1690 



THE MURPHY COMMISSION REPORT 



Space does not permit a recounting here of all the evidences of 

 conffressional concern with the interactions of science, technology, and 

 foreign policy that are dealt with in the basic study .^'*^ However, 

 mention should be made of the Commission on the Organization of the 

 Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy. Created on the initia- 

 tive of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and representing 

 both Houses of Congress and the President, the Commission was 

 charged with undertaking studies that would enable it to ". . . submit 

 findings and recommendations to provide a more effective system for 

 the formulation and execution of the Nation's foreign policy," ^°^ This 

 was a very large task, and it is perhaps not surprising that the Report 

 which the Commission rendered in June 1975 fell short of the clear 

 and definitive statement of needed reforms sought by its sponsors. 

 In any case, the Commission did include among its focal subjects of 

 study the scientific and technological aspects of foreign policy .^°* 



NEED OF ADDED CONGRESSIONAL RESOURCES 



The section on "Congressional Concern with Science in the Depart- 

 in the Department of State" in /Scisnce and Technology in the Depart- 

 ment of State concludes with consideration of a "congressional policy 

 planning stafi"." The basis for this suggestion is that, 



The cultural and organizational situation in the Department of State with 

 respect to science and technology presents the Congress with two related problems. 

 One is the need of Congress for information and analysis. The Congress, speaking 

 broadly, needs to know what is going on in order to decide what to instruct the 

 executive branch to do about it. The interactions of science and technology with 

 diplomacy are demonstrably of commanding importance. But the Congress is 

 faced w^ith difficulties in securing information and analyses in this field because 

 of the persistent cultural lag in technical literacy and a lack of organizational 

 coherence and discipline of the Department, which is after all the main source 

 of diplomatic information for Congress. The second problem is how to strengthen 

 the resources of the Department of State to collect, analyze, and report to the 

 Congress on the technical aspects of diplomacy. Recent events suggest that 

 reform is already underway. But it is also possible that further congressional 

 encouragement might be found necessary. As time goes on, it is to be hoped, the 

 departmental deficiencies will be corrected. 



But pending such correction and even after, it would seem desirable for the 

 Congress to strengthen its own arrangements for information analysis and filter, 

 and option identification and evaluation.'"' 



Similarities between the legislative and executive branches in the 

 approach to foreign policy problems — the study continues — include 

 (1) the fact that the structure and staffing of congressional committees 

 has tended to compartmentalize problems in the same way that they 

 are divided up in the Department of State; (2) both diplomatic and 

 domestic political realities ". . . compel priority attention to short- 

 range problems and issues, while tending to defer attention to longer 

 term trends, problems, and opportunities"; (3) there is a tendency in 

 both diplomatic and political institutions — and in both legislative and 

 executive policymaking areas — toward a high degree of personal 

 mobility and a correspondingly short "institutional memory." Ac- 

 cordingly, the study concludes, 



306 See ibid., pp. 1450-1468 ("Congressional Concern with Science in the Department of State"). 



307 Ibid., p. 1464. , , 



308 Salient findings of the "Murphy Commission" (so named after its Chairman, former Ambassador 

 Robert D. Murphy) are discussed in the essay on planning which follows later in this volume. See chapter 23. 



30» Huddle, Science and Technology in the Department of State, vol. II, p. 1466. 



