on Student Achievement” school h”bra~ Media

Quarterly, Fall 1985, pp. 33-36.

gsee, for exmple, M*H. B~ey, J. Wiemm, J. Ne~~ and N. Motomatsu, Research Goes to School 11: HOW TO GO Online to the Information

Databases (Olymp~ WA: Know-Net Disserniuation Projec~ 1985); and N. Motomatsu and J.A. Newrniq Research Goes to SchooZIII: Going Online

With Students (Olympia, WA: OffIce of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1986). In Australia, a recent survey identified 20 schools (2 primary

and 18 secondary) using online systems “as a source of up-to-date information for teachers and students and as a means of helping students to acquire

information skills.” See L.A. Clyde and J. Kirlq “TheUse of Electronic Information Systems in Australian Schools: A Preliminary Survey,” School

Media Libraq Quarterly, Summ er 1989, pp. 193-199. In the United States, the Oakland County (Michigan) School District has successfully piloted the

use of online bibliographic databases available from a commercial vendor. Students, teachers, and adnum“ “strators from the participating schools (3junior

high and 3 high schools) enthusiastically embraced online searching. See Oakland County Schools, Educational Resource Center, ‘‘Database Searching

Pilot Projec~” Pontiac, MI, Nov. 9, 1989.

losee C.R. McClme, “~cre=~ Auess to U.S. Scientific and Technological Information: Policy Implications, ” ch. 12 in C.R. McC1ure and p.

Hernon, United States Scientific and Technical Information Policies: Views and Perspectives (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1989), pp.

319-354.

llsee D-w- &g, D-D. McDo~d, and N.K. RO&rer, scienlifi”c Journals in the united states: Their production, use, Ondl?conomics (Stroudsbq,

PA: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., 1981).

IzSee C.T. ~, Japanese Technical Infomn.on: opportunities To Improve us. Access, Report No. 87-818 ~~b~on, DC: cOtigTtXSiOlld

Research Service, Oct. 13, 1987); C.T. Hill, “Federal Technical Information and U.S. Competitiveness: Needs, Opportunities, and Issues,” Government

Information Quarterly, vol. 6, No. 1, 1989, pp. 31-38.
Chapter 2--Federal Scientific and Technical Information and the U.S. Competitive Edge ● 11

on information-related activities that include both

analyzing and reporting on one’s own research and

searching for and applying the research results of

others. Researchers in most disciplines spend about

15 to 20 percent of their time just on reading the STI

literature, including scholarly journal articles, conference proceedings, and technical reports.13 Researchers also find relevant STI through participation in technical conferences and activities of

professional and scientific societies, and through

informal letters, meetings, conversations, and, recently, electronic mail and bulletin boards.

Roughly three-quarters of researchers access STI

literature in order to apply other research findings to

a current project and/or for professional development or current awareness of STI trends. About half

of the researchers read the STI literature to help

prepare an article, book, or report, and about

two-fifths to help prepare a lecture or presentation .14

Not surprisingly, empirical research in a range of

government and private-sector settings has found

that reading STI is positively correlated with productivity (e.g., number of reports or publications

written and presentations delivered) .15

DOE estimates that federally funded energy

researchers spend, collectively, the equivalent of

over $1 billion per year of their time on STI (out of

an annual R&D budget of over $5 billion). This is

split about equally between generating new STI

(e.g., writing technical reports) and reading other

STI (e.g., journal articles), and amounts to roughly

one-fifth of the total DOE R&D budget. In addition,

DOE spends about $250 million annually on STI

information management, libraries, technical information centers, and other STI-related activities. If

the DOE estimate is extrapolated to the entire

Federal R&D effort, then Federal researchers spend

roughly 12 billion dollars’ worth of time each year

on STI.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has not made

comparable estimates. But assuming that the roughly

Scientists and engineers involved in R&D

often spend between one-quarter and

one-half of their time on informationrelated activities that include both analyzing and reporting on one’s own research and searching for and applying

the research results of others.

180,000 scientists and engineers doing DoD-related

research work spend an average of 10 hours per week

on STI, the annual time investment is 144 million

hours. If time is valued, conservatively, at $30 per

hour, then DoD researchers spend at least $2.7

billion per year worth of their time on STI.16 The

actual figure is likely to be double or triple (e.g., $5

to $7 billion per year, which would be consistent

with the DOE estimates), and even this would not

include STI time spent in connection with DoD test,

evaluation, maintenance, and operational activities.

This kind of investment in STI is essential to

scientific advancement and technical innovation that

are, in large measure, built on the cumulative

knowledge base of the scientific and technical

disciplines. Breakthroughs may come slowly or, on

occasion, may occur quickly as a result of groundbreaking research, anew interdisciplinary synthesis,

or a “paradigm shift” where the cumulative knowledge leads scientists to revise their basic hypotheses—

e.g., with respect to the susceptibility of the Earth to

global change, and the role of the oceans, land,

glaciers and ice sheets, biota, and the atmosphere in

climate change. Geology, glaciology, oceanography, and climatology are among the several scientific disciplines that benefit from and contribute to

Federal R&D and STI. Likewise, rapid advances in

our understanding of human health depend on the

extensive exchange of STI among researchers in

Issee N.K. Roderer, D.W. King, ad S.E. Brouard, ‘‘The Use and Value of Defense Technical Information Center Products and Services,’ contractor

xeport prepared by King Research Inc. for the Defense Technical Information Center, Mar. 31, 1983, p. 20 and references cited therein. Also see E.R.

Siegel, “Transferof Information to Health Practitioners,‘‘in B. Dervin and M.J. Voight (eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences, Vol. 111 (1’+Jorwood,

NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1982), pp. 311-334.

Idsee, for ex~ple, Roderer et al., op.cit., footnote 13, p. 34.

Isfig Rese~ch~c. M ob~ed similar results for numerous Federal and private-sector organizations. For a s~, S= J.M. Gri.ffiths and D.W.

King, “Evaluating the Performance and Effectiveness of Information Services,” paper prepared for the Mid-Atlantic Chapter, Medical Library

Association, Rockville, MD, 1989.

161go~ Persom )( 10 ho~s Swnt on s~week )( 50 weeks@~ (~s~g 2 weeks vacation) X $30/hOUr = $2.7 billion. DoD OffiCkik b%

confirmed the 180,000 persons as a reasonable estimate.
12. Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

disciplines such as biology, physiology, psychology, medicine, and nutrition.

Improving the use of STI could increase the return

on the Federal Government’s substantial investment

in R&D, which is currently about $65 billion per

year and represents roughly one-half of the total U.S.

investment in R&D. Assessing the value of information dissemination services and products, whether

Federal or otherwise, is obviously difficult. One

technique is to estimate the savings (benefits)

resulting from using an STI service or product.

Using this approach, each dollar spent on Federal

STI dissemination generates an estimated direct

benefit of at least $2 to $5 to users in the research

community (e.g., in terms of time saved, duplications avoided, etc.) and on occasion can reach into

the hundreds to thousands of dollars.17 Online

databases are especially highly leveraged. If the cost

of originating the information is not included

(presumably funded out of Federal R&D funds),

some databases generate an estimated value (savings

or benefit in the eyes of the user) of $15 to $25 for

each dollar spent.18 This helps explain why many

online users readily pay $15 to $25 per hour for

online access to government databases (and up to

$150 to $200 per hour for commercial databases).

Users of technical reports from DOE’s Office of

Scientific and Technical Information indicate significant savings for each report used, and that about 75

percent of reports used yield some savings.19 Some

typical examples of specific savings are:

● A basic energy sciences researcher saved over

$50,000 by obtaining STI that eliminated the

need to do a complete design from scratch of a

double-effect absorption cooling system.

. A health and environment researcher saved

$5,000 through STI that mooted the require-

●

●

ment for certain tests on disposal of wastewater

from coal conversion.

A fusion researcher saved a person-year of

effort through STI that summarized prior related research on ion beam propagation and

focusing.

A nuclear researcher saved $1,000 through STI

that provided calculations-that would otherwise have had to be redone-on steam electronic plant construction.

The benefits and savings from effective use of

Federal STI include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

time saved in locating other researchers doing

related work;

time and money saved in minimizing duplication of research effort;

new insights or breakthroughs resulting from

more complete awareness of related research;

new information not available elsewhere;

better understanding of relevant Federal R&D

directions; and

time and money saved in writing research

reports, papers, and articles.

Federal science agencies face a major challenge in

managing the already immense and rapidly increasing volume of Federal STI so that it is accessible and

useful to researchers. For example, over 200,000

new technical documents are generated each year as

a result of Federal R&D, adding to the base of an

estimated 4 million existing documents.20 Satellite

data and imagery are contributing to an STI explosion in the space and earth sciences. The total earth

sciences data volume managed by Federal agencies

(primarily NASA, USGS, and NOAA) is roughly

100,000 gigabytes. 21 The total volume is projected

to increase by two orders of magnitude over the next

5 to 10 years to 10 million gigabytes (or 10,000

17See Roderer et al,, op. cit., footnote 13; and D.W. King, J.M. Griffiths, N.K, Roderer, and R.R.V. Wiederkehr, “Value of tie Energy Data Base,”

contractor report prepared by King Researck Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy, Mar. 31, 1982.

lgFor a good S~of relevant research issues and results, see B.C. Carroll and D.W. King, ‘‘Value of Information’ Drexel Library Quarterly,

vol. 21, No. 3, Summer 1985, pp. 39-60.

l~id. me average savings per report was $1,3M (1982 dollars).

me Department of Energy (DOE) has generated a cumulative total of about 800,000 technical documents that are estimated to represent about

one-ftith of the governmentwide total. The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) clearinghouse includes about 2 million technical reports,

estimated to represent about one-half of the governmentwide total. DOE generates about 30,000 new technical documents each year, estimated to be

15 percent of the governmentwide total; NTIS adds about 65,000 new documents to its cl earinghouse each year, estimated to represent about one-third

of the governmentwide total. These estimates are for technical documents and articles published in the technical literature, but exclude papers delivered

at technical conferences. For DOE, the annual volume of technical articles equals that of technical documents (about 15,000 each).

21@e gigabfie is ~uiv~ent t. tie Volme of ~omation con~ed in about 450,0(X) double-spaced wed pages of text. One terabyte fX@S 1,000

gigabytes or 1 trillion bytes; 100,000 gigabytes equals 100 terabytes. The current and projected earth sciences data volumes are based on estimates by

the Interagency Working Group on Data Management for Global Change.
Chapter 2-Federal Scientific and Technical Information and the U.S. Competitive Edge ● 13

terabytes). When launched in the late 1990s, NASA’s

Earth Observing System (EOS) will generate in a

few months more data than the total U.S. archive of

Landsat satellite data collected over the last 18 years.

Electronic technologies can help the Federal

science agencies manage STI and ensure that

Federal data and documents are made available to

users in cost-effective, timely, and usable form. The

potential for electronic STI dissemination is especially great because-whether data, documents, or

directories to data or documents—it is generally

well suited to electronic formats. Electronic dissemination makes it possible to provide STI to researchers informs that are more convenient to retrieve and

easier to manipulate. This could enable many

potential new kinds of research and analysis. (See

the appendix for a detailed discussion of technological opportunities.)

STI and Product Development

and Manufacturing

STI is also a key element in the transfer of

technology from the laboratory to the production

line. The aerospace industry is a case in point. It is

supported by a substantial Federal R&D investment,

it has close collaboration with Federal agencies

(civilian and military), industry, and academia, and

it has a tradition of aggressively using the results of

Federal aerospace R&D in commercial applications.

A recent survey of aerospace engineers sheds light

on the dominant role of STI in an industry with a

successful track record of commercialization and

international competition.22

Ninety percent of the aerospace engineers identified technical communication as very important. On

the average, respondents spend about 35 percent of

their workweek communicating technical information to others and about 31 percent of their week

working with technical information received from

others. Based on a 40-hour workweek, they spend

roughly 26 hours on STI-related activities, a finding

consistent with other studies.23 These engineers

produce on the average 1.6 government technical

reports and 1.9 other technical reports every 6

months and use roughly 52 technical reports (about

half generated from Federal R&D) during that time.

The aerospace industry has been successful at

commercial utilization of Federal R&D because, for

many decades, both government and industry have

recognized the importance of Federal R&D and the

highly leveraged role of STI and technology transfer

mechanisms in the commercialization process. The

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) has long-established relationships with

academia and industry to encourage the use of STI.

NASA has established a network of Industrial

Application Centers as part of its Technology

Utilization Program. The centers provide technical

information to industry so that aerospace technology

can be used in commercial applications. The effectiveness of this approach is illustrated by these

examples:24

●

●

●

A Western Springs, Illinois, firm specializing

in high-resolution, oblique, aerial photography

requested that NERAC research the NASA

database for available information on film and

cameras. Using the technology provided by

NERAC, the firm improved the quality of its

aerial photographs, which now sell for upwards

of $2,000 each.

A New York firm designed a computercontrolled robot using NERAC technology

from its NASA database. NERAC rapidly

gathered information on robot off-line programming methodology so that the fro’s R&D

staff could implement the concept by using a

microcomputer system and graphics display.

A firm dedicated to the development and

manufacturing of testing equipment requested

that NERAC research noise control technology. The search identified technical information that led to the development of a very

high-performance hearing protector (with over

34 dBA of insulation) that will be marketed for

ZZT.EO ~elli, M. Gla~~mau W-E. Oliu, and R+O. BwlaY, Te~hni~al c~~nicafions in Aeronautics: Results of an Explorato~ St@, NASA

Technical Memorandum 101534, Part 1 (Hamptoq VA: U.S. National Aeromutics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center, February 1989).

The survey instrument was sent to 2,000 randomly selected aerospace scientists and engineers (from the membership of the American Institute of

Aeronautics and Astronautics). The response rate was 30.3 percent (606 out of 2,000). The affiliations of respondents were distributed as follows:

academic (7%); industry (62%); not-for-profit (3%); NASA (12~o); other government (169to). The professional duties of the respondents were: research

(20%o); adrni.nistrationhnanagement (24%); design/development (37%); teachin~academic (6%); marketing/sales (6%); and other (7%).

Z3See~eli et~+, op. cit., fw~ote 22; R*M. Davis, Technical Writing: Its P1ace inEngineering curricul~ Sumqof thel?xperz”enee and opinions

of Prom”nent Engineers, Air Force Institute of Technology Technical Report 75-5 (Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: September 1975).

~provid~ by one of the oldest Industrial Application Centers, ~RAC, ~c.
14 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

●

use on aircraft flight lines, in airports, at

rifle/pistol ranges, etc.—anyplace where full

noise protection is required.

A firm designed a water distillation system

using solar energy, based in part on technical

information provided by NERAC. The concentration of the Sun’s rays causes a thermal

reaction which initiates a distillation process

that results in water vaporization. The water

vapor is distilled and collected as a usable

product. The solar system is expected to

provide low-cost, fresh water supplies to remote, arid, and coastal towns.

Engineers rely more on their own knowledge and

contacts with colleagues and inhouse experts to

solve technical problems than on technical reports,

journals, libraries, technical information centers, or

online technical information databases. The 1989

NASA survey of aeronautical engineers confined

the same pattern revealed in numerous other studies—

personal, informal sources take precedence over the

more formal, organized information sources.25

Engineers are likely to continue to rely in the first

instance on personal, informal information sources.

But there are significant opportunities to improve

the effectiveness of technical reports, libraries,

information centers, and computerized databases.

For example, at present, less than half of aerospace

engineers (44 percent, based on the NASA survey26)

use electronic databases at all, and less than half (46

percent 27) use a library or technical information

center more than once a month. When electronic

databases are searched, about two-thirds of the

engineers use intermediaries (e.g., reference librarians) to perform the search. Engineers are generally

open to the use of new information technologies.

The four technologies receiving the highest percentage of ‘I don’t use it, but may in the future’ in the

NASA survey are:28

. laser disk/videodisk/compact optical disk (65

percent);

❵● • videoconferencing (62 percent);

. electronic bulletin boards (54 percent); and

. electronic networks (53 percent).

Data on physical and chemical properties of

materials are another form of STI that is important

to industrial technology. The technical design of

automobiles through electronic equipment must

comport with a wide range of so-called “standard

reference data’ on the basic properties of materials

and industrial processes used in manufacturing. The

accuracy of this data is essential. Engineers include

a margin of safety in product and process designs,

but if faulty design data are used, the product or

process could fail under certain operating conditions.

The Federal Government plays a major role in

developing, maintaining, and updating standard

reference data. This is accomplished through research conducted in Federal laboratories, Federal

support for university and industrialresearch, governmentindustry cooperative initiatives, and Federal participation in a wide range of professional and technical

standards activities. Topics range from radiation

chemistry to thermodynamics to metallurgy to

electronic properties to microwave spectral data.29

Private-sector managers recognize that the “cost

of not knowing’ can be very high. Employees can

work hard, but if they do not work ‘‘smart, ’ the

result can be losses instead of profits-whether

conducting research, competing for a Federal R&D

contract, or selling a safe, reliable, and competitive

product in the marketplace.

STI plays a crucial role in the commercialization

process by which the results of Federal and private

R&D are translated into marketable products. The

challenge is to increase the return on the Federal

~see pine~i et al., Op.cit., footnote 22, p. 56; T.J. Allen, Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Disse~”@on of

Technological Information Within the R&) Organization (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977); H.L. Shuchmaq Information Tranq!er in Engineering

(Glastonbury, CT: The Futures Group, 1981); S. Ballard, C.R. McClure, T.I. Adams, M.D. Levine, L. EllisoU T.E. James, Jr., L.L. Malysa, and M. Meo,

Improving the Transfer and Use of scientific and Technical Information: The Federal Role (Normau OK: University of Oklahomq Science and Public

policy prOgraIn, 1986).

~Pinelli et.al., op.cit., footnote 22, p. 66.

271bid., p. 65.

‘Ibid., p. 73.

z~e Nation~ Research COunCil’S N~erical Data Advisory Board (recently renamed the Scientific and Technical bfOMIiItiOII Board) has issud

many relevant reports. For references, see National Research Council, Numerical Data Advisory Board, Improving the Treatment of Scientific and

Engineering Data Through Education (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1986). Also see minutes of the Sept. 21, 1989, NDAB meeting

available from C. Carter, staff director, NRC/NDAB, 2101 Constitution Ave., N. W., Washingto~ DC 20418.
Chapter 2-Federal Scientific and Technical Information and the U.S. Competitive Edge ● 15

R&D investment through more effective utilization

of the STI resulting from Federal R&D. This can be

achieved by several means, including: improving the

usability of government technical reports (e.g.,

formats, indexing, electronic retrieval); strengthening the capabilities of libraries and information

centers to meet STI needs; sharpening the skills of

scientists and engineers in using these resources; and

continually upgrading the ability of technologyenhanced STI systems (e.g., online, compact optical

disk) to provide affordable, user-friendly search and

retrieval service. This is a challenge demanding the

combined efforts of government, industry, academia, and the broader scientific and technical community.

STI and International Leadership on

Global Issues

Another part of the competitive edge—in addition

to education, R&D, and commercialization-is the

ability of the United States to provide international

leadership on a wide range of global problems.

Providing and exchanging STI are important components of such leadership. The challenge is to

maintain and strengthen the open flow of relevant

STI in the face of greatly intensified global economic competition.

The United States has substantial information

assets, and these are being augmented by use of

electronic avenues of dissemination. A case in point

is the MEDLINE (MEDLARS--Medical Literature

Analysis and Retrieval System-online) database

developed by the National Library of Medicine and

offered online by NLM and several commercial

vendors to the U.S. and foreign medical communities. MEDLINE is used for a wide variety of patient

care, research, teaching, and administrative purposes.

Surveys indicate that MEDLINE is having a

significant effect on medical decisions .30 Physicians

use MEDLINE information to select the most

appropriate tests and diagnose a wide range of

medical problems in order to prescribe a treatment

plan. MEDLINE’s successes are well-known.31 For

example, a pathologist examining a supposed ‘wart’

STI plays a crucial role in the commercialization process by which the results

of Federal and private R&D are translated into marketable products. The

challenge is to increase the return on the

Federal R&D investment through more

effective utilization of the STI resulting

from Federal R&D.

used MEDLINE to confirm a diagnosis of skin

cancer (polypoid melanoma) and develop a treatment plan. A physician treating an adolescent

patient who collapsed during a foot race used

MEDLINE to rule out exercise-induced pancreatitis

as a possible cause, and prescribed rest and abstinence from food (which worked). And a physician

used MEDLINE to locate information in a Swiss

journal about a new treatment for aplastic anemia.

Medical problems and research know no national

boundaries, and the effectiveness of databases such

as MEDLINE depends on international collaboration in the collection and exchange of medical

information. Computerized databases have become

essential to this process, with both NLM and private

vendors making global electronic access possible.

User-friendly microcomputers are bringing access to

MEDLINE to the grassroots. In the United States,

medical personnel can access MEDLINE using

“Grateful Med,” a search and retrieval software

package developed by NLM and sold by the

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) for

$29.98 per copy. Grateful Med runs on IBMcompatible and Apple Macintosh personal computers.

Another area of intensive Federal information

activity with significant international implications is

geographic information. Computerized geographic

information systems ("GIS”) make it possible to

access and manipulate large volumes of natural

resource, environmental, geologic, and other spatially referenced data. A 1988 survey32 identified 35

30S.R. Wilson, N. Starr-Schneidkraut, and M.D. Cooper, ‘‘Use of the Critical Incident Teclwique To Evaluate the Impact of MEDLINE,” contractor

report prepared by the American Institutes for Research for the National Library of Medicine, Bethes&, MD, Sept. 30, 1989.

311bid., see app. G, ‘‘Impact of the Information Obtained From MEDLINE on Medical Decision-Making.’

3zFederal kteragency Coordinating Committee on Digital Cartography, Reports WorWg Group, A Summaiy of GIS Activities in the Federal

Government, August 1988, pp. 10-12.
16 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

Federal agencies with GIS applications, including,

for example: the Agency for International Development (famine early warning, forestry); U.S. Forest

Service (forest planning, gypsy moth suppression,

fire behavior modeling); Soil Conservation Service

(soil survey database, river basin and watershed

planning, farm and ranch conservation planning);

Census Bureau (all 1990 Census activities); NOAA/

National Environmental Satellite Data Information

Service (atlases showing geographic distribution of

ice, drought, temperature, precipitation, sunshine,

length of day, etc.); Bureau of Reclamation (land

classification, irrigation monitoring, baseline habitat); and U.S. Geological Survey (earthquake hazard

assessment, national mapping program, water quality monitoring). Transportation is another emerging

area of major GIS application, especially with

respect to renewing the U.S. surface and air transportation infrastructure.

GIS-based activities require much greater coordination among Federal, State, local, and international

government agencies. While Federal agencies collect and/or develop a large amount of geographic

information, State and local governments are among

the heaviest users and also generate geographic

information as well. The same is true for foreign

governments and international intergovernmental

bodies (e.g., the United Nations Environment Program and Food and Agriculture Organization). The

range of international GIS applications is shown

below:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Preparation of thematic maps, with data on the

socioeconomic, demographic, soil, water, and

other characteristics of defined geographic

areas.

Preparation of base maps, including the plotting and revision of quadrangle maps, aeronautical charts, marine navigational charts, ocean

surveys, and the like.

Preparation of terrain maps, including topographic, elevation, slope, relief, and perspective maps, among others.

Data display and analysis, including the presentation and manipulation of map data and the

merging. and integrating of map databases.

Environmental assessment and monitoring,

including the use of geographic information in

preparing environmental impact assessments

6.

7.

8.

and studies of irrigation, pollution, soil conservation, flood potential, and the like.

Land and water resource planning and management, including site and road designs,

farm, forest, and wetland surveys, habitat and

water quality studies.

Mineral resource assessment, including geographic maps, fuel and resource inventories,

and geologic hazard analyses.

Navigational systems, including air traffic

control systems and flight simulators.33

The role of STI and its dissemination varies

depending on the area of science or technology.

Historically, the Federal Government has encouraged the open exchange of Federal STI as a

foundation of science and technology. Until recently, access to STI has been restricted only in

narrowly defined areas of national security. This has

been especially true in areas such as medicine and

the environment, where health and safety considerations are paramount. But even in these areas, the

changing competitive environment has led to increased sensitivity about open, international access

to Federal STI (e.g., with respect to its use in

commercialization of biotechnology, medical drugs

and devices, or environmental mitigation techniques).

Over the last decade or so, intensified international technical and economic competition has led to

additional restrictions on access to federally sponsored STI. These restrictions are based primarily on

reasons of national security, foreign policy, and

international competitiveness. Electronic technologies speed the transfer of information on national

and global scales. Concern over this rapid, uncontrolled dissemination has fueled a debate over

restrictions on access to STI.

This debate involves the balancing of competing

interests. For example, in the area of export controls,

the need to protect against export of militarily

sensitive technologies and technical data directly or

indirectly to U.S. adversaries must be balanced with

the need to minimize adverse effects on international

scientific exchange and on international trade opportunities. In domestic technology transfer, the need to

encourage the transfer of technology (and related

technical data) from the Federal Government to the

private sector must be balanced with the need to

331bid.
Chapter 2-Federal Scientific and Technical Information and the U.S. Competitive Edge ● 17

minimize restrictions on access to unclassified

Federal STI and promote a competitive marketplace

(even though foreign companies may also benefit).

Thus, the short-term interest of a solar energy

company conducting Federal R&D must be weighed

in the context of the long-term development needs of

the U.S. solar energy industry as a whole and the

interests of information vendors and users (e.g.,

librarians, entrepreneurs, policy analysts) who thrive

on the open exchange of Federal STI.

In light of the political, military, and economic

changes occurring in Europe and the Soviet Union,

perhaps U.S. policies limiting the open flow of

Federal STI should be reevaluated. It maybe that the

justifications for the restrictive approaches of the

1980s are less valid as the world reaches the last

decade of the 20th century .34 A key step in restoring

the U.S. competitive edge is to build on the strengths

of the U.S. governmental, academic, and commercial information sectors. Federal STI must play an

important part in the overall U.S. competitiveness

strategy.

STI and International Competitiveness:

A Summation

On the one hand, the world is becoming much

more competitive in political, economic, and technological terms. The moves toward political democracies and market-based economies will open up

many new opportunities for U.S. firms trading

overseas and for U.S. Government leadership on key

international issues. However, these same opportunities will similarly be available to other nations.

Markets and competition rely heavily on science,

technology, and innovation.

Evidence shows that STI is very important to

scientists, engineers, and managers in technologyintensive government agencies and industries.35

 Why? Because maintaining an information advantage is crucial to achieving a competitive edge. In the

rapidly changing global marketplace of ideas and

products, information has become an essential

competitive resource-along with technology, capital, labor, and management.

The challenge for the United States is how to

strengthen and deploy our own competitive STI

assets. The Federal Government supports the largest

R&D complex in the world, and generates the largest

volume of STI. The United States has a strong

educational and library infrastructure, and the U.S.

commercial information industry is foremost in the

world. Also, the United States is highly competitive

in assembling the technical infrastructure (e.g.,

online and optical disk systems) necessary to deliver

information products and services, including STI.

Yet the United States does not have an overall

strategy to capitalize on these substantial assets, and

to overcome its weaknesses, e.g., the training o f

scientists and engineers in STI search-and-retrieval

skills, or the consideration of STI user’s needs in

science agency planning. To realize the potential of

U.S. leadership in STI will require reaching a strong

consensus on overall Federal STI policy.

The stakes are high, as measured by market size

and

●

●

●

private-sector and governmental activity:

The Western European database services market is expected to double in the next 5 years, to

over $7 billion, with the online portion projected to increase from 60 to 70 percent;

The European Economic Community is sponsoring a wide range of pilot projects for the

European information services market, including, for example, a multimedia atlas of the

Mediterranean region on compact optical disk

(that combines data, images, digital maps, and

graphics on Mediterranean geography, agriculture, environment, and industry);

Two private companies (one U. S., one foreign)

are planning cooperative STI projects with the

U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences and State Committee for Science and Technology (including

the establishment of training centers to teach

STI online search skills to Soviet officials and

scientists);

~T’he Fe&xal Gove~ent is already reevaluating the need for controls on export of a variety of computer and telecommunications ~uiPment ad

systems to the Eastern bloc; proposals to relax export restrictions are being discussed with the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls

(COCOM). Also see H.R. 4653, the “Export Facilitation Act of 1990,” IOlst Cong., 2d sess., Apr. 26, 1990, ordered to be reported by the House

Committee on Foreign Affairs, May 10, 1990.

