SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AGENCY COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE 'LICKLIDER REPORT'

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79M00097A000300030016-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 4, 2012
• Sequence Number: 16
• Publication Date: August 16, 1965
• Content Type: MEMO

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097AO00300030016-0
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FEDERAL COUNCIL, FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
ILLEGIB
16 August 1965
STAT
MEMORANDUM TO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC
AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
SUBJECT: Summary of Federal Agency Comments Pertaining
to the "Licklider Report"
On the following pages, you will find:
1. A summary of the Licklider Report, which was prepared for the
Task Group on National Systems for Scientific and Technical Information.
2. A summary of comments about the report made by the Federal
agencies at the invitation of the Chairman of COSATI.
In consideration of the growing interest in the development of principles
upon which a rational national information system can be built, an
interest demonstrable in and out of the government, the Licklider
Report represents one of a series of important tracts, enunciating
philosophy and recommendations for action, primarily, but not
exclusively, by the government. Since there must be an impact on all
users and producers of information as a result of the development of
policies, programs and possible new organizational structures in the
area of scientific and technical information, it behooves all interested
and concerned individuals to understand reports such as Licklider's
and enter the dialogues from which consensus will hopefully result.
Andrew A. Aine s
Executive Secretary
I
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097AO00300030016-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097A000300030016-0
~nrFARO'FI"I~:.L USEONL'Y"
FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECPNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
Summary of "Licklider" Report (OST Panel on Scientific and
Technical Communications), dated 8 February 1965
Participants on Panel
William Baker Walter M. Elsasser
A. Lee Barrett Frederick Mosteller
Alexander Bavelas Alvin M. Weinberg
R. Keith Cannan J. Hilary Kelley (Exec. Sec. )
C. West Churchman J. C.R. Licklider (Chairman)
Verner Clapp S. Passman
General Comment - The Panel met for a total of four days. With the excep-
tion of a greater concern for libraries, the Panel admits to the same
philosophies expressed by the Baker, Crawford, and Weinberg Panels.
Context of Study - Three trends were noted: (1) The growth of government
arrangements under FCST and COSATI. (2) The "amorphousness" of a
great variety of users in the government and private sectors. (3) The rapid
advance of technology. Two kinds of administrative responsibilities were
mentioned: the need to improve the information activities in the Federal
R&D sector and the requirement to seek the cooperation of the non-government
sector in the development of an integrated system.
Findings of the Panel - Management seems more concerned about the inade-
quacies of current practice than the scientific community. Engineers lean
towards the views of the managers. Although the academic scientist feels
that communication is intrinsic to research, he is not too concerned with
the retailing of products of research. He is resistant to the imposition of
constraints on how he communicates and carries out his investigations. On
the other hand, managers instinctively "reach" for a system. OST should
seek to meld private and public information efforts and competences to
rationalize the nation's handling of scientific and technical information. Fair
progress has been made in developing mechanisms to facilitate the use of
government-sponsored information.. In this respect, COSATI is working hard
and is as effective as a committee can be representing diverse government
agencies. Success is spotty in getting the scientific community to cooperate
in integrating public and private services into a unified system. Despite
this, the demand from some quarters for a unified system is progressively
increasing. The Panel feels that the field is not yet well enough defined to
justify an attempt to design a national system at this time. Why? (1) We
no -,d principles concerning centralization and distribution of functions.
(2) We have to understand the real needs of generators and users of scientific
and technical information. (3) We need a coherent plan. (4) Strong leadership
is required.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097AO00300030016-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097AO00300030016-0
2
Recommendations -
1. Strengthen OST leadership by means of a larger staff and increasing
use of panels and consultants. OST should:
a. Consider and evaluate proposals and plans for an over-all
national system.
b. Assess performance and progress.
c. Devise reward/penalty system.
d. Foster computability and coherence. among components of system.
C. Encourage advancement of R&D in information areas.
2. Employ the services of follow-on panels to advise UST on such
matters as:
a. Means for better integration of government and private efforts.
b. Better cooperation by scientists and engineers and their voluntary
organizations.
c. Scientific and technical communication.
d. A sub-panel on information problems of engineers.
Q. Monitoring and encouraging system-oriented growth by non-
government entities.
f. Avoidance of vast "boondoggles" in the field of storage, organiza.-
tion, and retrieval of information.
g. Better feedback from technology to science.
3. Study of journals, monographs, books versus source reports. Con-
sider if government agencies have gone too far with technical or source
reports and not far enough in supporting journals, monographs and books.
Give attention to developing systems of libraries, extending from National
libraries down to those at local level.
4. Conspicuity needs to be improved. Users in and out of government
need something more understandable, available and ready to serve.
5. More active participation by scientists and engineers is needed, also
strong interaction between system organizers and users.
