ABSTRACT
Each RRC review was carried out by a reviewing panel chosen by the RRC members and the RRC staff; these panels were composed principally of members of NAS, NAE, or IOM. In fact, this arrangement was intended to provide a connection between the honorific and the advisory functions of the Academies. The reviewers wrote or telephoned their comments in to the RRC office; sometimes, in complex cases, the reviewing panel met to discuss the problems with the report. The reviewing comments, which were not ascribed to individual reviewers, were then sent to the responsible NRC staff and committee. This committee or its chairman responded, usually in writing, describing the changes made, the points that had not been changed, and the reasons therefore. Often this completed the process, but sometimes more negotiation was needed between the chairman of RRC and of the responsible committee. I recall one case where I went to the president of the IOM to explain why a report of IOM went too much to the extreme. In my eight years of experience, there were only two or three disputes that were referred to the president of the Academy, who bore the ultimate responsibility. For example, I
appealed the first NRC report on the effects of halo carbons to the president because I considered that it did not sufficiently emphasize the possibly dangerous loss of the ozone layer which the use of halo carbons might cause.
