United States Office of Information August 1984
Environmental Protection Resources Management EPA 200.-02-84-002
Agency Washington DC 20460 PB 84-217777
v>EPA Chemical
Information System:
A Blue Ribbon Panel
Review
-------
CHEMICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM:
A BLUE RIBBON PANEL REVIEW
Prepared under Contract No. 68-02-4038
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Information Resources Management
by Life Systems, Inc.
August 1984
EPA 200-02-84-002
PB 84-217777
-------
£ife Systems, Jnc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF TABLES ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS iii
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.1 Background 2-1
2.2 Objective 2-1
2.3 Approach 2-1
3.0 CONSENSUS STATEMENTS 3-1
3.1 CIS Purpose 3-1
3.2 CIS Capabilities and Characteristics: Existing Versus
Proposed 3-1
3.3 Specific CIS Management Problems 3-4
3.4 Steps Toward Becoming Self-Supporting 3-4
3.5 Data Bases or Files Which Could Now be Self-Supporting . . 3-8
3.6 Government Responsibility 3-9
3.7 Appropriate CIS Management Structure 3-9
3.7.1 Responsibilities 3-9
3.7.2 Advantages and Disadvantages for Potential
Implementing Organizations 3-10
3.7.3 Recommendation for Implementing Organization . . . 3-12
3.7.4 Appropriate Management Organization 3-12
3.7.5 Summary 3-13
APPENDIX
1 List of Participants Al-1
2 List of Background References Supplied to Panelists .... A2-1
3 Agenda for CIS Symposium A3-1
-------
£ife Systems, JHC.
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
3-1 Comparison of Proposed with Existing CIS Capabilities
and Characteristics 3-2
3-2 Possible Causes of Inadequate CIS Management Performance . 3-5
3-3 Examples of CIS Problems by Decision-Making Area 3-6
ii
-------
£tfe Systems, Jnc.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACS American Chemical Society
CAS Chemical Abstract Service
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CMA Chemical Manufacturer's Association
CIS Chemical Information System
CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission
CTCP Clinical Toxicology of Commerical Products
DOE Department of Energy
DOE/RECON Remote Console (Information Retrieval System Operated
by DOE)
DOT/CG Department of Transportation/Coast Guard
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FASEB Federation of American Societies for Experimental
Biology
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FRSS Federal Register Search System
ICAIR Interdisciplinary Consulting and Information
Research
MSSS Mass Spectral Search System
NBS National Bureau of Standards
NIH National Institutes of Health
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health
NLM National Library of Medicine
OHMTADS Oil and Hazardous Material Technical
Assistance Data System
OIRM Office of Information Resources Management
RTECS Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances
SANSS Structure and Nomenclature Search System
SPHERE Scientific Parameters in Health and the Environment,
Retrieval and Estimation
SRI Stanford Research Institute
TSCAPP Toxic Substances Control Act Plant and Production
iii
-------
£ife Systems, Juc.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Chemical Information System (CIS) was initiated in 1971 by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Institutes of Health
(NIH). The CIS provides chemical information through computerized data bases
to government agencies and the public. At the request of the EPA Office of
Information Resources Management (OIRM), ICAIR (Interdisciplinary Consulting
and Information Research) of Life Systems, Inc. assembled a panel of nine
experts to review CIS. The panel met at a symposium on June 11-13, 1984 to
make recommendations for technical, financial and managerial improvements for
CIS. The panel included experts in the following fields: chemistry,
toxicology, numerical data, environmental and information science.
Overall, the panel concluded that CIS as a concept has considerable inherent
value, however, improvements are necessary before CIS could serve the
significant need for a high quality, integrated, scientific and technical
chemical information system.
The panel reached unanimity of opinion on seven major topics: CIS purpose,
capabilities, management problems, steps to become self-supporting, potential
self-supporting files, government responsibilities and the management
structure most appropriate for CIS. Briefly, the specific recommendations or
consensus statements developed by the panel are as follows:
• After reviewing the demands for chemical information, the panel
' concluded that "...there is a need for a high quality, integrated
scientific and technical system that is widely and easily accessible
with manipulation and modeling capabilities."
The panel was informed by EPA that the original purpose of CIS (to
provide mass spectral data) had never been formally revised, and that
a more appropriate purpose was needed for the current system.
Therefore, the panel proposed that "the purpose of CIS is to be an
integrated system of chemical data (including both qualitative and
quantitative data) which serves the needs of governmental agencies and
the public for data on environmental and health effects and
characteristic properties of chemical substances." The panel
recommended that this purpose be adopted and serve as the focus for a
new management strategy.