35For remnt res~ts on Sm ~ the ~aospace indus~, see T.E4 Pfielfi, M. Glassman, R.O. Bmclay, and W.E. oh Technical CO~ nican”on in

Aeronautics: Results of an Exploratory Study-An Analysis of Managers’ and Nonmanagers’ Responses, NASA Tech. Memo. 101625 (HamptoL VA:

NASA Langley Research Center, August 1989), and Technical Communication in Aeronautics: Results of an Exploratory Study-An Analysis of Profit

Managers’ andNonprojit Managers’ Responses, NASA Tech. Memo. 101626 (Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center, October 1989).
18 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

. U.S.-origin databases still dominate the information markets of the industrialized nations,

but many (especially the EEC and Japan) have

explicit strategies to develop their own domestic information industries.

Perhaps the single most important step the U.S.

Government can take is to recognize the important

role of STI in strengthening U.S. competitiveness. In

the immediate post-World War II years, the commanding across-the-board lead in science and technology meant that we could directly control the

creation and dissemination of STI and needed to pay

scant attention to foreign STI. Now, U.S. science and

technology are under competitive pressure in many

areas, and the U.S. lead in STI is no longer secure.

Other developed countries-such as Japan and the

European Community-are targeting STI as a key

element of a national strategy, and seem committed

to aggressively develop their own STI capabilities.36

The imperative for a reinvigorated U.S. STI strategy

is strong. As summed up by Dr. Lewis M. BranPerhaps the single most important step

the U.S. Government can take is to

recognize the important role of STI in

strengthening U.S. competitiveness.

scomb of the J.F. Kennedy School of Government at

Harvard University:

Most other industrial democracies take information policy very seriously as an element of science

policy and of strategies for competitiveness. In the

U. S., for reasons I have never fully understood,

information policy is the stepchild of economic

policy and has lost its place in science policy. We

spend our efforts discussing what information to

keep, sell, or give away. The better question is how

to create it, acquire it, and use it.37

qGSee McCl~e and Herno@ op. cit., foo~ote 2.

qTStitement of bwis M. Bran.scomb, Director, Science, Technology, and Public Policy PrograuL J.F. Ke~edy School of Gover~ent, H~~d

University, before a hearing of the U.S. Semte Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Technology and the Law, Mar. 16, 1988. Dr. Branscomb

formerly seined as Chief Scientist of the IBM Corp., and as Director of the Nationat Bureau of Standards.
Chapter 3

Reaching Consensus on Principles of Federal

Scientific and Technical Information Dissemination

Many STI managers in the Federal agencies,

along with scientists, engineers, scholars, librarians,

and vendors who specialize in STI, recognize the

highly leveraged role of Federal STI in renewing the

U.S. competitive edge. However, during most of the

1980s, sharp debate over several key elements of

Federal information policy and the resulting lack of

consensus have prevented the STI community from

sending a clear message to top congressional and

executive branch policymakers. The most controversial aspects of STI policy have been:

Ž the Federal role in information dissemination;

. .

● • principles of STI dissemination;

● • policy on the open flow of STI; and

● Ž role of the governmentwide dissemination agencies.

In all these areas, electronic technologies aggravate

old issues or create new ones.

During the last year and a half, the debate in

Congress has advanced to the point where a greater

degree of consensus and, thus, legislative action is

possible. Unanimous consent may be unlikely on

some issues, but if the potential of STI is to be

realized, a working consensus is needed. This

chapter discusses the debate over principles of STI

dissemination, including the Federal role. Chapter 4

covers the policy debates on the open flow of STI,

and on the role of the governmentwide dissemination agencies.

The ongoing information policy debates are

directly relevant to efforts by the 101st Congress to

update public laws on Federal information dissemination—including the Paperwork Reduction Act,

Printing Act, Depository Library Act, and Freedom

of Information Act.l

Federal Role in Information Dissemination

STI has been caught up in the philosophical

debate over the role of the Federal Government in

disseminating Federal information to the public. All

sides of the debate agree on the need for some

Federal role, but agreement on specifics, especially

with respect to the relative roles of the government

and private sector in dissemination, is more elusive.

Federal STI is relevant to both the missions of the

research and development agencies and to governmentwide dissemination objectives. In the absence

of a governmentwide strategy or policy for STI

dissemination, the development of a comprehensive

information dissemination policy under the auspices

of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is

of greater importance.

OMB and Circular A-130

OMB is the dominant force in shaping Federal

STI dissemination policy.2 Its role was strengthened

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,3 which

established an Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs (OIRA) within OMB. The Act was amended

in 1986 to explicitly include information dissemination within its scope. 4 The Act assigns the OIRA

Director broad responsibilities to minimize the cost

and maximize the usefulness of information collected, maintained, and disseminated by the Federal

Government. Further, the Act requires the OKRA

Director to develop and implement Federal information policies, principles, standards, and guidelines

with respect to information collection and dissemination. The Act also requires each Federal agency to

IFor ~ dewed di~m~~ion of hOw techn~l~~ ~~ ~utpac~ the ~~, s= u-s. congress, office Of TechnO@y ~sasrnen~ znfoT7?U”ng the ~Ut~Otl:

~ecierallnformation Dissemination in an Electronic Age, OTA-CIT-396 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, October 1988). ~

2See, for exmple, C-R. M~Clme ~d p+ Hmnon, U.S. Scientific and Technical znfo~tion Policies: Views and Perspect’ives (NOIWOOd, NJ: Ablex

publishing Corp., 1989); C.R. McClure, P. Hernon, and H. Relyea (eds.), United States Government Information Policies: Views and Perspectives

(Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1989); statement of Haxold B. Shill, Associate Professor, West Virginia University, on behalf of the West

Virginia Library Association and West Virginia University Libraries, before a May 23, 1989, hearing of the House Government Operations

Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice, and Agriculture; statement of Harold B. Shill, on behalf of the American Library AssociatiorL

Legislative Assembly, before a July 14, 1987, hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research

and Technology.

Sfiblic ~w 96.511, D~, 11, 1980.

Q~blic ~w 99-500, Oct. 18, 1986, ad public ~~ 99-591, Oct. 30, 1986.

–19–
20 ● Helping America Compete: The Role Of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

STI has been caught up in the philosophical debate over the role of the

Federal Government in disseminating

Federal information to the public.

designate a senior official to be responsible for

agency compliance with OIRA policies, principles,

standards, and guidelines on information collection

and dissemination.5

While the authority of OIRA clearly extends to

information dissemination, Congress did not—at

least in the Paperwork Reduction Act—provide

guidance on the shape, direction, or even basic

philosophy of information dissemination policies

that might be promulgated by OIRA. Part of the

reason for this omission is that, at the time the

Paperwork Reduction Act was being debated and

enacted, other committees were considering legislation on the printing chapters of Title 44 of the U.S.

Code (chs. 1-19; the PRA is ch. 35) that would have

addressed key aspects of information dissemination.6 This parallel legislation was not enacted. And

Congress has not yet provided explicit statutory

guidance to OIRA on information dissemination

policy, although the 101st Congress is considering a

variety of legislative proposals to amend various

chapters of Title 44.7

OMB’s efforts during the 1980s to promulgate

governmentwide information dissemination policy

proved to be controversial.8 Much of the controversy

focused on the role of the private sector in information dissemination and charges to be levied for use

of Federal information dissemination. Both the draft

and final versions of OMB Circular A-130 on

“Management of Federal Information Resources”

emphasized that Federal agencies place ‘‘maximum

feasible reliance’ on the private sector for information dissemination, and that costs be recovered

through user charges where appropriate.9

The final December 1985 version of OMB Circular A-130 gave more explicit recognition to the

importance of government information, but still

emphasized the role of the private sector. Thus,

Federal agency dissemination must be either “specifically required by law’ or “[necessary for the

proper performance of agency functions, provided

that the information products and services disseminated ‘‘do not duplicate similar products or services

that are or would otherwise be provided by other

government or private sector organizations.”10 In

effect, in the absence of statutory guidance to the

contrary, OMB applied the philosophy of OMB

Circular A-76 regarding contracting out of commercially available services in general to information

dissemination in particular.11

However, A-76 does not address or define what

dissemination functions are “inherently” governmental, that is, are ‘‘so intimately related to the

public interest so as to mandate performance by

%%blic Law 96-511 as amended, sec. 3501, 3504, 3506.

6H.R. 5424, the “Natio~ publications Act of 1980,” 96th Cong., 2d sess., Sept. 27, 1980.

7See, forexmple, H.R. 3695, the “PapeworkReduction arid Federa.1 Information Resources MaMgement Act of 1989, ” Iolstcong., 1st sess.t Nov.

17, 1989; S. 1742, the “FederalInformationR esources Management Act of 1989,” IOlst Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 6, 1989; and H.R. 3849, the “Govermnent

Printing Office Improvement Act of 1990,’ IOlst Cong., 2d sess., Jan. 23, 1990. For related discussio~ see O’E4 comments on S. 1742 prepared for

a Feb. 21-22, 1990, hearing of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the statement of Fred B. Wood, OTA, on H.R. 3849 before a Mar.

7, 1990, hearing of the Committee on House Administratio~ Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing.

gsee om, Zn@rming the Nation, op. cit., footnote 1, ch. 11; H.C. Relyea, J. Bortnick, and R.C. Ehlke, Manage?mmt Of Federal Znfo-tion

Resources:A General Critique of the March 198.5 OMB Draji Circular (Washingto~ DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, July

5, 1985); and P. Hernon and C.R. McClure, Federullnformation Policies in the 1980s: Conflicts and Issues (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishkg Corp.,

1987). Also see “Librarians Fight Government Plau” New York Times, Feb. 21, 1989, p. A17; J. Markoff, “Giving Public U.S. Data: Private Purveyors

Say No,” New York Times, Mar. 4, 1989, pp. Al, 47; J. Markoff, “Policy Shift on Access to U.S. Da@” New York Times, Apr. 10, 1989, pp. Dl, D8;

D. Sherwood, “Data WarS,” Government Executive, April 1989, pp. 24 ff; C. Webb, “Government Databases: Competing With Private Services?”

Presstime, April 1989, pp. 18-20; TJ. Mcintosh “Electronic Age OfferS Promises, problems for Government h.formatio~” BNA Daily Report for

Executives, Aug. 11, 1989, pp. C-1 to C-17; and W.J. Moore, “Access Denied,” National Journal, Jan. 20, 1990, pp. 121-124.

gofflce of Management and Budget, draft ‘‘Mamgement of Federal Idormation Resources, “ Federal Register, vol. 50, No. 51, Mar. 15, 1985, pp.

10734-10747; Office of Management and Budget, CirCular A-130, “Management of Federal Information Resources, ” vol. 50, Dec. 24, 1985, pp.

5273@52751 .

100MB circular A-130, sees. 9(a) and (b).

] ~J. Timothy Sprehe, ‘‘DevelopingFederal Information Resources Management Policy: Issues and Impact forhformation Managers,’ Information

Management Review, vol. 2, No. 3, 1987, see pp. 33-41; and OMB Circulars A-76, Aug. 4, 1983, and A-130, Dec. 12, 1985.
Chapter 3--Reaching Consensus on Principles of Federal Scientific and Technical Information Dissemination ● 21

Government employees.’ ’12 OTA’s prior analysis of

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) and

Government Printing Office (GPO) privatization

proposals suggested that many NTIS and GPO

dissemination functions are not suitable for privatization. Many other agency information dissemination functions arguably are vital to agency performance of statutory missions. There have been few

credible analyses of the factors that make contracting out of Federal information dissemination costeffective. Such analyses are difficult.13

OMB Circular A-130 has been widely interpreted

by agencies as strongly encouraging, if not requiring, user charges for information dissemination.

However, a careful reading of A-130 indicates that

pricing decisions, unless specifically prescribed by

statute, are left up to the discretion of agency heads,

who may set charges no greater than that required to

recover the cost of dissemination and who may

waive or eliminate charges if necessary to carry out

mission objectives.

STI Agencies and Circular A-130

The net effect of Circular A-130 has been to

polarize views on Federal information dissemination policy, divert significant time and resources into

debate over what A-130 is or should be, and create

uncertainty or risk aversion among Federal agencies

with respect to dissemination. Federal science agencies were not immune from this policy environment.

Some STI agencies, notably NTIS and various

agency information clearinghouses and libraries,

had to defend their programs against privatization

proposals. In the case of NTIS, OMB’s insistence on

privatization--which was later overruled by Congress--

might have resulted in a 2- or 3-year delay in its

modernization. Some STI agencies have adopted a

defensive, low-profile attitude toward information

dissemination, as a way of coping with the A-130

environment.

OMB’s privatization policy could have accelerated if A-130 went unchanged and Federal agencies

issued their own departmental regulations to implement A-130. The Department of Commerce is a case

in point: it is particularly important because several

Commerce agencies have significant STI functions

(e.g., NTIS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Patent and

Trademark Office (PTO)).

In August 1988, the Department of Commerce

issued a draft policy on electronic information

dissemination.

14 Commerce was the first and, as yet,

only Federal agency to develop a proposed comprehensive policy. The draft was prepared by a departmental task force and was intended to carry out the

requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act and

A-130. The draft policy was circulated for comment

and revised several times, but was never published

in the Federal Register and has since been put on

indefinite hold, due to the change in administration

and more recently to the subsequent changes in

OMB policy direction. Nonetheless, it is useful to

review the original Commerce draft policy as an

example of what might emerge as agency implementation of A-130 if left unaltered.

The basic thrust of the draft Commerce policy was

that ‘‘[operating units will use private sector firms

to develop, manage, and operate electronic dissemination activities to the maximum extent possible,’

and that, “before initiating electronic information

dissemination, operating units will conduct a privatization analysis. ” The proposed policy placed the

burden of proof on the agency to “justify any

proposed direct Federal role in disseminating electronic information in terms of overriding public

need, law, and/or program mission. ’ The directive

was particularly burdensome with respect to the

development and dissemination of value-added electronic information products and services, and in the

marketing and distribution of agency information,

all functions which the Department felt should be

carried out primarily by the private sector. The

Department, in its own “highlights” sheet, noted

that, as a standard of performance, Commerce’s

lzo~ (=~~~~ A-76.

130TA, ]n.orming the Nation, op. cit., footnote 1, ch. 12. AISO see F.B. Wood, ‘‘Proposals for Privatization of the National Teehnical Information

Service: A Viewpoin6° Government Publications Review, vol. 15, 1988, pp. 403-409.

14u.s. Dep~rnent of commerce, Draft Department Administrative Order on “Electronic Info~tiOn Disse minatio%” Aug. 5, 1988, published in

part as “Draft Policy of the U.S. Department of Commerce on the Dissemination of Information in Electronic Format” Government Information

Quarterly, vol. 6, No, 1,1989, pp. 89-96.
22 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

Federal information dissemination policy development appears to be moving

toward a compromise on two of the most

contentious issues: the roles of the government and the private sector; and the

application of user charges.

electronic dissemination activities should “[o]ffer

no value-added features. Likewise, the draft policy

placed the burden of proof on the agency to justify

why fees to recover the actual costs of dissemination

should not be applied.

Overall, the proposed policy placed so many

substantive and procedural hurdles in the path of

agency electronic dissemination activities that innovation and creativity could have been seriously

impaired. Even though the policy stipulated procedures by which agency components could have

justified government electronic dissemination and/

or fee waivers, the procedural burden was high

enough to discourage agency initiatives.

An Emerging Consensus?

In Informing the Nation, OTA reviewed a large

number of agency-specific and governmentwide

statutes with regard to congressional intent on

information dissemination. While the Paperwork

Reduction Act itself provides little direct guidance,

taking as a whole the body of public law, OTA

concluded that congressional intent is clear:

In general, unimpeded dissemination of and

access to Federal information is encouraged or

frequently required and is vital to performance of

agency and programmatic missions established by

statute as well as to the principles of open government and a democratic society .15

OTA suggested that Congress consider making a

renewed commitment to the overriding principle of

public access established by Congress in other

statutes, but updated to reflect the increasingly

electronic nature of Federal information. In particular, OTA suggested that Congress consider enacting

a congressional version of the information dissemination principles addressed in OMB’s Circular

A-130.16

Since publication of Informing the Nation, a

number of other key reports, OMB draft policies,

and, recently, congressional testimony and bills

have been issued.17 Federal information dissemination policy development appears to be moving

toward a compromise on two of the most contentious

issues: the roles of the government and the private

sector; and the application of user charges.

The shift in OMB thinking is illustrative. In

January 1989, OMB issued an “Advance Notice of

Further Policy’ to revise A-130 that was interpreted

as favoring private sector over government dissemination of Federal information, limiting agency

dissemination to basic and not value-added electronic information products, and requiring user fees

to recover the costs of dissemination, absent compelISOTA, lnfi~ing the Nation, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 259.

lbIbid., p. 260.

ITSee, for example, J.J. Berrn~ “The Right to mow: Public Access to Electronic Informatio~” paper prepared for the m~e Foundation inl’.R.

Newberg (cd.), New Directions in Telecommunications Policy, vol. 2, Information Policy and Econom”c Policy (Durham, NC: Duke University Press,

1989); statements of J.J. Berman, Director, Information Technologies Project, American Civil Liberties Unio4 before an Apr. 18, 1989, hearing of the

House Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Government hformatio~ Justice, and Agriculture, and a Feb. 22, 1990, hearing of the

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; G. Bass and D. P1ocher, Strengthening Federal Information Policy: Opportunities and Realities at OMB,

Benton Foundation Project on Communications and Information Policy Options (Washington DC: The Benton Foundation 1989); statement of David

Plocher, Staff Attorney, OMB Watch, before a May 24, 1989, hearing of the House Committee on Administration Subcommittee on procurement and

Printing; statements of Nancy Kranich, Director of Public and Administrative Services, New York University Libraries, on behalf of the American

Library Association and D. Kaye Gape% Dean of Libraries, University of Wiscons@ on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries, before a May

23,1989, hearing of the House Committee on Government Government Operations, Subcommittee on GovemmentInformatiow Justice, and Agriculture;

statements of Alan F. West@ President, Reference Point FoundatioIL and Professor of Public Law and Government, Columbia University, and Kenneth

B. AlleIL Senior Vice President for Government Relations, Information Industry Association before an Apr. 18, 1989, hearing of the House Committee

on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Government Information% Justice, and Agriculture; H.H. Pernt4 Jr., Electronic Acquisition and Release

ofFederal Agency Znfor?nation, Report to the Administrative Conference of the United States, Oct. 1, 1988; statement of Henry H. Perntt before a July

11, 1989, hearing of the House Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Government Inforrnatiou Justice, and Agriculture; and

Administrative Conference of the United States, Recommendation 88-10 on “Federal Agency Use of Computers in Acquiring and Releasing

hforrnatiou” adopted Dec. 8-9, 1988.
Chapter 3-Reaching Consensus on Principles of Federal Scientific and Technical Information Dissemination ● 23

ling reasons to the contrary.18 The public comment

on the January OMB notice was overwhelmingly

critical.19 OMB concluded that the January draft did

not accurately communicate OMB’s policy views

and had further confused and polarized the debate.

As a consequence, on June 15, 1989, OMB issued a

“Second Advance Notice of Further Policy Development on Dissemination of Information” that

formally withdrew the January 4 notice, summarized

the comments received, and presented OMB’s

reactions and preliminary conclusions.20 On June

16, OIRA Administrator Jay Plager announced the

withdrawal in testimony before the Subcommittee

on Government Information and Regulation of the

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.21

The June 15, 1989, OMB notice deserves careful

scrutiny by the STI community, because OMB

intends to prepare anew draft policy consistent with

the discussion in the June 15 notice and with any

relevant legislation that may be enacted. (The new

draft will also incorporate information collection,

based on a 1987 draft and comments received

thereon.22) If history is any guide, the penultimate

OMB policy can be expected to have a significant

impact on Federal STI dissemination.

The essence and significance of the June OMB

notice is captured in the following quotation:23

OMB wishes to make clear that its fundamental

philosophy is that government information is a

public asset; that is, with the exception of national

security matters and such other areas as may be

prescribed by law, it is the obligation of the

government to make such information readily available to the public on equal terms to all citizens; that

to the extent the flow of information from the

government to the public can be enhanced by the

participation of the private sector, such participation

should be encouraged; and that participation by the

private sector supplements but does not replace the

obligations of government. These principles apply

whatever the form, printed, electronic, or other in

which the information has been collected or stored.

OMB did not intend that either OMB Circular A-130

or the January 1989 notice should have the effect of

dissuading agencies from carrying out activities they

believe are necessary for the proper performance of

agency functions . . . or that Federal agencies or the

public should be made to rely primarily on the

private sector for the dissemination of government

information.

Principles of STI Dissemination

Converging views on the Federal role in information dissemination has made legislative action

possible. Various congressional committees are

developing legislative proposals to provide OMB

and Federal agencies with specific statutory guidance on information dissemination. 24 Legislation

and related OMB policy can be expected to have a

significant impact on Federal STI dissemination.

The STI community needs to monitor, carefully

review, and participate in the development of these

initiatives to ensure that governmentwide dissemination principles are consistent with those appropriWXflceof M~gement and lludge~ “AdvanceNotice of Further Policy Development on Dissemination of Normatiou” FederalRegister, vol. 54,

No. 2, Jan. 4, 1989, pp. 214-220.

%lee summary of comments in Office of Management and Budget, ‘‘Second Advance Notice of Further Policy Development on Dissemination of

Information.” Federal Register, vol. 54, No. 114, June 15, 1989, pp. 25554-25559.

mid.; also see J. Markoff, “0.M.B. Proposes Switch in Information Policy,” New York Times, June 10, 1989, p. A-28; and U.S. Oflllce of

Mamgement and Budget, “Summary of Comments on OMB’S Second Advance Notice of Further Policy Development on Dissemination of

hlfO171WiO~” Oct. 19, 1989.

zlTestimony of Jay p~ger, Administrator, OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, before a June 16, 1989, hearing of tie SeMte

Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Government Information and Regulation. Also see testimony of Jay Plager before a June 28,

1989, hearing of the House Committee on Administration Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing; see U.S. Congress, House, Committee on House

AdministratiorL Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing, Title 44 U.S. C.-Review, Hearings, May 23, 24 and June 28,29, 1989, IOlst Cong., 1st

sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989), pp. 152-159.

fisee Office of Management ~d Budget, “Policy Guidance on Electronic Collection of Information “ Federal Register, vol. 52, No. 152, Aug. 7,

1987, pp. 29454-29457; and OMB, “Summary of Comments on Policy Guidance on Collection of bformatiom” Nov. 17, 1987.

~OMB, “Second Advance Notice,” op. cit., footnote 19, p. 25557.

~See H.R. 3695 and S. 1742, op. Cit., footnote 7.
24 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

ate for STI, and, if not, to make sure that separate

guidance is provided for STI.25

Strengthening Public Dissemination of

Value-Added Federal STI

Most agree on the need for public dissemination

of STI, but there are differences on how this should

be achieved. One serious complication for STI

occurs when unclassified information is deemed to

be sensitive for reasons of national security, foreign

policy, or competitiveness. In these cases, the goal

of public access may conflict with other policy

objectives. Policy on the open flow of STI is treated

as a separate issue area and discussed in chapter 4.

The Federal science agencies emphasize that the

primary purpose of Federal STI is to support agency

R&D missions, and that public dissemination is an

important but secondary objective.

A further complication occurs when value-added

Federal STI is involved. Some government and

information industry officials have argued that

Federal agency electronic dissemination of raw data

was acceptable, but government dissemination of

value-added information was not an appropriate

governmental function and should be the province of

private industry.26 In this view, dissemination by the

U.S. Geological Survey of STI on magnetic computer tape would have been appropriate, but USGS

dissemination of value-added or enhanced information would not--e.g., a compact optical disk with

data on earthquake monitoring that also included the

search software for retrieving and manipulating the

data.

Value-added is not the best determinant to distinguish between government and private-sector roles.

Many Federal science (and other) agencies have

legislative responsibilities to develop and disseminate value-added information, and have been doing

so for decades. Restricting the Federal agencies from

providing value-added information, or from providing information available on paper in electronic

form, would prevent some Federal agencies from

meeting statutory obligations. Value-added restrictions could prevent agencies from providing the

benefits of electronic technologies through automated data services to taxpayers who collectively

paid for the development of the information in the

frost place.

Federal agencies should be able to provide

value-added information that furthers agency missions, but they should carefully consider privatesector capabilities, so that contracting out and

marketplace alternatives are utilized when appropriate. Private information vendors (commercial and

not-for-profit), on the other hand, should be encouraged to repackage and resell Federal information

(that is not classified or otherwise restricted), and to

add further value to create enhanced information

products and services where the market exists.

Whether government or private dissemination is

preferred, however, should not be based on ideology,

but on which mode(s) can best serve national needs.

Improving Cost-Effectiveness and

Diversity of Federal STI

OMB has long supported agency automation

programs in the belief that automation will be

cost-effective in the long term. The judicious use of

electronic technologies could lead to more timely,

complete, and accurate Federal information dissemi-

~FOr historical perspective On the development of iUfOIYnatiOn dissetition principles, see, for example, U.S. Executive OffIce of the President,

Domestic Council, National Information Policy, report to the President of the United States (Washingto~ DC: National Commission on Libraries and

Information Science, 1976); J.H. Yurow, R.F, Akh-ich R.R. Belair, YM. Braunste~ D.Y. Peyto~ S. PogTow, L.S. RobertsorL and A.B. Wildavsky,

Issues in Znjimnation Policy, report prepared for the National Telecommunications and Information AWstratioU U.S. Department of Commerce,

NTL4-SP-80-9 (Wasbingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, February 1981); U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Government Operations,

Subcommittee on Government Information and Individual Rights, Government Provision of Information Services in Competition With the Private

Sector, Hearing, 97th Cong., 2d sess. (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, Feb. 25, 1982); Rep. Glenn English “Electronic Filing of

Documents With the Government: New Technology Presents New Problems, ” Congressional Record-House, Mar. 14, 1984, H1614-1615; U.S.

Congress, House, Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Government InformatiorL Justice, and Agriculture, Electronic Collection

and Dissemination of Information by Federal Agencies, Hearings, Apr. 29, June 26, and Oct. 18, 99th Cong., Ist sess. (Washington DC: U.S.

Government Printing OffIce, 1986); U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Government Information Justice,

and Agriculture, Electronic Collection and Dissenu”nation oflnformation by FederalAgencies:A Policy Overview, House Report 99-560, 99th Congress,

2d sess. (Washingto@ DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Apr. 29, 1986); U.S. Congress, House, H.R. 2600, Securities and Exchange Comnu”ssion

Authorization Act of 1987, IOOth Cong., 1st sess., June 4, 1987; U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Securities and Exchange

Commission Authorization Act, report to accompany H.R. 2600, IOOth Cong., 1st sess., Rep. No. 100-2% (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, Sept. 9, 1987); and U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Government Operations, Federal Information Dissemination Policies and Practices,

Hearings, Apr. 18, May 23, and July 11, 1989, IOlst Cong., 1st sess, (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989).

zG~s view WaS reflected in tie U.S. Department of Commerce, Draft Administrative Order on ‘‘Electronic Information DisseminatiOQ” Aug. 5,

1988, and the Office of Mamgement and Budget “Advance Notice of Further Policy Development on Dissemination of Information, ’ Jan. 4, 1989.
Chapter 3-Reaching Consensus on Principles of Federal Scientific and Technical Information Dissemination ● 25

Federal agencies should be able to provide value-added information that furthers agency missions, but they should

carefully consider private-sector capabilities, so that contracting out and

marketplace alternatives are utilized when

appropriate.

nation. However, the 1980s offer several examples

of agency electronic dissemination projects that

went astray or suffered serious and sometimes costly

problems. In part, this is the price of innovation and

progress-and neither is private sector R&D immune from “wrong tracks, “ “blind alley s,” and

“learning the hard way.” Nonetheless, this points

up the need for better ways for Federal agencies to

share learning among themselves and the private

sector. The most cost-effective route may sometimes

be primarily an agency initiative, at other times defer

entirely to the private sector, or develop collaboratively by the agency and a private firm. There is

room for more creative approaches in optimizing

Federal investment in information dissemination.

While cost-effectiveness is an important criterion, it

must be balanced with the principal goals of

fulfilling the statutory R&D requirements of the

science agencies and promoting public dissemination of STI.

