1556 



the extended IG\ msiehinery into a front organization serving its own 

 version of peace and progress? The answers to these questions are 

 beyond the reach of the present study, but they would seem worthwhile 

 for historians and long-range ])olicy planners to ponder. 



In any case, it is clear that what the IGY and its sponsors failed to 

 to do was far outweighed by its accomplishments. Its outstanding 

 achievements in science have been mentioned. On the organizational 

 level, a formula was invented which mside possible the smooth and in- 

 dependent functioning of a complex enterprise, under the lendership of 

 scientists, with generous sup»port from many governments but a mini- 

 mum of interference by them.''^ On the substantive side, although the 

 IGY was primarily an exercise in pure science, it made brilliant use of 

 contemporary technology; the scientific space prohes which opened a 

 new era of exploration were only the most visible of many such uses. 

 In the area of international cooperation, to cite one category of results, 

 the same technology employed in the Eai'th satellite program required 

 agreements among nations which subsequently smoothed the way for 

 other agreements in related areas. 



There is, perhaps, a danger attending the euphoria generated by a 

 great and successful enterprise in international cooperation like the 

 IGY. Especially among scientists, for whom good will is an accus- 

 tomed accompaniment to cooperation in scientific and techno- 

 logical problem solving, there may be a tendency to underestimate the 

 problems inherent in the political setting. On this theme, Bullis 

 comments: 



One of the difficulties in attempting to transfer scientific methodology into 

 political reality is suggested by Sullivan's observation that "science, in treating 

 our planet as indivisible, is far ahead of politics, which treats it as two worlds." 

 In view of today's multiple ideologies, "multiple worlds" might be a more appro- 

 priate political designation. During the IGY, as a result of their common participa- 

 tion in efforts which opened up to man not only Antarctica but outer space, scien- 

 tists were said to have experienced unusually strong feelings of humility and 

 brotherhood. These feelings served to reinforce the traditional attitudes most 

 natural scientists develop as a result of sharing with others the common objective 

 of unveiling nature's secrets. There is but one universe for scientists to study, and 

 its singularity unites all scientific minds. 



Thus scientists tend to have fewer social problems since their research is generally 

 focused upon common, well-defined objectives offering "a natural point of con- 

 vergence, namely, the correct result." Unlike politicians, they are not engaged 

 in conflict resolution as a profession and are not charged with responsibility for 

 the protection of national interests in a competitive arena. Rather, the existence 

 of a common, agreed-upon technical objective creates a tendency toward social 

 cooperation despite all obstacles, a tendency which has become a characteristic 

 of the international scientific community. ... 



■ ■•«••• 



In view of the substantial differences between the scientific and politicnl 

 communities in the kinds of problems they are respectivelj^ called upon to solve, 

 prudence would suggest caution in looking for too bold a transfer of techniques 

 from one comnumity to another. The IGY itself was apttlitical and closed ended 

 whereas the political process is, a priori, political and open ended. Yet, politicians 

 and scientists do share some important human characteristics. Politicians and 

 governments, no less than scientists and scientific organizations, are capable of 

 and motivated toward uniting to achieve common ol)jectives. A major difficulty 

 is that th(^ i3roc(dures for finding solutions to problems facing politicians and 

 goverinnents are less clearly defined than are the procedures for finding solutions 

 to the specific types of problems commonly faced by scientists and engineers. 

 Scientific and engineering problems are t3'pically more specificall.y defined than 



54 Sro //)/(/. pp. 30."i-:({)',), for a (li'scripUon of how this was done. 



