1440 



Technical Literacy in the Foreign Service; the Institute 



At least two different levels of technical knowledge have been pro- 

 posed for incorporation in the Foreign Service. One level, of which 

 much was made in the Berkner Report, and strongly endorsed a decade 

 later by Dr. Rollefson as director of the science office of the State 

 Department,^^^ is that of an outstanding, or at least highly qualified, 

 scientist. The other level is that described by Secretary Rusk: 



. . . The Foreign Service officer should be familiar with the ways, the concepts, 

 and the purposes of science. He should understand the sources of our technological 

 civilization. 



He should be able to grasp the social and economic implications of current 

 scientific discoveries and engineering accomplishments.''^ 



Specifications for the two degrees of technical literacy that ought 

 to be found in the Foreign Service were suggested in 1960 by Dr. 

 George B. Kistiakowsky, Special Assistant to President Eisenhower 

 for Science and Technology, He urged the recruitment, first, of 

 scientists "continually aware that the scientific community must 

 accept its appropriate share of the responsibility for the intelligent 

 and successful resolution of the challenges facing the world." 

 However — 



Another kind of individual must be recruited, too — an individual with training 

 in science in addition to the usual disciplines of the foreign service. [Merely to 

 obtain technical advice for policymaking] does not fill today's requirements for a 

 continuing and intimate involvement in the policymaking process of competent 

 people who understand science and its significance to policy, and who could there- 

 fore work effectively with the practicing scientists supplying the specialized ad hoc 

 studies. 



The purpose in combining these two kinds of scientific sophistication, 

 he explained, was that "to integrate the scientific with the political, 

 economic, military, and other factors that make up foreign policy 

 operations requires, above all, competent people who understand the 

 relationship of science to these other factors." Dr. Kistiakowsky had 

 two solutions to this problem. First, more science and engineering 

 graduates might be attracted "for regular careers in the Foreign 

 Service and in our other overseas programs." But, in addition: 



I believe we must also provide a better scientific background for nonscientists 

 in the international affairs field, and that this, perhaps, is the most important 

 measure of all. Essential to these efforts is the development of an academic field 

 of teaching and research in the interrelationship of science and foreign affairs, 

 in order to provide education in and better understanding of the underlying 

 significance and opportunities of this relationship."* 



Five years after Dr. Kistiakowsky 's article appeared, a survey by 

 the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace showed that the 

 number of FSOs with advanced training in the physical, biological, 

 and other sciences was still minuscule. Those with training in history 

 (705), political science (571), international relations (543), and eco- 

 nomics (383) constituted 60 percent (2,202 of 3,670) of the Foreign 

 Service officer persomiel. Physical scientists numbered 52 or 1.4 per- 

 cent. Those with training in biological sciences, mathematics, and 

 medicine were grouped in a category of "miscellaneous." (See Table 8.) 



1" Daniel S. Greenberg, "Science and Foreign Afiairs: New Effort Under Way to Enlarge Role of Scien- 

 tists in Policy Planning," Science, October 12, 1962, p. 124. 



1^3 Dean Rusk, Keynote Address, 8th Annual Meeting of the Panel on Science and Technology, of the 

 House Committee on Science and Astronautics, January 24, 1967. 



1'* George B. Kistiakowsky, "Science and Foreign Afiairs," Science, April 8, 1960, p. 1023. 



