{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01930116472545757, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013311148086522463, 'mean_word_length': 4.940711462450593, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Eli lilly agrees not to monopolize insulin market.

and breeders would be tolerated in major nonnuclear industrial countries such as Japan and West Germany but not in most developing countries. He also speaks of the emphasis placed by current policy on "multinational facades," an allusion to fuel cycle facilities that would be run by multinational entities. Such arrangements he regards as illusory, in part because the host country might take the facilities over, but more particularly because the plutonium contained in the mixed oxide fuel produced by them could be easily extracted. Rowen and Wohlstetter conclude that a "'precise, high-level public statement of U.S. policy on the nuclear fuel cycle has now become badly needed." They say that the backward shift in policy "seems to be occurring without a review at the top of the government." According to one observer, implementation of U.S. policy is in the hands of officials who must deal with balky foreign governments that have resisted the hard-line approach as one that conflicts with their hopes of achieving greater energy independence and wounds national dignity. Having been put in the role of negotiators, the U.S. officials are said to want a policy that allows them room to negotiate. Rowen may be in a position to promote the undertaking of a high-level review and lift it above the context of INFCE studies which he and Wohlstetter apparently feel are pointing toward a continuing relaxation of nonproliferation policy. He is chairman of a group of academic and other nongovernment advisers to DOE's Nonproliferation Alternative Systems Assessment Program (NASAP). Along with some like-minded colleagues in this group, Rowen can argue his point of view directly with DOE, NSC, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the State Department. Some key officials from these agencies are expected to be present when this advisory group meets in early October. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which had a big part in writing the Nonproliferation Act of 1978, also expects to take up in October the question of U.S. policy on the nuclear fuel cycle and nonproliferation. The committee staff has reviewed the Rowen-Wohlstetter report and will set up a hearing or forum to bring together before the committee members some of the principal Administration officials and independent specialists on nonproliferation policy, such as Pickering, Joseph S. Nye of Harvard, Rowen, and Wohlstetter. One major aspect of the disagreement over nuclear fuel cycle and nonproliferation policy has to do with the extent to which nuclear power is linked to the development of nuclear weapons. Some people think that the possible diversion of sensitive nuclear materials from fuel cycle facilities associated with power generation is far less likely than the possibility that some nonweapon countries may establish facilities for the sole purpose of producing the plutonium or high-enriched uranium needed for nuclear bombs. The Ford study says: