1494 



environment of diplomacy and national power. It is therefore a fit 

 subject for broad policy analysis on a major and continuing basis. It 

 requires extensive information inputs. Quantitative as well as qualita- 

 tive factors are involved. Technical knowledge and understanding are 

 needed in the analysis, but broader social and political understanding 

 are also essential. 



A number of those consulted in the preparation of this study advised 

 against any attempt to separate science from technology in the design 

 of arrangements to handle the diplomatic aspects of technical 

 matters.^''^ However, it is the view of this author that at least the 

 operational elements of scientific diplomacy need not be included as 

 functional responsibilities of an office or institution engaged in the 

 analysis of the interactions of diplomacy with technology. 



Although Herman Pollack distinguishes science ("poses no diplo- 

 matic problems of note to government") from technology ("major 



2" Thus, Professor Rusk counsels: 



So far as the Department of State if concerned I would be careful about separating science, science 

 policy and technology. The Depaitment must do its best to see things as a wliole. It should resist 

 the ridiculous super-specialization which has infected our universities and deprived us of the uni- 

 versal men and women, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, whom we desperately 

 need. 



(Rusk to Huddle, March 18, 1975.) 



And in the same vein, Dean Brooks suggests a luiity of poMcy and a distinction between policy 

 and operations: 



I think responsibility for science and technology should be within a single organizational unit in 

 State. Although the two are readily separable at the extremes, they blend into each other too con- 

 tinuously in practice for a separation to be either practical or desirable. Those aspects of technology 

 which are closely identiPed with national interests are the province of the Department of Commerce, 

 but a growing number of aspects of technology are transnational in character, and should be handled 

 in what you refer to as an "un-national" perspective. Such rjuestions as the conservation and utiUza- 

 tion of ocean resources and faciUties, the management of global environmental problems, earth 

 resources sateUites, the international management of nuclear power and nuclear fuels, and hundreds 

 of other issues are inherently transnational in scope, and involve technology. Implementation of 

 policy in these and similar areas is properly left to the speeiahzed agencies with expertise in the 

 particular technology, such as E RDA, NASA, or DOI, but this should be under firm policy guidance 

 from State, which should have sufficient expertise to argue with the agencies on a more or less equal 

 basis, and be capable at least of questioning some of ths working assumptions of the specialized' 

 agencies without having an inferiority complex. Contrary to the impUcalion of your question, I 

 would assert that science and technology belong together more than ever before. The weakness in the 

 past in State has been that the technological aspects have been somewhat shghted. 



(Dr. Harvey Brooks, Dean, Division of Engineering and AppUed Physics and the Kennedy School of 

 Government, Harvard University, to Franklin Huddle, February 10, 1975.) 

 From the point of view of senior stafl experience, Mr. Beckler analyzes the problem in similar terms: 



It is most important that the science and technology functions be carried out within a single 

 organizational unit in the Department of State for the following reasons: 



a. The inherent inseparabUity and mutual interactions of science and technology— e.g., in 

 energy (the spectrum from fusion research to coal gasification), in the environment (the science 

 underlying environmental standard setting and environmental control technologies), in the 

 oceans (oceanographic research and mineral extraction), in developing countries (scientific infra- 

 structure and industrialization). 



b. Thus, separating the science and technology functions organizationally would pose addi- 

 tional problems of horizontal coordination within the Department which is even now difficult 

 to achieve between S&T and other organizational units in the Department. 



Cooperation in fundamental scientific research proceeds with Utile need for government inter- 

 vention other than to assure that [pohtical] barriers are minimized. Increasingly, however, stra- 

 tegic planning is shaping the directions of intei-national scientific collaboration, emphasizing areas 

 of basic research relevant to national concerns. 



Whereas in the case of a White House science and technology mechanism, care needs to be taken to 

 separate science and technology from the standpoint of minimizing the "advocacy" of science role, 

 this is much less of a problem in the Department of State. In fact, retaining science in an office 

 having a strong technology focus can help to avoid the appearance of science qua science. 



(David Beckler, Assistant to the President, National Academy of Sciences, to Franklin Huddle, March 5, 

 1975.) 



