of the first controlled rheology of high concentrations of fiber-filled suspensions, but this was all normal science and not terribly interesting.
Hank Whalen, PQ Corporation: You mentioned that there has been no change in science policy since approximately 1992. But Vernon Ehlers, vice chair of the House Science Committee, did a study on national technology policy, the summary of which came out last September. It' s my understanding that the published copy of the final report will be issued shortly. This report may not change anything, but it is at least an attempt.
Christopher Hill: Vernon Ehlers, a member of Congress from Michigan, was given the formal task by then-Speaker Gingrich to come up with a new Vannevar Bush report. I was given that charge once, and I have been part of other groups that were given that charge, and many others have tried to do it.
I argue that you cannot do a new Bush report until the world has decided that there is something new to say. Bush did not invent his new world out of whole cloth. And everyone who has said, "Let's get ten smart people around a table for six months and invent a new world of research," always fails. It is just too hard to do. So did Ehlers and his colleagues come up with a new Bush report? The answer is no.
My major point at a recent symposium on Ehlers' report at the American Association for the Advancement of Science was that they managed to make a nice statement on U.S. science policy circa 1987. Ehlers' report suggests that we could all cooperate. That would be good. But we've been cooperating since the early to mid-1980s. Second, the Ehlers report is almost completely oblivious to the emergence of the Internet. All it says about the Internet is that it's a neat way for scientists to exchange data.