350 



Scientific and engineering problems are typically more specifically 

 defined than are political problems, which tend to be overburdened 

 with value systems in which rational and irrational factors are inter- 

 mixed. Nonetheless, if men can unite to solve problems under one 

 set of circumstances (the scientific), there presumably is room for 

 hope that they can learn to do so under another (the political). 

 Scientists, as already indicated, tend to share this hope. 



Several factors help provide at least some degree of optimism that 

 the scientists may be justified. One is the great importance of first 

 perceiving and assessing, and then communicating, technological 

 impacts. Scientists and technologists are likely to comprehend the 

 possible consequences of new discoveries and applications in the fields 

 of energy or of ecology, for example, more immediately or fully than 

 are politicians. Partly because of the IGY, both technological develop- 

 ments and political (or institutional) developments which significantly 

 affect the human condition can be more readily appreciated and uti- 

 lized today. First, they can be brought to the attention of both 

 political leaders and the public within countries (it is becoming 

 increasingly difficult for leaders to withhold them even in dictator- 

 ships); secondly, they can be shared among the countries of the 

 world far more readily than was possible just two or three decades 

 ago. Wider public understanding of technological impacts and a 

 stronger institutional framework (governmental, professional, and the 

 press) for increasing that understanding still further are in large part 

 responsible in the first instance; technological advances in rapid 

 communications and transportation are among the factors responsible 

 in the second. 



More effective communication does not necessarily serve the 

 interests of peace and stability; it can be used to increase strife and 

 tension. Even well-intentioned communication could conceivably 

 do more harm than good, as by inducing excessive anxieties. In gen- 

 eral, however, the friendly (or at least nonhostile) communicating, 

 both within and among countries, of knowledge relating to human 

 survival on earth is a responsibility which cannot be evaded by the 

 present generation. Scientists and politicians have an obvious common 

 mterest in meeting that vital challenge; scientists, again, are likely 

 to be the first to perceive it in specific forms. Moreover, as Wilson 

 has pointed out, "The dangerous tensions that can so easily be . . . 

 generated between nations can best be resolved by friendly com- 

 munication." Such communication can first be initiated with subjects 

 like science "for which standards of excellence are universally accepted 

 and applicable across national barriers." 211 As long as scientists con- 

 tinue to talk to one another without regard for national boundaries, 

 hope exists that diplomats from various nations (whose very business 

 is communicating) may also begin to speak to one another in similar 

 fashion, raising their sights and their expectations of accomplish- 

 ment. It is not unreasonable to suggest that in view of the enormous 

 scope of the IGY and the number of scientists involved, the example 

 set by discussion of scientific problems may well have provided some 

 impetus for undertaking significant political discussions as well. 



A factor of growing importance and urgency is the universal need 

 for cooperation in solving problems. No better example of inter- 

 national cooperation exists than the IGY which, as pointed out by 



«" Wilson, New Moom, p. 325. 



