1644 



State Department.^^* Review, including congressional oversight, is 

 further inhibited by a paucity of evaluative data — "most of these 

 programs do not incorporate effective provisions for continuous 

 collection, analysis, and dissemination to the public of data required 

 to evaluate the contributions of the program to the advancement of 

 the sciences or to promotion of cooperative international scientific 

 activities." ^^' 



A number of factors militate against coordinated program planning. One of 

 these is that U.S. international science programs and policies have not been fully- 

 recognized as part of either foreign policy or science policy. A second is that while 

 each program has a number of overlapping purposes, each is carried out under its 

 own statutory authority and is reported to different congressional committees. 

 A third is that some bilateral agreements provide for funding and program com- 

 mitments which are rarely brought to the attention of Congress until they are a 

 fait accompli. 



A fourth consideration which must minimize expectations of eJective coordi- 

 nation is the unsuccessful history of actual attempts to provide this function. Two 

 agencies have had responsibility in the past for coordinating, on a government- 

 wide basis, international science poUcies and exchange pohcies. These are the 

 International Committee of the Federal Council for Science and Technology and 

 the Bureau of International Scientific and Technological Affairs, Department of 

 State.is" 



An account of the unsuccessful coordination efforts is given later in 

 this commentary. 



But it is the problem of basic policies that should probably warrant 

 greatest congressional attention. Along with exchange programs serv- 

 ing the legitimate interests of detente, development, and science for the 

 sake of science, is the United States placing enough emphasis on 

 sending abroad persons qualified and alerted to identify and assess 

 trends in both high and low technology^^^ from which U.S. industry 

 and research laboratories could benefit? Do the exchange programs 

 treat technology transfer as a two-way street? Is the ratio of applied 

 to basic scientists in the programs commensurate with this purpose? 

 How systematic is the search, in different technical fields, for oppor- 

 tunities for significant transfers to as well as from the United States? 

 In reviewing and considering relative priorities for the overall U.S. 

 program of sending technical personnel abroad, are U.S. policj^makers 

 giving thought to the appropriate balance among the disciplines, not 

 for the present day but in terms of what will be needed in the United 

 States 10 and 20 years in the future? In examining the three principal 

 U.S. exchange programs and considering problems of direction, 

 coordination, and review, this study also sets the stage for examining 

 such broader policy questions as these. 



Importance of the Issue 



Weaknesses in administration and evaluation of exchange programs 

 described in this study are symptomatic of a more important problem: 

 a corresponding gap in U.S. international science policy and policy 

 machinery. The programs are nominally governed by a collection of 

 stated goals, but the goals sometimes conflict and do not add up to 

 a coherent policy (and in any case are not systematically adhered to). 

 Mechanisms and procedures for coordinated direction are lacking 



»'8 Ibid. 



1" Ibid., p. 1023. 



'80 Ibid., pp. 102.")-1020. 



181 See the essay on this subject which follows for an explanation of these terms. 