It is important to maintain and broaden the

avenues used for dissemination of Federal information, including STI. For STI, these avenues are:

●

●

●

●

●

the Federal science agencies themselves;

the governmentwide dissemination agencies

such as NTIS and GPO;

the press (including print and electronic media

and a wide range of specialized scientific and

technical journals and newsletters);

commercial information vendors (ranging from

small companies that specialize in a few areas

of STI, to very large corporations with entire

divisions devoted to STI publishing, databases,

etc.);

not-for-profit information vendors (including

university and foundation-based providers);

●

●

●

●

●

researchers and scholars who collect, analyze,

and synthesize Federal STI and disseminate the

results through multiple channels (ranging

from conference presentations, to congressional testimony, to technical reports);

professional, consumer, and trade associations

that specialize in areas relevant to STI (and

process and redisseminate STI to their own

constituencies);

the library community (including public, private, special, academic, research, and school

libraries throughout the Nation);

State and local governments and associations;

and

foreign countries and companies that use Federal STI for policy or commercial purposes.

Involving Users and Providers in STI Planning

Planning for Federal information (including STI)

dissemination should provide opportunities for the

users and the public to participate in the process, as

well as the appropriate agencies. Inadequate involvement of the potential users has led to past

failures in new information services. User involvement is especially important for STI, because user

groups are often highly specialized and sophisticated. 27

Some agency officials are concerned that public

participation in STI planning could become cumbersome and slow down or discourage agency innovation. On one hand, the use of public funds for

information systems to carry out public purposes

suggests the need for an open process. On the other

hand, procedural red tape could chill agency innovation, as it sometimes has in the private sector. The

key is to match the procedural requirements to the

purpose, nature, and scale of the project. For

example, multi-million dollar systems like the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s

EOS (Earth Observing System) or the Securities and

Exchange Commission’s EDGAR (Electronic Data

Gathering and Retrieval) may be required to follow

rigorous public notice and participation procedures.

At the other extreme, small pilot or demonstration

projects may be required to include public notice but

not to use a formal comment period, meetings, and

approval procedures that may be needed for large

operational projects.

27c&.e S~temen~ of c~le~ R. M&l~, suacu~e ufiver~i~; F~ B. Wood, OTA; ~d Joseph G. Cope, U.S. Dep~ent of Energy before a hearing

of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Researck and Technology, Oct. 12, 1989.
26 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

Most user and provider groups support

the alternative concept of marginal cost

recovery—meaning that user charges

for Federal information dissemination

would not exceed the marginal cost of

dissemination and would not include

costs of collecting or creating the information.

Determining User Charges for Federal STI

User charges continue to be controversial. Some

at OMB have advocated full cost recovery for

Federal information dissemination. Under this policy, user charges for Federal information could have

been set to recover the entire costs of collecting,

processing, and maintaining as well as disseminating. This proposal was opposed by both user and

provider groups, on the grounds that much Federal

information-including STI—would be priced out

of reach, and that the taxpayer would effectively be

asked to pay twice.28

Experience with Landsat STI suggests that the

academic research community is particularly burdened by full cost pricing. Responsibility for pricing

of Landsat imagery and digital data has moved in the

past from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

and finally to EOSAT, a commercial company

established under the Land Remote-Sensing Commercialization Act of 1984.29

During the 1980s, Landsat STI prices have been

increased to recover a greater portion of full costs to

the point where 1989 EOSAT prices are about nine

times higher than 1980 prices for imagery and three

times higher for digital data.30 This has reduced sales

to academia by more than half.31

Transition from manual imagery interpretation to

digital data analysis explains part of the reduction in

imagery sales, but examination of worldwide Landsat sales for 1981-88 shows that users are paying

much more for much less. For example, between

1981 and 1988, the volume of data digital sales

increased by only 10 percent while the revenue from

digital data sales increased by about 600 percent.

During this same period, the volume of imagery

sales decreased by about six times, while the

corresponding revenues increased by 10 percent.32

Full cost prices are affordable by some large

government agencies and private corporations (U.S.

and foreign), but these prices have squeezed research

activities performed by academia, State/local governments, small business, individuals, and some

Federal agency programs that are faced with tight

budgets (including, ironically, some USGS programs).33

Most user and provider groups support the alternative concept of marginal cost recovery-meaning

that user charges for Federal information dissemination would not exceed the marginal cost of dissemination and would not include costs of collecting or

creating the information. The definition of ‘‘marginal cost” is ambiguous. Three definitions have

been suggested:

1. Marginal cost is the incremental cost of

producing the n+l unit of a specific information product or service. Thus, the cost per copy

of a printed report would be the direct cost of

producing one more paper copy; the cost of a

database would be the direct cost of one more

~FuU cost r~ovq has alSO been opposed On legal grounds. The courts have ruled tha~ under the User Fee Act of 1952 (31 U.S.C. 9701), user fees

charged by Federal agencies must be reasonably related to the direct and indirect costs of providing a product or service. For relevant decisions, see 846

F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1988); 777 F.2d 722 (D.C. Cir. 1985); 554 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1976); and 554 F.2d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

29u.s. con~ess, Public bW 98-365, July 17, 1984. For general discussion of Landsat commercialization% see U.S. Conwess, OffIce of Tec~0108y

Assessment, Remote Sensing and the Private Sector: Issuesfor Discussion, OTA-TM-Isc-20 (wa,shi.ngtoq IX: U.S. Government Printing Office,

March 1984); U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Information Policy Implications ofArchiving Satellite Duta: To Preserve

the sense ofEart/t From Space (Washingto& DC: 1984); and National Research Council, Space Applications Board, Remote Sensing of the Earth From

Space: A Program in Crisis (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985).

30G, Me~, “Landsat Product Price Examples, 1980- 1989,” EROS Data Center, Sioux F~ls, ND.

sl~e percent of to~ EROS s~es to a~demia declined from 10% in FY1979 to 590 in FY1988 for J-=mdsat imagew, ~d from 1A70 in ~1979 to

5% in IW1988 for Landsat data. In FY1988, only 408 frames of imagery and 379 data items were sold to academic users.

3ZG. Au@ R. Pohl, and G. Metz, A Summa ry of Worldwide Lundsat Sales: 1988 (Sioux Falls, SD: EROS Data Center, U.S. Geological Survey, May

30, 1989).

33~so see G. AuSt@ Annuz Report of ~~sat sales for Fiscal year 19&3 (Siow Falls, SD: EROS Data Center, U.S. Geological Swey, 1989).
Chapter 3--Reaching Consensus on Principles of Federal Scientific and Technical Information Dissemination ● 27

2.

3.

electronic copy (e.g., on magnetic tape) or one

more hour of online access time.

Marginal cost is the average cost of producing

a specific product or service. Here, the cost per

copy of a printed report would be the total

costs of producing n copies divided by the

number of copies. The cost of a database

would be the total costs of providing the

database divided by the number of service

units (e.g., magnetic tape copies, hours of

access time).

Marginal cost is the average cost of a group of

products or services (i.e., a product line). Thus,

the cost per copy of a printed report would be

of copies. The cost of a database would be the

total costs of providing n databases divided by

the total number of service units for all

databases combined.

Definition 1 is the true economic marginal cost.

But if the intent is to recover the cost of dissemination but not the costs of collecting or creating the

information, then definitions 2 and 3 could apply.

True marginal pricing reflects only direct variable

costs (e.g., labor and materials used in printing),

whereas average costs typically also cover direct

freed costs (e.g., production line supervision, electricity) and some share of indirect costs (e.g.,

building rent, marketing, general management, capital investment).

A major policy question is whether the price

formula should apply to an individual information

product or service or to a line of products and

services; what costs elements should be included

(variable, fixed, direct, indirect); and how much

flexibility agencies should have in pricing. The

demand for Federal information varies widely, and

per-unit costs for the high sales volume items will be

relatively low, while per-unit costs for the lowvolume items will be relatively high.

For example, the user charge for a compact optical

disk could vary from $5 to $500 depending on the

pricing formula and volume of demand. At a sales

volume of 500 copies, the true marginal cost

(definition 1) would be about $5 per copy and the

average cost (definition 2) typically $50 to $100 per

copy. At a sales volume of 50 copies, the marginal

cost might increase to $10 to $20 per copy and the

average cost to $500 per copy. Thus true marginal

cost yields the lowest price, but leaves much of the

cost of dissemination uncovered. The uncovered

costs would have to be paid from appropriated funds.

The average cost formula covers the cost of dissemination, but is very sensitive to total volume. For

high-volume items, average cost is low and vice

versa.

As an illustration, NOAA appears to use definition 2 above, the average cost of producing a specific

product or service, as the basis for pricing. NOAA

includes both direct and indirect costs in its calculations. Typical direct costs are labor, supplies,

printing, and computer resources. Indirect costs

cover a portion of NOAA and U.S. Department of

Commerce overhead and rent. The costs of collecting or creating the data are not included. NOAA

calculates the total direct and indirect cost of

producing each product or service, and divides the

total cost by the quantity produced to determine a

per-unit cost. Assuming that estimated demand

meets or exceeds the quantity produced, the unit

price is usually set to equal the unit cost.

The cost breakdown for several NOAA National

Geophysical Data Center CD-ROM products is

shown in table 1. The Geophysics of North America

CD-ROM was relatively expensive to produce, but

the unit cost was kept down due to the higher

estimated sales volume and quantity produced. The

Gloria CD-ROM was a pilot project subsidized by

USGS—thus the low price. And the Deep Sea

Drilling CD-ROM was inexpensive to produce, with

a low unit price even with modest estimated demand.

Many STI items have low total sales, and thus the

price could be prohibitive if calculated on an

average-cost-per-product basis (definition 2). Lowdemand STI items might be best suited for either true

marginal cost pricing (with the rest of the costs

covered out of appropriated funds) or average-costper-product-line pricing (definition 3). Both the

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) and

National Library of Medicine (NLM) use productline pricing, which in effect results in a crosssubsidy between the high-demand and low-demand

items. NTIS and NLM believe that use of true

marginal cost pricing (definition 1) would threaten

their viability, unless appropriated funds were provided to cover the rest of the costs; and that use of

average cost pricing per product (definition 2) would

further curtail demand for many of the lower volume

information products and services, since prices for
28 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

Table l—Cost Breakdown for Illustrative National Geophysical Data Center

CD-ROM Products

Cost elements

Direct Other Indirect Unit

Product labor direct rests Quantity cost

Geophysics of North America: $66K $58K $40K 700 $235

CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....--.,.

Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23K 8K 14K 700 65

Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53K 44K 32K 700 185

Gloria Side Scan Sonar:

CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6K a —a 3K

a

200 45

Deep Sea Drilling Project

CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6K 9K 3K 200 90

auSGS paid for the development of this pilot CD-ROM prokd.

SOURCE: National Geophysical Data Center, 1989.

these items would likely rise out of reach of many

users.

NTIS must operate its clearinghouse on a breakeven basis with no appropriated funds. NTIS uses

revenues from brokerage fees and services to other

agencies, along with product-line pricing, to help

offset the losses that would otherwise occur due to

the many NTIS documents that register no or very

low sales volume. The sale or lease of Federal STI

in electronic formats is now the fastest growing

market segment for NTIS, increasing at 5 to 10

percent annually. “Electronic” sales account for

about one-quarter of total NTIS revenues.34

NTIS sales of paper or microfiche documents

continue to decline, with annual sales of indices,

newsletters, published searches, and technical documents reaching all-time lows in fiscal year 1989. The

average total demand for NTIS documents is about

10 copies over the life of a document, and onequarter to one-third of the documents never sell a

copy.

35

Financing the NLM dissemination program is

more complicated since (unlike NTIS) NLM does

receive appropriated funds for creation of databases.

This means that NLM must determine where taxsupported information collection or creation ends

and user-financed information dissemination begins. According to NLM, online database prices are

set to recover only the cost of dissemination (except

for foreign users, who pay full cost since they

presumably have not paid taxes). NLM uses average

cost product-line pricing, which means that users

pay the same average price for all databases ($27/

hour during peak periods). The most heavily used

database (MEDLINE) absorbs much of the overhead

costs and helps keep prices down for the other

databases (e.g., TOXLINE, AIDSLINE, CANCERLIT).36 However, vendors are concerned that NLM

combines both offline products (e.g., magnetic

tapes) and online services when estimating costs,

and cross-subsidizes not only from MEDLINE to

other databases, but from offline products to online

services through the use of royalty fees.

The NLM example raises several pricing questions. How should agencies distinguish among

collection, creation, maintenance, and dissemination

costs? What costs should be included in determining

average or marginal cost? What products and/or

services should be included in determining costs?

Under what circumstances should products and

services be kept separate or combined, for pricing

purposes? Should agencies cross-subsidize different

products and services, and if so, to what degree?

How should product lines be defined, when calculating average costs over a range of products and/or

~Fy1989NqqS s~es of softwme and datasets from the NTIS inventory were$2.59 milliou leasing of NTIS andotheragencydatabases $2.35 fillio~

and brokerage of other agency electronic items $1.41 million for a combined ‘electronic’ sales of $6.35 million-about one-fourth of the $24.4 million

total revenues.

3sFor tier discussion see OTA, ]n~orming the Nation, op. cit., foo~ote 1, CM. 5 and 12; and testimony of Fred B. Wood of OTA before a Feb.

24, 1988, hearing on NTIS privatization and a Mar. 8, 1990, hearing on NTIS modernization held by the House Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Researck and Technology.

36chanmaq “ Board of Regents, National Library of Medicine, memorandum to the Assistant Secretary for Healti U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, “Response to Systems Review Board Recommendations on the Pricing of NLM Products and Services,” May 29, 1984; and K.A.

Smit4 “Government Databases: The NLM Philosophy,” Database, vol. 11, No. 3, 1988, p. 58.
Chapter 3-Reaching consensus on Principles of Federal Scientific and Technical Information Dissemination ● 29

services? How should agencies set prices for dissemination to special user groups such as foreign users

who do not pay taxes or not-for-profit users who

cannot afford even the average cost? Should agencies be able to retain sales revenues to help offset

dissemination costs? (NLM retains about one-half or

$6 million/year in an NTIS deposit account, and

returns the rest to the U.S. Treasury.)

Whatever one’s views on pricing formulae, there

is a general consensus that user charges should not

exceed the cost of dissemination, and that agencies

should be able to reduce or waive user charges if

needed to carry out agency missions. Should this

pricing philosophy become governmentwide policy,

reconciliation of other statutes might be necessary.

For example, Title 44 of the U.S. Code requires that

the Superintendent of Documents (SupDocs) set

prices for government publications at cost plus 50

percent.37 However, as a practical matter, in recent

years the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have transferred net revenues from the SupDocs

sales program to support the Depository Library

Program (and thereby correspondingly reduce the

need for DLP appropriated funds). Also, in 1988,

Congress authorized the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration to assess fees based on

‘‘fair market value’ for commercial users of certain

NOAA information products and services (governmental, university, and not-for-profit users would

pay only marginal costs) .38 NOAA officials have

found it difficult to determine fair market value, and

both agency and industry officials question whether

this is a viable basis for setting user charges.

Defining Intellectual Property Rights

in Federal STI

STI developed by or for the Federal Government,

like other types of Federal information, by law may

not be copyrighted. Some researchers and vendors

include Federal information in scholarly works or

commercial products that are copyrighted (e.g., a

vendor who copyrights a new compact optical disk

that includes bibliographic STI from multiple sources,

one of which is the Federal Government).

The major issue concerns the use of so-called

‘‘copyright-like’ devices by Federal agencies. Several science agencies use licensing agreements in

their dissemination programs. NLM makes its online

database MEDLINE available to both online and

compact optical disk vendors, through a licensing

agreement that levies charges estimated to equal the

average per-unit cost for a user of the NLM line of

databases.

NTIS similarly licenses its bibliographic database

to private vendors through a licensing agreement

and also serves as licensing agent for other agencies’

databases

The National Agricultural Library (NAL) distributes its AGRICOLA bibliographic database to

vendors via NTIS. NTIS charges vendors $2,000/

year for the yearly AGRICOLA data on magnetic

tape, and $200/year for back fries. NTIS retains all

of this revenue. NTIS also charges online vendors $6

per AGRICOLA connect hour and $0.05/’ ’hit” (a

bibliographic citation on the desired subject), and

CD-ROM vendors a fee equal to 25 percent of the

disk sales price. These online and CD-ROM user

fees are split 20 percent to NTIS and 80 percent to

NAL. 39

Some private vendors view such licensing arrangements as restrictive and illegal.40 These vendors believe that agency licensing agreements discourage competition among commercial services

and/or inhibit demand, and have the effect of

restricting access to Federal STI. Other vendors find

licensing agreements acceptable so long as they are

nonexclusive and fairly priced. The NLM and NTIS

licensing agreements appear to be nondiscriminatory in that any vendor can be licensed, and the fees

are set to recover the cost of databases and related

3744 us-c. 1708.

SSS. 2209, Title IV, sec. 409.

sgGa.Iy K. McCone, Natio~ Agricultural Libr~, U.S. Department of Agriculture, letter to Fred B. Wood, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S.

Congress, Dec. 28, 1989.

~For discussion of concmm about the NLM MEDLINE database, see U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Government @eratiom, EZec@onic

Collection andDissemination, Oct. 18, 1985, Hearings, and Apr. 29, 1986, Repo% op. cit., footnote 25; and statement of P. James Terragno, presiden~

Maxwell Online, Inc. before a July 11, 1989, hearing of the House Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Government bformatio~

Justice, and Agriculture. For the NLM view, see NL~ ‘‘Comments on the Twenty-Eighth Report by the Committee on Government Operations, ’ June

5, 1986; and “NLM Policy on Database Pricing,” December 1989.
30 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

operations.

41 Nonetheless, some vendors question

whether the online connect hour charges accurately

reflect identifiable government costs that vary as a

function of the level of use or number of subscribers.

Some users and vendors believe that it would be

better for agencies to provide information free of

charge or charge only the true marginal cost. This,

according to these vendors, would reduce or eliminate cost as a barrier to access, and presumably

eliminate concerns about fees in licensing agreements. NASA’s National Space Science Data Center

(NSSDC) operates largely without fees. NSSDC

disseminates computer tapes at no charge (if the

tapes are returned after copying) and allows limited

access to online databases, also at no charge, for

scientific or educational use by:

. NASA installations;

. NASA contractors and grantees;

. other Federal agencies, contractors, or grantees;

. colleges and universities;

● State or local governments; and

● not-for-profit organizations.

NSSDC charges other users the marginal cost of $45

per magnetic computer tape (or $25 if the user

supplies the tape) and direct processing costs for

larger amounts of online database use. Online users

pay their telecommunication charges, whether access is director over networks. NSSDC does not yet

have a policy for high-density storage media such as

CD-ROM.

NAL’s AGRICOLA currently recovers about

$60,000 per year of online revenues. At NLM, NTIS,

and other agency data centers (e.g., NOAA’s NGDC),

revenues based on average cost pricing (and licensing agreements) comprise a much larger part of their

operating budgets. The impact of changes in pricing

policy would vary widely among agencies. Detailed

financial analyses would be required to estimate

revenue shortfalls-and the necessary compensating

appropriation increases-under various pricing and

licensing scenarios. And even if price was not an

issue, some kind of agreements could be needed to

maintain quality control and protect the integrity of

agency databases. An agency has a valid interest in

assuring that quality standards are met, a stated

purpose of NLM’s licensing agreements (along with

cost recovery).

The de facto copyright of Federal information

through the transfer of patent rights or rights in

technical data from the Federal Government to

contractors, employees, or private parties (e.g.,

companies, universities) presents another problem.

Both Congress and the President have encouraged

closer collaboration between the government and

private sector to facilitate the commercialization of

technology developed by or for the Federal Government. The transfer of patent rights and rights in

technical data can encourage technology transfer,

but both might restrict access to Federal information.

High-tech companies and universities benefit from

this policy, but the information industry, librarians,

and the general public are concerned that access to

Federal STI could be impaired if the policy is carried

too far (see ch. 4 discussion).

Enhancing the Role of the Private Sector

The Federal Government can encourage the

private sector in several ways: First, the government

should ensure open and equitable access for those

who seek Federal information regardless of cost.

Second, the government is expected to assist the

library and educational institutions distribute Federal information through technology-enhanced dissemination. This will require rethinking the future

roles of libraries and schools in the information age,

including new arrangements with the government

and commercial sectors.42

Third, the commercial information industry expects the government to provide equitable, competitive conditions for contractors and vendors involved

in Federal information dissemination. The Securities

and Exchange Commission and Patent and Trademark Office have proposed ‘exchange agreements’

whereby private contractors would provide the

agencies with “free” automation services in return

for exclusive rights for redissemination of agency

information. These agreements were bitterly contested by Congress and the information industry as

anticompetitive and have since been modified or

AIFor a recent debate, S= R.C. Atlcinsou “A Question of bfomlation policy,” editorial, Science, vol. 246, Nov. 10, 1989, p. 733; and D.A.B.

Lindberg, “Information Policy,” letter to the editor, Science, vol. 246, Dec. 22, 1989, pp. 1547-1548.

Qsee OTA, Informing f& ZVation, op. cit., footnote 1, chs. 6 and 7; Association of Research Libraries, Technology and U.S. Government Znfo~fion

Policies: Cata/ystsfor New Partnerships (Washingto~ DC: October 1987); U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessmen~ Link”ng for Learning:

A New Course in Education, OTA-SET-430 (WaShi.ngtOU DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, November 1989); and U.S. Department of Educatio~

Office of Library programs, Rethinking the Library in the Information Age (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, October 1988).
Chapter 3-Reaching Consensus on Principles of Federal Scientific and Technical Information Dissemination . 31

Increased availability of Federal STI in

electronic formats should stimulate and

strengthen the private-sector role in STI

dissemination.

terminated. The industry insists that, when contractors disseminate Federal information, the agencies

should be obligated to provide the same information

on equal terms to any interested vendors.

The information industry is also sensitive to the

prospect of direct competition between Federal

agencies and commercial vendors. The industry now

recognizes the legitimacy of direct government

dissemination. The views of the Information Industry Association have changed from opposition to any

direct electronic dissemination by government, to

opposing agency dissemination of value-added but

not basic or raw government information. The

industry now supports a partnership or complementary relationship between government and industry.

For example, improvements in agency dissemination of STI could stimulate new opportunities for

private sector development of innovative STI products and services that cut across agency and disciplinary lines.

Some vendors now offer a variety of bulk rate,

off-peak, and discount products and services to

governmental and not-for-profit customers. The

industry opposes any copyright-like restrictions on

Federal agency information, and prefers that licensing or other agreements be offered on a nondiscriminatory basis to all competitors. The industry benefits

from obtaining Federal information in electronic

forms, since the cost of converting electronic information to commercial applications is typically less

than working from paper formats. It follows that if

the benefits of electronic formats are available to the

commercial sector, they should also be available to

the not-for-profit sector (e.g., libraries, universities,

and noncommercial companies such as OCLC, Inc.

and Reference Point, Inc.43).

Increased availability of Federal STI in electronic

formats should stimulate and strengthen the privatesector role in STI dissemination. This has been

shown to be true with online and compact optical

disk formats. Collection and creation of the Federal

STI databases and documents are paid for by the

taxpayers. The development cost of many of these

databases is beyond what most private organizations

could afford or would risk on such a venture. These

databases are a shared national resource. New

electronic technologies enable the Federal science

agencies to prepare and maintain these databases

and distribute them to the public-including the

private sector. Private vendors are thus assisted by

the government in their business of redisseminating,

repackaging, and enhancing Federal STI and converting it into marketable products and services.

Electronic Federal STI should also benefit commercial telecommunication companies.44 As electronic Federal STI is accepted by users and demand

for online services increases, the use of telecommunication gateway services should likewise increase.

Market stimulation should extend to the Bell operating companies, long distance telephone carriers,

commercial value-added networks, and also not-forprofit networks. The latter include the Online

Computer Library Center network, Research Libraries Information Network, Western Library Network,

and scientific networks such as Bitnet and NSFnet

(operated by Educom and the National Science

Foundation, respectively).

AsReference point has re~ntly initiated a project to develop a global environmental information network fOr the eXChange Of information on c~te

change, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and other global environmental challenges.

44For ~enm~ di~cus~iOn of tie U.S. com~catiom infras~c~e, s= us. Congress, Offi@ of Technology Assessment Crz”tical COll?lt?CtiO?lS.’

Communication for the Furure, OTA-CIT-407 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1990).
Chapter 4

Reaching Consensus on the Open Flow

and Governmentwide Dissemination of Federal STI

Open Flow of STI

The U.S. scientific and technical enterprise is

premised on the open exchange of STI. The basic

premise of openness has generally been modified

only in narrowly defined areas of STI relating to

national security. Recently several trends have

converged to raise questions about the need to

restrict the flow of Federal STI for other reasons.

First, the United States is no longer a leader in

many areas of science and technology. The U.S.

advantage that existed during the post-World War II

years, through the 1950s and 1960s, has evaporated.

Second, the global economy is more competitive,

with foreign countries and companies challenging

U.S. dominance in several economic sectors. Third,

the U.S. military industrial advantage is under

competitive pressure from foreign manufacturers.

Fourth, electronic technologies vastly speed up the

collection, storage, dissemination, and use of STI

and thus accelerate the rate of information transfer

within the global scientific and technical community.

Several efforts to restrict access to Federal STI for

economic or security reasons emerged in the 1980s.1

The Department of Defense (DoD) generally supports an open exchange of basic research information to promote scientific progress in defense

technology. However, some DoD agencies and

services (e.g., especially the Air Force and National

Security Agency (NSA)) favor restrictions on access

to applied research and technical information. This

led to proposals to give NSA the lead in ensuring

government computer security and to extend NSA’s

authority to so-called “sensitive but unclassified”

Federal information.2

“Sensitive but unclassified” was to include

unclassified information that becomes sensitive to

the national security when, for example, it is

aggregated in electronic form and available over

online databases. Opposition to this proposal by the

commercial information industry, academia, scientific and library associations, civil liberties groups,

and Congress led to enactment of the Computer

Security Act of 1987. This act assigned the National

Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST))--rather than

NSA—the lead role for civilian computer security,

and limited the role of DoD with regard to unclassified, civilian Federal information. Information industry and civil liberties representatives, among

others, are still concerned about the NSA role in

civilian information systems, and its potential to

interfere with the free flow of unclassified Federal

information.3

Congress seeks to ensure that the flow of scientific and technological information is equitable and

Isee U.S. Con=ess, Office of TechnoIo~ Assessment, Federal Government Information Technology: Ma~gement, SecuriV, and Congressioml

Oversight, OTA-CIT-297 (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, February 1986); Commercial Newsgathering From Space,

O’E4-TM-ISC-40 (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, May 1987); Marine Minerals: Exploring Our New Frontier, OTA-O-342

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, July 1987), esp. ch. 7 on “Federal Programs for Collecting and Managing Oceanographic Da@”

The Regulatory Environment of Science, OTA-TM-SET-34 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofllce, February 1986); International

Competition in Services, OTA-ITE-328 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, July 1987); Defending Secrets, Sharing Data,

O’C4-CIT-31O (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1987); Science, Technology, and the First Amendment, OTA-CIT-369

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1988); Holding the Edge: Maintaining the Defense Technology Base, O’L4-R3C420

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Offke, April 1989).

~.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment D#ending Secrets, op. cit., footnote 1, chs. 1, 6, and 7; also see W.R. Blades, “Controlling

Unclassii3ed Scient$lc and Technical InformatiorL” Information Management Review, vol. 2, No. 4, 1987, pp. 46-60.

Sfibfic ~W 1~235, the ~~computer sec~~ tit of 1987,” Jan. 8, 1988. Also See tes~ony of Ke~ethAlle~ Sefior Vice President hlfOITtMtiOll

Industry Association and Marc Rotenberg, Director, Washington Ofilce, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, before a May 4, 1989,

hearing of the House Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Legisiationand National Security. The House Committee on Government

Operations and industry and public-sector representatives are still not satisfied with the working relationship between NIST and NSA, and seek further

assurances that NIST-not NSA—will be in charge of civilian computer security.

–33-
34 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

Too much emphasis on short-term commercialization of technology and related

technical data could actually impair the

U.S. long-term competitive posture.

reciprocal among nations.

4 The Secretary of State is

directed to consider several factors in negotiating

international scientific agreements:5

●

●

●

●

●

scientific merit;

equity of access by U.S. public and private

entities to public (and publicly supported private) research and development (R&D) opportunities and facilities in each country which is

a major trading partner of the United States;

possible commercial or trade linkages with the

United States which may flow from the agreement or activity;

national security concerns; and

any other factors deemed appropriate.

