COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "memo.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00007 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "memo.pub[let,jmc]" source;
.TURN ON "→"
→{DATE}
.cb NOTES FOR NLCPI ACADEMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING


Suggestions:

1. Enlarge council greatly.  There are several Stanford professors
it would be good to have.  If it gets unwieldy, there could be
an executive committee.
Disadvantage: at some point paying for meeting attendance is too expensive.
Holding a meeting at AAAS meeting.  This meeting is one of the main
interesections of science with public policy.

2. The issue is the people who want prosperity vs. people who don't -
not corporations vs. the environment.  We will probably win on
saccharin, because the issue is perceived as between the users
and the government and not as between the makers and the government.
There are many cases in which we can do much better if the issue
is seen as one of which policy do you favor rather than whose side
are you on.

	3. In order to emphasize this, there should be citizen
intervenors.  For example, a person with emphysema downwind from a coal or
oil powered plant, could intervene on behalf of a nuclear plant that would
permit less SO%42%1 to be emitted in his direction.  Such a person could
sue Sierra Club or NRDC if they have delayed the cleaning of his air.

4. We need a publication called (say), %2Science, Technology and
Politics%1 - an obverse of the %2Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists%1.
Perhaps it should be oriented more towards engineers.  I find
%2Commentary%1 a source of encouragement, but it never discusses
science or technology and it isn't read by people whose main
interests are scientific and technological.

5. We need to build up the moral self-confidence of Americans.
The Arabs violated their agreements with the American companies
who provided technology developed by the American people.
In the future, American resource investments abroad should be
protected by treaties with the American government (in return
for a consideration) undertaking to defend them.  We are all
suffering, because our investments were stolen.  Thus the magazine
might well have an explicitly patriotic and even nationalist
theme.  Perhaps the U.S. should be as nationalist as De Gaulle's
France.

6. We should consider a very sharp statement about the Carter
non-energy policy which is admirably suited to compromising the
political interests within the Democratic Party but which has
no relation to the needs of the country.  In particular, it has
no energy budget - only pious hopes.  One such sharp challenge
would congratulate West Germany, France and Japan for refusing
to give into to Carter's violation of the Peaceful Atom Treaty
by giving up their reprocessing plans.