• The panel concluded that existing CIS capabilities and characteristics
are inadequate to meet what they perceived are the demands for
chemical information. Lack of consistency in mnemonics, terminology,
educational and training materials highlight a list of deficiencies
which reduce the effectiveness of CIS. However, the panel noted that
the directory capability achieved by the Structure and Nomenclature
Search System (SANSS) and the numeric data bases in CIS are
exceptional.
• The panel judged that CIS data base selection, implementation and
maintenance, systems standards, quality control, policy-making,
management resources and public awareness are inadequate. Data base
selection, implementation and public awareness of CIS require the most
improvement.
1-1
-------
Oft'Systems, Jnc.
The panel concluded that CIS should not be required to become entirely
self-supporting. Underutilized, but valuable data bases will need
continued government support. However, many steps can and should be
taken to make CIS more self-supporting than at present. These steps
include: retrieval of more costs from users, improvement in
operating efficiency, and increased utilization of the system.
Although the panel agreed that all high use files presently on CIS
could now be self-supporting if transferred to the private sector,
such fragmentation of CIS as a system would have a detrimental impact
to the ascribed purpose of providing an integrated system. As long as
CIS can be improved to meet the specifications developed by the panel,
high use files should not be separated. This does not preclude
concurrent availability of high use files in the private sector which
might be a source of additional revenue to CIS.
In the panel's view, the government must continue to be responsible
for assuring the existence of a publicly available system supplying
chemical information. This responsibility should be implemented
through a new management strategy capable of correcting the major
problems and enhancing the ability of CIS to serve its purpose.
The panel concluded with a recommendation that a more appropriate
management concept for CIS be adopted. The panel's recommendation for
this concept consists of a management role for the government and a
separate implementation role. For the management role within the
government the panel recommended EPA, the National Library of Medicine
(NLM) or the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in that order of
preference. The panel recommended NLM, a professional society, or a
private data base vendor as viable candidates for the implementation
role. As second choices, but also viable candidates, the panel
recommended a privately operated government laboratory or a private
research institute.
1-2
-------
jCifcSystems, Jnc.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background
In 1970, NIH initiated a computerized system to provide mass spectral data.
Subsequently, EPA and NIH collaborated to add other data bases and create
CIS containing a variety of chemical data and information. Other_Federal
Agencies such as the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the
Department of Transportation-Coast Guard (DOT/CG) assisted in the continuing
development of CIS by contributing data bases. Offering integrated files of
wide ranging chemical information, CIS is available to the public through
local telephone lines through telecommunication networks and is now used by
over 600 organizations in 20 countries.
Continued growth in size, cost and complexity has led to problems in CIS
operation and maintenance. Current EPA costs to operate and maintain the
system exceed $1.6 million per year. At the end of 1983, user service was
temporarily halted due to lack of funds. An Inspector General's Office probe
into financial management of CIS has ensued. The computer system used to
store and operate CIS data bases is more than 10 years old, exceeding the
normal life cycle of a major computer system. The adequacy of the system is,
therefore, in question. Finally, an undetermined amount of the chemical
information, formerly unique to CIS, is now available from other sources.
2.2 Objectives
In order to resolve these problems, OIRM sought, as a first step, an
independent review of CIS from a panel of chemical information experts
(Appendix 1). The objectives of this panel were to review CIS, analyze its
weaknesses and strengths, and achieve consensus on recommendations to EPA for
technical, financial and management improvements.
2.3 Approach
The OIRM selected a panel symposium approach to obtain the desired review of
CIS. Panelists were selected based on their expertise in using data bases,
in data base management or in government and private sector chemical
information systems. Disciplines represented by the panel included chemistry,
toxicology, numerical data, environmental and information science. Panelists
included designated representatives from the ACS and the Chemical
Manufacturer's Association (CMA). The OIRM staff carefully avoided
influencing the panel by contracting the work of selecting, briefing and
assembling the panelists to ICAIR. Through ICAIR, OIRM supplied previous CIS
reviews by Altman and Fisher (1982) and CRC Systems, Inc. (1983), other
background information (Appendix 2) and a CIS user account to each panelist
prior to the symposium. Complete financial information on CIS operations,
however, was unavailable to the panelists for the symposium.
The OIRM also supplied questions to be answered at the symposium so that
panelists could prepare position statements. Panelists worked from a key
group of these questions during the symposium. These questions were modified
2-1
-------
&fe Systems, Jnc.
or appended by the panel in order to address what they considered the primary
problem areas of CIS. The symposium agenda (Appendix 3) was also modified to
devote adequate time to problem areas considered most important by the panel.
The seven major problem areas addressed by the panel were: CIS purpose,
capabilities, management problems, steps to become self-supporting, potential
self-supporting files, government responsibilities and the management
structure appropriate for CIS.
The OIRM staff were present at the symposium only for the opening or to
provide additional information at the panel's request.
The symposium was conducted under Work Assignment (WA) 121319 of Contract
68-02-4038. ICAIR of Life Systems, Inc. conducted the symposium which took
place on June 11-13, 1984 in Bethesda, Maryland.
This Symposium Summary Report presents the consensus achieved during the
symposium. In addition to this introduction, the report includes an executive
summary, a description of the panel's consensus statements and recommendations
concerning seven major problems areas and the referenced appendices.
2-2
-------
£ife Systems, Jnc.
3.0 CONSENSUS STATEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The panel reached unanimity of opinion on seven major topics. No minority
opinions were developed during the Symposium on any of the seven issues.
The panel noted that assessments by Altman and Fisher (1982) and CRC Systems,
Inc. (1983) identified similar shortcomings and concluded with many of the
same recommendations. A difference between these two reports and the present
evaluation is that the need for improvement is now greater.
3.1 CIS Purpose
The OIRM staff, in response to questioning by the panel, indicated that no
formal statement of the current purpose of CIS existed. Therefore, before any
of the questions of interest to EPA could be addressed, it was necessary to
agree upon a purpose and need for CIS. The panel established the following
consensus statements as a basis for a need for CIS:
"The demand is growing for increased volumes of reliable, scientific and
technical data, and integration and manipulation of data for purposes such as
planning, policy making, regulation, research and development.
A number of computer searchable numerical data bases now exist or are under
development. Present access systems, however, lack sufficient ease of user
access, manipulation capabilities, integration of data bases, modeling
capabilities, and quality assurance mechanisms."
From these premises, the panel expressed their consensus on the need for CIS
in the following statement:
"Therefore, there is a need for a high quality, integrated scientific and
technical data system that is widely and easily accessible, with manipulation
and modeling capabilities."
The panel developed from this need, a statement of purpose:
"The purpose of CIS is to be an integrated system of chemical data (including
both qualitative and quantitative data) to serve the needs of governmental
agencies and the public for data on environmental and health effects and
characteristic properties of chemical substances.
The CIS should serve these data needs by providing unique numeric data bases,
evaluated data, directories of data sources and data manipulation to assist in
policy development and regulatory decisions."
The panel used this statement of purpose in reaching consensus on the six
remaining topics and recommended that it be adopted and used as a guide by CIS
managers.
3-1
-------
£ife Systems, JHC.
3.2 CIS Capabilities and Characteristics; Existing Versus Proposed
Table 3-1 lists those capabilities and characteristics recommended by the
panel for the chemical information system of the future. This .table also
presents a comparison between the panelists' perceptions of the existing
capabilities and characteristics of CIS and those proposed by the panel for
the ideal system. The numerical data on the table indicate cumulative results
of the nine individual panelists' perceptions as to whether or not each
capability now exists in CIS. Values of five to nine in the yes column
indicate a majority view that the capability is present; values of five to
nine in the no column indicate a majority opinion that the capability is
missing and should be added; values of five to nine in the partially column
indicate a majority view that the capability is present in CIS, but needs
improvement (e.g, consistency throughout system). Values of less than five in
any column indicate divergent views by some panelists.
Current CIS capabilities and characteristics, based on panel perceptions, do
not match those capabilities proposed by the panel. The existing system
matches the proposed capabilities and characteristics completely in A of 27
areas, and partially matches in an additional 12 areas.
The panel considered the exceptional and essential aspects of CIS to include
the CIS directory capability (e.g., SANSS) and numeric data bases.
Characteristics most conspicuously missing included consistent mnemonics,
consistent terminology and good educational and training materials.
The panel unaminously recommended that CIS be improved by adding the
capabilities and characteristics which it currently lacks and improving the
capabilities and characteristics now perceived to be only partially achieved.
3.3 Specific CIS Management Problems
Table 3-2 lists areas of decision-making by CIS managers and the panel's
assessment of the adequacy of performance in each of eight areas. The panel's
consensus was that all eight areas currently indicate inadequate performance
with the areas of data base selection, data base implementation and management
of public awareness requiring the most improvement. The panel identified
possible causes of these performance inadequacies to be government operation
of CIS, inadequate financial resources, previous management decisions, other
factors or combinations of all of these factors. A combination of these
factors was concluded by the panel to be the cause in each instance. Specific
examples of the resulting problems appear in Table 3-3. These problems were
cited as concrete reasons why CIS requires immediate improvement.