The ‘‘Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation

Act of 1980”6 and the “Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986”7 are efforts to reinforce the U.S.

position in international competition by facilitating

the transfer of technology from Federal laboratories

to the private sector. These acts authorize Federal

laboratories to cooperate with other governmental

(Federal, State, local) entities and with the private

sector (including universities and commercial firms)

in R&D, and to license, transfer, or waive patent

rights resulting from cooperative R&D. However, if

exclusive rights in technical data are given by the

government to the private sector, this could result in

constraints on the dissemination of much unclassified Federal STI.

A 1987 executive order directs agencies to

transfer technical data by allowing Federal contractors and grantees to own rights in computer software,

engineering drawings, and technical data funded by

Federal contract or grant.8 This executive order and

other proposals by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy9 caused a vigorous debate over how to

transfer government-funded technology and still

preserve the public value of knowledge produced

with taxpayer money.

10 Agencies such as the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA) consider the

open exchange of technical information to be

fundamental to their research missions. A blanket

transfer of rights in technical data could impair

research in fields such as energy and space that

generate technologies that are valuable assets with

commercial potential. Too much emphasis on shortterm commercialization of technology and related

technical data could actually impair the U.S. longterm competitive posture.11

In many fields of science and technology, STI

developed by other countries is increasingly important. Policies that severely restrict public access to

unclassified Federal STI might encourage similar

restrictions by other countries and frustrate the

international exchange of STI. The thrust of DOE

policy in energy research is to increase—not decrease—

the equitable exchange of international energy STI.

The DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Infordsee, for exmple, H*C. Relye~ spiking A Balance: NatioMl Security and Scienhfi”c Freedom, Amefimn Assoctition for the Adv~cement ‘f

Science, Washingto~ DC, 1985; U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessmen4 Science, Technology, and the First Amendment, op. cit., footnote

1, ch. 4; and National Academy of Scienm, Panel on the Impact of Natioti Security Controls on International Technology Transfer, Balancing the

National Interest: U.S. National Security Export controls and GlobalEconomic Competition (Washingto~ DC: National Academy Press, 1987).

Sfiblic ~w 100418, tie “Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, ” Aug. 23, 1988, Part 11-Symmetrical Access to Technological

Research, sec. 5171 (a) and (d).

Gpublic bW 96-480, Oct. 21, 1980.

Tfibfic hw 99-502, Oct. 20, 1986.

BExe~tive Order 12591, Apr. 10, 1987.

%J.S. Office of Federal Procurement Policy, “Intellectual Property Rights Policy, ” draf~ February 1989.

IOFor discussion of propos~s t. es~bfish ad ~amfer cop@@t in Feder~ computer softwme, s= U.S. Gene~ tiowting OffIce, Technology

Transfer: Copyright L,uw Constrains Commercialization of Some Federal Software, GAO-RCED-90-145 (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting

Offke, May 1990), and testimony of James W. Cur~ OTA, and other witnesses before an Apr. 26, 1990, hearing of the House Committee on Science,

Research, and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology. For general discussion of computer-related intellectual property

issues, see U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment, Computer Software & Intellectual Property, OTA-BP-CIT-61 (Washingto~ DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, March 1990), and ZrttelZectual Property in an Age of Electronics and Information, OX4-CIT-302 (Washington DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, April 1986).

1 I see, for e~ple, the special issue, ‘‘Symposium on the Impact of Competitiveness, “ GovernmentInformation Quarterly, vol. 6, No. 1, 1989.
Chapter 4--Reaching Consensus on the Open Flow and Governmentwide Dissemination of Federal STI ● 35

mation manages the Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDE) under the auspices of the International Energy Agency. Canada, Denmark, Finland,

France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy,

Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden,

Switzerland, and the United Kingdom participate

along with the United States.12

Participating countries send summaries of energyrelated STI to DOE on a monthly or biweekly basis.

DOE transmits them to participating countries for

dissemination to their own researchers and policymakers. The ETDE includes about 7,500 biweekly

updated STI entries and over 2 million entries in the

retrospective file. The latter is available by online

commercial vendors to research organizations, universities, and libraries within the participating countries. Online usage is divided roughly as follows:

industry (71 percent); academia (15 percent); and

government (14 percent) .13

Numerous vendors sell or resell Federal STI

databases, or include significant Federal STI in more

comprehensive databases, to both domestic and

international customers. Reduced availability of

Federal STI to commercial vendors (and for that

matter, not-for-profit vendors as well), coupled with

reciprocal restrictions by other countries, would

reduce the utility and value of comprehensive,

subject-specific databases.

The challenge is to develop an STI dissemination

policy that:

1. encourages U.S. researchers to employ all

means, including electronic where appropri2.

3.

ate, to facilitate access to and use of domestic

and foreign STI; but at the same time

protects U.S. national security interests by

controlling access to classified or narrowly

defined militarily sensitive STI; and

encourages U.S. international competitiveness

through:

a. the open, reciprocal international exchange

of STI,

b.

c.

d.

domestic transfer of federally funded technology from the Federal Government to the

private sector where appropriate,

protection of private-sector proprietary

rights in technology and data (to the extent

non-Federal funds are used), and

domestic transfer of rights in technical data

developed by or for the Federal Government

(with Federal funding) to the private sector

in narrowly defined areas where the benefits

substantially outweigh the costs.14

Congress, the Office of Science and Technology

Policy (OSTP), and the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) must reconcile their philosophical

differences about the open flow of STI and provide

guidance to the agencies. A balance is needed. This

balancing should consider legislative proposals that

focus on the open, unrestricted flow of Federal

information 15 as well as legislation that would

transfer federally supported technology and information to the private sector.16 A balance must also

consider statutes that promote information access

lz~termtiO~Ener~Agen~y, E~ergy Techno/ogyData E~~hange, 1989Ann~ RepO~ ETDE/oA.sT (o~wdge, TN: us. Department of Energy,

Office of Scientiilc and Technical Information 1989); International Energy Age~cy, Introducing ETDE: An LEA Multilateral Information Program,

ETDE/OA-06-Rev. (Oak Ridge, TN: U.S. Department of Energy, Ofilce of Scientilc and Technical Information June 1989).

Wbid.

14FOr some proposed policy statements, see “Changing Federal Relationships in mtellecw proPertY,” February 1989 drafc provided to OTA by

CENDI, and “Policy Directions [in New Regulations on Patents and Copyrights],” May 1989 draft, provided to OTA by NASA.

15u.s. Conw~5, House, H.R. 2381, the “Information Policy Act of 1988, ” IOlst Cong., 1st sess., May 16, 1989; H.R. 3695, the “Paperwork

Reduction and Federal Information Resources Mamgement Act of 1989,’ IOlst Cong., 1st sess., Nov. 17, 1989; and S. 1742, the “FederalInformation

Resources Management Act of 1989,’ IOlst Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 6, 1989; also see U.S. Congress, House, H.R. 2773, the “Freedom of Information

Public Improvements Act of 1989,” IOlst Cong., 1st sess., June 28, 1989, that would redefine government records for FOIA purposes to cover all

“computerized, digitized and electronic information. ’

16see u+so cowe5S, semte, s, 550, the ‘ ‘Department of Energy National Laboratory Cooperative Research and Technology Competitiveness Act

of 1989, ” IOlst Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 9, 1989, as amended Aug. 4, 1989, and included as the “Department of Energy National Competitiveness

Technology Transfer Act of 1989,” in Title ~, Part C of S. 1352, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991,” Aug.

4, 1989. Also see U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Armed Services, National Dtfense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, Report

No. 101-81, IOlst Cong., 1st SCSS. (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 19, 1989); and U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Energy

and Natural Resources, Department of Energy National Laboratory Cooperative Research and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1989, Report No.

101-108, IOlst Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oftlce, Aug. 4, 1989).
36 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

(such as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)17)

and those statutes that tend to limit access.

The Defense Authorization Act of 1984 authorizes DoD to withhold certain unclassified but

militarily sensitive and export-controlled scientific

and technical information developed by or for DoD

that would otherwise be accessible under FOIA.l8

NASA sought similar authority to withhold technical information about NASA-funded technologies.

NASA policies also limit the dissemination of

technical information to U.S. industry only, if it is

likely to give the United States a competitive edge

in commercializing NASA technology. But this

information is currently available through FOIA

requests, thus undermining NASA’s policy. NASA

has therefore sought to establish ‘‘significant potential for commercial use’ as a statutory basis for

FOIA exemption.19

A 1988 FOIA proposal supported by the Office of

Science and Technology Policy and U.S. Department of Justice would have provided exemption for

any STI that: 1) ‘‘was generated in a laboratory. . owned and operated, in whole or in part, by

the Federal Government”; 2) “has commercial

value’; and 3) if disclosed under FOIA, “could be

reasonably expected to cause harm to the economic

competitiveness of the U.S.”20 This proposal was

controversial and was challenged on several

grounds, including:21

. the need for such a blanket exemption has not

been established, since only a very small

percentage of STI is commercially sensitive;

● such an exemption could set a dangerous

precedent for undermining FOIA in other

subject areas and by other kinds of agencies;

and

● an exemption could encourage reciprocal actions by other countries that would undermine

the international exchange of STI and hurt the

U.S. R&D effort in the longer term.

In reviewing Federal policy, Congress needs to

take into account the changing economic realities.

The globalization of the economy means that an

increasing percentage of U.S. domestic R&D companies operate under foreign ownership, just as

many U.S. corporations now have their own foreign

subsidiaries. Most of the largest U.S. companies

operate globally, with research, manufacturing, and

marketing distributed over many countries. Similar

trends are evident in the commercial information

sector, to the point where one cannot assume that a

U.S. information vendor operates under domestic

rather than foreign ownership, and vice versa. Under

these conditions, the old approaches to controlling

information access do not work.

Role of Governmentwide Dissemination and

Archival Agencies in STI

As information changes from paper (and to a

lesser extent microfiche) to electronic formats, the

roles of the agencies with governmentwide dissemination and archival responsibilities require reconsideration. This is especially true for scientific and

technical information, much of which is in digital

form and may only be usable in electronic formats.

The major governmentwide agencies are: the

Government Printing Office (GPO), responsible for

printing, sales of selected documents by the SuperinITFora de~{ed discussion of issues concerning an electronic FOIA, see J. Grodsky, “The Freedom of Information Act iII an Elec@otic Age,’ ~U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment Informing the Nation: Federal Information Dissen”nation in an Electronic Age, OTA-CIT-396

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1988), pp. 207-236; also see Jerry J. Berrna~ “The Right to Know: Public Access to

Electronic Information%” in P.R. Newberg (cd.), New Directions in Telecommunications Policy, vol. 2, Information Policy and Econom”c Policy

(Dur@ NC: Duke University Press, 1989), pp. 39-69; H.H. Perritt, Jr., Electronic Acquisition and Release of Federal Agency Information, Report

to the Administrative Conference of the United States, Oct. 1, 1988 (also see the related article by H.H. Pernt~ Jr., in Adm”nistran”ve Law Review, vol.

41, 1989, pp. 253 ff.); and Thomas L. Susm~ Chairma~ American Bar Association Committee on Government Information and Privacy, “kcess

to Electronic Information Under the Freedom of Information Act,” draft report, Feb. 28, 1989. Also see statements of Ronald Plesser, Esq., Piper c%

Marbury, and Patti A. GoldmarL Esq., Public Citize~ Inc., before a July 11, 1989, hearing of the House Committee on Government Operations,

Subcommittee on Government InformatiorL Justice, and Agriculture.

18u.s. congress, Public Law 98-94, “Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1984,” Sept. 24, 1983; also see W.R. Blades, “Controlling

Unclassified Inforrnatio%” op. cit., footnote 2.

19see s~tement of Keme~ S. pederso~ Associate Atis@ator for Exter~ Relations, U.S. Natio@ Aemmutics ad spa= Amsm&ioq before

a hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on International Scientific Cooperation July 19, 1989.

~u.s. Dep~rnent of Justice, Oftlce of Legal Policy, Offke of Information and Mvacy, “New FOIA Legislation proposed to Promote U.S.

Competitiveness,” FOIA Uphte, vol. IX, No. 1, Winter 1988, pp. 1-2.

ZISee U.S. Cowess, Semte, Committee on tie Judic@, Subcommittee on Tec~ology and tie hw, l~fo~tio?l Policy and CO~p6?fiti”V6?71e’SS,

Hearing, IOOth Cong., 2d sess. (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, Mar. 16, 1989).
Chapter 4--Reaching Consensus on the Open Flow and Governmentwide Dissemination of Federal STI ● 37

The question is how to preserve and

strengthen the ability of the governmentwide agencies to carry out their functions in a decentralized electronic environment.

tendent of Documents (SupDocs), and distribution

of documents through the Depository Library Program (DLP); the National Technical Information

Service (NTIS), the clearinghouse and sales outlet

for technical documents; and the National Archives

and Records Administration (NARA), concerned

with archiving and long-term preservation of documents. 22

Decentralized Nature of STI

It is clear that the creation, storage, and dissemination of STI is decentralized within the science

agencies. This is because:

1.

2.

3.

4.

STI is voluminous, and agencies have difficulty in managing their own information base,

much less another agency’s data;

centralizing all STI in one databank is neither

cost-effective nor technically feasible at this

time;

technical systems for creating, storing, and

disseminating STI are typically closely tied to

agency automation programs;

centralizing STI dissemination, even if technically feasible, could slow innovation and limit

5.

6.

7.

opportunities for improving efficiency in the

agencies;

the diversity of STI needs and users among the

Federal science agencies includes many varied

disciplines and research areas;

the decentralized approach brings agency STI

officials and the scientists and researchers who

create and use the STI closer together; and

the economies-of-scale for electronic formats

are achieved at lower levels of demand than for

ink-on-paper printing.

Several agencies have data centers that are

responsible for collecting, archiving, and disseminating databases, and much of these data are already

in electronic formats. The major centers include: the

National Space Science Data Center, National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanographic Data

Center, National Geophysical Data Center, Earth

Science Information Center, and Earth Resources

Observation Systems Data Center. Several of the

science agencies have their own central STI office

(e.g., at NASA and DOE23) for STI documents and

bibliographies, and most have infrastructure for

handling STI, though it varies among the agencies

(e.g., in terms of resources, staffing, visibility).

The question is how to preserve and strengthen

the ability of the governmentwide agencies to carry

out their functions in a decentralized electronic

environment. Alternatives were considered by OTA 24 by various congressional in Informing the Nation,

committees in hearings on NTIS, GPO, and the

DLP,25 and at a NARA conference on electronic

recordkeeping. 26

22~e ~plicatiom of ~lec~o~c ~omtion for GpO, SupDOcs, DLp, and ~Sme discuss~ in U.S. Confyess, O&Ice of Technology Assessmen4

Inforn”ng the Nation, op. cit., foomote 17, see esp. chs. 4-7, and 12. The implications for NARA are considered in National Academy of Public

Administmtiou The Eflects of Electromc Recordkeeping on the Historical Record of the U.S. Government (Washingto~ DC: National Archives and

Records Administration January 1989).

Zsee Natio~l Aero*utics and Space Adminis~tio~ The NASA Scientific and Technical Information System ati How to Use It) NASA Sp-7073*

Washingto~ DC, 1989; and Department of Energy, The Role of the Ofi”ce of scientific und Technical Information in DOE’S scient.ijic and Technical

Information Program, November 1988.

~u.s. Con=ess, Ofilce of Technology Assessment, Informing the Nation, op. cit., foomote 17.

~See, for exmple, U.S. ConHess, House, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Scienm, Rese~L and ‘eckologY~

National Technical Information Service, Hearing, looth Cong., 2d sess., U.S. Government Printing OffIce, Washingto@ DC, Feb. 24, 1988; U.S.

Congress, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, NatiomzlBureau of Standards Authorization ActforFiscaZ Year 1989, Report 100-673,

Part 1, looth Cong., 2d sess., U.S. Government Printing Office, wmhingto~ DC, June 3, 1988; U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Energy and

Commerce, National Bureau of Standards Authon”zation Actfor Fiscal Year 1989, Report 100-673, Part 2, IOOth Cong., 2d sess., U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washingto~ DC, July 8, 1988; I.J.S. Congress, House, Committee on Administratio~ Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing,

hearings on “Review of the Printing Chapters of Title 44 of the U.S. Code Due to the Changes in Electronic Information Format, Distribution, and

Technology During the Last Decade, ’ May 23-24 and June 28-29, 1989; U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee

on Government InformatiorL Justice, and Agriculture, hearings on ‘‘Federal Information Disse mination Policies and Practices, ” Apr. 18, May 23, and

July 11, 1989.

zbNatio@ Archives and Records Administration “Electronic Records: A Strategic Plan for the 1990s, ” Conference Summary and

Recommendations, June 21-23, 1989, see especially the recommendations of the working group on information collection and dissemination.
38 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

Under the OTA scenario, the Federal science

agencies retain primary responsibility for the storage

dissemination of STI collected by each agency.

science agencies would be governed by:

their enabling statutes regarding STI;

OSTP guidance provided under the National

Science and Technology Policy, Organization,

and Priorities Act of 1976, as possibly amended

to give further congressional direction on STI

policy;

OMB guidance promulgated under the Paperwork Reduction Act (ch. 35 of Title 44 of the

U.S. Code, as possibly further amended to

provide congressional statutory direction on

overall dissemination policy27);

GPO (and Joint Committee on Printing) guidance under the printing chapters of Title 44, as

possibly amended,28 to ensure that the integrity

of the GPO printing procurement program,

SupDocs sales program, and DLP is maintained;

NTIS guidance promulgated under the “National Technical Information Service Act of

1988”29 to ensure that the integrity of the NTIS

clearinghouse is maintained; and

NARA guidance promulgated under the archival chapters of Title 44, as possibly amended,

to ensure long-term preservation and access to

STI.

scenario is predicated on the assumption that

OMB, GPO, NTIS, and NARA guidance would be

generally consistent and compatible.

Roles of Science Agencies, NTIS, and GPO

One possible division of effort between the

mission agencies and governmentwide agencies is

outlined below using a hypothetical example of an

electronic product—hydrology information of the

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (e.g., trends in

stream flows and reservoir and lake levels) issued on

CD-ROM:

. USGS would notify GPO, NTIS, and NARA in

advance of production and supply product

information (e.g., size of the hydrology data-

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

base, type of search-and-retieval software,

estimated cost and demand).

GPO would decide whether the CD-ROM

should be included in the SupDocs sales

program, based on an estimate of demand

beyond that being met by USGS direct sales.

USGS could opt to use SupDocs as the primary

sales outlet if the CD-ROM qualified.

GPO also would determine whether the CDROM should be offered to depository libraries,

and if so, how many libraries desired a copy of

the CD-ROM.

NTIS would decide whether the CD-ROM

should be included in the NTIS clearinghouse

and sales program.

GPO and NTIS would, on a coordinated basis,

make sure that the CD-ROM is cataloged and

listed in appropriate governmentwide directories and bibliographic databases—whether or

not it is sold by GPO and/or NTIS.30

NARA would review the CD-ROM to determine long-term archival needs.

GPO and NTIS would, again on a coordinated

basis, advise USGS of their need for copies of

the CD-ROM (to meet estimated SupDocs

sales, depository library distribution, and NTIS

sales needs).

USGS would obtain CD-ROM production services in the manner that best meets its cost,

quality, and turnaround requirements. This

could be through an agency contractor, GPO

contractor, GPO itself (if an inhouse service is

offered), or NTIS contractor (if NTIS offers

CD-ROM services).

Wherever the USGS CD-ROM is produced,

GPO and NTIS would ride the order for the

number of additional copies required.

This example could apply to all offline electronic

products, including optical disks, magnetic tapes

and cassettes, and diskettes (hard and floppy). The

large online electronic STI databases would be

maintained by the agency data centers. But online

directories and possibly subsets of data might be

handled similarly to the CD-ROM illustration above.

Some directories also could be disseminated on

CD-ROM or other offline electronic formats.

zTSee H.R. 3695, op. cit., footnote 15; S. 1742, op. Cit., fOOtiOte 15-

~See H,R. 3849, tie “GoverHent Printing office hnprovaent Ad of 1990,” IOlst Cong., 2d sess., Jan. 23, 1990.

29see us. ConWess, ~bli~ ~w 100-519, Subtitle B__Natio~ Tec~~cal Ifiormation Swice, codified at 15 U.S.C. 3701 et. SW.

~See discussion of ST’I directories h ch. 5.
Chapter 4--Reaching Consensus on the Open Flow and Governmentwide Dissemination of Federal STI ● 39

The future of NTIS and GPO will be influenced by

the increasingly decentralized, competitive environment of the electronic information marketplace.

Federal science agencies are rapidly installing electronic systems for their activities, including the

collection, processing, and dissemination of STI

(see the appendix for illustrations). NTIS and GPO

will have to adapt to the reality that technology has

changed and sometimes eliminated the distinctions

between reports, publications, databases, and the

like, and has blurred the distinctions between their

roles and those of the agencies.

Most Federal STI will likely exist in electronic

form as computerized electronic databases. Users

will have a wide assortment of formats available,

from printed reports to online information retrieval,

printing-on-demand, and compact optical disk. NTIS

and GPO will have to become more flexible,

adaptive, creative, competitive, and user-oriented

than they currently are.31 Many users may continue

to prefer the convenience of “one-stop’ information shopping at NTIS or GPO, especially for

hard-to-find documents (or their electronic equivalents). But the governmentwide dissemination programs will need to complement, not preempt,

individual agency activities.

GPO and NTIS appear to be philosophically

accepting this reality. The former Acting Public

Printer has stated GPO’s preference for the “Electronic GPO-Decentralized" approach.

32 In this

scheme, GPO would continue its centralized conventional printing functions, but would aggressively

plan for and implement electronic printing and

dissemination services, working through a decentralized Federal electronic information environment.33 Centralized conventional ink-on-paper printing would continue, with about three-quarters of all

Federal printing done by or through GPO (although

three-fourths of this is contracted out by GPO to

commercial printing companies), and the rest at

authorized agency printing plants. Decentralized

agency electronic information dissemination would

continue, with GPO offering a variety of electronic

services to the agencies, but on a competitive,

discretionary basis (in contrast to conventional

ink-on-paper printing where GPO services must be

used, unless an explicit exemption or exception is

granted). 34

The NTIS Director and Deputy Director have

stated their commitment in principle to the ‘ ‘Electronic NTIS’ alternative.

35 After years of declining

demand for paper and microfiche products and the

debate over privatization, Congress has directed

NTIS to modernize. NTIS has developed a preliminary plan to increase its use of electronic formats,

including CD-ROM, electronic bulletin boards, and,

ultimately, an electronic document system that

could accept electronic input from the source

agencies and support electronic printing-ondemand. To be successful, NTIS will need to reduce

per-unit costs, decrease the time delays between

existence of a document and its availability

the

via

slFor ~er discussion, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessmen~ Znfor?mng the Nation, Op. cit., foo~ote 17, ch. 12.

32u.s. con=eS5, office of Technology Assessmen~ ~nforming the Nation, op. cit., foomote 17, ch. 4. Also see F.B. WOod, “Tifle 44 and Feder~

Information Dissemination-A Technology and Policy Challenge for Congress: A Viewpoint, ” Government Publications Review, vol. 17, 1990, pp.

1-5.

33see statement of Joseph E. Jenifer, Ac~g ~bfic ~tm, Gove~ent printing office, before a May 23, 1989, hearing and statement of Samuel

B. Scaggs, Assistant Public Printer, Operations and prwuremen~ Government Printing Oftlce before a June 29, 1989, hearing, Committee on House

Administration Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing. Also see statements of Joseph E. Jenifer, Acting Public Printer, before a Feb. 7, 1989,

hearing of the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the I.@slative Branch, a July 11, 1989, hearing of the House Committee on

Government Operations, Subcommittee on Government Informatio~ Justice, and Agriculture, and a Mar. 7, 1990, hearing of the Committee on House

AdministratiorL Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing. The new Public Printer stated a position on some of these issues before an Apr. 6, 1990,

hearing of the Semte Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch. For other views and general discussion see U.S. Congress,

House, Committee on House Administratio~ Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing, Title 44 U.S. C.-Review, Hearings, IOlst Cong., 1st sess.,

May23, 24, and June 28,29,1989 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989); statements of Fred B. Wood, OTA, before May 23,1989,

and Mar. 7, 1990, hearings of the Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing; and OTA comments on S. 1742,

the “Federal Information Resources Management Act of 1989, ” prepared for a Feb. 21-22, 1990, hearing of the Senate Committee on Governmental

Affairs.

~~s genm~ approach is co~istent ~th tit of Othm coutries Such as New Zealand and Camda. See Canadian comm~cations SerVi@S

Directorate, “Electronic Publishing Information Center, ” Electronic Publishing Bulletin, October 1989.

35u.s. Conwess, ofilce of Teckology Assessment, Znforw”ng the Nation, op. cit , foomote 17, chs. 5 and 12.
40 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

NTIS, and increase user awareness of NTIS services. 36

Beyond this, NTIS must develop a clear strategic

vision of its future, and a realistic, detailed implementation plan for getting there. During the 1980s,

user demand for paper and microfiche documents in

the basic NTIS archive steadily dropped; agency

cooperation in providing documents to NTIS also

declined. NTIS sales of electronic formats-the one

bright spot—are likely to feel increasing pressure

from agency, private sector, and GPO competition.37

Roles of NARA and DLP

The roles of NARA and the DLP deserve special

attention. NARA might find that agency data centers

can efficiently archive STI databases, releasing

NARA from the need to retain physical control.

Even if an agency or data center serves as the

archive, NARA would help ensure that the system is

cost-effective and meets data and technical standards (e.g., regarding longevity of storage media,

conversion from one storage medium to another, and

portability among different media and equipment).

NARA could also assist the data centers in determining what should and should not be retained inhouse,

with permanent STI archives retained by NARA.

NARA needs to develop clear and workable agreements with the science agencies, and with NTIS and

the Library of Congress (LOC), to ensure that

archivable STI does not fall through the cracks.

Machine-readable materials are included within

the legal definition of “record.”38 NARA has

initiated a program for archiving electronic records

that is now being extended to Federal STI. Permanent electronic records identified by NARA include,

for example:39

●

●

●

unique and important scientific and technical

data resulting from observations of natural

events or phenomena or from controlled laboratory or field experiments;

natural resources data related to land, water,

minerals, or wildlife; and

geographic data used to map the surface of the

earth.

NARA will need to assess the vast store of geographic, space, and earth sciences data with respect

to archival needs and requirements-a task that

becomes even more challenging with the rapid

evolution of electronic storage and retrieval technologies and the poor condition of current data archives.

Technological change means that large amounts of

archived STI will be inaccessible and/or unusable to

future generations of researchers unless standard

information formats are developed and mandated.

The long-term utility of STI requires that today’s

data and documents be retrievable with tomorrow’s

technologies. 40

As for the Depository Library Program, there

appears to be a consensus that electronic formats

should be included, although there are differences of

opinion over implementation. For several years now,

the congressional Joint Committee on Printing

(JCP), Depository Library Council, and the major

library associations have argued that, as the Federal

Government makes increasing use of electronic

information, the DLP must also include electronic

information, lest the integrity of the program be

qGSee Natio~ Tectic~ reformation Service, bud Report to the Congress from the Secretary of Commerce, The National Technicalhformation

Service: Operations, Audit, andModernization, January 1989; also see U.S. Congrvss, OffIce of Technology Assessmen4 Informing the Nation, op. cit.,

footnote 17, chs. 5 and 12; C.R. McClure, P. Hemo~ and G.R. Purcell, Li&ing the U.S. Natio~l TeChnieallnfowrion service With Acadernk and

Public Libraries (NorWood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1986). .MSO see Statement of Joseph F. Caponio, Director, National Technical Information

Service, before a July 13, 1989, hearing of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.

JTForfurthertiscussio~ see the statements of Fred B. Wood, OTA, Harold B. Shill, West Virginia University, and Jean Mayhew, United T~~o1o~M

Corp., before a Mar. 8,1990, hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology.

Also see C.F. McClure, “The Future of the National Technical Information Service: Issues and Options,” Jan. 20, 1990, contzactorpaper prepared for

OTA. For background discussion of the NTIS privatization debate, see F.B. Wood, ‘‘Proposals for Privatization of the National Technical Information

Service: A Viewpoint, ’ Government PubIicationsReview, vol. 15, 1988, pp. 403-409 (which is based on testimony presented at aFeb. 24, 1988, hearing

of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Researc~ and Technology).