6. Support improvement of technical writing.
7. Encourage more exploration and experimentation, especially those
capable of handling actual problems and growing or evolving into operational
systems with real users and real information bases. This needs to be done
prior to organizing a national system.
Other Problems and Issues Discussed
1. Specialized Technical Information Centers.
anent is needed.
Panel favors, but assess-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097AO00300030016-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097AO00300030016-0
2. Centralization and distribution. Centralization should be considered
for functions of standardization, monitoring of compatability, and over-all
planning, guidance and evaluation, Professional societies should, with
specialized information centers, do the actual work of abstracting, synthe-
sizing, organizing and summarizing of the literature. DST should give
leadership to accelerate definition and enforcement of standards for biblio-
graphic formats and machine-readable representation of documents. This
is not the same as a huge, central repository of documents, staffed by many
scientists, engineers, and information specialists to work on its contents,
which the Panel does not favor. There may already be too much bibliographic
control of indexing and abstracting in libraries and. documentation centers in
th Washington area. The Panel prefers the work to be done in closer
association with on-going R&D.
4. More effective use of computers is required. The Panel prefers a
"middle course" in their employment in national systems.
5. National and Local Libraries - NLM may develop into the central
focus of field-oriented libraries and activities. Library of Congress serves
as the traditional library in natural and social sciences and engineering.
NAL - no basis for comparison was available to the Panel. There is a need
for a national library (or libraries) for natural and social sciences and
engineering. Either LC undertakes this or it should be turned over to a
National Library of Science and Technology, preferably in the Executive
Branch.
6. Need more understanding of informal communication in over-all
planning.
7. Review articles and monographs - The Panel did not arrive at a
consensus.
8. Government subsidy and the publishing industry - Present principles
are in conflict.
9. Publishers of business media do not see eye-to-eye with government
policy and practices.
10. There is a need for deeper study of security and proprietary considera-
tions.
Appendices - These cover:
I. Proposed exploration and experimentation in scientific and technical
communication.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097AO00300030016-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097AO00300030016-0
II. Two suggestions regarding government subsidy and the "for profit"
press.
III. A concept of a "national library" system and tasks for a national
library.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097AO00300030016-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097AO00300030016-0
# 3JR , r~'-FFIGL~.L USE ONLY
FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
Summary of Federal Agency Comments on the Licklider Report
Introduction
Comments were received from the Federal agencies with substantial scien-
tific and technical information programs. Because of the varying programs
and missions of the agencies, reactions are generally oriented towards
response patterns typical of each agency, but there are variant streams of
thought that appear from time to time. Additionally, it was evident that the
Licklider Panel Report did not stimulate Federal agencies uniformly. Some
agencies made short and sometimes pungent observations, while others
seriously wrestled with the thoughts, principles and actions expressed and
recommended in the report. Some of the agencies expanded their comments
to cover, not only agreements and disagreements with the Panel, but what
their agencies were doing along the lines suggested by report, and on
occasion, in different directions. While most agencies provided one view
to represent their agencies, this approach was not universally followed, as
the reader will discover.
After reviewing the product of each of the agencies, it was decided that the
analysis should be made by agency, rather than by the issues and recommen-
dations shown in the Licklider Report, which would also be a logical way
to summarize the agency comments. Finally, the presentation to follow
departs the normal alphabetical order in favor of presenting the shorter
views of some of the agencies at the beginning and more detailed ones later
on. No value judgments are expressed about length, brevity, or quality of
performance by the reviewer.
Agency Views
Federal Aviation Agency - This agency considers the report with favor.
Atomic Energy Commission - AEC believes that the report reiterates
generalities and platitudes and that most of the recommendations are being
or have been worked on by COSATI.
Department of Agriculture - Agriculture is disappointed that the Panel did
not have time to observe its operation. It notes the disagreement with
COSATI on readiness to design a national information system and agrees
with Panel on fuller participation of scientists in work of scientific and
technical information.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration - NASA approves of the report
as a,worthy successor to the Weinberg and Crawford reports. It likes the
concept of progress through experimentation and the recommendation for
increased conspicuity of government scientific and technical information
i
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097AO00300030016-0
 ter- ''r+T:`T;' T YTC`I:-' r11TT V
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097A000300030016-0
NOW NOW L
programs. NASA agrees with the Panel's stand on the Library of Congress,
the National Library of Medicine, the utilization of computers, centraliza-
tion of standards, over-all planning, guidance and evaluation. NASA views
prospects of a National Library of Science and Technology in the Executive
Branch as difficult to accomplish. The same applies to the improvement of
technical writing. It attributes to the background of the Panel members
their preoccupation with journal publication, while overlooking the speed
and flexibility of the technical report system. Finally, NASA believes that
the Panel over-estimated the value of a completely decentralized control
and ignoring the role and distribution of government documentation centers
such as NASA's, DDC, AEC, and the Clearinghouse.