3.4 Steps Toward Becoming Self-Supporting
The panel agreed that CIS should not be required to become entirely
self-supporting. The government has an on-going responsibility to the public
to support underutilized, but valuable components of CIS. Specific actions,
however, can and should be taken to make CIS more self-supporting. These
actions fall into three categories: retrieve more costs, improve efficiency
and increase the number of users. The specific recommendations of the panel
by category are:
3-2
-------
TABLE 3-1 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED WITH EXISTING CIS CAPABILITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS
Does Capability or Characteristic
Presently Exist in CIS?
OJ
i
CO
Proposed Capabilities and Characteristics
System Capabilities and Characteristics:
1. Single, integrated system.
2. Ability to switch to outside system (e.g., CAS (Chemical
Abstract Service) on-line).
3. Adequate directory to files and data (e.g., SANSS).
4. Substructure search capability.
5. Low-usage, but important, data bases provided.
6. Access to proprietary confidential data bases by government
users (assuming security problems could be handled).
7.. Adequate speed of operation.
8. Simultaneous searching capability.
Access Language Capabilities and Characteristics:
1. Standardized, simplified, high-level, state-of-the-art
language.
2. Data manipulation ability including ability to match with user-
supplied data.
3. Multiple access points (exhaustive indexing).
4. Modeling abilities.
5. Ability to perform complex search combinations (Boolean
operations).
6. Report writing ability.
7. Graphics capabilities.
8. Use of consistent mnemonics (e.g., for fields).
Yes
3
0
9
3
8
0
0
0
0
2
4
2
6
0
0
0
No
1
4
0
0
0
7
1
6
7
0
0
0
0
6
3
8
Partially
5
5
0
5
1
0
8
3
2
7
5
7
3
3
6
0
Do Not
Know
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
continued-
-------
Table 3-1 - continued
CO
I
Does Capability or Characteristic
Presently Exist in CIS?
Proposed Capabilities and Characteristics
Data Base Capabilities and.Characteristics:
1. Kept updated.
2. Consistent use of terminology.
3. Actual data or information.
Data Capabilities and Characteristics:
1. Use of individually evaluated data, wherever possible,
2. Incorporation of revised data whenever necessary.
3. Presence of chemical status data.
4. Ability to verify data (auditrail).
5. Limited to high quality data.
External Capabilities and Characteristics:
1. Good user training program.
2. Good educational materials (e.g., manuals,
sampler, newsletters).
3. Sufficient user support personnel.
Yes
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
No
6
9
0
0
7
1
5
0
7
8
Partially
3
0
0
9
2
7
4
9
2
1
Do Not
Know
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE 3-2 POSSIBLE CAUSES OF INADEQUATE CIS MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
(a)
Decision-Making Area
1. Data base selection.
2. Data base implementation.
3. Data maintenance.
4. System standards for software, data docu-
mentation.
5. Quality control over data and software.
6. Policy-making including role of Management
Board, EPA and other sponsoring agencies.
7. Management resources made available to CIS.
8. Public awareness of CIS.
Government
Operation
of CIS
1
0
0
2
3
9
Inadequate
Financial
Resources
(b)
7
8
8
5
5
0
6
6
Previous
Management v
Decisions
9
8
7
8
9
9
5
9
Other
Factors
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
3
(a) Values indicate number of votes by nine panelists for each possible cause.
(b) Panelists recognized that financial resources and management decisions are often interdependent.
-------
£ife Systems, JHC.
TABLE 3-3 EXAMPLES OF CIS PROBLEMS BY DECISION-MAKING AREA
Decision-Making Area
Data base selection
CIS Problems
Data base implementation
Data base maintenance
System standards for
software and data
documentation
Quality control over data
and software
Policy-making including
role of Management Board,
EPA and other sponsoring
agencies
No data base selection policy.
Potential for quality data bases from govern-
ment agencies not realized, for example, EPA,
NIH, other agencies have many data bases not on
CIS.
Inadequate resources to pull in other valuable
data bases.
Implementation schedule not maintained.
Some data bases implemented with inadequate
quality control.
Data base developers do not adhere to announced
maintenance schedules, therefore, erratic
maintenance.
Irregular processing of updates.
Apparent nonexistent standards for software
and data documentation.
Lack of software documentation has made change
to a different computer environment nearly
impossible.
