1799 



technologists could help the developing countries find ways of reducing 

 the enormous losses of foods to spoilage and rodents. 



In the thorny field of population, the dilemma described in the 

 study is that scientific knowledge about human reproductive processes 

 and the development of technologies for their control are concentrated 

 in the United States and other technically advanced countries. In the 

 United States in particular, standards of drug and medical equipment 

 testing are extremely exacting, costly, and time-consuming. Standards 

 appropriate to the United States are not necessarily as relevant to the 

 conditions of developing countries. In consequence, the technology 

 they need may not be provided. The question is suggested as to why 

 the technologists are not transferred, rather than the technology, to 

 resolve the dilemma. 



A further problem, highlighted by the "Green Revolution," is the 

 worldwide trend toward urbanization — the movement of rural 

 populations into the cities. Easement of this problem, which also 

 afflicts the United States, calls for a total reversal of the U.S. produc- 

 tion philosophy. Traditionally, the emphasis of ' 'scientific manage- 

 ment" in the United States called for reducing hours of labor by 

 intensive use of materials, capital, and electrical energy. However, 

 in the developing countries — and increasingly in the United States — 

 shortage of labor has less bearing while shortages of capital and 

 energy are acute. Thus, the design of small industry in urban areas 

 needs to produce useful items for consumption or export, based on 

 high input of labor and low mechanization. Opportunities in this 

 field, and training in the management of small enterprises, would seem 

 to be the necessary direction of effort. Whether U.S. skills in 

 technology, marketing, and entrepreneurship are transferable to this 

 environment is less evident. 



ISSUE four: U.S. scientists abroad 



This study was silent on the subject of the private/public dichotomy. 

 ^The scope was restricted entirely to private scientific ventures, publicly 

 supported. But the question is implicit: if the main impact on 

 diplomacy comes from the technological part of the science-and- 

 technology spectrum, why is there no interest in the encouragement 

 of overseas study (and its reverse counterpart) in such technological 

 subjects as engineering, design, tool-making, plant layout, production 

 engineering, quality control, inspection, and so forth? Has the United 

 States nothing to learn from the rest of the world on these matters? 



It is true that most large corporations in the United States and 

 abroad would not require financial assistailfce to support their own 

 technical personnel to travel and study abroad. Also, U.S. AID 

 supports some programs to train technologists from developing 

 countries in the United States and sends some U.S. technologists 

 abroad on its own programs. But smaller corporations, and even 

 large corporations that are not technology-intensive, might benefit 

 from exposure to foreign training and expertise. Tax incentives and 

 technological internships in U.S. Embassies abroad might be a means 

 to this end. 



Even in the developing countries, there are local technologies — 

 including what for the contemporary U.S. culture are forgotten arts 

 and crafts — that could be useful in the United States. Recognition 