3844 USC. 3301.

3~.s. Natio~ ~c~ves and R=ords Adminis@atio~ ‘cManaging EIwtrOnic Records: An rns~ctio~ Guide, ” draft, no &te, pp. 15-17; alSO See

Michael L. Miller, ‘‘Appraisal and Disposition of Electronic Records, ” National Archives and Records Administration March 1988 draft; and June 13,

1989, cooperative agreement between NARA and NOAA.

40~e U.S. Gener~ ~cou~g Office is conduc~g audits of tie ~jor data al-c~ves maintain~ by Fede~ science agencies. See U.S Government

Accounting Office, Space Operations: NASA Is Not Properly Safeguarding Valuable Data From Past Missions, Report to the Chairm@ Committee

on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, IMTEC-90- 1 (Washingto~ DC: GAO, March 1990). Subsequent reports will address

NOAA and USGS data archives.
Chapter 4--Reaching Consensus on the Open Flow and Governmentwide Dissemination of Federal STI ● 41

The long-term utility of STI requires

that today’s data and documents be

retrievable with tomorrow’s technologies.

eroded. 41 In May 1989, GPO’s General Counsel

ruled that it has legal authority to distribute agency

publications in electronic format to depository

libraries, thereby clarifying a 1982 opinion that was

widely interpreted as limiting the DLP to traditional

(paper and microfiche) formats.42 This apparently

ended a long conflict between GPO and the JCP

about whether the depository library provisions of

Title 44 apply to government publications regardless

of format.43

The differences between the JCP, OMB, and

Information Industry Association (IIA) appear to

have narrowed. OMB supports the voluntary participation of agencies in DLP electronic dissemination,

and is willing to consider requiring that some agency

electronic information products be provided to

depository libraries.44 The IIA now supports the

inclusion of some electronic formats in the DLP, but

with reservations about online dissemination and

financing, and suggests testing alternative mechanisms such as vouchers, bulk rate and off-peak

contracts, user charges, and cost-sharing.45 In Congress, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on

the Legislative Branch has supported distribution of

CD-ROMs to depository libraries, and maybe open

to distributing other electronic formats, including

online services, although questions of cost, demand,

technical feasibility, and administrative responsibility have not been resolved.% These questions,

among others, are being addressed through the DLP

electronic pilot projects now being implemented.47

Two of the DLP pilot projects cover Federal STI.

The frost involves the distribution of the Environmental Protection Agency’s ‘‘Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)” to depository libraries. TRI includes

details on the location, storage, emissions, and waste

treatment and transfer for over 300 toxic chemicals.

EPA is disseminating TRI to the public online via

the National Library of Medicine computer center,

in magnetic tape format via the NTIS and GPO sales

programs, and in computer output microfiche and

CD-ROM formats through selected libraries, including all 1,400 depository libraries.% The second

dlsee s~tements of D. ~ye (hpeq Dean of Libraries, University of Wisconsin (on behalf of the Association of Research Libties), Wd s~~

McAnich, Head, Government Documents, University of Kentucky Libraries (on behalf of the Government Documents Roundtable, American Library

Association), beforea May24, 1989 hearin gof the House Administration Committee, Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing. Also see the statement

of D. Kaye Gape~ on behalf of the American Library Association and Association of Research Libraries, before a Feb. 7, 1989, hearing of the House

Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch.

q2Memor~dum from GPO General Counsel to Acting Public printer, ‘‘GPO Dissemination of Federal Agency Publications in Electronic Format”

hfily 22, 1989.

d3See US, ConWess, Joht committee on Mting, provision of Federal Government Publications in Electronic Format to Depositoq Libran”es,

Report of the Ad H OC Committee on Depository Library Access to Federal Automated Databases (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing Offke,

1984); U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, An Open Forum on the Provision of Electronic Federal Information to Deposito~ Libraries, 99th

Cong., 1st sess. (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, 1985); Joint Committee on Printing resolutions of Apr. 8, 1987, June 17, 1987,

and June 29, 1988 regarding GPO, depository libraries, and electronic formats; and letter from Honorable Frank Annunzio, chairman, Joint Committee

on Printing, to Honorable Ralph E. Kennickell, Jr., Public Printer, Mar. 25, 1988.

~see Office of Management and Budget, “Second Advance Notice of Further Policy Development on Dissemination of hformatiom’ Federal

Register, vol. 54, No. 114, June 15, 1989, pp. 25554-25559.

45See s~tement of Kenneth B. A~e~ Setior Vice president, Gover~ent Relations, ~o~tion kdustry Association@ accompanied by Peyton R.

Neal, Jr., Chair, IIAGovernment Printing Office Committee, before a May 24, 1989, hearing of the House Committee on Administratio~ Subcommittee

onl%ocurement and Printing. Also see a somewhat more critical statement of Paul P. Massa, President Congressional Information Services, Inc., before

a July 13, 1989, hearing of the NationaI Commission on Libraries and reformation Science. One private vendor, Legi-Slate, Inc., has offered to provide

electronic online dissemination of selected congressional information to depository libraries at bulk rate discounted prices, based in part on the results

of a successfd 5 1/2 month pilot test with 51 depository libraries. The same concept could be used by other vendors with respect to other types of Federal

information, including S’Il. See L@-Slate, “Pilot Project Evaluation Prelimimry Summary, “ Jan. 8, 1989.

46U+S. Conwess, co~tt= OnApprop~tions, ~giS/afiveApprOpriatiOnS Bill, 1989, Report to accompany H.R< 4487, Report No. 1(X3-621, IOOth

Cong., 2d sess., 1988. Also see statement of Honorable Viz Fazio, CMrmarL House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Ix@lative

Branch, before a June 28, 1989, hearing of the House Committee on AdministratioIu Subcommittee on Printing and Procurement.

47~e U.S0 Gener~Accom@ Offlce is ~nduc~g ~ev~~tionof ~erese~ch me~odology of the el~tronic pflotprojects. s~ May 8, 1989, letter

from Donald E. Fossedal, Assistant Public Printer, U.S. Government Printing OffIce, to Richard Fogel, Assistant Comptroller General, U.S. General

Accounting Office.

~s~tement of ~wwd J. ~ey, Director, Office of ~o~tion Resources M~gement, U.S. ~nvironmen~ Protection Agency, before a hearing

of the Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice, and Agriculture, House Committee on Government Operations, Apr. 18, 1989.
42 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

project involves the U.S. Department of “Energy

Data Base” (EDB). DOE has proposed to provide

depository libraries with online access to the EDB.49

(See the appendix for further discussion of the EDB

pilot project.)

In addition, GPO is seeking suggestions from

private vendors on how they might participate in

electronic dissemination to depository libraries.

Industry interest appears to be high. Finally, Federal

agencies also seem generally supportive of an

electronic role for the DLP, but have unanswered

questions and concerns about selection procedures,

financing, and user support for electronic format

items included in the DLP.50

The remaining DLP issues concern cost and

financing, especially for online dissemination. CDROM and offline formats are gaining acceptance as

cost-effective alternatives to paper and microfiche.

It is likely that most depository libraries would select

only a relatively small portion of total Federal

STI—as is the case with Federal information in

general—and would more typically refer users to

STI data centers and existing archives. This would

require that depository libraries have efficient access

to directories, indices, and bibliographies of the

Federal STI, rather than to the STI itself.

Alternatively, a small number of depository

libraries could be designated as STI depositories.

These libraries would include a large amount of STI

in their collections, and would serve as a shared

resource for local and regional libraries. STI depositories could be strategically located in areas of

concentrated scientific and technical activity where

the local community is committed to building its

R&D base. STI depositories would have to have the

technical capabilities to use all electronic formats—

online, CD-ROM, and diskette. This possibility

could be explored in depth as part of an overall

reexamination of the DLP.

Funds for STI dissemination at depositories could

come from several sources, with a portion funded

through the DLP direct appropriation, a portion by

the Federal science agencies (e.g., for free copies of

selected agency CD-ROMs and fee reductions or

waivers for online access to selected agency databases), a portion by the depository libraries (e.g., for

microcomputers, CD-ROM readers, and modems),

and apart by the library users (e.g., for telecommunication line charges). The libraries could have discretion over how the appropriated funds are spent. For

example, libraries could be issued vouchers for

access to online STI bibliographic databases. These

funds could be expended on a mix of government,

commercial, and not-for-profit databases, depending

on user needs. Vouchers might also be used for

library purchase of equipment needed to support

electronic dissemination, and for subsidy of telecommunication or electronic printing charges incurred by students or others with limited means.51

Overall, an estimated 9 to 10 million persons use

depository libraries each year. Academic libraries

represent about 55 percent of all depository libraries.

Students and faculty account for 85 percent of

academic library users. Students and professional,

technical, and managerial persons together represent

about 77 percent of public depository library users .52

Thus, depository users are likely to be a ready

market for Federal STI in electronic formats, and

open to technical and institutional innovation in

information dissemination. The electronic pilot projects will shed more light on this prospect.53

@I-J.s. con~~ss, Joint Committee on mting, ‘‘Dissemination of Information in Electronic Format to Federal Depository Libraries: Proposed Project

Descriptions, ” June 1988.

~See s~tement of Fo~est B. Williams, Branch Chief, Data User Services Divisio@ U.S. Bureau of the Census, before a July 13, 1989, he~g of

the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.

51Represen~tives of library associations are concerned about proposals for sharing costs of online or other ekC@OniC diSSeti@n. DepOSitOv

libraries already spend several dollars (in building, equipmen~ and staff costs) for every doUar spent by the Federal Government on documents, and

oppose shifting more costs of dissemination to the libraries. See statements of Cheryl Rae Nyberg, American Association of Law Libraries, Merrily

Taylor, Association of Research Libraries, and Katherine. Mawdsley, American Library Associatio~ before a Mar. 8, 1990, hearing of the Committee

on House Administration% Subcommittee on Procurement and Printing.

52c.R. Mccl~e and P. HerrlOL users OfAcadem”C muiPubk GPO Depository Libraries (Washington DC: U.S. Government ~ting offi~. 1989).

SFor tier discussion of deposito~ librq ~te~tives, See U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessmen6 lnfo~”ng the Nation, oP. cit.?

foomote 17, ch. 7; and Association of Research Libraries, Technology and U.S. Government Information Policies: Catalysts for New Partnerships

(Washington, DC: October 1987). Also see statements of D. Kaye Gapen before the House Committee on Administration and House Committee on

Government Operations, op. cit., foomote 41; and statements of Vicki W. Phillips, Chair, Depository Library Council to the Public Printer, Patricia Glass

Schuma% presiden~ Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc. (on behalf of the American Library Assoeiation), and Bruce M. Kennedy, Head, Reference

Departmen4 Georgetown University Law Center (on behalf of the American Association of Law Libraries) before a July 13, 1989, hearing of the National

Commission on Libraries and Information Science.
Chapter 5

Framework for a Presidential Initiative on

Scientific and Technical Information

An important part of a strategy for scientific and

technical information (STI) is leadership-leadership

from the science and technology community, Congress, Federal science agencies, and the Executive

Office of the President, including the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Leadership

is necessary to reach a workable consensus on the

outstanding issues of STI dissemination and access

discussed in chapters 3 and 4. Leadership is needed

to improve interagency coordination and agency

organization for STI. How can this leadership be

provided? The key is presidential leadership on STI.

This

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

can be done in several ways:

strengthen the OSTP role;

establish an OSTP advisory committee and an

interagency coordinating committee on Federal STI;

redefine OSTP-OMB working relationships

regarding STI;

upgrade STI dissemination functions within

agency R&D and Information Resources Management programs;

develop technical standards and directories for

STI dissemination;

launch an STI education initiative; and

improve international STI exchange programs.

Strengthening the OSTP Role

Congress intended that OSTP be the focal point

for STI leadership in the executive branch, and that

the OSTP Director (who serves as the President’s

Science Advisor) designate STI as a priority concern

of OSTP.l The “National Science and Technology

Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976,”2

OSTP’s organic statute, addresses STI in the declaration of congressional policy. Congress was concerned that STI had received little attention.3 The

Act recognizes that ‘‘effective management and

dissemination of scientific and technological information’ is part of the U.S. science and technology

base. It states that “Federal departments, agencies,

and instrumentalities should establish procedures to

ensure among them the systematic interchange of

scientific data and technological findings developed

under their programs. ‘‘4 The legislative intent was to

include STI in the OSTP mission implicitly.5 STI is

mentioned in the charter of a President’s Committee

on Science and Technology that was to consider,

among other things, “improvements in existing

systems for handling scientific and technical information on a governmentwide basis, including consideration of the appropriate role to be played by the

private sector in the dissemination of such informaIFO~ ~ ~SwSSiO~ of legislative ~~tow and ~ptiom, see U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Science and Technology, Su&OmIU.ittee On SCienCe,

Research, and Technology, Optimizing the Value of U.S. Scient@c and Technical Information: Legislative Options, report prepared by the Congressional

Research Service (Washingto~ DC: October 1978). For general discussion of science advice in the White House, see W.G. Wells, Jr., “Science Advice

and the Preidency, 1933- 1976,” dissertation School of Government and Business Administration The George Washington University, Washington

DC, 1977; W.T Golden (cd.), Science Advice to the President (New York: Pergamon Press, 1980); W.T Golden (cd.), Science and Technology Advice

to the President, Congress, and Judiciary (New York: Pergamon Press, 1988); G.J. Knezo, “Suggestions for Collection of Archival Information

Pertaining to Presidential Science Advisory Bodies Before 1976,” memorandm Congressional Research Service, Nov. 15, 1989; and statements of

Fred B. Wood, OTA; Joseph G. Coyne, U.S. Department of Energy; and Charles R. McClure, Syracuse University, before an Oct. 12, 1989, hearing

of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Researc@ and Technology.

~.S. Congress, Public Law 94-282, May 11, 1976.

3~cor~g t. most Obsemers, the ~~ of ~te House ~taest ~ Sm occ~ed in the Kennedy and JO~On Administrdbns, during which time

presidential science advisory bodies issued several landmazk studies on Federal STI. See, for example, J.H. Crawford, Jr., G. Abdiu W. Frazer, S.

Passmau R.B. Stegmaier, Jr., and J. Stem, scientific and Technical Communications in Government, Task Force Report to the President’s Special

Assistant for Science and Technology (WashingtorL DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1962); and Federal Council for Science and Technology,

Committee on Scientific and Technical Information Recommendations for National Document Handling Systems in Science and Technology

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, November 1965).

dmblic hW 94-282, sec. lo and sec. 1W(C)(1O).

sEarlier le@slative ~rops~s addressed Sm fi more detail. me House committee reports made cl~ tit Sm was to have a high priOrity. See, fOr

example, U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Science and Technology, National science and Technology Policy and Organization Act of 1975, Report

No. 94-595, 94th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington+ DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Oct. 29, 1975).

-43–
44 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

The low profile of OSTP with respect to

governmentwide STI policy has, in effect, ceded the dominant executive

branch policy role to the Office of

Management and Budget.

tion." 6 This provision of the law has not been

implemented. 7

OSTP has provided a modicum of staff attention

to STI matters, and has encouraged the Federal

Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and

Technology (FCCSET) in some STI matters. The

Council, established under Title IV of the Act, is

made up of the OSTP Director (chairman), and

representatives of the Federal science and technology agencies. The Council created the Committee on

Earth Sciences, which has endorsed the work of the

Interagency Working Group on Data Management

for Global Change. This working group is addressing some of the STI technical and policy issues as

they relate to earth sciences and global change.

FCCSET also has supported work in the areas of

high-performance computing and networking, which

relate to STI dissemination.8 But, neither OSTP nor

the FCCSET has given much attention to the

dissemination of STI documents or bibliographic

databases, to issues involving agencies like the

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) and

Government Printing Office (GPO) that are responsible for disseminating such materials, or to governmentwide information dissemination issues that

relate to STI.

The low profile of OSTP with respect to governmentwide STI policy has, in effect, ceded the

dominant executive branch policy role to the Office

of Management and Budget. OMB has used its

authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act to

promulgate governmentwide information policy that

covers STI as well as most other types of Federal

information (see ch. 3). OSTP has only minimally

used its authority under the National Science and

Technology Policy Act to get involved in STI

policy. Thus the activities of OMB—not OSTP—

have had by far the largest impact on STI, and

especially on dissemination.

A strengthened OSTP role would help ensure that

the special needs and problems of STI are considered, and that the contribution of STI to broader

national goals is identified and realized. A stronger

role should also improve interagency coordination

on STI. The OSTP director may, on his own

initiative, give a higher priority to STI matters. This

might involve the assignment of OSTP staff to STI

issues, and the formal recognition of STI functions

within each of the major OSTP programmatic areas.

But even so, Congress could seriously consider

amending the law to provide stronger congressional

guidance. This could be done by adding STI as an

explicit, required area of OSTP responsibility and to

FCCSET’s charter, and perhaps by authorizing

OSTP funds specifically for STI activities.9

OSTP could prepare and issue a strategic plan on

STI, with the advice and assistance of advisory

committees and agency officials, as was done in

high-performance computing. This recently issued

computing plan10 states the goals, rationale, actions,

responsibilities, and budget for implementing the

U.S. high-performance computing and networking

program. Program leadership is assigned to OSTP,

assisted by an FCCSET Committee on Computer

Research and Applications and an advisory panel

selected by and reporting to the OSTP Director. The

FCCSET Committee is responsible for interagency

planning and coordination, technology assessment,

and preparation of policy recommendations and

annual progress reports to OSTP. The advisory panel

@ubiic Law 94-282, sec. 303(a)(2).

TFor a genm~ review of osTp p~ommce, see G.J. Knezo, Analysis of the O@ce of Science and Technology poli~, CRS Re~fi No. 8*-2*5 ‘ PR

(Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, February 1988) and White House Ofi”ce ofScience and Technology Policy :AnAnalysis, CRS Report

No. 89-689 SPR (Washingto~ DC: Congressional Research Service, November 1989).

asee U.S. O&Ice of Science and Technology Policy, Executive OffIce of the President, A Research and Development Strategy for High perfo~nce

Computing, Committee on Computer Research and Applications, Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology (Washington

DC: Executive OffIce of the President, Nov. 20, 1987); and U.S. OffIce of Science and Technology Policy, Executive OffIce of the President, TheFederal

High Pe#orrnance Computing Program (Washington DC: Executive Office of the President, Sept. 8, 1989).

qcon~ess is considering this approach for high-performance computing. S. 1067, the “Wgh-pe~o~ ce Computing Act of 1990,’ would mandate

and authorize funding for OSTP and FCCSET activities in this area.

1w.s. OSTP, High Peflorwnce Computing Program, 1989, op. cit., footnote *.
Chapter 5-Framework for a Presidential Initiative on Scientific and Technical Information . 45

Strategically, the most important STI

role for OSTP may be its visible leadership on STI issues coupled with the

assessment of STI issues from an integrated cross-cut perspective across agencies and disciplines.

will include scientific, academic, and industry experts, and will provide the OSTP Director and

FCCSET with independent assessments of program

progress, relevance, and balance. A similar organizational approach could be used for ‘‘a Federal STI

Program.’ ‘

An STI strategic plan could, even in its early

stages, serve as a focal point for involving OSTP in

the ongoing legislative efforts to amend the Paperwork Reduction Act, Printing Act, Depository

Library Act, and other statutes that affect Federal

STI. OSTP leadership could help develop a strategic

vision of: 1) the role of the Federal R&D agencies,

NTIS, and GPO in STI dissemination; 2) principles

of STI dissemination that encourage use of Federal

STI; and 3) updated policies on the open flow of

Federal STI that reflect rapidly changing global

economic, political, and technological realities.

An STI strategic plan also could integrate STI

activities across the several existing Federal policies

and programs to encourage technology transfer and

industrial innovation. These include, for example:11

● the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, in which about 300 Federal

labs participate, that promotes utilization of

technical knowledge developed by or for Federal labs;

The Offices of Research and Technology Applications, located at each Federal lab, that

identify technologies and ideas with potential

outside application; and

the Small Business Innovation Development

program, that encourages technology development by small companies, including use of

federally developed technology and STI in

commercial applications.

Other programs encourage a variety of joint ventures

and cooperative R&D agreements between the

Federal Government, universities, and/or private

industry. The proliferation of technology transfer

activities has made the need for an STI cross-cut

even greater.

Strategically, the most important STI role for

OSTP may be its visible leadership on STI issues

coupled with the assessment of STI issues from an

integrated cross-cut perspective across agencies and

disciplines. OSTP leadership would require its

collaboration with various STI constituencies-in

the science agencies, in Congress, in academia and

private industry-for ideas, feedback, and dialog.

The last time this happened on STI was in the

1960s. 12

The National Science Foundation (NSF) supported several STI studies during the 1980s that

identified STI problems and possible policy solutions.13 At that time, OSTP lacked the interest, staff,

and high-level support to followup on the STI

studies of NSF and other groups. OSTP could not

itself perform major STI policy research for lack of

resources. But its active involvement can go a long

way toward supporting the efforts of others. OSTP

certainly can be expected to conduct policy planning

llFOr a general Overview, see W.H. Schach~ Technology Transfer: Utilization of Federally Funded Research and Development, ~ 85031, ad

IndustrialInnovation: Debate Over Government Policy, IB 84004 (Washington DC: Congressional Research Semice, Aug. 7, 1989).

lzpresen~tion of A.A, Aines, former Acting ~“ an, Committee on Scientitlc and Technical Information@ White House OffIce of Science and

Technology, at a CENDI meeting, Dec. 12, 1989.

13NSF.Spomor~ sfidies ~clude: A*H. Teich ~d J-p. Wetiberg, Zssues in Scien@ and Technica/Infor~~on policy (WaShi.llgtO~ DC: hleri~n

Association forthe Advancement of Science, Dec. 28, 1982); T.K. Biksou B.E. Quin~ and L.L. Johnson, Scientific and Technical Information Transfer:

Issues and Options (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Cow., March 1984); S. Ballard, C.R. McClure, T.I. Adams, M.D. Devine, L. Elliso~ TE. James, Jr., L.L.

Malysa, and M. Meo, Zmproving the Transfer and Use of Scienttj?c and Technical Information: The Federal Role (Norm~ OK: Science ~d Public

Policy Program, University of Oklahom% September 1986); J.D. Eveland, scientific and Technical Information Exchange: Issues and Findings

(Washington, DC: Division of Policy Research and Analysis, NSF, March 1987); NSF Division of Policy Research and Analysis, Scientific Information

Exchange:A Status Report on Conve~”ng New Funahmental Knowledge Into competitive Products (Wa.shingto~ DC: NSF, April 1987); and NSF

Division of Policy Research and Analysis, Federal Technology Transfer: Mechanisms and Agency Practices (Washingto~ DC: NSF, May 1987).
46 Ž Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

and assessments based on the best available STI

research. 14

The extensive, multi-year debate leading up to the

establishment of OSTP in May 1976 reflected a

strong consensus among leading scientists and

engineers on the importance of these OSTP responsibilities to STI.15 This was followed in 1976-77 by

a vigorous debate over OSTP’s functions in the

Carter Administration. Few of the numerous innovative proposals brought forward16 were implemented

due to President Carter’s decision to downsize the

entire Executive Office of the President, including

OSTP.17 The Bush Administration (and the appointment of Dr. D. Allan Bromley as the Director of

OSTP) is the first real opportunity in 12 years for

OSTP to carry out the congressional intent of

OSTP’s organic Act and fulfill the vision of the

scientific and technical community-including a

leadership role in Federal STI.

Establishing Advisory Committees on STI

The success of the Committee on Scientific and

Technical Information (COSATI) is frequently cited

as evidence of the potential effectiveness of highlevel advisory bodies. COSATI was formed in 1963

by the former Office of Science and Technology

(created in 1962 by executive order) and its President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC). COSATI

and PSAC provided high-level executive branch

leadership on STI.18 With a change of administrations, COSATI was transferred from the Office of

Science and Technology to NSF in 1971 and

abolished in 1972. The Office of Science and

OSTP could use FCCSET to help agency

STI managers get higher priority for

information dissemination and utilization as part of agency R&D programs

that collect or create the STI.

Technology itself was abolished in 1973.19 OSTP

was established by statute in 1976. The new OSTP

Director has recently created a President’s Council

of Advisors on Science and Technology-the equivalent of PSAC—under the President’s statutory

authority. Functions of the new President’s Council

of Advisors could be extended to STI and the

creation of advisory subgroups such as COSATI.

Two STI advisory bodies are justified. A COSATI

of advisors and experts could report to the OSTP

Director. This group might include representatives

from major segments of the science and technology

community concerned with STI: scientists, scholars,

information specialists, large and small business

leaders, librarians, State/local government officials,

consumer and labor leaders, and the like. A second

advisory body comprised entirely of agency STI

officials could be established under FCCSET. This

group could include representatives from a crosssection of Federal science agencies, including the

major Federal science data centers and document

clearinghouses, and the governmentwide dissemination and archival agencies.

ldBo&h tie outr~ch and policy assessment roles of OSTP are addressed at a general level throughout the enabling WttUte and legislative history. See

Pablic Law 94-282, op. cit., footnote 2; U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Science and Technology, National Science and Technology Policy and

Organization Act of1975, Report, 94ti Cong., 1st sess., Rep. No. 94-595 (Washingto% DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Oct. 29, 1975); U.S.

Congress, House, Committee on Science and Technology, Science and Technology Policy, Conference Report, 94th Cong., 2d sess., Rep. No. 94-1046

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Offke, Apr. 26, 1976).

15see, for C=ple, U,S. Natio~ Acad~y of Sciences, Science and Te~hnol~gy in presidential poli~~ing: A Proposal (Washingto~ DC:

National Academy Press, June 1974).

IGSee, for example, statements of I-xxvis M. Bramcomb, “Science and Technology Issues: A Framework” June 14, 1976; Harold Bro~ “Science

and Technology Organization inthe Executive Offke of the Presiden~” Aug. 23, 1976; and F.B. Wood, V. Coates, J. Coates, R. Ericsom and J. Imgsdom

“Early Warning and PoIicy Assessment Capability To Support Presidential Policymaking/Decisio

Presidential Transition Team.

~g, ’ Jan. 3, 1977; prepared forthe Jimmy Carter

ITOSTP was reduced to a minimal staff level of about 15 persons. However, It could have been worse. For example, the White House OffIce of

Telecommunications Policy was abolished, and its functions transferred to the Departments of Commerce and State and the Federal Co~uni@iOm

Commission.

18see, for exmple, ~esidentps Adviso7 Cotittee, Science, Govern~nt, a~Infor~tion: The Responsibilities of the Technical conlmuni~ and

the Government in the Transfer of Information (WashingtorL DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, Jan. 10, 1963).

19’rhoW E. P&lli, ~~c~ono]o~ Of selected RepO~, Rela&~ s~dies, and significant Events con~rning scien~lc and Ttxhnicd hlfOIDlatiOLl h

the United States,’ May 1989 draft. For other historical perspectives, see A. Bishop and M.O. Fellows, “Descriptive Analysis of Major Federal Scientilc

and Technical Information Policy Studies, “ in C.R. McC1ure and P. Hernou United States Scientific and Technical Information Policies: Views and

Perspectives (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1989), pp. 3-55; and A.A. Aines, ‘‘A Visit to the Wasteland of Federal Scientitlc and Information

Policy,” Journal of the American Society of Information Science, vol. 35, May 1984, pp. 179-184.
Chapter 5--Framework for a Presidential Initiative on Scientific and Technical Information ● 47

OSTP could ensure that Federal science

agencies have a role in the STI policymaking process at OMB. OSTP could

collaborate with OMB on major initiatives to improve the management of

Federal information systems, including

agency STI systems.

The lack of an equivalent to COSATI, or a formal

FCCSET advisory body on STI, in part led to the

creation of CENDI (Commerce, Energy, NASA,

NLM, Defense Information). CENDI is an interagency group established by several Federal science

agencies (NTIS, DOE, NASA, DTIC, and NLM) to

address STI issues. The CENDI agencies represent

over 90 percent of the Federal R&D budget. CENDI

supports a strong OSTP and FCCSET role in STI.

Compared to CENDI, an FCCSET committee on

STI could be upgraded in several ways. First, its

scope could be expanded to include the data side of

STI as well as the bibliographic and document side

on which CENDI now concentrates. Second, the

FCCSET committee’s membership could be expanded to include other Federal agencies with major

STI functions (e.g., USGS, NOAA, USDA, and

EPA) that are not presently included in CENDI.