Lack of data documentation has resulted in
retention of files on system which users do not
trust, contributing to a loss of credibility
for the system.
Apparent nonexistent standards for system
performance (e.g., speed of operation).
Lack of standards for data and software
quality.
Lack of comprehensive quality control through
processes such as independent peer review of
data bases.
Literal lack of purpose.
Unlike name implies, Management Board has no
management authority (i.e., advisory capacity
only).
Existing CIS management has inadequate
financial flexibility (e.g., sponsoring
agencies limit funding to their sponsored
files).
Lack of long-range planning due to limitations
on contracts and funding.
continued-
3-6
-------
Table 3-3 - continued
£ife Systems, Jnc.
Decision-Making Area
CIS Problems
Management resources
dedicated to CIS
Public awareness
of CIS
Interagency actions indicate lack of common
goals (e.g., unwillingness to require other
useful government data bases be implemented
on CIS).
Management board concept is weak and faulty
(i.e., labor energies not well spent without
corresponding authority).
Management not sufficiently assertive over data
base producers.
Inconsistent dedication of staff personnel.
Inadequate use of available marketing services
and techniques since end user market (e.g.,
chemists) not reached.
Lack of reinforced marketing (e.g., spasmodic
interaction with users).
Poor training.
3-7
-------
£tfe Systems, JHC.
1. Retrieve More Costs.
a. Eliminate free access, except for promotional costs during
marketing.
b. Add revenue generating products and services (e.g., off-line
printouts, search services).
c. Add other profitable data bases. \
d. Sell user manuals, training materials and training services.
2. Improve Efficiency.
a. Reduce overhead.
b. Eliminate data bases no longer of value (not based on use
alone).
c. Provide stronger guidance to data base developers.
d. Reduce overlap in data bases.
e. Match operating times to operating needs (e.g., reevaluate need
for 24 hour accessibility).
f. Use longer contract periods for contracted services.
g. Improve cooperation between CIS management, user groups and
data base developers by opening communication lines.
3. Increase the Number of Users.
a. Eliminate start-up fee.
" - b. Develop and initiate competitive marketing strategy.
c. Improve documentation, training and other user services.
d. Improve quality and currency of data.
e. Standardize terminology throughout all data bases.
f. Make system more user friendly (e.g., menu driven).
The panel recommended several other guidelines in the area of cost recovery
from users. System access or operating costs, administration costs and user
support costs should be recovered from users. On the other hand, continued
government support should be provided for system development. For example,
SANSS enhancement and data collection costs should be subsidized by the
government, while SANSS usage costs should be charged to users. In
establishing user fees, the following ideas should be considered as ways to
benefit CIS while fairly distributing user costs: use of volume and
off-peak-hour discounts, use of other price differentials based on ability to
pay or demand on the data base, charging according to fair market value of
data bases, direct charges for time on-line and for output, in addition to
connect time.
3.5 Data Bases or Files Which Could Now Be Self-Supporting In the
Private Sector
The panel agreed that private data base vendors with sufficient resources and
the capability for generating sophisticated software could easily implement
and provide all of the existing individual CIS files. Based on the panel's
judgment and the limited background information (there was a lack of complete
economic information) provided by EPA, the following existing CIS files could
be self-supporting through private data base vendors:
3-8
-------
£ife Systems, Jnc.
1. Structure and Nomenclature Search System (SANSS).
2. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS).
3. Oil and Hazardous Material Technical Assistance Data System
(OHMTADS).
4. Mass Spectral Search System (MSSS).
5. Scientific Parameters in Health and the Environment, Retrieval and
Estimation (SPHERE) (very limited data for judgement).
6. Toxic Substances Control Act Plant and Production (TSCAPP) (EPA must
maintain private file for confidential information).
7. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products (CTCP).
8. Federal Register Search System (FRSS).
The panel, however, noted that the impact of moving some CIS files to private
vendor(s) and not having them available as an integrated system would be
detrimental to CIS. Those data bases which might be most profitable, and
therefore, most attractive to a private vendor, might be the same CIS resources
most able to help the system be self-supporting.
The panel recommended that if CIS is improved to meet the specifications
developed by this panel, these data bases should remain part of CIS. This
recommendation does not preclude concurrent availability in the private sector
which might be a source of additional revenue to CIS.
3.6 Government Responsibility
The panel recommended that the following statement be adopted as a management
guideline: Given that availability of chemical information is in the general
public interest, the Federal government has the responsibility to provide
data or information not otherwise available at a reasonable cost and reasonable
response time in a publicly available system.
