following comments are quoted from agency 

 submissions: 



• NOAA — To coordinate related activity 

 among several independent agencies the 

 "lead agency" concept provides a focus and 

 initiative that otherwise may not exist. It has 

 limited effectiveness in areas that agencies 

 perceive to be vital to their mission. It has 

 the limitations of any "coordination" of in- 

 dependent agencies. 



• Niivy — The assignment of "lead agencies" 

 for the development of specific technologies 

 may sometimes be useful. Two technological 

 areas in which the Office of Naval Research 

 acts as lead agency and in which the concept 

 has worked are superconducting thin film 

 materials and superconducting electronics. 

 There are other areas, however, in which the 

 concept does not work well and, indeed, cre- 

 ates barriers to conducting research of vital 

 importance to the Navy. These areas are typ- 

 ically broad ones such as fuels and other 

 energy sources in which ERDA currently 

 plays a leading developmental role but in 

 which the Navy must retain scientific and 

 technological expertise. Other areas in which 

 the Navy's best interests are not served if 

 the "lead agency" concept is pursued are 

 pollution (EPA), oceanography (NSF), and 

 space (NASA). In these areas, Navy labora- 

 tories, including the Naval Research Labora- 

 tory, must be active not only to address spe- 

 cific Navy problems and to contribute special 

 expertise to the sciences and technologies 

 involved, but also to provide windows on the 

 areas and channels through which new infor- 

 mation can be transmitted to the Navy for 

 application. 



Another difficulty encountered in establishing 

 a lead agency for a particular technology is 

 that frequently the research necessary for 

 that technology is too diffuse and multidisci- 

 plinary to be collected under one umbrella. 

 Because new technologies spring from re- 

 search which is, at first glance, unrelated to 

 special technology, it is necessary to main- 

 tain research programs which can incorporate 

 new ideas no matter in which agency they 

 may arise. To the extent that the "lead agen- 

 cy" concept tends to channel ideas prema- 

 turely toward narrow technology goals rather 

 than general applicability, it is detrimental to 

 research. 



• NIH — Collaboration at the research project 

 level is typically between individual scientists 

 or small groups interacting informally rather 



than on the basis of formal arrangements 

 involving the NIH as an agency. There is a 

 great deal of coordination at the program 

 level, which involves exchange and joint 

 planning and evaluation. An assessment of 

 these activities is complex. On balance these 

 coordination efforts are highly useful and 

 desirable. Some are more "effective" than 

 others, depending on the nature of the prob- 

 lem, personalities, political pressures and the 

 extent to which problems of "turf" are in- 

 volved. 

 • NSF— NSF is lead or executive agency un- 

 der several international science agreements. 

 Our agency is asked to take these roles be- 

 cause of its broad legislation, broad interests, 

 and reputation in foreign countries for effec- 

 tive contracts with the U.S. scientific com- 

 munity. As executive agency, NSF cooper- 

 ates with other concerned U.S. Government* 

 agencies or organizations in these ways: 



- plans activities for a program and coordi- 

 nates U.S. part 



- deals directly with the foreign government 

 on behalf of all U.S. agencies 



- seeks its own core support for the pro- 

 gram, encourages other agencies to match 



- reports annually to the State Department. 

 For example, NSF assisted the Tennessee 

 Valley Authority in organizing energy-related 

 activities under the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Coopera- 

 tive Science Program. Under the same pro- 

 gram, NSF negotiated with the Soviets in 

 the area of science information for the De- 

 partment of Commerce as well as for its 

 own interests. NSF not only obtained a spe- 

 cial allocation for this program but persuad- 

 ed the Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

 Agriculture to carry on activities under the 

 Agreement without NSF support. 



Most cooperative research funded by NSF 

 mirrors the domestic research priorities of 

 NSF and is therefore a vital adjunct to 

 domestic programs. However, many U.S. 

 cooperative science agreements are with 

 countries where more attention is paid to the 

 development of technology than to science. 

 Therefore, when we hold discussions leading 

 to agreement with a partner country on sci- 

 entific priorities, a mismatch of interest may 

 be revealed. Foreign priorities are often for 

 equal partnership in development-oriented or 

 industrial research. NSF has limited abilities 

 to respond to such interest, but mission-ori- 

 ented agencies can often respond more ap- 

 propriately. 



INTERAGENCY COORDINATION OF BASIC RESEARCH 301 



