1495 



source of diplomatic headaches"), he would keep them together in 

 the Department of State for practical purposes : 



I would opt for keeping the functions together for I don't believe the Pcience 

 function would fare well by itself in bureaucratic terms becn.use the relationship 

 to foreign affairs is not immediate or obvious. ;Moreover, the di'^tinction is a 

 difficult one to maintain in fact or in practice. If science and technology were to 

 be considered a spectrum, no more than one quarter would l>e white cr black; 

 the rest would be various shades of grey. Governmental organizations, here and 

 abroad, tend to keep these two areas together. (Witness recent developments at 

 NSF.) If the two were separated at State, there would be double representation 

 to meetings, dual schedules of appointments for visitors, etc. Moreover, I 

 don't see any advantage to be gained that could not be obtained as readily within 

 a single organization.^" 



Coordination of Foreign Activities oj U.S. Technical Mission Agencies 

 In three distinct types of activity the prop;rams of U.S. agencies 

 with technical missions can exert impacts on U.S. diplomac}-. The 

 question is: what roles should the Department of State play in co- 

 ordinating, assisting, or policy formation, toward each type of ac- 

 tivity. The three types arc: (1) U.S. agency participation in bilateral, 

 multilateral, or other overseas research and development; (2) ac- 

 tivities by foreign governments as a part of domestic programs of 

 U.S. agencies: and (3) domestic programs of U.S. agencies that impact 

 on U.S. diplomacy, or that have potential for future impacts, bene- 

 ficial or injurious. 



It is difficult to identify all the different elements in the Department 

 of State with various degrees of responsibility for one or more of 

 the^e three types of aclivit3\ E.xcept in rare instances, the third type 

 appears to be essentially neglected as a subject for diplomatic atten- 

 tion. No instances were tiu'ned up in which the Department played 

 a noticeably active role in congressional hearings or elsewhere to 

 advance a domestic research and development program of another 

 agency for diplomatic benefit, or to oppose one to prevent diplomatic 

 disadvantage. ^^-^ 



Similarly with the role of foreign officials, or persons, working in the 

 United States in collaboration with U.S. personnel on mission agency 

 programs: such activities appear to be conducted mainly- on an ad hoc 

 basis, without much concern on the part of the State Department. In 

 the first type, that of U.S. overseas R&D programs, some degree of 

 coordination is exercised, but not across-the-board. Information is 

 sparce concerning exchanges of persons funded by the U.S. Govern- 

 ment;-"^ funding requests for U.N. technical agencies with U.S. 

 agency participation do not gcnerall}' entail technical reviews of costs 



''- Poriack to Tlurlille, Marcli 2.'), 1075. 



2"3 However, as Mr. Bccklor points out, there have boen a number of domestic U.S. programs that have 

 furthered U.S. diplomacy. He notes: 



They include the outer space initiatives (particularly E RTS and joint dockinsi) and atomic energy 

 cooperation, the openinsof the Fort Dietrick facility to international cooperation in canesr research, 

 and the recent energy R&D initiatives, among others. . . . 



(Recklor to Huddle, April 3, Ut7.i.) 



^* See : Foreign Affairs Committee, U.S. Scienti-sts Abroad: An Examination of Major 

 Programs for Nongovernmental Scientific Exchange, op. cit. (Vol. II, pp. 865-1035.) 