Third, staff support and funding could be expanded

beyond that now available to CENDI. CENDI has

undertaken several new projects in the areas of

standards, cataloging, indexing, and technology

assessment, but has no regular means of support

(participating agencies make voluntary contributions). Fourth, the FCCSET committee could assert

leadership in educating government executives on

the importance of STI dissemination and governmentwide STI strategies, in a much more vigorous

manner than appears possible through CENDI. Fifth,

the FCCSET committee could establish strong

working relationships with other interagency

groups.

Improved coordination is urgently needed among

the interagency groups involved in Federal STI,

including:

Ž CENDI;

. Interagency Working Group on Data Management for Global Change;

. Interagency Coordinating Committee on Digital Cartography;

. Special Interest Group on CD-ROM Applications and Technology;

. Federal Publishers Committee;

. Interagency Panel on Numerical Data;

. Interagency Advisory Council on Printing and

Publishing; and

. Federal Library and Information Center Committee.

OSTP could take a leadership role on an FCCSET

STI committee, to help further offset the natural

tendency of all interagency groups to reflect agencyspecific rather than governmentwide concerns. OSTP

also could help ensure, through FCCSET, that the

various interagency groups have adequate administrative and financial support, balanced membership,

and an audience for the fruits of their labors. If the

FCCSET committee is effective, some of the other

interagency groups may no longer be needed.

OSTP could use FCCSET to help agency STI

managers get higher priority for information dissemination and utilization as part of agency R&D

programs that collect or create the STI. R&D

managers have a strong tendency to emphasize the

conduct of the research itself, rather than the

effective use of research results. OSTP could work

with FCCSET to help individual agency STI programs contribute to governmentwide priorities, such

as the global change program.

Redefining OSTP-OMB Working

Relationships on STI

OMB has a dominant role in executive branch

information policy and oversight. The OMB Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs has devoted

little attention specifically to STI, and some within

OMB strongly support a reactivated STI role for

OSTP. But, even if OSTP gives priority to STI,

OMB will continue to be a major player for two

reasons: first, OMB guidance on general government information policy will also apply to STI (e.g.,

Circular A-130), unless STI is granted a blanket

exemption, an unlikely prospect; second, OMB will

still be the primary decisionmaker on budgets for

Federal science agencies—including resources allocated to STI.

A new OSTP-OMB working relationship on

Federal STI is necessary. OSTP could actively

participate in the drafting and public comment
48 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

process for revisions to OMB Circular A-130 and

other circulars that affect STI. OSTP could ensure

that Federal science agencies have a role in the STI

policymaking process at OMB. OSTP could collaborate with OMB on major initiatives to improve the

management of Federal information systems, including agency STI systems. Many criticisms of

Federal information systems apply to STI as well.

Federal agencies have been criticized for not paying

enough attention to the users of Federal information

and involving users from the outset of project

planning. OSTP and OMB could encourage user

outreach activities and provide guidance to the

agencies on how to improve outreach.

OMB issues an annual bulletin on “Federal

information systems and technology planning’ that

directs agencies in the preparation of strategic plans.

These are developed as part of agency and governmentwide 5-year plans. OSTP could suggest topics

for special attention. In 1988, OMB asked agencies

to provide details on electronic mapping databases

(otherwise known as digital cartographic, geographic, or land information systems). In 1989,

OMB asked agencies to provide information on

image processing systems and electronic data interchange. 20 These topics all relate to STI. Other

possible STI-related topics include: high-density

data storage systems; expert systems for information

retrieval; machine translation (of foreign language

publications); and gateway technologies for multiple remote database access.

OSTP and OMB could help ensure that each

Federal science agency is aware of and carefully

examines state-of-the-art activities of other agencies. For example, the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) prepared a year 2000 strategic

plan and is implementing it.21 DTIC is the clearinghouse for STI developed by or for the Department of

Defense (DoD). DTIC operates: an online research

database (DROLS = Defense Research On-Line

Search); an intelligent gateway to DoD and some

other online databases (that eventually will be

extended to many Federal agency and commercial

databases); and a prototype electronic document

system (that uses scanners, optical disks, supermicrocomputers, intelligent work stations, and laser

printers for storing and disseminating DoD technical

documents).

Other OSTP-OMB joint activities might include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

cosponsorship of ad hoc interagency committees on specific priority topics, such as improved indexing of Federal STI and other types

of information (OMB already has proposed a

committee on this topic), management of very

large databases (e.g., the Earth Observing

System), and quality control of standard reference data (on physical, chemical, and engineering properties).

cosponsorship of a continuing dialog-through

meetings, committees, conferences, and other

means—between agency R&D and STI managers to ensure that the Federal investment in STI

best serves the R&D user community;

coordination on appointments to any OSTP and

OMB outside advisory committees that maybe

established on STI or Federal information;

cofunding, directly or with agency support, of

research projects in targeted cross-cut areas

such as user training and STI education;

OSTP participation in OMB-sponsored interagency groups (e.g., the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Digital Cartography22) and

vice versa; and

cosponsorship of conferences that bring together all elements of the STI community, from

agencies to libraries to vendors.

The reentry of OSTP into STI activities would

open new possibilities for cooperation with OMB in

~.S. OffIce of Mamgement and Budge~ Bulletin 89-17, “Federal Information Systems and Technology P1anning,” Aug. 22, 1989.

zlFor tie 01-@MIpl~ now being updated, see U.S. Department of Defense, Defense I@stics Agency, Defense Technica.l Information Center, DT~C

2000:A Corporate Planfor the Future, DTICiTR-84/3, July 1984. Also see, for example, T. Lahr and D. O’Connor, An Evaluation ofDTIC’s Proto~pe

CD-ROM (AIexandri~ VA: Defense Technicai Information Center, August 1989); C.W. Shockley, D=. Eg@ C.H. Grot.lL Jr., and D.J. O’Connor,

Meeting the Scientific and Technical Information Challenge, Report DL605R2, contractor report prepared for DTIC (Bethesc@ MD: bgistics

Mamgement Institute, October 1988); Aerospace Structures Information Analysis Center, Application of New Technologies to DTZC Document

Processing, contractor report prepared for DTIC, August 1987; and G.A. Cotter, The DOD Gateway Information System: Prototype Expen”ence,

DTIc~-86/6, Aprd 1986.

~llt.is co~ttee was recweredby OMB in 1989. See memorandum from Rictid G. DMIIKUI, OMB Director, to Heads of Executive Departments

and Independent Establishments, “Coordination of Federal Digital Cartographic Data ProgranL” Feb. 28, 1989; also see memorandum from Imwell

E. Starr, ChairmaU to Participants, Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee on Digital Cartography Governrnenhvide Forum, “FCCDC

Recommendations for an Improved Federal Spatial Coordination Process,” Dec. 5, 1989
Chapter 5--Framework for a Presidential Initiative on Scientific and Technical Information ● 49

Technical standards can bridge among

different formats so that once the information is in the system, it can be

processed, edited, revised, stored, and

disseminated in electronic, paper, or

microfiche formats.

jointly carrying out executive branch STI policymaking and oversight.

Upgrading Agency STI Management

Agency management of STI needs to be strengthened, and OSTP-OMB cooperation could help.23

Information dissemination should have a higher

priority. Most agencies give scant attention to

dissemination, even though dissemination was included in the original Information Resources Management (IRM) program concept, and is referred to

in the Paperwork Reduction Act (as amended in

1986). IRM officials and activities are mostly

occupied with computers, telecommunications, management information systems, and procurement

activities. Job definitions, career paths, and training

programs for information dissemination professionals and IRM officials could be revised and strengthened to reflect the importance of STI.

STI dissemination should have higher priority

within agency R&D programs as well. STI is the

primary product of R&D and is central to agency

R&D missions. Several possible actions to upgrade

deserve consideration:

the direct participation of STI staff in agency

R&D planning and decisionmaking;

the assignment of technical information officers to major science agency operating units;

the separation of dissemination as a line item

within agency R&D budgets;

the allocation of at least some minimum

percentage of R&D grants, contracts, and

operating budgets to STI dissemination, data

management, and related areas;

the participation of R&D program officials in

selected interagency STI groups and activities;

the participation of R&D grantees, contractors,

and the like in agency innovation centers

designed to share new information about STI

dissemination, among other topics;

the involvement of R&D and STI managers in

focus group discussions with and surveys of

STI users; and

the joint sponsorship of independent research

on STI dissemination and use (perhaps with

cooperation from NSF).

Further research on STI use needs to emphasize

the barriers as well as opportunities presented by

electronic formats. For example, what conditions—

equipment, software, training, experience—

contribute to successful use of electronic formats? Is

the research on use of online formats applicable to

offline formats like compact optical disk? How

effective are end users in conducting their own

searches of STI databases compared with using

intermediaries (e.g., librarians, commercial vendors)? Is existing search-and-retrieval software sufficiently user-friendly to make widespread, decentralized use a reality? Are users able to adapt to the

availability of STI in multiple and changing formats? In sum, agencies need to guard against

‘‘technophoria. "24 While electronic formats are

well-suited to STI, disseminating agencies should

not adopt electronic formats uncritically without a

good understanding of the impact on STI users.

Developing Standards and Directories for STI

Technical standards are essential if the government is to make improvements in cost-effectiveness

and productivity and assist the private sector to use

Federal STI. Technical standards can bridge among

different formats so that once the information is in

the system, it can be processed, edited, revised,

stored, and disseminated in electronic, paper, or

microfiche formats. Standards developed for Federal

STI should be compatible with those adopted by the

private sector and the international standards-setting

~FOr ~ ~ene~ ~nti~e of agenw ~omation m~gement as it relates to STI, see C.R. McClure, A. Bishop, and p. D09, ‘ ‘F~er~ Scientilc ad

Technical Information (STI) Policies and the Management of Information Technology for Dissernina tion of STI,” in information Technology: Planning

for the Second50 Years, Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Christine L. Bergman and Edward

Y.H. Pai (eds.) (Medford, NJ: Learned Information Press, 1989). Also see U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment, Znfom”ng the Nation:

Federal Dissemination in an Electronic Age, OTA-CIT-396 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, October 1988).

~Term coked by C.R. McClure, Syracuse University School of reformation Studies.
50 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

organizations. Priority areas for standards-setting

include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

STI indexing and cataloging (standard formats

are needed, so that NTIS, GPO, and mission

agencies are using compatible approaches);

STI quality control (especially for preventing

or minimizing errors in collecting data and

creating documents, and for maintaining data

and document integrity throughout the information life cycle);

STI security (technical and administrative standards for preventing unauthorized use or alteration of Federal STI);

text markup and page/document description

languages (e.g., Standard Generalized Markup

Language, which has been issued as an international standard and as a Federal Information

Processing Standard (FE%));

optical disks (there has been significant progress on CD-ROM standards, e.g., for mastering, formatting, and reading, but not yet for

search and retrieval software; standards for

WORM, Erasable, and CD-I disks are in earlier

stages of development); and

electronic data interchange (EDI), including the

open systems interface (OS1) concept (e.g., an

OS1 procurement standard has been issued as a

FIPS and becomes mandatory in late 1990; a

proposed EDI standard has been issued for

comment).

STI managers, users, and private vendors generally agree on the need for interoperability among

various systems and equipment. The Federal Government can accelerate the development and adoption of the standards needed to ensure interoperability. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), working with GPO, NTIS, and the

Federal science agencies, could help in this standardssetting effort. DoD is important in this process,

because it and the defense industry together account

for two-thirds of the Federal R&D budget and have

invested hundreds of millions of dollars in CALS

(Computer-Aided Acquisition and Logistical Support). CALS is designed as a standardized system for

the electronic exchange of technical data, drawings,

and documents.

Large STI databases—such as in the geographic,

space, and earth sciences—must have technical

standards for data archiving and exchange, if these

resources are to be managed and used effectively.

Geographic information systems (GIS) will permit

greater data exchange among the Federal science

agencies. GIS require the integration of multiple

data sets—frequently originating from several different agencies. Most Federal agencies with GIS

applications are using data sets from several other

agencies. 25 GIS must have standards to ensure

interoperability among users in these agencies. Most

agencies using GIS have not yet developed standard

definitions and/or classifications for the major

thematic data categories used in GIS applications

and do not have an operational program to collect

and manage standardized data. 26 The OMBchartered Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee on Digital Cartography (chaired by the U.S.

Geological Survey) has made progress in developing

a standard format for Federal geographic information storage and exchange.27

NASA is active in standards for space science

data. The Science Data Systems Standards Office (at

NASA’s National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC))

is responsible for standards development. It works

with the national and international standards organizations, validates standards, and disseminates information about standards that are important to space

science data collection, storage, and dissemination.

~U.S. ~teragency Coordinating Committee on Digital Cartography, Reports Working Group, ‘‘A s~of GIS Activities in the Federal

Government,” August 1988, pp. 16-18.

261bid., pp. 13-15.

2vSee, for e~ple, U.S. Federal interagency Coordinating Committee on Digital Cartography, Standards Working Group, “Fede~ GeQwP~c

Exchange Format: A Standard Format for the Exchange of Spatial Data Among Federal Agencies, ” Dec. 15, 1986, U.S. Interagency Coordinating

Committee, “Coordination of Digital Cartographic Activities in the Federal Governrnen~” Third Annual Report to the OMB Director, 1988. For

discussion of the need for a directo~ to GIS activities and improved FederwState/local cooperation on GIS, see Lisa Wmnecke, “Georgraphic/Land

Information Development Coordination Clearinghouse and Network” Syracuse University, School of Ixiformation Studies, January 1989, and

“Geographic Information Coordination in the States: Past Efforts, Lessons Learned, and Future Opportunities, “ in Piecing the Puzzle Together: A

Conference on ZntegratedDatafor Decisionmaking, proceedings, National Governors Association Center for Policy Researck May 27-29, 1987. For

recent updates on GIS standards and related topics, see U.S. Department of the Interior, Study of bnd Information, prepared in accordance with Public

Law 100-409, November 1989 draf~ Dec. 5, 1989, memo from Lowell E. Starr, U.S. Geological Survey, on ‘‘FICCDC Recommendations for an

Improved Federal Spatial Data Coordination Process,” and agency responses thereto. For general background on the Interagency Coordinating

Committee, see Memorandum from Richard G. DarmarL Director, Office of Management and Budget, to Heads of Executive Departments,

Establishments, and Independent Agencies, “Coordination of Federal Digital Cartographic Data Programs,” Feb. 28, 1989.
Chapter 5--Framework for a Presidential Initiative on Scientific and Technical Information ● 51

The NSSDC has a generic data storage standard,

known as the Common Data Format, that is being

beta-tested by NASA laboratories and others.28

The standards-setting effort in the earth sciences

is being led by the Interagency Working Group on

Data Management for Global Change, whose members include NASA, NOAA, NSF, USGS, the U.S.

Navy, and the Departments of Energy, Agriculture,

and State. The working group has emphasized

technical standards to facilitate the exchange of data

directory information and data sets. Standards are

needed to enable users to access earth sciences data

on a variety of computers, over a range of electronic

networks. This includes the need for standards on

data quality. The working group has involved NIST

in its standards-setting activities. The National

Research Council’s Scientific and Technical Information Board (formerly the Numerical Data Advisory Board) also emphasizes the role of NIST in

developing governmentwide standards for a variety

of large-scale scientific and technical databases.

Directories to Federal STI are also needed to help

users find the information they seek. Some are

concerned that a directory or index might be used by

OMB to thwart rather than encourage agency

information dissemination. But OMB has taken

steps to quiet this concern. Under the OMB plan,

each agency would maintain a current, comprehensive inventory of information dissemination products and services, including: periodicals, nonrecurring publications, machine-readable datafiles (including compact optical disks), software, online

databases, and electronic bulletin boards. Each

inventory would serve as an index to agency

information and would be submitted to a central

collection point and compiled into a governmentwide index.29 NTIS and GPO could collaborate on

preparation of a governmentwide directory, and start

by collecting and consolidating available agencyspecific directories. OMB intends to establish an

interagency group to develop an improved structure

and content for agency inventories.

Directories to large-scale scientific databases as

well as STI documents should be included in these

efforts. The proliferation of space science electronic

databases-offline and online-is an example of the

importance of directories to users seeking specific

information. NASA’s Master Directory offers online

access to a directory of NASA and other space and

earth science data sets and related information. For

each data set, the directory includes a descriptive

title, abstract, references, contact persons, archival

information, storage media, and technical details

(e.g., parameters measured, scientific discipline,

spatial coverage, time period). The directory allows

connection to other information systems or database

directories. 30 The NASA directory concept may be

applicable to other Federal science agencies, and

could be made available to the Federal depository

libraries and other Federal information dissemination facilities. NASA is also developing expert

‘‘data navigation” systems: software to help users

rapidly search, access, manipulate, and display data.

The Interagency Working Group on Data Management for Global change is developing and

adapting NASA’s master directory into an "interoperable directory” that will provide access to information about global change data. Earth sciences data

will be maintained by each agency on a decentralized basis, along with detailed catalogs or inventories of its data sets. Summaries of the data sets will

be in a central directory that can route inquiries to the

detailed catalogs located at individual data centers

and can also transfer data among the various data

centers and users. Both online and offline electronic

services will be available.31

The operational version of the directory will

include the following Federal earth sciences data

centers or systems: NASA (National Space Science

Data Center including the NASA Climate, Ocean,

and Land Data Systems); NOAA (National Oceanographic Data Center, National Geophysical Data

Center, National Climatic Data Center); and USGS

(Earth Science Information Center, Earth Resources

Observation Systems [EROS] Data Center, National

~U.S. National Aeromutics and Space Adrninistratioq Goddard Space Flight Center, National Space Science Data Center, NSSDC Data Listings.

NSSDC-88-01, January 1988.

Zssee office of Management and Budget, ‘‘Second Advance Notice of Further Policy Development on Dissemina tion of kformatiom” Federal

Register, vol. 54, No. 114, June 15, 1989, pp. 25554-25559.

Xlu.s. Natio~ ~romutics and Space AMs~atio% God~d space Flight center, The National Space Science Data Center, NSSDC-88-26,

January 1989, pp. 5-6.

31u.s. Nation~ ~romutics and Spare Administration, God~d Space Fllg~ center, NatlOn~ Space Science Data Center, ‘ ‘Report On the Thhd

Catalog Interoperability Workshop, Nov. 16-18, 1989,” James R. l%iema~ Mary E. James, and Patricia A. Bailey (eds.), March 1989.
52 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

Water Data Exchange [NAWDEX], and Earth Science Data Directory, among others) .32 For example,

USGS has an Earth Science Data Directory that can

be queried from remote computer terminals to

identify and locate over 2,000 databases in fields

such as geology, hydrology, and cartography. The

directory includes: a description of each database;

time and geographic coverage of the data; frequency

of data updating; type of computer; and person(s)

responsible. (USGS does not charge for online

access, although users pay their own telecommunication charges.)

The working group and participating Federal

agencies are supporting the development of an

Arctic environmental data directory to further test

the directory concept on a small scale. Arctic climate

is thought to be a sensitive indicator of global

change. Thus the arctic data directory should have

direct utility to the global change research program,

and it can also serve as a prototype for a larger earth

sciences data directory. CD-ROM is being used for

disseminating the Arctic data directory, selected

data sets, and reference and bibliographic materials

relevant to polar regions.33

Launching an STI Education Initiative

Improving U.S. science education is important to

renewing U.S. competitiveness. Federal STI can be

used to teach students about science and technology

and assist them in acquiring basic information

search and retrieval skills that are applicable to many

careers in the information age.

STI data sets could be used-either online or on

disk-for computer models and simulations in

science laboratories. Students could use computerbased references and data in their work on topics like

Federal science agencies could sponsor

pilot projects in local elementary and

secondary schools to demonstrate the

use of Federal STI in the science curriculum.

energy, environment, health, and space. It is possible

to design computer-based enhancements to the

science and math curricula that are matched to

student skill levels for each year in school.34

Schools and colleges have already made a significant investment in microcomputers; but as yet, aside

from the major research universities, STI is rarely

used in the classroom. Federal agencies, libraries,

and private vendors have limitless opportunities to

provide accessible and affordable STI to elementary

and secondary schools as well as colleges and

universities. 35 There is a pressing need to break the

routine of science education, bring more excitement

into the program, and involve the students directly.36

Computer-based STI might help capture the interest

and enthusiasm of elementary and intermediate

students through more ‘‘hands-on’ science, and

strengthen the quality of science education as well.

The implications for high school and collegiate

science could be profound.

“Hands-on” science means emphasis on observing, critical thinking, and doing rather than rote

memorization of facts. Some science education

materials already include computer software and

could be extended to Federal STI databases online or

Szsee, foremple,uoso ~temgencywor~g GOUP onData hfamgement for Global Change, “Interagency Session on Data Magementfor Glob~

Change,” meeting minutes dated Sept. 18, 1987, and Mar. 3, 1989.

33se Aug. 8, 1988, ~emo from Thomm L. ~ughl~ coor~tor, Arctic Environmen~ Data Workshop, Natiod OCafiC and Atmospheric

Administmtioq to Arctic Environment Data Directory Working Group; Douglas R. Posson, “kctic Environmental Data System: Results from the

Arctic Environmental Data Directory Working Group, USGS,

Boulder, Colorado, Workshop,” Arctic Research of the United States, 

to Working Group Members.

Fall 1988, vol. 2; and Feb. 3, 1989, memo from Douglas R. Posson,~

~For a de~led discussion of oppo~ties for computer-based mathematics educatiorL see National Research COmCil, MM.h-atical Sciencm

Education Board, Reshaping School Mathematics: A Philosophy and Framework for Cum”culum (TWishingtom DC: Nationai Academy Press, 1990),

and Everybody Counts:A Report to the Nation on the Future of MathematicsEducation (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989); and National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Commission on Standards for School Mathematics, Cum”culurn andEvaluation Standards for School Mathematics

(Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, March 1989).

Sssome private vendors already offer various Federal STI databases at educational or school library discount prices that range from 25 to 40 P~cent

off the list price.

36A s~ey, fiesident, Sociew of School Librari~ ~tamtio@, telephone conversatio~ ~~ F.B. wood of OTA, October ~d November 1989.
Chapter 5--Framework for a Presidential Initiative on Scientific and Technical Information ● 53

on disk; many more curricular materials are well

suited to the use of Federal STI as course supplements. The range of possibilities is illustrated in

table 2.

The degree of difficulty in the course materials

could be scaled to the educational level. But the

important point would be to include Federal (and

other) STI as a component, where appropriate, in

student workbooks, teacher supplements, subject

matter overviews, and even ‘‘take-home’ software

packages for use on the family microcomputer or at

the local library or science museum.37

Several recent studies have focused on the problems and challenges of U.S. science education,38 but

few have considered the role of Federal STI or STI

generally. OSTP could provide leadership in this

area, perhaps working with FCCSET or other

advisory bodies, and launch a science education

initiative based on Federal STI, or include Federal

STI as part of a broader science education program.

An STI education initiative could encompass the

following kinds of major activities:

1. Federal science agency STI pilot projects in

local schools. Federal science agencies could sponsor pilot projects in local elementary and secondary

schools to demonstrate the use of Federal STI in the

science curriculum. The various Federal agency data

centers could make copies of prototype Federal STI

CD-ROMs available at no or nominal charge and

perhaps provide start-up training on a pilot basis in

collaboration with the educational community.39

This would help teachers and students better understand the potential of Federal STI in user-friendly

electronic formats. Local schools could also experiTable 2—illustrative Use of Federal STI as Science

Education Course Supplements

Topic Application/media

--— Earthquakes: Land in Motion

Earth: The Water Planet

Space: The Last Frontier

Toxic Waste: Silent Danger

Students could analyze the 1989

California earthquake in perspective of long-term trends,

other major quakes and their

geographic distribution, using

data from NOAA’s National

Geophysical Data Center (CDROM).

Students could examine current

stream flows, lake levels, and

precipitation (rain, snow) for

regional variations and longterm trends, using USGS water

data and NOAA climatic data

(online, CD-ROM).

Students could explore the solar

system through the eyes of

space probes such as Mariner and Voyager, using imagery from the NASA National Space Science Data

Center (videodisk, CD-ROM).

Students could identify toxic waste

dumps in their vicinity, determine the chemicals involved,

and analyze the toxicological

and environmental effects, using

databases from the EPA and

NLM (online, CD-ROM).

SOURCE: Office Technology Assessment, 1990.

ment with online access to Federal data centers, and

with electronic networking for both data (and

document) transfer and distance learning.40

2. Federal educational programs with STI applications. The Department of Education, Department of

Defense, and National Science Foundation have

major programs in science, engineering, and mathesTThe Natio~ Science Teachers Association and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics both have developed extemive curric~ar materi~s

that could be reviewed for potential Federal STI applications.

38s= ~efimn Association for tie Advancement of Science, Science for All Amen”cans: Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in science,

Mathematics, and Technology (Washingto~ DC: 1989); U.S. National Research Council, Everybody Counts:A Report to the Nation on the Future of

Mathematics Education (Washingto~ DC: National Academy Press, 1989); and U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment, Educating Scientists

and Engineers: Grude School to Grad School, OTA-SET-377 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988).

3~e us. GeOl@~ smey @ collaboration with NOAA and NASA) is implementing project JEDI-Joint Eti Sciences ~ucatio~

Initiative-to bring earth sciences information in CD-ROM format to high school students and teachers in northern Virginia. The primary JEDI goal

is “to invigorate the teaching of earth science studies inourprim.aryand secondary schools throughout the country. . .throughthecreation of astirnulating

and innovative set of teaching materials.’ And NASA is implementing project LASER-Learning About Science, Engineering, and Research-to bring

NASA science and technology resources, including STI, to K-12 teachers and students. The project uses teacherworkshops, public libraries, audio/visual

materials, and mobile laboratories (equipped with computer access to NASA’s Spacelink STI system) to enrich science and mathematics education and

develop “hands-on” activities that reinforce student interest in science and math.

~orgeneral discussion see U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessmen4 Critical Connections.’ Communicationfor the Future, O’E4-CIT-407

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1990); and OTA, Linking for Uarning: A New Course for Education, O’E4-SET-430

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofllce, November 1989).
54 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

matics education.

41 Many of these programs permit

and sometimes require the use of computer technology as part of teacher training, curriculum development, and instructional support activities.

The Hawkins-Stafford School Improvements Act

of 198842 authorizes the use of funds for training

math/science teachers in computer use, and for

purchase of computer hardware and software. Title

VI of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act

of 198843 authorizes demonstration programs in

technology education to:

inform students about technology applications;

develop student skills” in using technology;

prepare students for life-long learning in a

technological society; and

improve teacher competency in technology

education.

Under OSTP coordination, these programs could be

reviewed for opportunities to include Federal STI.

Technology-enhanced use of Federal STI is an

appropriate topic for teacher training and student

projects. The National Science Teachers Association has endorsed science education initiatives to

develop curricula to instruct teachers on the use of

technology in the classroom, and provide electronic

technologies to science teachers at all grade levels.44

3. Federal science agency collaborative projects

with science museums, associations, and high-tech

information companies. Science museums are very

successful in the ‘‘hands-on,‘‘ interactive approach

to science education. Most science museums use

microcomputer-based displays, games, or tutorials,

and some provide microcomputer laboratories for

intensive computer experience. Computer-based demonstrations of Federal STI applications would be a

direct extension of current activities. Federal scienImproving the information literacy of

U.S. scientists and engineers is one of the

most highly leveraged ways to increase

the return on the U.S. R&D investment.

tific and bibliographic databases could be operated

on a stand-alone basis (e.g., with a dedicated

microcomputer using diskette, hard disk, or CDROM formats). Science museums with modems

could access online Federal STI databases directly

from the government and/or private vendors.

Federal STI also could be included in science

education programs sponsored by scientific associations and/or private companies. The American

Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

and a telephone company cosponsor a program to

help middle and high school science teachers learn

about new communications and information technologies, and how these technologies can be used in

science classes. Federal STI would be a natural

addition to this type of program.45 Several private

vendors offer substantial educational discounts for

off-peak online access to various STI databases,

including some Federal STI.

4. Federal collaboration with library and information science professionals. Libraries and the professional library and information science schools offer

untapped potential for improving the use of Federal

STI. Libraries at the major research universities are

well-versed in Federal STI and electronic databases

generally. But in many public and school libraries,

the use of electronic databases is just beginning. In

elementary and secondary schools, the problem is

compounded because the role of librarians in facilitating electronic access is only dimly understood.

