1871 



Another question involves the time of the results of overseas study. 

 Experience with foreign research methods and subjects of investigation 

 has undoubted value for U.S. science generally. But there is a time 

 lapse between the designation of overseas fellowships and the accrual 

 to this country of values from the program. This time lapse is, of 

 course, a general characteristic of all foreign scholarship programs. 

 The implication is that in the management of foreign exchange pro- 

 grams thought might be given to the needs of U.S. science .for strength- 

 ening of particular fields of research in future years, or for the re- 

 placement of cohorts of agiQg scientists soon facing retirement. 



Another question is raised by the restriction of these programs to 

 basic research. The undoubted leadership of the United States in 

 technology is not necessarily durable; advances of other developed 

 countries in recent years have been notable. Many of these advances 

 have been assisted by extensive borrowings of U.S. technology. 

 Long-range planning by the United States might reasonably take into 

 account the signal technological advances of other countries and 

 identify areas in which U.S. technologists, engineers, and systems 

 people might usefuUy study abroad, to meet future U.S. needs in 

 these fields. Moreover, despite the general U.S. lead in technology, 

 there are still many pockets of outstanding expertise abroad that could 

 be beneficially tapped, especially in the area of low technology. 



ISSUE five: brain drain 



The primary direction of the flow of people with advanced training 

 in fields of science and technology is away from developing countries 

 and toward developed countries. The study of Brain Drain ^^^ in the 

 series thus identifies the phenomenon as a "symptom of underdevelop- 

 ment." The United States is in an equivocal position on this issue: 

 U.S. policy has long aimed at helping the developing countries to 

 advance technologically but the United States is also a principal desti- 

 nation of emigrant "brains" from these same countries where they are 

 needed in the development process. 



Apart from the moral question involved, there are practical reasons 

 of policy for resolving this issue. The need to accept the diplomatic 

 imperative of interdependence confronts rich as well as poor nations. 

 One pragmatic reason for U.S. concern is the fact of this Nation's 

 dependence on mineral resources largely under control of the LDCs. 



Awareness of this problem comes at the height of the current energy crisis and 

 suggests what may be a scenario for things to come with growing cartelization of 

 world mineral resources and growing consciousness of increased leverage among 

 the LDCs to be used against the advanced industrial nations. Reasons of self- 

 interest appear to warrant a reappraisal of the Nation's posture towards the 

 LDCs and the affirmation of a policy of interdependence. '"^ 



In a still broader sense, the need to take account of interdependence 

 in the treatment of the brain drain issue may involve the goal of peace 

 and national security. Thus : 



It would seem beyond dispute that the LDCs, long the cockpit of international 

 tension and conflict in which the United States has not been able to stand aside 

 uninvolved, hold the potentialities for even deeper and more dangerous involve- 

 ment. War in South and Southeast Asia, recurring crises in the Middle East, 



564 Whelan, Brain Drain: A Study of the Persistent Issue of International Scientific Mobility, Vol. II, pp. 1037- 

 1318. 

 «" Ibid., p. 1317. 



