1702 



Department of State, 

 Oceans and International Environmental 



AND Scientific Affairs, 

 Washington, D.C., June 20, 1975. 

 The President, 

 The While House. 



Dear Mr. President: In my letter of resignation to Secretary Kissinger, I 

 made brief reference to the circumstances within the Department of State that 

 thwart those of us who are responsible for information and advice on the i)olicies 

 that guide United States international programs in science and technology from 

 exercising our proper role. Public Law 93-126, passed by the Congress in October, 

 1973, mandates a policy role for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environ- 

 mental and Scientific Affairs. Under present Departmental procedures, the 

 Bureau can do little but acquiesce in the poUcies set by others, and attempt to 

 implement its broad responsibilities with little authority and few resources. 

 Similar kinds of problems plague our Nation's domestic science policy. 

 Although steps may be underway to improve the present situation — e.g., the 

 establishment of a Science Advisory Office in the White House, as you have 

 proposed — I am deeply concerned that the imperative to use existing knowledge 

 and proven technology for vigorous attack on today's problems is not fully 

 recognized nor appreciated at the highest levels of government. 



Of course technology must be used wisely and with proper regard for both' 

 economic and environmental consequences. An energetic re-'earch and develop- 

 mental program on problems that are not yet solved must be pursued both by 

 government directly and by government providing the climate — financial, 

 intellectual and practical — to marshal the great talent and human resources of 

 this land. That pitifully little is being done is nowhere so clearly evident as in the 

 area of energy resources and technology. 



On January 16 of this year, thirty-two of our Nation's most outstanding 

 scientists — including eleven Nobel Laureates — made a public statement on 

 energy poHcy. It is a significant and disturbing document — significant because 

 it is a thoughtful and sober expression of concern for the future of our country 

 made by a group of our most knowledgeable citizens and disturbing because 

 it has been virtually ignored by the leaders of government. The scientists' state- 

 ment, a copj'^ of which is attached, says, in part : 



"We . . . believe that the Republic is in the most serious situation since World 

 War II. Today's energy crisis is not a matter of just a few years but of decades. 

 It is the new and predominant fact of life in industrialized societies. 



"The high price of oil which we must now import in order to keep Americans at 

 their jobs threatens our economic structure ..." 



The importance of secure supplies of economically priced energy (fuels and 

 electricity) cannot be overemphasized. Although energy provides the power for 

 all manufacturing, business, commerce, transportation, and distribution of 

 essential goods (all this means jobs and whether there is employment or unem- 

 ployment), the great energy debate focuses, ironically on gasoline for the family 

 automobile. Although we are, correctly, dedicated to a clean and healthy environ- 

 ment, the means to accomplish this laudable purpose requires more, not less, 

 energy. Our alternatives are severely limited. We have no choice other than to 

 practice conservation on a scale not yet imagined. This will take dedication and 

 will require that the leaders of government .set an example in energy saving 

 measures. But conservation alone cannot recover or maintain the strength of our 

 economy. Our need for reUance on solid fuels — coal and uranium — is real and 

 must be recognized. 



It is now 18 months since my report to President Nixon, "The Nation s Energy 

 Future," was submitted. Many of the recommendations, especially the long-term 

 research and development proposals that are painless and non-controversial are 

 being implemented at glacial speed. But other programs, aimed at carefully 

 planned, step-by-stcp conversion to heavier reliance on solid fuels, languish or 

 are submitted to stultifying and interminable feasibility studies. The innovative 

 Pioneer Synthetic Fuels Program, proposed in cooperation with private enter- 

 prise, has yet to receive serious consideration. 



Our country is drifting. We seem neither to have the will to conserve energy 

 nor the courage to map out a national program that will free us from the bondage 

 of too great a reliance on imported energy whose price and security of supply we 

 are powerless to influence. Painful decisions are needed for there are no easy 

 solutions that will please everj'^one. 



