1028 



Committee was continued, with the SCI in the Department of State 

 given lead agency responsibility. The Director also established several 

 support bodies which may provide some of the functions previously 

 performed by the OST. These include an interagenc}'^ Science Policy 

 Council and the Science and Technology PoUcy Office within the 

 Foundation to provide for some determination and coordination of 

 Federal science policies.^"* 



The problems encountered by the International Committee, FSCT, 

 in providing for interagency coordination of programs and policies for 

 the exchange of scientists will be elaborated upon below. It should be 

 noted that in view of these difficulties, it remains to be seen whether 

 the National Science Foundation and the Department of State can 

 and will establish units to deal effectively with these same international 

 science activities on an interagency basis. 



The difficulties encountered b^ the IC, FCST, involve general 

 problems related to interagency coordination,^"^ as well as specific 

 constraints imposed by interagency coordination of foreign science 

 activities. For instance, a report reviewing the operations of the Office 

 of Science and Technology, of which the IC, FCST was a part, cited 

 lack of authority vis-a-vis the White House foreign polic}^ apparatus, 

 and the difficulties of using an interagency device to establish policies 

 for agency programs: 



In 1964 W. Murray Todd, Executive Secretary, Office of the Secretary, National 

 Academy of Sciences, wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, that the 

 International Committee had accomplished "precious little," and that none of its 

 chairmen had been able to make it work. In his opinion, until the Federal Council 

 gave it some meaningful tasks, the Committee probably would continue to be a 

 "rather blunt instrument." 



Another observer of science and technology in American foreign policy. Prof. 

 Eugene Skolnikoflf . of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, suggests that 

 expectations for the International Committee have not been met. He sees the 

 Committee as a useful device for exchanging information on agency programs 

 (which can be an appreciable achievement when Federal agencies operating in the 

 same foreign country in similar scientific fields may know nothing of each other's 

 programs) and for developing policies for a few problems. But through 1964 he 

 believes the Committee has not been notably productive. The problems facing 

 the Committee in achieving substantial coordination of agency programs, or in 

 bringing up ideas for new programs to serve foreign policy objectives, or to halt or 

 change existing international programs, are the same as those facing the Federal Council 

 itself with the added disadvantage that Committee members have less individual 

 authority to reach agreements or make commitments for their agencies than the 

 principals of the Federal Council. Moreover, Professor Skolnikoff believes that the 

 potential performance of this Committee is limited by the ability of the State 

 Department to monitor and oversee the international and foreign scientific 

 activities of other Government agencies.*"* 



The IC, FCST has made several abortive attempts to improve and 

 coordinate governmental activities relating to foreign and inter- 

 national exchanges. For instance, in 1959, shortly after the committee 

 was created, the National Science Foundation and the Federal Council 

 for Science and Technology prepared a codification in condensed form 



^ "Stever Sets Up Science, Technology Policy OflBce," Science and Government Report (July 15, 1973) 

 p. 7. 



*5 Tliese points were discussed in a report issued by the House Committee on Science and Astronautics., 

 Citing FCST annual reports and critiques, the Committee noted the following difficulties: obstacles to 

 reconciling priorities of diflerent agencies; fragmentation of congressional oversight; staffing; and the problems 

 of determining policy on an interagency basis. The Committee also noted that ". . . Interdepartmental 

 groups are generally more effective in ensuring more efficient use of funds at a given level than they are in 

 developing or expanding activities or in contributing to decisions on distribution of missions among agencies." 

 (U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Sciences and Astronautics, Subcommittee on Science, Research, 

 and Development, Centralization of Federal Science Activities: Report, 91st Cong. 1st sess. May 29, 1969, pp. 

 73-75. 



*« U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Science and Astronautics, The Office of Science and Technology: 

 Report, 1967, pp. 178-179. 



