1650 



Congress did not give the Foundation explicit authority to carry 

 out foreign and international scientific activities for their own merits, 

 until 1968. Therefore most NvSF programs were justified in terms of 

 their contribution to U.S. domestic science. Foreign exchange activi- 

 ties are scattered throughout NSF divisions; the Foundation estab- 

 lished an Ofhce for Foreign and International Science in 1955, but that 

 office even toda}^ has relatively httle responsibility for overseas 

 science programs. These circumstances probably account for the- 

 seeming absence of clear-cut Foundation policies and internal pro- 

 cedures providing for coordinated administration of the international 

 programs. 



Fragmentation of NSF activities and lack of adequate reporting 

 procedures make difficult the evaluation of Foundation programs. 

 Apparently out of deference to scholarly sensitivities, the Foundation 

 has not required grantees in most programs to report on their inter- 

 national or foreign activities or to make suggestions for improving the 

 programs. "Only in fiscal year 1970 did the Foundation begin to attempt 

 to collect data, and then only in perfunctory fashion, on overseas 

 activities undertaken with NSF funds." ^^^ These factors have, 



. . . kept the Foundation from defining and developing a role as a lead U.S. 

 agency in support of international science and scientific exchange activities. While 

 a number of these programs very probably have advanced the cause of inter- 

 national science and international politics, there is little information on their 

 achievements or impacts. The absence of both data and a mechanism to plan 

 programs on a Foundation-wide basis undermines NSF's responsibility for deter- 

 mining program priorities in both the short- and long-range future. Systematic 

 determination of priorities, both within and among programs, seems to be reqvured 

 since the programs are both increasing and becoming more significant as tools of 

 foreign policy. '"^ 



An additional problem is that a number of NSF programs suffer' 

 from poor participation rates by U.S. scientists. U.S. scientific partici- 

 pation is circumscribed by language barriers and sometimes by 

 insufficient scientific challenge. "It is conceivable that NSF could 

 design programs which would satisfy more easily criteria for U.S. 

 scientific participation and for country planning needed to develop 

 the science infrastructure for developing countries. For example, the 

 Foundation might insist on better evaluation of the experiences of 

 the programs it supports, better reporting, improved in-house evalua- 

 tion of reports and of program accomplishments and problems, and 

 more attention to requirements for effective performance." '^^ 



The author concludes the section on the Foundation's exchange 

 programs with some comments and questions which have been partly 

 overtaken by events but appear to remain essentially valid : 



. . . the Foundation's responsibilities for foreign and international science 

 were expanded under terms of President Nixon's Reorganization Plan No. 1, 

 which took effect on July 1, 1973. This action transfers to NSF some Executive 

 Office functions for determining of domestic and foreign science policies and for 

 interagency coordination. It also designates the Foundation's Director as the 

 President's Science Adviser and personal representative for foreign scientific 

 afifairs. It is an open question whether the Foundation's organization for foreign 

 and international science can meet the needs imposed by these expanded re- 

 sponsibilities. 



i»5/6!d., p. 980. 

 i«« Ibid. 

 "' Ibid. 



