1655 



is limited to references to NSF authorization and appropriations 

 actions and to a footnote (page 111) on the 1972 accord with the 

 U.S.S.R. The accord had been reviewed by the Subcommittee on 

 International Science and Space of the House Committee on Science 

 and Astronautics in hearings on U.S.-U.S.S.E. Cooperative Agree- 

 ments and in a subcommittee report on the same subject (August 

 1972). 



It is noted repeatedly throughout the study that the three major 

 exchange programs are deficient in arrangements for program analysis, 

 evaluation of effectiveness, and related factual reporting. As the 

 author observes of one of the three : 



Throughout its history the Fulbright-Hays program has lacked both appro- 

 priate data collection and evaluation procedures; consequently there has been 

 insufficient attention to systematic improvement of planning and program 

 operations. Scientific exchanges constituting more than half of the Fulbright-Hays 

 program, apparently have not received indepth evaluation by agencies administer- 

 ing the program. 2"* 



With the exception of a detailed review that Congress made of 

 exchange programs when it was considering the Fulbright-Hays 

 legislation in 1961, congressional consideration of these programs has 

 been limited essentially to annual Appropriations Committee review 

 of the State Department's mutual educational and cultural exchange 

 program. A search of congressional hearings and literature for the 

 period 1960-70 yielded nothing which focused especially on the 

 Fulbright-Hays program. ^^^ 



Status of the Issue; Prospects and Options 



A second major problem in the administration of exchange programs, 

 along with reporting and evaluation, is that of coordinated program 

 planning. It was noted earlier that two agencies have had some 

 responsibihty for trying to coordinate the U.S. Government's inter- 

 national science policies and programs: the International Committee 

 of the Federal Council for Science and Technology (IC, FCST — 

 subsequently transferred to the aegis of the Department of State), 

 and the Bureau of International and Scientific Affairs (SCI), Depart- 

 ment of State ^°* (now the Bureau of Oceans and International Envi- 

 ronmental and Scientific Affairs — OES). 



The author comments tliat although no in-depth evaluation of 

 SCI and its work is available, "Several critiques indicate that because 

 of political and organizational constraints, SCI has been less than 

 effective in coordinating U.S. science policies abroad." -°^ According 



20« Ibid., pp. 898-899. 

 21" Ibid., p. 898, footnote 58. 



2"* The point bein;; made by the author of the present study is reinforced by the observation in a lat?r 

 (June igV.Tt study in this series, Scienc and Technology in th' Dcpartmrnt of State, that "... pending 

 action on the Presidential science policy system, the current situation is that aspects of international science 

 and technolotry policy, in the upper reaches of policymakinf; are spread anion;;: 



—The Bureau of Oceans and International Knvironmental and Scientific Affairs; 

 —The State Department Policy Plaunin? Stall; 

 — The immediate staff of the Soeretary of State; 



— The National Security Council, and the Under Secretaries Committee; 

 —The Director of NSF and the Science and Teehnolo;;y Planning Office; and 

 — Council on International Eccnoniic Policy. 

 Precisely how policy initiatives can evolve out of this rather complex conzeries of hiph level institutions is 

 not clear." (U.S. Consjress, House, Committee on Internationa! Relations, Srj'icr mji Techndng-i in I h" 

 £>cpart)iieiil of State, a study in tlie series on Science, Technolosv, and Am-ric:ni Diulcinacy preiiarcd fo'- the 

 Subcommittee on International S.:>curity ajid .Sci^ntiric .\fiurs" by Frank'iu P. Huddle, seni.ir sp?c;.-iUit in 

 science and technolosv. Congressional Res<' irch Service, L'bi'ary of Congress. Washington, D.C., U.S. 

 Govt. Print. Off., June 197.5. See vol. II, p. 1498. 

 2»» Knezo, op. cit., vol. II, p. 1020. 



