1659 



of field operations of the Fiilbriglit-Iiays program. A study i* 

 being done by the U.S. Advi.-ory Commission on Inter- 

 national Educational and Cuit'.irarAffairs.^i'J 



— two separate studies in ureas which warrant review for 

 scientific and technical educational exchange programs, 

 commissioned by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

 Affairs: (1) "An investigation of the consequences of inter- 

 national educational exchange," and (2) "^.lental Health in 

 international educational exchanges: a study of coping 

 behavior in a cultural environment." ^^° 



— the merits of team exchanges and multilateral vehicles 

 for exchange for the Fulbright-Hays program. Efforts are 

 now underway by the Board of Foreign Scholarships to 

 examine this issue. 

 — I believe in retrospect that the report gave a valid and 

 balanced perspective to the exchanges. However, if time had 

 permitted, I should have attempted a more detailed analysis of 

 the impacts of the programs or their contributions to the advance- 

 ment of science and technology. Also, I should like to have 

 assessed the quality of technical information transferred in 

 relation to the level of development of the science and technology 

 infrastructure of a recipient country. An attempt might also have 

 been made to assess these programs in light of the origins, pur- 

 poses, and activities of programs wdiich send governmental staff 

 scientists abroad under exchange programs or bilateral or multi- 

 lateral agreements. 



— There seems to be little attention in Congress now to review- 

 ing and improving federally funded nongovernmental scientific 

 and technical exchange programs. In the course of implementing 

 new budget review and oversight responsibilities Congress might 

 give more attention to this topic. The General Accounting Office 

 and the House Committee on Science and Technology have 

 recently conducted oversight reviews of the objectives and con- 

 tent of Soviet-American cooperative agreements, including those 

 for science and technology.^^^ 



Some Illustrative Questions 



The author has posed many questions in the study itself; some have 

 been incorporated in the preceding text of this commentar3^ Others 

 follow : 



In the new science policy structure at the national level is adequate 

 provision being made for coordinated planning and direction of ex- 

 change programs in relation to foreign policy goals and priorities? 

 For follow-through of evaluation efforts, with reporting of findings 

 to the President and Congress ? 



"« The sturly was described by W. E. Weld, Jr., staff director, in a letter to the author of Mar. 3, 1075. 



"0 These studies are described in "Measuring the impact of academic exchange," FAR Hornons, v. 7, 

 no. 2, Spring 1974: 5-7. 



22' The resulting GAO report is: U.S. General Accounting Office. A Progress Report on United States-Soviet 

 Union Cooperative Programs. A report to Coneress, Washington, U.S. General Accounting Office, 1975. 

 98 p. The House Committee review is summarized in: U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and 

 Technology. Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis. Background 

 Materials on U.S.-U.S.S.R. Cooperative Agrefments in Science and Technology. Reoort prepared by Claire 

 Riley Geier, of the Science Policy Research Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress . 

 94th Co.igress, First session, December 1975. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975. 

 93. p. 