3.7 Appropriate CIS Management Structure
3.7.1 Responsibilities
In order to clarify their evaluation of the appropriate management structure,
the panel defined the individual responsibilities of the management and the
implementing organization toward CIS. Specific responsibilities of the
management organization should be to:
1. Ensure that the system is meeting the defined needs.
2. Ensure accessible and affordable chemical data to all users.
3. Ensure appropriate content of the data bases and system.
4. Fund, as necessary, major development of systems capabilities.
5. Furnish appropriate government data bases.
6. Ensure that underutilized, but valuable data bases are
available/provided in a system.
7. Guide and enhance SANSS.
Specific responsibilities of the organization that operates and maintains CIS
should be to:
3-9
-------
£tfe Systems, Jnc.
1. Install and operate data bases.
2. Ensure that supplied data bases are current, of high quality and
that the formats have the necessary access points and are properly
indexed.
3. Maximize cost effectiveness to design and implement systems
enhancement.
4. Standardize the system.
5. Develop user friendly access.
6. Conduct financial management.
7. Perform appropriate marketing.
8. Respond to all user input.
9. Carry out user support services.
10. Advise government on planning aspects.
11. Advise government on system enhancement.
3.7.2 Advantages and Disadvantages for Potential Implementing
Organizations
After review of existing management performance, it became clear to the panel
that an inter-agency group is not capable of achieving the proposed purpose of
CIS for the following reasons:
1. Government groups are not experts in data base vending or marketing
(e.g., Remote Console (Information retrieval system operated by the
Department of Energy (DOE)) (DOE/RECON) versus DIALOG).
2." - Inter-agency cooperation is insufficient.
3. Uncertainty in year-to-year commitments of funds and personnel from
participating agencies hampers long-term planning.
4. Financial management of the system (i.e., billing and cost recovery)
is inefficient.
5. Poor responsiveness to non-government users is the norm.
The panel further recognized that individual agencies are not appropriate for
implementing CIS, with the exception of the National Library of Medicine
(NLM).
The panel agreed that the NLM offers advantages as an organization to operate
and maintain CIS:
1. Single government agency.
2. Existing hardware.
3. Appropriate Experience.
4. Currently operates related information systems.
5. History of commitment to automated data bases.
6. Commitment to state-of-the-art data bases.
7. Good at frequent updating.
8. Large diverse user groups.
9. Good reputation for training.
10. Financial management generally sound.
11. Above average marketing ability for a government agency.
In contrast, the disadvantages of NLM as an implementing organization are few:
3-10
-------
JCifc Systems, Jnc.
1. Lack of interest in promoting CIS as a system.
2. Encumbered by government red tape.
3. Not as good at marketing as private sector.
4. Poor billing procedures.
In seeking the appropriate type of organization to operate and maintain CIS,
the panel considered the following additional options:
1. A non-profit organization established by the Federal Government for
the purpose of implementing CIS.
2. An existing private vendor under contract (profit-making
organization).
3. A professional society (e.g., ACS, FASEB).
4. A privately operated government laboratory (e.g., Oak Ridge,
Brookhaven).
5. A private non-profit research institute (e.g., Battelle, Stanford
Research Institute (SRI)).
The panel developed a list of advantages and disadvantages for each option.
Associated with the government-established non-profit organization option are
the following advantages:
1. Dedication to one system.
2. Non-profit status.
3. Direct contact and responsiveness to agencies supplying data bases.
4." " Backed by Federal Government..
5. Competitive in marketplace.
This option, however, has the following disadvantages:
1. Act of Congress required to establish.
2. Creation of new organization necessary (e.g., assembly of
experienced personnel).
3. Critical mass problems and high overhead due to small size.
4. Tendency to not be responsive to users.
5. Tendency to become governmental.
A private vendor would offer the following advantages:
1. Large size (possibly).
2. Experience.
3. Existing hardware.
4. Operating efficiencies.
5. Responsive to users.
6. Sound financial management.
7. Financial incentive for improvement.
8. Marketing expertise and incentives.
9. Tendency to eliminate poor inefficient underutilized data bases.
Disadvantages of private vendors are:
1. Lack of interest in CIS as a system.
2. Requirement for profit.
3-11
-------
£ife Systems, Jnc.
3. Tendency to neglect responsibility for updating and enhancing data
bases and system.
4. Tendency to not be as responsive to data base suppliers (unless data
base vendor is funding).
