Maintaining the high-tech edge: Governmentindustry technology transfer and the federal laboratory system in California

One of the important resources to any state, such as California, is the technology that is available from the many federally operated and/or funded laboratories within its borders. In this age of technology a state needs to take advantage of applications of modern technology and innovative exploitation of human and natural resources. This article illuminates the importance of the Federal Government research laboratories. Many examples are presented to support the argument that the Federal Government research laboratories can be and often are substantial contributors to the storehouse of technology that finds its way to the private sector and public sector. Several types of technology transfer are discussed, i.e. primary technology, secondary applications, mission related, technical assistance and cooperative. In addition the article discusses the structure and logic of the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer (FLC). The legislaltion that has helped to make the FLC effective is discussed. Included in the discussion are insights of how the FLC operates and how the private sector and public sector may use the FLC in order to locate process, product and service technology.     

Reponse to Freeman: the Stony Brook perspective

The author, affiliated with the State University of New York at Stony Brook, responds to John M. Freeman's comments on his medical center's treatment of "Baby Jane Doe." He discloses details of the infant's anomalies not previously available to the public or to Dr. Freeman. Newman defends the prognosis given to Baby Jane's parents by several specialists, and the counseling offered them by professionals familiar with her condition.     

Interest in political campaigns: The influence of question order and electoral context

A split-ballot experiment shows that, when people are asked how interested they are in following political campaigns, their response depends not only on the order in which the question is asked, but also on the broader electoral context in which it is posed. When asked how interested they were in following the political campaigns immediatelyafter a question about whether or not they voted in the (1982) election, people were more likely to think they were interested in the campaign, especially if they claimed to have voted, than if they were asked about it immediatelybefore the question on whether or not they voted. This order effect, however, appears to depend onwhen the questions are asked. If asked within a few weeks after the election, there is little or no order effect. But later, as the memory of the campaign fades, the order of the questions makes a sizable difference in the results. This order effect also seems to be more pronounced among better-educated respondents, suggesting that they are more likely to feel pressured by a social norm to vote and to express an interest in political affairs, not only in real life, but in the survey interview as well. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the implications for the design of the interview schedule used in the American National Election Studies.The research reported in this paper was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (SES81-11404).     

Electoral studies and democratic theory reconsidered

In recent years, political theorists and social scientists have sought to assess the contemporary relevance and validity of a so-called classical doctrine of democracy in light of empirical evidence emphasizing the apathy, ignorance, incompetence, and/or authoritarian inclinations of ordinary citizens. Elite or revisionist theories have urged a drastic attenuation of the participatory commitments of classical democratic theory in light of this evidence. Defenders of classical democratic theory have often accepted this evidence as substantially accurate, staking their hopes upon future possibilities for the development of mass political competence in the democratically reconstituted structures of a participatory society. This article suggests that a critique of revisionist democratic theory can be developed solely on the basis of currently available findings. After reviewing an important body of evidence, we conclude that the distribution of political competence between mass and elite is far less unequal than has been assumed by revisionist proponents of elite democratic theory and conceded by their participatory critics.