1023 



of these programs contain at least one administrative element which 

 recognizes the scientific nature of the programs. Each has a scientific 

 peer evaluation mechanism to assist in selecting grantees competent 

 in a particular scientific field. However, a mechanism to resolve other 

 conflicts deriving from the scientific nature of the programs is often 

 lacking. These conflicts have several sources: the need to meet geo- 

 graphic distribution requirements governing the award of scientific 

 research and education grants; the need to deal \\ith domestic and 

 overseas funding exigencies which influence the quantity and quality 

 of awards; the problems of providing adequate remuneration for 

 scientists to serve overseas; and the need to work more closely with 

 the host country in designing science programs which satisfy both 

 the needs of the American scientist and the technical assistance 

 objectives of the other country. 



The history of bilateral scientific, agreements evidences a major 

 difficulty: undersubscribed rates of participation by U.S. scientists or 

 lower quality scientific participation than is exhibited in other types of 

 awards for research abroad which do not have the political connotation 

 of bilateral agreements. The data presented illustrate that bilateral 

 scientific and technical agreements are becoming an increasingly 

 important device in U.S. programs and policies. Questions were 

 raised as to steps the administering agencies could take, either through 

 negotiations or on a programmatic basis, to create conditions to 

 insure \vider scientific participation and fulfillment of these foreign 

 commitments. 



Also important is the fact that most of these programs do not 

 incorporate effective provisions for continuous collection, analysis, and 

 dissemination to the public of data required to evaluate the contribu- 

 tions of the program to the advancement of the sciences or to promo- 

 tion of cooperative international scientific activities. Public support of 

 science for its intrinsic merits is an appropriate Government function. 

 However, more consideration could be given to determining priorities 

 for science programs which are increasingly coming to serve a wider 

 range of foreign policy purposes. 



The Need To Meet the Requirements oj Diplomacy 



The program descriptions also support the observation that effective 

 scientific exchange programs require a well-functioning diplomatic 

 advisory mechanism. Man}'" of these programs were either initiated in 

 response to a particular political event or will themselves lead to 

 additional political and scientific cooperation between the United 

 States and a foreign nation. In many cases, diplomatic agreement is 

 required to establish the formalities needed to ensure scientific ex- 

 change. American scientists in such cases, and even in less formally 

 sanctioned programs, serve in effect as ambassadors of U.S. science. 

 However, many programs suffer from poor participation rates by 

 U.S. scientists, and few require that the scientist possess language 

 fluency or familiarity with the foreign culture in which he \vill conduct 

 his activities. Also, most programs, reflecting their separate statutory 

 authorities, tend to be governed and administered — both in Wash- 

 ington and overseas — independently of similar programs administered 

 by other agencies. Partly as a result, exchange activities sometimes 

 fall short of meeting both scientific and diplomatic goals. 



