1753 



5SSUE six: science and technology in the department of state 



In this study, which concentrated on the organizational aspects of 

 science, technology, and American diplomacy, particular attention 

 was given to the "Emergence of the Bilateral Science Agreement." 

 Less attention was given to multilateral arrangements. 



Advantages of the bilateral agreement were said to include con- 

 venient evidence of detente, increased interaction in a professional and 

 noncontroversial field, an impetus toward further cooperation, 

 increased prestige of local scientists, increased local support for 

 science, facilitated exchange of personnel and information, and easier 

 exchange of materials and equipment. A diplomatic advantage of 

 bOateral agreements is that they can serve as the opening wedge to 

 begin a dialogue with unrecognized states. 



A principal disadvantage of bilaterals is that while easy to make 

 they are awkward to terminate. Compared with multilateral arrange- 

 ments they cost the participants more in relation to the benefits 

 they yield. As they increase in number they impose a substantial 

 burden of administration and coordination. 



One problem posed by the present array of some 28 bilaterals is 

 that they did not come about as a consequence of a deliberate deter- 

 mination that these were the best places to have such arrangements, 

 that aU were meritorious and any others would be less so. Nor was 

 there a conscious effort to design an optimal plan that could generally 

 be followed in each case, with only minor modifications. Planning and 

 priorities appear to have played little role in the&e decisions; instead, 

 an ad hoc approach wa:? followed, and the designs of the arrangements 

 evolved out of the cii'cumstances at the time.^°" 



This variation was justified ab experimentation. However, observed 

 the study: 



It should also be noted that to justify the experimental nature of the design 

 variation requires that information be drawn from the experiment. Which de- 

 signs work best and why? What criteria of effectiveness have been established? 

 What principles can be adduced? If additional bilateral science programs are 

 proposed, by what criteria will they be evaluated and how should they be designed 

 for optimal effect? If there are variations in existing programs, should they be 

 reviewed and revised to enhance their effectiveness? If there are inactive or unre- 

 warding programs, should thej'' be rebuilt, renegotiated, or terminated, or allowed 

 to drag on? "' 



And fundamentally, "to be diplomatically as well as scientifically 

 useful, the science bilateral needs to have a solid technical justification, 

 and sustained technical and administrative support on both sides." 

 The analysis further develops this theme as follows : 



So numerous have these agreements become, and so diffused the responsibilities 

 for cooperative overseas programs of U.S. agencies, that the time seems appro- 

 priate for a general review of the mechanism of bilateral science and technology 

 cooperation. Agreements are easy to make, costly and time-consuming to imple- 

 ment, difficult to keep track of, duplicative in effects, and painful to terminate. 

 Federal agencies find themselves committed to programs abroad for which no 

 funds can be obtained for support. Expectations are likely to run ahead of per- 

 formance. In some cases, of course, there are tangible economic benefits in 

 terms of dollar saving from joint or coUaborative researches, valuable results, 

 and shared facilities. But only by a vigorous and competent management, supplied 

 on an overall basis by the executive branch, can these agreements ultimately be 



«» Huddle, Science and Technology in the Department of State, vol. II, p. 1403. 

 «i Ibid., pp. 1403-1404. 



