CHAPTER 5— THE POLITICAL LEGACY OF THE 

 INTERNATIONAL GEOPHYSICAL YEAR 



I. Introduction 



Increasingly, science is being blamed for many, if not most, of the 

 world's ills. It is science which has made possible a highly technological 

 world, and it is ever-expanding technology which has led to some of 

 that world's seemingly most intractable problems. 1 Not only do these 

 problems severely tax domestic capabilities at home, they threaten 

 to engulf relations with countries abroad. Seemingly, science and 

 technology have become the genie escaped from the bottle, no longer 

 subject to man's command alone. Rather, the genie seems possessed 

 by a will of its own, increasingly beyond man's control. At the same 

 time, ironically, it appears unlikely that many of today's problems, 

 whether domestic or international, can be solved other than through 

 the application of additional science and technology. Calls by the 

 neo-Luddites 2 to return to the technological womb, while one part 

 of the world attempts to cope with technology's problems and another 

 part still struggles for its fair share of technology's fruits, appear 

 both inhumane and unrealistic. What, then, to do? 



This study, in accordance with the objectives of the entire series 

 of which it is one part, 3 is concerned with the role of science and 

 technology in helping to solve (or, conversely, in sharing the re- 

 sponsibility for generating) problems of international affairs. Con- 

 tributing to these problems is the fact that science has, in relatively 

 quick succession, provided man with the chemical, the atomic, and 

 the hydrogen bomb, with other, more potent bombs waiting next on 

 the horizon. The extent to which these devices are likely to be used 

 remains largely unresolved. Having provided these singularly power- 

 ful tools of destruction, has science contributed to that diplomacy 

 upon which avoidance of their use depends? That question reflects 

 the general concern of this study. 



In seeking to shed light on the role of science in international 

 affairs, it seems reasonable to examine in some detail the workings of 

 the world scientific community and the way in which its various 

 components interact. Rather than undertake such an examination 

 theoretically, this case study focuses upon one particular international 

 scientific undertaking and seeks to find ways m which the participa- 

 tion of scientists in this activity may have helped contribute to the 

 ultimate resolution of some problems of international concern. 



The International Geophysical Year (IGY) 4 was chosen for study 

 because it represents the largest, most complex, and most compre- 

 hensive international scientific undertaking thus far conceived and 



i Current public awareness of technologically induced problems would appear to be sufficiently widespread 

 to require no elaboration here. For a brief discussion of the subject earlier in this series, see: U.S., Congress, 

 House, Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific Develop- 

 ments, The Evolution of International Technology, 91st Cong., 2d sess., December 1970 (vol. 

 II, pp. 615-616). 



* A term applied to those opposed to technology on value grounds. Opposition to technology is taken as a 

 moral position: economic determinism has been found inadequate to regulate the production and adoption 

 of good technology while restraining the bad, or (according to another view) there are so many technological 

 innovations that society is increasingly incapable of adjusting to them. 



3 For an overview of the series of studies, see: U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

 Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific Developments, Toward a New Diplomacy in a 

 Scientific Age, 91st Cong., 2d sess., April 1970. For a list of studies published to date, see p. ii. 



• For a list of abbreviations used throughout this study, see app. 1. 



Note : This chapter was prepared in 1973 by Harold Bullis. 



(297) 