41See C.M. Matthews, Science, Enginee~”ng, and Mathematics Precollege and College Education, El 88068 (Washington DC: ConfYessio@

Research Service, Nov. 3, 1989) and Science and Engineering Education: The Role of the Department of Defense, Report 89-256 SPR (WastigtoW

DC: Congressional Research Service, Apr. 18, 1989); U.S. Congress, OffIce of Technology Assessment Educating Scientists and Engineers, op.cit.,

footnote 39, and Power On: New Tools for Teaching and Learning, OTA-SET-379 (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, September

1988).

42u.s. ConWess, fibhc ~w 1~297, tie ~ ~AuWs~~ F. Haw~ and Robert T, Stiford E1emen~ and Secondq SChC)ol hprovements Act Of

1988. ”

43u.s. Conmss, ~blic Law 100-418, Title VI, Subtitle 2, “1.nstmctional Programs in Technology Education”; see J.B. Stedmam Computers in

Elementaq and Secondary Schools: An Analysis of Recent Congressional Action, Report 88-419 EPW (Washington, DC: Congressional Research

Semice, June 9, 1988).

44Natio~ Science T~chers Association “Science Education Initiatives for the 1990s, ” position paper, Sept. 7, 1988.

4Xee W. Worthy, ‘‘Diverse, Innovative Programs Revive Precollege Science Math Educatiow “ Chem”cal and Engineering News, Sept. 11, 1989,

pp. 7-12,
Chapter 5--Framework for a Presidential Initiative on Scientific and Technical Information ● 55

Professional groups such as the Society of School

Librarians are attempting to bring new information

technologies into the school library setting, and

recognize the relevance of Federal STI. Under OSTP

leadership, Federal agencies could collaborate with

the school librarians to help make this vision a

reality.

OSTP and the Federal agencies could reach out to

the Nation’s schools of library and information

science and initiate a dialog on how to improve the

collegiate curriculum on STI, working closely with

the schools of science, engineering, and technology.

The objective would be to educate more librarians

and information scientists with a specialty in STI,

and upgrade courses on information skills in the

academic science and engineering programs. Improving the information literacy of U.S. scientists

and engineers is one of the most highly leveraged

ways to increase the return on the U.S. R&D

investment. Business leaders and academic scholars

increasingly recognize this need.46

Improving International Exchange of STI

U.S. scientists and engineers are generally not

conversant in foreign languages and do not read

many foreign language documents. Only a small

percentage of foreign language material is translated

into English, and even here, U.S. demand for such

translations has been weak. The problem is two-fold:

many U.S. researchers do not sense the need to

consider foreign STI, and do not have the skills

needed to do so even if they wanted.47

Congress enacted the Japanese Technical Literature Act of 1986 to improve U.S. access to Japanese

STI. NTIS is responsible for implementing the act,

has agreements with about 50 Japanese information

sources, and offers online access to some Japanese

databases. OSTP could review how well the act is

working, and whether the concept should be extended to other foreign countries. Computer-aided

translation offers great promise for enhancing U.S.

access to foreign STI. OSTP could examine how

progress in this area can be accelerated.

OSTP also could review U.S. bilateral and multilateral science and technology (S&T) agreements to

ensure that STI is sufficiently covered. STI is an

explicit U.S. objective in implementing the U. S.-

Japan S&T Agreement (i.e., to improve the flow of

Japanese STI to the United States), and an STI Task

Force is focusing on computer-assisted translation

of Japanese literature for private industry, academic,

and government laboratory users in the United

States. 48 OSTP is taking a lead in the U.S.-Japan

agreement, a role that could be extended to many

other S&T agreements, and to other aspects of U.S.

access to foreign STI. These include education and

exchange programs for U.S. and foreign researchers,

and cooperative agreements between U.S. and foreign STI agencies.

The consensus seems to favor open, reciprocal

exchange of STI, with restrictions on access kept to

the minimum. OSTP should take the lead in balancing the open flow, national security, and competitiveness concerns that arise in dealing with international STI issues.

The principle of open, reciprocal STI access has

been accepted for years in the civilian scientific

research community (as contrasted with military or

commercial research). Global change research exemplifies the importance of international STI collaboration and the complexities involved. The U.S.

Interagency Working Group on Data Management

for Global Change recognized from the outset that

earth sciences data must be collected and disseminated globally to foster research on global change.

The Federal earth science agencies have dozens of

international agreements for information exchange,

and these could be the basis for an international data

network, if data systems are made compatible. The

working group is coordinating with several national

and international scientific organizations on earth

sciences data management, including:

● National Research Council Space Science Board,

Committee on Data Management and Computation;

~See statement of C.R. McClure, Professor of Information Studies, Syracuse University, before a hearing of the House COmmitt& on science, SPace)

and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Reseamk and Technology, Oct. 12, 1989.

oTSee C.H. I-III, “EfinCing U.S. AWeSs to Foreign STI: What Should be the Federal Role, ” in McClure and Hernon (eds.), Federal Scientific and

Technical Information, op. cit., footnote 19, pp. 172-192.

~see m~or~d~ from D+ ~~ Brornley, Director, OSTP, to U.S. Members of the Joint High bvel Committee on tie u.s.-JaP~ science ‘d

Technology Agreemeng Nov. 20, 1989.
56 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

A common frustration to those working

on international data systems is the lack

of a receptive audience at the senior

levels of the government. This is beginning to change with regard to STI for

global change.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

A

National Research Council, Numerical Data

Advisory Board (recently renamed the STI

Board);

National Research Council, Committee on

Geophysical Data;

International Geosphere/Biosphere Program,

Data Management Working Group;

International Council of Scientific Unions,

Panel on World Data Centers;

Committee on Earth Observation Satellites,

Working Group on Data;

Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA); and

World Climate Data Program.

common frustration to those working on

international data systems is the lack of a receptive

audience at the senior levels of the government. This

is beginning to change with regard to STI for global

change.

The challenge of managing global change data is

mammoth. NASA’s Earth Observing System alone

will generate an additional terabyte (1012 bytes) of

data every day. This is equivalent to 10,000 Washington, DC telephone books (white pages) or 520,000

text books (at 200 pages each) per day.49 Electronic

technologies offer the only hope for managing this

data (see appendix). The Interagency Working

Group has concluded, after several years of effort,

that the size and geographic scale of global data

require new approaches to data management and

international cooperation if the potential of these

technologies is to be realized.50

Table 3—illustrative Weaknesses in Current Global

Change Data Management

Weakness Explanation

Data quality

Data management

procedures

Data management

technologies

Data management

infrastructure

Global change data

sets

Satellite data

calibration

Data archives

Data standards

Many data sets lack credibility due to

inconsistent or poor documentation and

quality control.

There are no established criteria or policies

for evaluating, archiving, and updating

global data sets.

New technologies are not applied in a

consistent or coordinated manner to

global data sets.

The data systems to handle increased

observational data are not yet in place.

Very few data sets have been compiled and

processed for the specific purpose of

monitoring and detecting climate

change.

Despite 25 years of satellite observations,

only one satellite data set is sufficiently

well-calibrated to document global

change.

Retrospective data sets are poorly cataloged, inconsistently documented, inaccessible, and subject to an undisciplined publication process.

Data formats and exchange mechanisms

are inadequately standardized. Standards that exist are not uniformly adhered to.

SOURCE: Committee on Earth Sciences, 1989.

Data management is critical to the success o f

global change initiatives. The U.S. Global Change

Research Program now includes data management

in the overall plan, and presents a detailed data

management strategy.

51 However, the problems that

need attention are daunting, as highlighted in table

3.

While some might question the severity of reported data management problems, the need for

international cooperation is compelling. As the

Committee on Earth Sciences concluded:

Data management requires global and international cooperation. . .No one nation, agency, or

institution will be able to gather the appropriate data

without cooperation from other nations, other agencies, and other institutions. Individual agencies will

need the cooperation of others to collect, manage,

and preserve data sets systematically for global

change and make them accessible across the traditional discipline and agency boundaries.52

dgsee R. K~ ‘‘Coping Witi All the Earth Science Data, ’ EOS, vol. 69, No. 21, May 24, 1988, pp. 609, 612.

50U.S. Interagency Working Group cm Data Management for Global Change, “Interagency SessioE Minutes,” June 2, 1989.

51U.S. F~eral coor~fig co~~fl for Science, Eq@eefig, ~d TeC~OIOgy, committee on Ed Scienms, our Changing Pkznet: The FY ~990

Global Chunge Research Plan (Washington DC: OSTP, July 1989), pp. 91-99.

521bid., p. 94.
Appendix A

Technological Opportunities for Managing and Disseminating

Federal Scientific and Technical Information

Introduction to the Electronic STI Revolution

Dissemination of Federal STI is being transformed by

the ongoing revolution in electronic information and

telecommunication technologies. The scientific and technical community is one of the heaviest and most advanced

users of computers. The vast majority of U.S. scientists

and engineers have a microcomputer at work and/or at

home, and some have access to mainframe and highperformance computer resources either onsite or through

telecommunication networks. The microcomputer or

workstation provides the scientist or engineer with a

versatile tool. Continuous, steady improvement in the

price/performance of microcomputers has resulted in the

power of a 1970s-vintage mainframe computer now being

on the desktop of the typical scientist. The microcomputer

can be used to search, recover, and store STI on magnetic

or optical media, manipulate and analyze STI using a

variety of software, and access STI remotely via online

bulletin boards, computer conferences, and database

networks. 1

Online information networks serve at least three

important needs of the scientific and technical community. First, they are used for the transfer of very large

streams of STI, for example, from a central repository of

data collected by Earth-observing satellites to regional

data repositories and to individual research institutions or

user groups. Second, online networks are used to search

STI bibliographic databases and to remotely access

large-scale high-performance computers. Third, online

networks are used for informal exchange of STI among

researchers, for example, an electronic bulletin board on

research in progress or upcoming key events, a computer

conference for exchanging working notes and ideas

among scientists conducting related research, and electronic mail for submission of manuscripts and review

comments to scientific and technical journals and to

funding agencies.2 Online STI dissemination benefits

from both a proliferation of online gateways that provide

channels for electronic information exchange (offered by

telecommunication common carriers, value-added carriers, and not-for-profit and governmental systems), and a

growing variety of STI services (especially bibliographic

and reference services offered by commercial and not-forDissemination of Federal STI is being

transformed by the ongoing revolution

in electronic information and telecommunication technologies.

profit organizations as well as some government agencies). Advances in online STI gateways and information

services are made possible in part by progress in

underlying digital telecommunication technologies (e.g.,

packet switching, fiber optics, and satellite networking).

The net result is that online is feasible over a broader range

of STI dissemination applications than ever before.

The package of online and optical disk technologies

offers a powerful combination. Online can be effectively

used when time or geographic factors are most important

(e.g., bibliographic updates on just-published research,

access to remote computing resources or to international

STI databases) and offline optical disks can be used for

large data sets and/or extensive data manipulation and

analysis requirements that are not time-sensitive and

would be much more expensive online (even at off-peak

rates).

The future of STI dissemination will be dominated by

electronic formats. Some major types of STI--e.g.,

satellite remote sensing data or the results of large-scale

computer models-are created, stored, transmitted, and

used in electronic form. These data are rarely, if ever,

converted to paper or microfiche, except when summarized and analyzed in technical reports and scientific

papers. By comparison, STI bibliographic and reference

materials are currently offered and used in paper, microfiche, and electronic formats (principally online and

Compact Disk-Read Only Memory (CD-ROM)). Fulllength reports and documents are still largely distributed

on paper or microfiche. However, electronic publishing is

rapidly taking over the document preparation and production process. Most STI documents are created electronically with word processing systems or software, even

though the output is still on paper or microfiche.

IS= U*S. Con=ss, offIce of Technology Assessmer% Znfoming the Nation: Federal Information Dissemination in an Electronic Age,

OTA-CIT-396 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1988).

2S= Natio~ ~ad~my of Sciences, Cotittee on Science, Engineefig, and ~blic Policy, znfor~tion Technology and the conduct of Research:

The User’s View (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1989); U.S. Congress, Office of TechnoloQ~ Assessmen4 High Pe~ormance Computing

and Nerworh”ng for Science, OTA-BP-CIT-59 (WashingtorL DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1989).

–57–
58 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

The package of online and optical disk

technologies offers a powerful combination.

Electronic publishing makes it possible to carry the

advantages of electronic word processing through all

stages of document preparation and information dissemination. Electronic publishing creates an electronic document

database that can be accessed online, stored on magnetic

or optical media, or printed out in whole or in part on

paper or microfiche. The major barrier to realization of the

‘‘intelligent database” is standardization of data structures and file formats for graphics and datasets as well as

text.

The price/performance of all electronic publishing

components continues to improve. This is resulting in a

continued narrowing of the gap between relatively

inexpensive desktop systems and expensive, high-end

electronic publishing and phototypesetting systems. Desktop systems can be linked to very fast, very high-quality

phototypesetters and printers.

Desktop publishing and dissemination functions benefit from steady progress in development of expert

systems. The expert systems applicable to STI dissemination are no different in principle from the systems that

have been successfully applied to other scientific, industrial, and educational areas. Expert systems with sophisticated search strategies can be used to retrieve and deliver

bibliographic or full-text STI from offline (e.g., CDROM) or online information systems. Expert systems can

improve the dissemination process by accounting for such

factors as: the profile of the information product (number

of pages, layout, type style, use of graphics, etc.),

anticipated user needs (e.g., size of demand by format),

and the modes of dissemination (press run, provisions for

demand printing in paper or microform, online database

access, optical disk distribution, etc.). Expert systems can

also assist SDI (selective dissemination of information)

by matching user interest profiles with available databases, and, potentially, in translation of STI from foreign

languages to English (and vice versa).

Over the next 3 to 5 years, use of printed Federal STI

is likely to decline modestly, while the use of electronic

formats will likely increase dramatically. Some transitional effects are already evident. For example, the

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) experienced a roughly 50 percent reduction in sales of paper and

microfiche copies of reports between 1980 and 1989. The

reduction is attributed in part to the effectiveness of online

searching of the NTIS bibliographic database (offered via

private vendors).3 The fastest growing NTIS product line

now is computer products. The Office of Scientific and

Technical Information at the Department of Energy has

noted a similar declining demand for paper and microfiche copies over the past decade as reliance on computerized bibliographic databases increases.4

Surveys conducted by the General Accounting Office

have documented the plans of Federal agencies to increase

their use of electronic formats for STI, and the growing

demand of STI users for electronic formats. The survey

results indicated a 50 percent or greater anticipated

increase over a 3-year period in the number of civilian

agencies using electronic mail, electronic bulletin boards,

floppy disks, and compact optical disks for STI dissemination. The results showed a doubling over the next 3 years

in the number of scientific and technical associations

desiring Federal STI in electronic formats. For Federal

depository libraries, the results indicated, for example,

about an eight-fold increase over the next 3 years in

demand for Federal STI on compact optical disks. In

contrast, the results showed a projected decline in demand

for paper and microfiche formats of about 15 to 20

percent. 5

A key to realizing the potential for technologyenhanced dissemination is the “information life cycle, ”

where STI dissemination is part of the larger process of

collection/creation, storage, processing, and archiving.

The stages in the STI process need to be integrated with

interconnected technologies to be cost-effective. Thus the

cost and delays associated with rekeyboarding, incompatible equipment, and the like can be reduced.

Another key is to substantially upgrade technology

training for the scientific and technical community.

Recent surveys have concluded that many scientists and

engineers are still not comfortable with online and ondisk

systems. 6 At present, user education and training receive

3u.s. Con=ess, office of Technology Assessment Znformirzg the Nation, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 112-114; U.S. National Tecmcrd ~ormation

Service, “Annual Report to the Congress on NTIS: Operations, Audi~ and Modernization” January 1989.

aBonnie C. Carroll, Office of Scientflc and Technical Information, U.S. Department of Energy, ‘‘DOE Reports Distribution Program: Current System

and Why Change Is Needed, ” Apr. 30, 1986.

SU.S. General ACCOWI@ Offke, FederalInformafi”on: Agency Needs andPractices, Fact Sheet for tie c~G Joint Committee on Printing, U.S.

Congress, GAOIGGD-88-115FS, September 1988; and U.S. General Accounting OffIce, Federal Information: Users’ Current and Future Technology

Needs, Fact Sheet for the C~Joint Committee on Printing, U.S. Congress, GAO/GGD-89-20FS, November 1988.

6S= s~tement of Chmles R. McCIUe, ~ofessor of ~ormation s~dies, Syracuse University, before a hearing of the House Codttee On SCienCe,

Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology, Oct. 12, 1989.
App. A--Technological Opportunities for Managing and Disseminating Federal Scientific and Technical Information ● 59

Over the next 3 to 5 years, use of printed

Federal STI is likely to decline modestly,

while the use of electronic formats will

likely increase dramatically.

minimal attention. In order to fully realize the potential of

electronic technologies for STI, user training needs to be

viewed and funded as an integral part of STI system

development. Once exposed to electronic STI and trained

in its use (whether formally or through self-or collegiallearning), the users frequently become technology enthusiasts. 7

The convergence of trends in technology and in user

preference for electronic data, combined with the emergence of systems integration and standards for the STI life

cycle, offer an almost limitless array of possibilities for

STI dissemination. Several of these are highlighted below

in the context of Federal science agency applications.

Cartographic/Geographic Information

Many aspects of science and technology depend on

geographic information-frequently in the form of maps

that show the location of transportation networks, natural

resources, climate regimes, environmental sources, and

the like. In the past, these maps were preparedly hand and

printed on paper. Over the last 15 years or so, mapmaking

has been computerized, and satellite imagery has been

incorporated along with data from field surveys and aerial

photogr ammetry. But the final product was and still is

largely printed on paper. Over the last 5 years advances in

computer technologies have culminated in ‘‘nothing less

than a cartographic revolution. ”

This revolution is being driven by digital cartography

combined with powerful hardware and software that can

access and manipulate geographic data from multiple

sources. By collecting information in digital (as opposed

to analog form), or by converting analog data (e.g., aerial

photographs) to digital form, the data can be readily

processed by computers to produce a vast array of

computer products. Digitized maps can be displayed on

computer screens and recorded on magnetic and optical

media, for example, as well as used to produce traditional

printed maps.8

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) expects that many

of these digitized maps will be produced in CD-ROM

format at a fraction of the cost of the equivalent magnetic

tapes or printed paper documents. USGS pilot tests of

CD-ROM indicate that it is likely to be an order of

magnitude less expensive than computer tapes, and will

require only a microcomputer and CD-ROM reader rather

than a more expensive mini- or main-frame computer

needed for tapes.

Optical disks will revolutionize STI storage and

dissemination. Optical disk technology uses a laser beam

to record data on plastic disks by engraving pits in the

surface. Encoded disks can be read by a low-power laser

beam to retrieve the data. Other members of the optical

disk family include: WORM (Write Once Ready Manytimes); Erasable disks; Videodisk (for storing film or still

photos); and CD-I (Compact Disk-Interactive) that combines text, data, video, audio, and software capabilities on

one disk.

The CD-ROM is rapidly gaining acceptance, and the

basic technical standards are already in place. The

marginal cost of producing CD-ROMs is very low—

currently about $2 per disk at volumes of several hundred

or more. The full cost can be as much as $50 to $500 per

disk for several hundred, if the costs of data preparation,

premastering, and mastering are included. But even this

compares favorably with other storage media. Each

CD-ROM can store up to about 600 megabytes (millions

of bytes) of data. This is equivalent to about 300,000 text

pages (assuming 250 words or about 2,000 bytes per

page). One CD-ROM can store the equivalent of about

1,650 floppy diskettes, 30 of the 20-megabyte hard disks,

15 of the 1,600 bits-per-inch 9-track magnetic computer

tapes, or 4 of the 6,250 bits-per-inch computer tapes. Thus

a $2 CD-ROM can store as much as several hundreds of

dollars’ worth of magnetic media. Microcomputer-based

CD-ROM authoring software now costs less than $1,000.

Agencies with heavy CD-ROM activity might be able to

justify purchase of a premastering system ($50,000 to

$1OO,OOO), but will need to contract out for mastering and

duplication.

USGS issuing CD-ROMs with cartographic and geographic information on a variety of topics, such as:

● Ž Gloria Sidescan Sonar Data--contains data for the

Gulf of Mexico and parts of the eastern Pacific

Ocean, produced by USGS, NOAA, and NASA, and

available from USGS;

Tsee Johu R.B. clemen~ “Increasing Rese~chfioductivi~ Through Information Technology: A User-Centered vievvpoin~” mmuSCript submitt~

to “Research Reviews in Information and Documentatio~’ October 1989; alSO see National Academy of Sciences, Information Technology and the

Conduct of Research: The User’s View, op. cit., footnote 2.

8(J.S. Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee on Digital c~o~phy, “Coordinating of Digital Cartographic Activities in the Federal

Government,” Sixth Annual Report to the OMB Director, 1988.
60 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

The U.S. Geological Survey expects that

many of these digitized maps will be

produced in CD-ROM format at a fraction of the cost of the equivalent magnetic tapes or printed paper documents.

●

●

●

●

• Aerial Photography Records-contains aerial photographs from the USGS National Cartographic Information Center (recently renamed the Earth Science

Information Center);

• Joint Earth Sciences--contains sidelooking airborne

radar data, prototype produced by and available from

USGS, Bureau of Land Management, and Soil

Conservation Service;

• Hydrodata--contains daily measurement data for

USGS water gage stations, produced and sold by

Earth Info., Inc. (for profit, formerly U.S. West

Optical Publishing); and

• USGS Reference Materials-contains GEO Index (a

database of geologic maps) and Earth Science Data

Directory, produced and sold by OCLC, Inc. (not-forprofit, Online Computer Library Center).

Space Science Data

The collection of scientific data by satellites and

rockets-already very extensive-will increase further

over the next few years, as a new generation of Earth- and

space-observing satellites, manned space missions, and

interplanetary and deep space probes is launched. The

storage and dissemination of these data pose a major

challenge to the Federal science agencies—and especially

to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA). Several new electronic technologies have the

potential to avoid total systems overload from the

expected avalanche of space data.

NASA’s primary institution for space data management and dissemination is the National Space Science

Data Center (NSSDC) located at the Goddard Space

Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. NSSDC is the

largest space data-archive in the world, with about 85,000

magnetic tapes of digital data currently on file (along with

another 35,000 backup magnetic tapes). The NSSDC

archives only processed data, not the raw telemetry data

received directly from space. The center also archives a

large volume of photographs and film taken by satellites

and space missions. Some data are maintained on

microform or hard copy. At present, the center archives

about 4,000 different data sets, mostly from NASA

missions but with a few from Department of Defense or

foreign missions. The center retains no classified data,

and the primary users are researchers from the disciplines

of astronomy, astrophysics, lunar and planetary science,

solar terrestrial physics, space plasma physics, and earth

sciences. 9

The opportunities are substantial for use of optical

disks to store and disseminate space science data. NASA

is beginning to experiment with both 12-inch WORM and

4.75-inch CD-ROM. One WORM product is currently

available for dissemination (the data from 20 magnetic

tapes were transferred to one WORM disk). And four

prototype CD-ROM products are available: 1) a CDROM space science sampler that includes a cross-section

of planetary, land, oceans, astronomy, and solar-terrestrial

data ($50 for the CD-ROM, software on floppy disk, and

documentation); 2) a 3-disk CD-ROM set of Voyager/

Uranus images ($100 for the disks, software, and documentation); 3) a 5-disk CD-ROM set of Voyager/Jupiter

and Saturn images ($175 for the disks, software, and

documentation); and 4) a CD-ROM produced by the

NOAA National Geophysical Data Center that includes

solar wind and magnetic field data from NASA and

various geomagnetic and solar data from NOAA (disk and

basic software free while they last; $100 for advanced

software and updates).

An understanding of the potential of optical disks can

be gained from the following hypothetical examples. The

Apollo 17 lunar mission generated about 240 magnetic

computer tapes of digital data, 32,000 feet of 16 mm color

photographs, and 39,000 feet of 16mm black-and-white

photographs.

10 These digital data could be stored on about

4 double-sided 12-inch WORM disks. (One 12-inch

WORM disk can store 1.2 gigabytes per side--equivalent

to 30 of the 1,600 bits-per-inch magnetic tapes. A

two-sided WORM disk can store 2.4 gigabytes or 60 tapes

of data.) With 4:1 data compression, it would be possible

to store the Apollo 17 data on one WORM disk. The

16mm photographic data, which in this example are

equivalent to roughly 850,000 individual photographs,

could be stored on about 17 analog videodisks (at the

standard 54,000 images per videodisk).

For some of the earlier missions, data for entire series

of mission activities could be consolidated. For example,

the Mariner interplanetary mission series generated the

following volumes of digital data in number of magnetic

tapes: Mariner 2 (5 tapes); Mariner 4 (10 tapes); Mariner

9 (42 tapes); and Mariner 10 (184 tapes).11 The total of

%= US. Natio~ &romutics and Space A&ni.nis@ation, Goddard Space Flight Center, The National Space Science Data Center, NSSDC-88-26,

January 1989.

IW.S. Natio~ Aero~uticS and space AdminiStratiO~ Goddard Space Flight Center, NSSDC Data Listings, NSSDC-88-01, Jmuw’ 1988.

1lIbid.
App. A--Technological Opportunities for Managing and Disseminating Federal Scientific and Technical Information ● 61

286 magnetic tapes could be stored on about 5 doublesided 12-inch WORM disks (without data compression).

The NSSDC archive provides clear evidence of the

proliferation of space data over time, as the number and

sophistication of space missions increased.

New optical and magnetic storage technologies make

it possible for NSSDC to carry out a gradual transition

from magnetic tapes and photographic film to higher

density storage media such as optical disks or digital tape

cartridges (not tape reels, see later discussion on earth

sciences data) for digital data and videodisks for analog

data. This transition will be quickest for newly acquired

data, and for historical data that needs to be re-recorded

on new media (i.e., due to deterioration of magnetic tapes,

many of which are more than 10 years old and written on

obsolete technology).

At the same time, demand for online data dissemination

is also increasing. NSSDC is making more data sets

available online either over networks or on a dial-up basis.

Network options currently include: SPAN (the Space

Physics Analysis Network) that links DECnet-based

computers in the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan,

Australia, New Zealand, and South America; NSN

(NASA Science Network) that links with NSFnet and the

ARPANET-based Internet; BITNET that links various

universities and research organizations; and Telenet, a

public packet-switching data network. 12

Second, technical evaluations and guidelines will need

to be developed on when and how to use these media for

storing and disseminating data. How fast should highdensity storage media be phased in, and what kinds of data

sets are best suited for WORM, CD-ROM, videodisk,

digital tape cartridge, and other storage technologies?

These guidelines will need to take into account the ability

of users to accommodate high-density storage media, in

terms of training, equipment, and cost. What are the

highly leveraged data sets that are both best suited for the

new media and matched to user capabilities to handle

high-density storage? And the guidelines will need to

consider the appropriate balance between offline highdensity storage media and online dissemination.

At present, NSSDC includes only a small number of

data sets in the online program, and generally limits

online time to one-half hour or less. This restriction is

based in part on the limited transmission speeds (e.g., still

9.6 kilobits or occasionally 56 kilobits per second, for

many universities) such that longer transmissions cost

more than offline dissemination. However, online will

become more cost-effective as transmission speeds increase. NASA itself already has a l-megabit/second

transmission network for use by NASA laboratories and

centers. And the proposed multi-agency national research

and education network (NREN) anticipates transmission

speeds of l-gigabit/second or more in the future.13 Some

current online space science data sets include:

International Ultraviolet Explorer Satellite, contains

ultraviolet spectral data, sponsored by NASA, European Space Agency, and British Science and Engineering Council;

Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, contains 120

days of ozone data from the Nimbus 7 satellite,

sponsored by NASA;

Space Telescope Archive and Catalog, contains

catalogs of astronomical data and various observing

logs from spaceborne astronomy missions, sponsored by European Space Telescope and Southern

Observatory; and

Crustal Dynamics Data Information System, contains catalog of data from Satellite Laser Ranging,

Lunar Laser Ranging, Very Long Baseline Interferometry, and Global Positioning System experiments, sponsored by NASA, National Geodetic

Service, and various universities.

Earth Sciences Data

Over the last several years, the Federal science

agencies, and the scientific community generally, have

made a significant effort to improve the collection,

management, and dissemination of earth sciences data.

