1881 



10230; as amended by the Senate to incorporate the substance of 

 S. 32, it was signed by the President on May 11, 1976, and became 

 Pubhc Law 94-282, the National Science and Technology Policy, 

 Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976.^*^ The new act contains 

 a finding — 



Sec. 101(a)(2) the many large and complex scientific and technological factors 

 which increasingly influence the course of national and international events re- 

 quire appropriate provision, involving long-range, inclusive planning as well as 

 more immediate program development, to incorporate scientific and technological 

 knowledge in the national decisionmaking process. 



Included among the policies enunciated in the act are "promoting 

 foreign policy objectives" and a requirement for the Federal Govern- 

 ment to "maintain central policy planning elements in the executive 

 branch . . . "to identify . , . "problems and objectives" . . . and 

 to anticipate . . . "future concerns to which science and technology 

 can contribute. . . . " To execute these policies, the bill would provide 

 for the establishment in the Executive Office of the President of an 

 OflSce of Science and Technology Policy, headed by a Director and 

 "not more than four Associate Directors." The Director, presumably 

 in consultation with his assistants, would "advise the President of 

 scientific and technological considerations involved in areas of national 

 concern including [among other matters] foreign relations. ..." He 

 would also "assess and advise on policies for international cooperation 

 in science and technology which will advance the national and inter- 

 national objectives of the United States." And he would "identify and 

 assess emerging and future areas in which science and technology can 

 be used effectively in addressing national and international problems." 

 In the performance of these functions the Director would " . . . 

 develop appropriate working relationships with the National Security 

 Council . . . ." 



There would, of course, be no reason for the Director of the new 

 office to neglect the advice of both the National Academy of Sciences 

 and the National Academy of Engineering, along with their supporting 

 instrumentality, the National Research Council. 



With respect to the Murphy Commission proposal for an Advisory 

 Committee to tap academic expertise in the foreign policy area, it is 

 possible that a twofold mechanism of external advice might be enter- 

 tained. Indeed, Professor Robinson has suggested just such an arrange- 

 ment. In view of the fact that the three military departments and the 

 Office of the Secretary of Defense all have dual advisory mechanisms 

 of this type, it does not seem unreasonable to provide the Department 

 of State with an equivalent system. Some advisory studies are more 

 appropriate for a relatively permanent Rand-type organization, with 

 personnel fully cleared for the handling of classified information, and 

 closely responsive to declared needs of the Policy Planning Staff and 

 the Secretary of State. Other studies of a broader, more exploratory 

 nature might be more suited to an academic institution or team under 

 the general guidance of such an advisory committee as the Murphy 

 Commission has recommended. The roles of the Policy Planning Staff, 

 the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and the Bureau of Oceans 



5S2 The bill was signed at a Rose Garden ceremony attended by leading scientists at which anthropologist 

 and A.A.A.S. Retiring President Margaret Mead "commented that the action was Mr. Ford's peace oflfering 

 to the scientific community, which has missed its entree into the Oval Office through a resident science 

 adviser" since the office was abolished by President Nixon 3 years ago. (Washington Post, May 12, 1976.) 