5. Tendency to eliminate valuable underutilized data bases.
The professional society option offers the following advantages:
1. Large size vending operation.
2. Experience.
3. Existing system.
4. Responsive to users.
5. Established user group.
6. Maximized service to professionals.
7. Sound financial management.
8. Financial incentive for improvement.
9. Tendency to keep valuable underutilized data bases.
10. Tendency to eliminate poor inefficient underutilized data bases.
The disadvantages of the professional society are:
1. Lack of interest in CIS as a system.
2. Lack of marketing expertise (relative to large private data base
vendors).
3. Tendency to not be as responsive to data base suppliers.
It was perceived that the advantages and disadvantages of a privately operated
government laboratory would be similar to the private non-profit corporation,
but would not require a new Congressional Statute to become established. The
private non-profit research institute option was considered to be similar to
the professional society in terras of advantages and disadvantages.
3.7.3 Recommendation for Implementing Organization
After weighing all the advantages and disadvantages, the panel concluded that
there were three major candidates for an appropriate implementing organization
for CIS:
1. NLM
2. A professional society
3. A private vendor
As a secondary position, the panel felt that a privately operated government
laboratory or a private research institute could also be viable implementing
organizations. The panel believed the private non-profit corporation
established by the government was not a realistic candidate due to its
requirement to be established by an Act of Congress.
3.7.4 Appropriate Management Organization
The panel recognized that the government is clearly responsible for assuring
the existence of a CIS that meets the needs of the government and other users.
Therefore, they recommended the following:
3-12
-------
£ife Systems, Jnc.
1. The responsible group within the government should be EPA, NLM, or
CEQ. This ranking indicates the order of choice by the panel. The
group within EPA, if EPA is chosen, should be selected by EPA or by
the Ad Hoc Government Panel.
2. In order to assist the lead group an interagency advisory group of
government users and data base providers should be established to
review CIS and its data bases with respect to government needs.
3. Each agency sponsoring data bases on CIS should pay for the
development of those data bases it provides.
3.7.5 Summary
Therefore, in order to better achieve the purpose of CIS, the panel
recommended adoption of a more appropriate management concept consisting of a
responsible management role for the government and a separate implementation
role. For the responsible management role within the government the panel
recommended EPA, NLM or CEQ in that order of preference. The panel identified
NLM, a professional society, or a private data base vendor, as viable
candidates for the implementation role. As a second choice, the panel
identified a government laboratory or a private research institute as
additional candidates.
3-13
-------
£ife Systems,
APPENDIX 1
TR-576-42B
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
REVIEW OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM SYMPOSIUM
Panelists;
Dr. William Bailey
Department of Chemistry
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
Dr. Edward Bartkus
Executive Information Management
507 Falkirk Road
Wilmington, DE 19803
Dr. Trudi Bellardo(a)
College of Library and
Information Science
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0027
Dr. James Brower
CACPH, Bldg. 535A
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, Long Island, NY 11973
Ms. Linda Greer
Environmental Defense Fund
1525 18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dr. Warren Muir
4158 South 36th Street
Arlington, VA 22206
Mrs. Edna Paulson
National Research Council
Toxicology Research Center
2101 Constitution Avenue
Washington, DC 20418
Dr. Alberta Ross
Radiation Laboratory
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Mrs. Lynda Wiseman
Celanese Corporation
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
continued-
(a) Designated alternate spokesperson for the panel.
(b) Designated spokesperson for the panel.
Al-1
-------
£tfe Systems, Jnc.
Other Participants;
Mr. Larry Dusold
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
Dr. Sherman P. Fivozinski
National Bureau of Standards
Office of Standard Reference
Data
Physics Bldg. Room 318
Washington, DC 20243
Dr. Lewis H. Gevantman
11608 Toulone Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
Dr. George W.A. Milne
National Cancer Institute
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20205
Ms. Katherine Noble
Computer Sciences Corporation
P.O. Box 227
Falls Church, VA
Dr. Pat Shannon
U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission
Washington, DC 20207
Dr. Louis R. Sibal
9000 Rockville Pike Bldg. 1
Room 314
Bethesda, MD 20205
EPA
Tony Jover
Sarah Kadec
Mary Lou Melley
Howard Messner
ICAIR, Life Systems, Inc.
Ms. Erin Dayl
Mr. KAI Dozier
Mr. Jeffrey Heaton
Ms. Patricia Lavan
Al-2
-------
£ife Systems, Jnc.
APPENDIX 2
BACKGROUND REFERENCES SUPPLIED TO PANELISTS
Altraan PL, Fisher KD (ed.). 1982. A user assessment of the Chemical
Information System. Bethesda, MD: Life Sciences Research Office, Federal of
American Societies for Experimental Biology. Prepared for American Management
Systems, Inc. Subcontract No. 2881-1, DTO-5146-50. EPA Contact No. 68-01-5146.
Anonymous. 1982. Agreement for operation of the Chemical Information System
(CIS).
Anonymous. Chemical information files and programs, data sheets: ARTHUR,
CCRIS, CESARS, CHEMLAB, CNMR, CRYST, CTCP, FRSS, IRSS, MLAB/CLAB, MSSS,
OHMTADS, RTECS, THERMO, XTAL.
Anonymous. 1984. Chemical Information System usage data for all users
(September 1983 - February 1984).
Anonymous. 1984. Chemical Information System usage data for EPA users
(September 1983 - February 1984).
Anonymous. 1984. NIH/EPA Chemical Information System FY 1982/FY 1983/FY 1984
expenditure summary comparison as of March 6, 1984.
Anonymous. 1982. NIH/EPA Chemical Information System. Status Report No. 15,
June 1982.
CIS User Support Group. 1983. CIS search sampler, July 1983. Falls Church,
VA: Computer Sciences Corporation.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1978. The feasibility of a standard
chemical classification system and a standard chemical substances information
system: a report to the Congress prepared pursuant to section 25(b) of the
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C 2601). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, Stock No. 041-011-00039-4.
CRC Systems, Inc. 1983. EPA Chemical Information System overview and
requirements. Fairfax, VA: CRC Systems, Inc. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6746,
D.O. No. 8.
Gevantman LH. 1984. Status of data files in the Chemical Information System
(CIS). Memorandum to A. Jover.
Heller SR, Potenzone Jr. R, Milne GWA, Fisk C. 1981. Computers in analytical
chemistry. Trends in Analytical Chemistry 1(3):62-65.
Heller SR. 1984. Unique capabilities of CIS. Memorandum to S. Kadec.
January 16.
ICAIR, Life Systems, Inc. 1984. Chemical Information System (CIS) user
survey tabulation. Cleveland, OH: Life Systems, Inc. EPA Contract No.
68-02-4038, TR-576-44.
A2-1
-------
£ife Systems, Jnc.
Meschel SV. 1984. Numeric databases in the sciences. Online review
8(1):77-103.
Milne GWA. 1982. Development of a Chemical Information System. J. Assoc.
Off. Anal. Chem. 65(5):1249-1258.
Milne GWA, Fisk CL, Heller SR, Potenzone Jr. R. 1982. Environmental uses of
the NIH-EPA Chemical Information System. Science 215:371-375.
USEPA. 1984. EPA journal. Vol. 10, No. 3. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
A2-2
-------
£ife Systems, Jnc.
Time
Monday, June 11, 1984
8:50 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
9:15 a.m.
9:45 a.m.
10:15 a.m.
10:30 a.m.
12:00 Noon
1:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
3:45 p.m.
4:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
9:00 p.m.
APPENDIX 3
TR-576-43B
-------
£ife Systems, Jnc.
Appendix 3 - continued
Time
Tuesday, June 12, 1984
8:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
10:30 a.m.
10:45 a.m.
12:15 p.m.
1:30 p.m.
2:30 p.m.
3:45 p.m.
4:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
9:00 p.m.
Wednesday, June 13, 1984
8:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
10:30 a.m.
10:45 a.m.
12:15 p.m.
Agenda Item
Question Period with CIS Management
Board
Session No. 2 continued: System
Specifics—Data
Break
Session No. 2 continued: System
Specifics—Technical Areas and Cost
Break
Use of Terminals
Session No. 2 continued: System
Specifics—Cost continued and
Management
Break
Open Discussion
Adj ourn
Terminals Available for Use
Terminals Closed
Question Period with CIS Management
Board
Session No. 2 continued: System
Specifics—Management continued
Break
Session No. 3: Management and
Accessibility
Break
Individual
L. Dusold
K. Dozier
K. Dozier
K. Noble
K. Dozier
K. Dozier
L. Dusold
K. Dozier
K. Dozier
continued-
A3-2
-------
Appendix 3 - continued
Ofc Systems, Jnc.
Time
Wednesday,
June 13, 1984 - continued
1:30 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
3:15 p.m.
3:30 p.m.
4:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
Agenda Item
Individual
Use of Terminals
Session No. 3 continued:
and Accessibility
Break
Summary
Final Recommendations
Close
Management
K. Noble
K. Dozier
K. Dozier
K. Dozier
K. Dozier
J. Heaton
A3-3
------- |