1356 



Among the questions raised by Todd were: Should the office be 

 headed by a bona fide scientist or by a Foreign Service officer? The 

 responsibihty was a divided one : to maintain communication with the 

 scientific community and to "nurture a chmate of confidence and 

 influence within the Department of State." There were impressive 

 reasons in support of both courses. Todd also noted that 'Tortunately, 

 for the last several years the office has had as deputy directors Foreign 

 Service officers who understand the subtleties of both the scientific 

 and Foreign Service attitudes." But as to the principal officer, in 

 Todd's opinion : 



The acceptability of the director to the scientific community is clearly a matter 

 of the highest import, both to that community and the State Department. It is 

 vital for the scientific commimity to recognize, however, that the director's ef- 

 fectiveness is directly proportional to the confidence he instills in the Secretary of 

 State and the officers of the Foreign Service. He must be an eloquent spokesman 

 both to and for the American scientific community. As a member of the Depart- 

 ment of State his first responsibility is the foreign policy of the United States. 

 The strong likelihood that the next director will be drawn from the ranks of the 

 scientists is largely a measure of the success of past incumbents in being diplomats 

 among scientists and scientists among diplomats. 



The proprietary interest of the U.S. scientific community in the 

 healthy growth of scientifii; institutions in the Federal Government is 

 generally reflected in the numerous articles in Science magazine, the 

 organ of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

 The decision of the Department of State in May 1965 to change the 

 title of the office from "International Scientific Afl'airs" to "Inter- 

 national Scientific and Technological Affairs" was reported without 

 comment. ^^ The main, thrust of the report was that the Department 

 had attempted to make the office more attractive by making it 

 explicitly equivalent in "rank and authority" to that of an Assistant 

 Secretary. The article also noted that at that time the office was headed 

 by Mr. Herman Pollack (acting). He was identified as "a career 

 officer with long experience in administration, but no scientific 

 training." 



Another article in Science in 1966 took note of State's inability to 

 fill its "top scientific job" and suggested that the role of this office had 

 not been well defined. It was not clear whether the science director 

 was an administrator of the considerable science functions (attache 

 program, international organizations, etc.) or "policy adviser and 

 scientist-diplomat." As a result — 



The scientific community has not rallied energetically to the aid of State, 

 perhaps because of a feeling that science has, up to now at least, not been taken 

 seriously in Foggy Bottom. It is probably true that in international matters 

 scientists have preferred to work through the National Academy of Sciences, 

 which the scientists regard as their own and as essentially nongovernmental 

 despite the federal source of most of its funds.** 



UNSUCCESSFUL QUEST FOR NEW SCIENCE DIRECTOR 



As time went on and the Office remained under Herman Pollack 

 ("acting"), the concern of the science community deepened. An article 



in Science by Skolnikoff in November 1966 repeated the suggestion 



■ 



52 "State Department: Rank, Authority of Science Office is Emphasized," Science, May 9, 1965, p. 776. 

 K John Walsh, "International Science Activities: Some New Vistas Open," Science, June 17, 19C6, pp. 

 1605-1607. 