Department of the Interior- Like AEC, Interior finds that some of the recom-
mendations, like a stronger role for CST and COSATI, have been implemented.
It also covers ground of earlier reports. The Panel was more concerned
with research scientists and open literature. Interior agrees that there
should be more involvement of scientists and engineers in research and
information services each step of the way. The gap in communication
between research scientist- and information specialist and need for education
of both sides were stressed. Interior agrees that libraries and information
centers for services should be designed into common systems. In reviewiug
Panels' views on recommendations on explorations and experiments, Interior
suggests organizing one or two information systems in subject matter fields
where there are clearly recognized needs. These should provide full informa-
tion services for researchers to the top administrator from acquisition of
literature to state-of-the-art reviews. New information services should
have a research arm attached to measure need, methods, and progress.
This would be preferable to waiting an additional three to four years, while
small research experiments in the information sciences were carried on.
National Science Foundation - NSF agrees with the Licklider position on
centralization and distribution, effective use of computers, studies in informal
communication, and recognition of the need of a coherent plan and strong
leadership. OSIS responsibility to lead in coordination of Federal and non-
Federal groups and with the private sector is stressed. An observer detects
bias for experimentation as the Panel's answer for the development of
improved scientific communication. He criticizes the report for not making
enough distinction between leadership, planning, and design and suggests
that OST distinguish and clarify the differences. It is this that DST should
see that a coherent plan is developed and evaluated before a system design
can proceed satisfactorily, also when a future national system design is
prepared, OST should assess it and have other government and non-government
s to
i
e
groups do likewise. It is his belief that OST should depend on agenc
maintain contacts with non-government groups, while harmonizing and
coordinating the efforts of the agencies. It is unrealistic, as he sees it, to
assume that experimentation can be substituted for system design. Finally,
it is his belief that in evaluating information centers, instead of looking at
f h' d cis
u
the products of centers, it is necessary to look at the effect o t pro
on performance and output of users.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097A000300030016-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097A000300030016-0
Yr..~ 3
Department of Defense - This agency views OST as the logical point of
focus of government leadership in science communication. Its preference
is for a small policymaking staff rather than a large OST staff. To get
the job done, tasks may be appropriately assigned to Executive Branch
agencies. DOD suggests a study of OST interest in and responsibility for
technical communication in the service of the practitioner, pointing out
that the attention of OST to date has been on science communication largely,
while the mission-oriented agencies information efforts cover at least 755
of the government 'expenditures for scientific and technical information.
Discussing a PSAC panel to complement the government-centered efforts
of COSATI, DOD favors such an action. It also favors the formation of a
panel on the transfer of information between science and technology,
particularly engineering and medicine. On the 'subject of journals, DOD
sees no gain by providing more resources for this activity geared to books,
journals, etc. On conspicuity, it urges the implementation of the COSATI
report on this subject. In discussing initiative for developing new approaches
or information systems, the observer believes that the burden of proof
resides with the system developer, rather than with the scientist and engineer.
On the subject of improvement in technical writing, DOD expects that only
marginal benefits would accrue. This view is held because scientists write
well enough for their peers and there is a need for basic work on packaging,
format and audience goals, before work on content and style. On explora-
tions and experiments, DOD is generally in favor. Among other actions,
it'r_uggests reliable experimentation in full-scale situations. DOD agrees
that information centers should be subjected to further review and monitoring,
that the real need3 of users must be understood, and that use of computers
must be rational and judicious. DOD urges more research work to improve
informal communication processes, testing ideas like increasing the number
of review journals or publishing reviews side by side with the original
articles, and studying the issue of government subsidy for the publishing
industry.
Department of Commerce - This agency sees the Panel product as a first
rate effort to clarify issues and approaches and adjudges COSATI's National
Systems Task Group efforts as compatible. It finds the outline of experi-
ments useful, but suggests adding those seeking to assess the usefulness of
scientific and technical information efforts to the R&D programs. It agrees
on the establishment of government standards for better report writing by
agencies and contractors. Another agency observer characterizes the
report as a random collection of philosophic approaches. He contends that -
the report fails to distinguish between journal literature and "unpublished"
report literature problems. It also fails to distinguish between problems
in communication for report versus journal literature, as well as ignoring
the vast operations of societies in covering journal literature. Improving
technical writing in journal literature is more properly a problem for non-
government groups. He points out that no distinction is made between
journal and report literature processing and if coordination by OST for
standards enforcement is difficult inside government, it is not likely to be
easier outside. He finds that the Panel report is not clear as to what the
government role is in the integration of communication by books, journals,
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097A000300030016-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097AO00300030016-0
F R CFF'ICIA L USE ONLY
and monographs in a national system. The u-,e of Federal funds here wc;_uld
be reflected only in library or society support. Referring to follow-on
panels for OST and. more activity for OST, it is his belief that this may
pr sent a problem. He suggests that OST might take the lead in funding
"across agency" experiments and monitoring agency projects. Other
comments made by this observer: Both government and non-government
information centers should be evaluated by an independent group. There
is no mention of regional services or of depository library problems.