This effort is driven by the widespread concern over

problems of global change—ranging from climate change

and deforestation to air and water pollution to soil erosion

and demineralization to drought-and the recognition

that better understanding of these global problems requires much better information. The concept of the Earth

system has emerged as an important organizing principle,

since global change involves all major earth subsystems—

the atmosphere, oceans, snow and ice, lakes and rivers,

land formations, and the biosphere (e.g., trees, plants, and

animals) and can be affected by forces from deep within

IW.S. NASA, Dara Center, op. cit., footnote 9, pp.15-16; also see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, High pe@or?nUnce C@W~~ng,

op. cit., footnote 2.

lssee U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, The Federal High Pe&ormunce Compllfi”ng program, SePt.

8, 1989; and U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessmen~ High Pe~ormunce Computing, op. cit., footnote 2.
62 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

the Earth (e.g., volcanoes and earthquakes) and from far

in space (e.g., changes in solar radiation) .14

The earth system concept is being used to organize the

vast array of data relevant to the disciplines that comprise

the earth sciences-climatology, oceanography, glaciology, hydrology, biology, biogeochemistry, geology, etc.

In the U.S. Government, the long-term objective is to

develop a “virtual” interagency information system for

global change data. ‘‘Virtual’ means that the information

system will be a family of decentralized data centers, most

of which already exist in some form, linked together by

common directories, standards, and policies on access,

user charges, quality control, and the like. The goal is to

have the system fully implemented by the time that

NASA’s planned Earth-observing system is operational

in the late 1990s (and thus generating a large additional

volume of earth sciences data) .15

As is the case for space science data, the most effective

technology for managing this massive volume of data is

high-density storage. Some of the smaller data centers

could be converted entirely to a combination of WORM

and CD-ROM. For example, the National Oceanographic

Data Center, operated by NOAA, maintains about 12

gigabytes of processed data in the following categories:

chemical data (marine chemistry), pollutants/toxic substances); biological data (e.g., fish/shellfish, marine birds,

plankton); and physical data (e.g., wind/waves, current,

subsurface temperature). NODC also maintains about 12

gigabytes of raw, unprocessed data. The entire NODC

database of 24 gigabytes would fit on about two to twelve

double-sided 12-inch WORM optical disks, depending on

the data compression ratio. As new data accumulate, the

WORM disks could be updated. Those portions of the

database in high demand could be extracted, mastered,

and duplicated at very low cost on CD-ROM, and updated

CD-ROMs could be issued periodically.

Several Federal earth science data centers are experimenting with CD-ROM. One is the National Snow and Ice

Data Center, operated by the University of Colorado for

NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC).

The Snow and Ice Data Center has issued a prototype

CD-ROM with data on Northern Hemisphere ‘brightness

temperature grids,” which are collected by a NASA

satellite and used to estimate the polar sea ice parameters.

The CD-ROM disk comes with a software diskette and a

In the U.S. Government, the long-term

objective is to develop a "virtual” interagency information system for global

change data. 44 Virtual” means that the

information system will be a family of

decentralized data centers.

user’s guide, and is available free while supplies last. This

is the first in what is planned as a series of CD-ROMs, and

reflects a shift in data dissemination philosophy to offline

low-cost optical disks for many research purposes.16 In

general, the NGDC believes that CD-ROM will greatly

improve the accessibility and usability of STI by the

research community, as well as by governmental and

private-sector organizations that depend on geophysical

data.

The larger data centers are also considering highdensity magnetic as well as optical storage. For example,

the EROS (Earth Resources Observation Systems) Data

Center, operated by USGS, archives about 6 million

frames of aerial photographs and over 1 million Landsat

and other remotely sensed satellite images. The Landsat

imagery alone is roughly equivalent to 75 terabytes (or

75,000 gigabytes) of digital data. Because of this large

volume, the EROS Data Center is considering the digital

tape cassette as the next generation high-density storage

medium. Each cassette can store up to 50 gigabytes of

data, much more than either CD-ROM (about 0.6

gigabyte per disk, or 4 gigabytes with 6:1 data compression) or WORM (1.2 gigabytes per disk up to about 12

gigabytes for a two-sided disk with 6:1 data compression). Digital cassettes have a faster data transfer rate than

optical disks. On the other hand, the digital tape cassette

is a magnetic medium that, like magnetic computer tape

reels, deteriorates over time and needs a tape refresh every

7 to 15 years. This compares with a projected lifetime of

20 to 30 years or more for optical disks (the longevity of

optical media is still uncertain). The cassettes and

equipment cost considerably more than comparable

optical disk systems. Optical disks also have the advantage of random (as opposed to sequential) access and

~4s~e J.A. Eddy, “The Earth As A System, ” Earth Quest, 1987, vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-2, available from the OffIce of Interdisciplinary Earth Studies,

University Corporation for Atmospheric Researcb Boulder, CO; U.S. National Aeromutics and Space Administration, Earth Systems Science

Committee, Earth Systems Science:A Closer View (Washingto~ DC: NASA, January 1988); F.B. Wood, Jr., ‘‘The Need for Systems Research on Global

Climat9 Change, ’ SystemsResearch, 1988, vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 225-240; U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Panel on Global Climate

Change, The Vision: A Rededication of NCMA, January 1989; and R. Corell, “A Paradigm Emerging,” Earth Quest, 1990, vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1-4.

IsSee, for example, U.S. InteragenW Working Group for Data Management of Global @nge, “Interagency Session on Data Mamgement for Global

Change, ” minutes of meetings dated Sept. 18, 1987, Nov. 24, 1987, and Mar. 18, 1988.

16u.s. Natio~ Geophysic~ Da@ Center, Natio~ Snow ad I@ Dan Center, Data ~ouncemen~ ‘ ‘$~~gM~tic~el mcrowWemdiOIIl@X

(SMMR) Brightness Temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere,’ June 1, 1989; also see R. Weaver, C. Morns, and R.G. Barry, “Passive Microwave

Data for Snow and Ice Research: Planned Products From the DMSP SSM/I System, ” EOS, Sept. 29, 1987, pp. 776-777.
App. A--Technological Opportunitiesfor Managing and Disseminating Federal Scientific and Technical Information ● 63

microcomputer compatibility (with inexpensive, userfriendly software). Optical tape is another storage technology that warrants consideration. One 12-inch reel of

optical tape can store up to a terabyte of data. Preparation

and duplication cost, expected level of use, storage

capacity, data transfer rate, data access time, longevity,

and equipment and training requirements are among the

factors that need to be considered in evaluating alternative

storage media.

Drought Monitoring Information

Electronic technologies open up new alternatives for

dissemination of time-sensitive Federal STI, such as

drought information, that is widely used (contrasted with

the very large space and earth sciences data sets that are

less time-sensitive and have fewer users). Drought

information is collected and disseminated by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture and NOAA. The NOAA/

USDA Joint Agricultural Weather Facility and NOAA

Climate Analysis Center produce several drought-related

reports and bulletins, such as the Weekly Weather and

Crop Bulletin.

Should the government decide to prepare and distribute

a weekly or monthly electronic drought bulletin, it might

include: temperature and precipitation trends and forecasts; streamflow, lake (and reservoir) level, and snow

pack trends and forecasts; soil and plant (including forest)

moisture conditions; soil quality conditions (e.g., mineral

content, depth of topsoil); crop conditions; and overall

drought indices (e.g., the Palmer drought severity index).

The information could be presented on a county, State,

regional, and national (and international) level, and would

be ideally suited for use with analytical and presentation

software (e.g., using spreadsheet or graphics techniques).

Agency pilot tests and experience in other areas suggest

several prototypes for electronic dissemination that could

be applied to drought (or other) time-sensitive Federal

STI. The “best” approach depends on the type of

information, number and types of users, importance to the

agency mission and statutory guidance, agency precedents, budgetary constraints, related private sector alternatives, and the historical and political context.

A weekly or monthly drought bulletin could be made

available on an agency electronic bulletin board for

dial-up access by users over commercial telecommunication lines. This approach is used, for example, by the

Electronic technologies open up new

alternatives for dissemination of timesensitive Federal STI, such as drought

information.

National Science Foundation’s “science indicators”

bulletin board and the Department of Commerce’s

‘‘economic bulletin board. Or the drought bulletin board

could be disseminated online via the computer center of

a single agency contractor, an approach used by the

Securities and Exchange Commission (for corporate

financial information) and USDA (for various agricultural

reports and bulletins). Alternatively, an agency computer

center could be employed. For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency is making its “toxic release

inventory” available online via the National Library of

Medicine computer center. And the U.S. Geological

Survey provides data on earthquake epicenters online

from the National Earthquake Information Center in

Golden, Colorado. Finally, the drought bulletin board

could be offered as a service of private sector commercial

or not-for-profit value-added information gateways and

vendors.17

Forest Monitoring Information

Concern about forest ecology is growing. The need for

monitoring forest health reflects: 1) mounting evidence of

forest decline due to changing environmental, climatic,

and soil conditions, among other factors; and 2) growing

appreciation of the key role of forests in stabilizing

ecosystems and climate on local to global scales.18

Because of the rural, remote location of most forests,

monitoring in these areas has, until recently, been

logistically difficult and expensive. Advances in information and telecommunication technologies now make it

possible to provide for efficient and cost-effective monitoring of remote locations. For example, before the

microcomputer revolution, temperature and precipitation

typically were measured at remote locations with a

hydrothermograph that recorded the data on chart paper.

In order to retrieve that data, someone had to periodically

visit the monitoring site, tear off the chart paper, and carry

the chart paper back to a central location where the data

17see ~tatements of Edwwd J. H~ey, Dir~~to~, Office of rnfo~tion Reso~ces M~gernen~ U.S. Envil-onmentd protection Agency, Joh.u

Penhollow, Director, OffIce of EDGAR Management U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissio~ and John J. FranIce, Assistant Secretary of

AdministratioIL U.S. Department of Agriculture, before a hearing of the Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice, and Agriculture, House

Committee on Government Operations, Apr. 18, 1989. Also see U.S. Department of Commerce, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, “Request for

Comments on the Preliminary Implementation Plan of Subtitle E, Part I of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, the National Trade

Data Bank,” Apr. 21, 1989.

Igsee U.S. Depwent of Agriculture, Forest sWViCf% “Forest Productivity and Health in a Changing Atmospheric Environment,” Conceptual Plan

for the Forest/Atmosphere Interaction Priority Research Program, 1988.
64 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

Advances in information and telecommunication technologies now make it

possible to provide for efficient and

cost-effective monitoring of remote locations.

was extracted and logged in. The data had to be typed in

if computer processing (e.g., calculation of means and

standard deviations) was desired. This largely mechanical

and manual process was (and is, where still used)

labor-intensive, expensive, and prone to data quality

problems. Frequently, the data were collected only

sporadically (e.g., by forest rangers on trail maintenance

duty), and was logged in and compiled on an erratic basis.

As a result, temperature and precipitation records for

many rural monitoring stations were incomplete or

nonexistent.

Microcomputers and satellites are transforming the

nature of remote monitoring and providing a valuable

information resource for both research and management

purposes. Digital data recorders (at under $1,000 each) are

replacing the hydrography. These simple devices record

environmental and climatic data on a removable digital

chip that stores 45 to 60 days of data. The chips still have

to be picked up by someone and carried to an office, but

once there, the data can be entered directly from the chip

into a microcomputer for data storage and manipulation.

Daily, monthly, seasonal, and annual means, among other

statistics, can be readily calculated. Remote automated

monitoring stations (costing $10,000 to $15,000 each,

with a satellite dish) can be used to electronically collect

and transmit the data via satellite to a central location. For

example, the U.S. Interagency Fire Center in Boise,

Idaho, collects climate data via a NOAA satellite from

about 500 remote weather stations located on forested

lands (260 stations operated by the U.S. Forest Service,

200 by the Bureau of Land Management, and 40 by the

National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service).

Both the Forest Service and National Science Foundation are funding rural monitoring networks to meet forest

ecology and climate research needs. The Forest Service

has a ‘‘long-term forest ecosystem monitoring program”

to measure selected physical and biological parameters,

establish baseline conditions, and detect changes over

time. The program builds on existing stations located in

experimental forests, experimental rangelands, and research natural areas. Most stations require equipment

upgrades and more consistent data collection and analysis. For example, only 16 of 83 experimental forests have

long-term data sets (i.e., more than 15 to 20 years), and

some of these sets are incomplete or currently inactive.

The monitoring information will help researchers and

resource managers determine changes in forest composition and species distribution resulting from air pollution,

climate, and soil changes. This in turn should be

important input to ecological models used to predict forest

growth, commercial tree yield, forest and rangeland

habitat and carrying capacity, fire frequency and severity,

recreational opportunities, and the like.

To the extent possible, experimental forest monitoring

stations are being colocated with the “long-term ecological research” field sites funded by NSF. These sites are

designed to study the ecology of a diversity of natural

landscapes-including forest, prairie, desert, and aquatic

environments. The intent is to better understand the

patterns of organic decomposition, primary photosynthetic production, food webs, biogeochemical cycling,

nutrient movement through soils and groundwater, atmospheric deposition, and climatic change.19 Standardized meteorological data collection is being implemented

at the various ecological sites, so that baseline conditions

are adequate for detection (and documentation) of both

cyclic and long-term climatic change.20 The ecological

stations together with the more well-established experimental forest stations provide reasonably balanced geographic coverage of the United States, with one or more

stations in the following States: Alaska, Washington,

Oregon, California, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Kansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia,

West Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, and New

Hampshire.

The Forest Service and NSF include the dissemination

of monitoring information to users as an important

objective. Advances in information technology can make

this a cost-effective reality. For example, the monthly data

for each monitoring station could be sent via inexpensive

floppy disk or electronic mail or bulletin board to a

designated central location. This could be a Forest Service

office, or a research university, or the National Climatic

Data Center (operated by NOAA) or National Technical

Information Service. The central office or center would

quality control and consolidate the data on one disk or

magnetic tape. Depending on the data volume and

demand, the consolidated data could be issued periodically in floppy disk, magnetic tape, and/or CD-ROM

Issee J~es c. Halfpenny and Kathryn P. hgraham (wk.), Long-Term Ecological Research in the United States: A Network ofResearch Sites, Forest

Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, OR 1984; James T, Callaban, “Long-TermEcological Research” Bioscience, vol. 34, No. 6, June 1984, pp. 363-367.

z~avid Gr~~and (cd.), “me Climate of the Imng-Terrn &oIogicrd Research Sites, ” Occasional Paper No. 44, Institute of Arctic and Alpine

Research, University of Colorado, 1987.
App. A--Technological Opportunitiesfor Managing and Disseminating Federal Scientific and Technical Information ● 65

formats. An electronic bulletin board could also be

cost-effective for disseminating monthly data sets.

In sum, electronic information technologies both: 1)

help make the forest and ecological monitoring system a

reality, and 2) help make it possible for the monitoring

results to be shared among the research community and

other public- and private-sector users at little marginal

cost to either the government or the users.

Energy Research Documents

Electronic information technologies also open up new

possibilities for the dissemination of Federal scientific

and technical documents that traditionally have been

maintained in paper and microfiche formats. An estimated

200,000 such documents are generated annually, with

more than half of the total originating from the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, or NASA.

Advancing technologies create new alternatives for

electronic dissemination of both Federal STI bibliographic databases and the STI documents themselves. The

activities of the DOE Office of Scientific and Technical

Information are illustrative. DOE/OSTI currently distributes about 14,000 documents per year in paper or

microfiche format to NTIS and in microfiche to the

Depository Library Program (DLP). Abstracts of the

documents are included in both the DOE bibliographic

database called “Energy Data Base” and the NTIS

bibliographic database. While the depository libraries

receive paper copies of Energy Research Abstracts, which

contain abstracts of DOE-funded research, the libraries

have online access to the DOE and NTIS bibliographic

databases only through private vendors at commercial

rates.

To meet its own internal needs, DOE has implemented

an Integrated Technical Information System (ITIS),

which provides DOE employees and contractors with

online access to the most recent 14 months of the Energy

Data Base. DOE has proposed a pilot test to offer

depository libraries similar online access. Besides timely

access to the Energy Data Base (compared with the paper

format Energy Research Abstracts), the pilot would

provide an electronic “gateway” to archival energy

research summaries (maintained on a database by a

commercial vendor), and “electronic cataloging” of

DOE documents in a format compatible with that used by

depository libraries (and the Library of Congress) .21

Another aspect of the DOE pilot test is a study of

alternative formats for document distribution. Over the

next few years, DOE, like other Federal science agencies,

has the opportunity to convert from paper and microfiche

Advancing technologies create new alternatives for electronic dissemination

of both Federal STI bibliographic databases and the STI documents themselves.

to optical disk as the primary document format. One

possibility is to require DOE research offices, laboratories, and contractors to submit all documents in an

electronic form (e.g., magnetic tape, online, diskette) that

can easily be converted to high-density optical disks (e.g.,

WORM or CD-ROM). Since the demand for STI documents is generally small, any desired paper copies could

be printed on demand. (The more popular documents

could be printed in larger volumes with traditional

printing processes.)

The study may show, as a hypothetical example, that

DOE could distribute copies of the documents via a

bimonthly CD-ROM, rather than on microfiche. A

standard double-sided CD-ROM can store about 300,000

pages of material (double-spaced, typewritten) or about

1,500 documents at 200 pages per document. Thus the

14,000 documents could fit on about 10 CD-ROMs. The

CD-ROM cost probably would be significantly lower

than microfiche (and much lower than paper). At present,

DOE pays about $350,000 per year for microfiche

production of depository library materials, compared to

an estimated $210,000 for mastering CD-ROMs and

duplicating 1,400 copies of each (one per depository

library). If DOE was able to piggyback depository

CD-ROM duplication onto mastering and production for

internal and possibly NTIS needs, the cost could be even

lower (and savings greater). Compared to microfiche,

CD-ROM should be easier to use, permit full-text

searching, and provide higher quality document resolution (on the screen or when printed out on demand).

One disadvantage of using a bimonthly CD-ROM is the

up to 2-month delay in getting some energy research

documents to the depository libraries (and other users).

This delay could be alleviated by maintaining the most

recent 2 (or perhaps 4) months of documents online in

full-text format, for retrieval and printing on-demand.

Many private vendors are adopting a similar approach,

which combines the strengths of online with CD-ROM

formats. Another possible disadvantage is that all participating depository libraries (and other users) would need

to have adequate CD-ROM facilities (one or several

ZW.S. rlep~ent of Energy, Office of Scientilc and Technical ~OrrnatiOn, ‘‘DOE/Depository Library Gateway: Access to DOE R&D Results in

Electronic Form, A Pilot Project Proposal,’ August 1986; U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, “Dissemination of Information in Electronic

Format to Federal Depository Libraries: Proposed Project Descriptions,” June 1988.
66 ● Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technical Information

microcomputer, CD-ROM drive, and local printer setups, depending on the level of use). As CD-ROM readers

continue to drop in price and become standard equipment

on microcomputers, the availability of CD-ROM equipment will improve, at least in the larger research libraries.

Special provisions may be needed-whether through the

DLP or otherwise-to ensure that smaller, rural, or

economically disadvantaged libraries have CD-ROM

equipment.

An inherent advantage of electronic formats such as

CD-ROM is that powerful bibliographic, retrieval, and

even expert search system software can be included

directly on the optical disk or loaded into the microcomputer via diskette. CD-ROM or online versions of the

“Grateful Meal” user-friendly software developed by the

National Library of Medicine (NLM) will be commonplace, whether developed by the government and/or

private vendors. NLM developed “Grateful Meal” to

facilitate user access to MEDLINE and other databases on

the NLM MEDLARS (MEDical Literature And Retrieval

System). Tens of thousands of copies at $29.95 each have

been sold through NTIS. The package includes 2 floppy

disks, a user’s guide, and an application for a MEDLARS

access code. The capabilities of user-friendly software

such as “Grateful Meal” or numerous commercial

software packages can be easily replicated on CD-ROM.

In considering the appropriate role for Federal agencies

in online dissemination of STI bibliographic databases,

three aspects warrant particular attention. First, most of

the Federal scientific and technical agencies have a

statutory charter and/or mission objective to promote the

wide distribution of information on the results of Federal

research and development. Even agencies that operate

under restrictions (e.g., NASA) have a strong dissemination mandate. Bibliographic databases are key tools in

facilitating access to information on R&D results, and

online databases (or for some purposes CD-ROM) offer

significant advantages in terms of timeliness and ease of

search and retrieval. Thus agencies need to be sensitive to

equity of access to Federal STI, and ensure that, whatever

means of online dissemination may be employed, certain

user groups are not disadvantaged. Students, teachers,

retired scientists, small business persons, and the like may

need special consideration.

Second, development and dissemination of online

bibliographic databases (and now CD-ROM versions of

same) are strengths of the private commercial and

not-for-profit information industry. A wide range of

excellent STI bibliographic databases has been developed

by private vendors that offer a portfolio of STI databases

(including some from Federal agencies) over information

gateways and value-added networks. Again, equity of

access is a concern since full commercial online rates can

range from $75 to $150 per hour or higher for privately

developed databases, and commercial rates range from

about $40 to $80 per hour for government databases (two

to four times the comparable government rate). On the

other hand, commercial vendors increasingly are proposing or offering a variety of discounts for off-peak or bulk

volume use, that are more affordable for students,

teachers, and the general public. Private sector not-forprofit vendors are providing some databases at rates

between full commercial and governmental levels.

Third, a Federal STI bibliographic database may or

may not be less expensive if offered online by the

government. There is no clear-cut answer. Each situation

requires individual analysis. For example, adding an

online database to an already existing online computer

capability (e.g., at NLM) or providing expanded access to

an existing online system (e.g., depository library access

to the DOE system) may have minimal marginal costs, if

the existing computer center could handle the additional

file and/or users without costly upgrades or expansion. In

these situations, the incremental or marginal cost of

additional computer use may be minimal, and competitive

with comparable private-sector costs. On the other hand,

if this required an upgrade of agency computer capability,

the cost could be higher. For setting up a small electronic

bulletin board, the cost of a new system is likely to be

modest, but for a large, heavily used bibliographic

database, the cost could be substantial. In making

decisions on online bibliographic (or other online)

systems, agencies will need to consider the quality of

service, agency mission, equity of access, and related

private-sector activities, in addition to cost-effectiveness.

With respect to CD-ROM (and other optical storage

media), the situation is clearer. It seems likely that for

some types of Federal information, and especially various

STI documents, high-density optical storage will largely

supplant paper and microfiche. It is not a question of

whether this will happen, but when. Federal agencies will,

in all probability, make this transition themselves in order

to meet their statutory mission and records management

responsibilities. The agencies may employ any of several

means to make this transition, including private contractors, NTIS, and/or GPO. But the end result is likely to be

the availability of many or most Federal STI documents

on optical disk, at affordable prices, with powerful

built-in search and retrieval capabilities, that will be

cost-effective compared to paper or microfiche. This

upgrade may also offer many new opportunities for the

private sector to develop more value-added applications

and products.
Appendix B

List of Acronyms

Acronyms

CALS -Computer-Aided Acquisition and

Logistical Support

CD-I -Compact Disk-Interactive

CD-ROM -Compact Disk-Read Only Memory

CENDI -Commerce, Energy, NTIS, Defense

Information

COSATI —Committee on Scientific and Technical

Information

DLP —Depository Library program

DoD —Department of Defense

DOE —Department of Energy

DTIC —Defense Technical Information Center

EDB —Energy Data Base

EDI —Electronic Data Interchange

EDGAR —Electronic Data Gathering and Retrieval

EPA —Environmental Protection Agency

EOS —Earth Observing System

EROS —Earth Resources Observation Systems

ETDE —Energy Technology Data Exchange

FCCSET —Federal Coordinating Committee on

FIPS

FOIA

GIS

GPO

IIA

JCP

LOC

NAL

NARA

Science, Engineering, and Technology

—Federal Information Processing Standard

—Freedom of Information Act

-Geographic Information Systems

-Government Printing Office

—Information Industry Association

—Information Resources Management

—Joint Committee on Printing

—Library of Congress

—National Agricultural Library

—National Archives and Records

Administration

NASA

NGDC

NIST

NLM

NOAA

NODC

NSA

NSF

NSSDC

NTIS

OIRA

OMB

0SI

OTA

OSTP

PSAC

PRA

PTO

R&D

SDI

SupDocs

—National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

—National Geophysical Data Center

—National Institute of Standards and

Technology

—National Library of Medicine

—National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

—National Oceanographic Data Center

—National Security Agency

—National Science Foundation

—National Space Science Data Center

—National Technical Information Service

-Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs

-Office of Management and Budget

-Open Systems Interface

-Office of Technology Assessment

-Office of Science and Technology Policy

—President’s Science Advisory Committee

—Paperwork Reduction Act

—Patent and Trademark Office

—Research and Development

—Selective Dissemination of Information

—Superintendent of Documents

STI —Scientific and Technical Information

S&T —Science and Technology

—Toxic Release Inventory

USGS —United States Geological Survey

WORM —Write Once-Read Manytimes

--67–
Index

committees on STI, 1,43-47

CENDI (Commerce, Energy, NTIS, Defense Information), 46-47

FCCSET (Federal Coordinating Committee on Science, Engineering, and Technology), 43-47

ICCDC (Interagency Coordinating Committee on Digital Cartography), 47, 48, 50, 59

IWGDMGC (Interagency Working Group on Data

Management for Global Change), 44, 47, 51-52,

55-56

PCAST (President’s Council of Advisors on Science

and Technology), 43-47

competitiveness, 1,3,5,7-18,33-36,45, 49-50,52,55-56

Defense, Department of

open flow of STI, 33-36

use of STI, 11,48, 65

Depository Library Program, 4,29,3642,65-66

earth sciences information, 2, 5, 11-12, 15-16, 26-27,

3740,44,50-53,55-56, 59-63

drought monitoring, 63

forest monitoring, 63-65

Energy, Department of

open flow of STI, 33-36

use of STI, 6, 11-12, 34-35, 37-42, 47, 65-66

Federal science agencies

and OMB, 1, 3, 19-23,47-49

and OSTP, 1,4349

and governmentwide dissemination agencies, 36-42

open flow of STI, 33-36

role in science education, 10, 52-55

STI indices/directories, 51-52

STI management, 46-49

STI standards, 49-51

Freedom of Information Act, 19,35-36

Government Printing Office, I, 3,6,36-42,50

indexing STI, 2, 38, 51-52

information dissemination policy

Commerce, Department of, draft, 21-22

diversity of STI sources, 24-25

government/private-sector roles, 3, 15-18, 19-25, 30-

31,4142

governmentwide dissemination agencies, 36-42

intellectual property, 29-30, 34-36

user charges, 26-29,4142

user involvement, 25, 41-42

value-added, 24, 30-31

information literacy, 5, 9-10, 52-55

international exchange of STI, 8-9, 15-18, 33-36, 55-56,

61

Landsat imagery, 2

pricing, 26

storage technology, 62-63

libraries, 4,6,9-10,14-15,25,30-31, 40-42,48,52-55,58

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National Space Science Data Center, 3, 4, 30, 37,

50-51,60-61

open flow of STI, 36

role in STI, 13-14, 37-40,47, 50-51

space science data, 60-61

National Agricultural Library

pricing, 29-30

role in STI, 37-40

National Archives and Records Administration, 4, 38,

4041

National Library of Medicine

MEDLINE database, 15-16,28-30,66

pricing, 27-30

role in STI, 6, 37-40

National Institute of Standards and Technology

computer security, 33

standards, 50-51

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

pricing, 27-28,30

role in STI, 37-40, 61-63

National Technical Information Service

pricing, 27-29

role in STI, 4, 38-40

Office of Management and Budget

and OSTP, 1, 35,47-49

and science agencies, 1-3, 19-23, 41, 47-49

Circular A-130, 19-23

open flow of STI, 3-4, 16-17,22, 33-36,55-56

Office of Science and Technology Policy

and OMB, 1, 35,47-49

and science agencies, 46-49

open flow of STI, 33-36, 55-56

role in STI policy, I, 38,43-56

online dissemination, 1,5,9, 14,28,29-30,34-35,4042,

51,53-54,57-59,61,63-66

optical disks, 1,3,4,5,9, 14,27-28,29-30,38-39, 40-42,

48-49,51-52,53-54,57-61, 62-63,65-66

Paperwork Reduction Act, 3, 19-23,38,45

Printing Act, 19,38,41,45

science education, 5, 9-10, 52-55

standards, 2, 14,49-51

technology transfer, 5, 13-15,33-36,45

users of STI, 2, 10-17, 24-29, 36-42,47-52, 59-66

--68– U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTIMG OFFICE: 1S90 04076