Distinction between technical and professibnal press is not clear. The
mission orientation of government agencies makes a disciplinary review
or state -of -the -art digests difficult to accomplish. Obsolescence of docu-
ments is speeded by application of ideas in development. Funding and
coordination of largo scale operations are problems. In nearly all agencies,
documentation operations have no research funds. No one agency has a
mission of government-wide information handling.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare - Six representatives of this
agency reveal their thoughts about the Licklic:cr Report.
Observer L. - The report is thoughtful, well-balanced, and perceptive, ho
finds. Its recommendations arc acceptable. He is pleases? with its con-
centration on the open literature and the need to obtain the cooperation of
the private sector. He believes there is need to distinguish between science
and engineering rc improvement of technical writing--both have different
requirements. In reference to the leadership of OST and others for defini-
tion and enforcement of standards for bibliographic formats and ma.chine-
rea.dable representations of documents, this witness urges caution, arguing
that autonomy and standardization do not mix well together. He fears that
government can alienate the private sector if standards are not aligned with
developments in the private sector. He insists that common standards for
all Federal agencies are unrealistic.
Observer B - believes that the report and recommendations, like all
issuances from the new breed of science communicators, largely ignores
the pre-existence of an influential and skilled operating establishment of
specialists, generalists, and. scientists in several sectors of the total area
of communication.
Observer C - agrees generally with the report's principles and its recom-
mendations and is pleased that the report recognizes communication other
than engineering and development.
Observer D - does not believe that the report will be useful, although he does
not have real disagreement with its recommendations. He regrets that the
Panel did not have enough time to develop its ideas. In his opinion, the
committee wrongfully assumed it was necessary to convince someone that
scientific and technological communication cannot be reduced to a single
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097AO00300030016-0
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097A000300030016-0
F CT, . OFFICIAL USE ONL`
WSW
dc-huma.niz::c1 mechanism. It is his belief that the Panel jousted with
windmill, worrying about th timeliness of developing P. national system.
He declares that problcems and issues... easily survive the committee's
discussion of them, but praises the real, positive conclusion the report
makes--that centres lized planning, guidance, and leadership will be required
to make the system work. Referring to standardization, he states that the
right amount will be vital to its proper functioning.
Observer E - contends that the report rejects the Crawford Panel's concept
of replacing free enterprise institutional forms with government-sponsoru~
a.nc' operated.. information systems. He believes that the Licklidcr Report
returns to the basic premise of the Baker Report and that both are middle
of the road compromises between government-controlled and laissez-faire
science information systems. It is his view that realistic appraisal of...
private systems leads to the rel.; of government in modifying such systems;
h'-. nce, even with grants and contracts, the government can only exhort,
coax and persuade. These, he notes, are political techniques and OST may
need socio-political rather than engineering-oriented studies to Set things
across. He words reluctance in giving OST a more aggressing role without
an increase of responsibility or accountability. He also shows concern
about the multiplicity of follow-on panels involving scarce, highly-skilled
manpower, and wonders if these panels will result in more light or more
nois;. It is his view that the Licklider approach to the open literature, and
new report-handling systems is better balanced thin those of Crawford and
Weinberg. He wurns against the danger of "over-conspicuity"; with th:=
assumption that decentralization is best for abstracting, synthesizing,
organizin?;, and summarizing the literature; and against establishing; nv,w
national libraries in tho absence of proven needs. He concurs in getting
scientists and engineers into an active role, agrees with Licklider that the
design of a national systern may be premature, and likes the experimental
system approach. It is his view that in improving coverage of st^.te-of-the -
art reviews and monographs, government should only encourage and support
profession-. involved in basic sciences. He also prefers modifying. existing
library systems than creating an a prior i system complete with service
publics.
Observer F - believes the problem is how to involve interacting agencies
at the grass roots level and suggests that demonstration projects may be
the best way. He expresses his understanding of the reluctance of the
program manager to relinquish control over resources he feels he needs to
run programs against the promise: of higher effectiveness through coordina-
tion, standardization, or centralization of information-handling procedures.
Older and less efficient methods will disappear only when demonstration
projects prove themselves.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/04/04: CIA-RDP79M00097A000300030016-0