1024 



Issues Related To Fashioning a More Efective Scientific IDijplomatic 

 Interjace 

 The information presented in this study suggests a number of pos- 

 sible actions which could help to bring about improvement in the 

 scientific/diplomatic underpinning required for these programs. One 

 might be a more systematic and searching congressional review of 

 the overseas science attache program. Another could be the establish- 

 ment of coordinated scientific/diplomatic advisory units for each of 

 the exchange programs. For instance, program continuity and recruit- 

 ment of scientists in the Fulbright-Hays program might be facilitated 

 if the administering unit, the Committee on the International Ex- 

 change of Persons, established a special mechanism to recruit scientific 

 personnel. This mechanism might also be charged with developing 

 programs and policies to enhance correspondence between scientists' 

 expectations and the "real" cultural conditions of overseas science 

 activity. Moreover, since over 50 percent of the Fulbright-Hays 

 awards annually are in scientific and technical areas, the Department 

 of State's administration of the program might profit from establish- 

 ment of a scientific advisory apparatus in the Bureau of Educational 

 and Cultural Affairs, similar to the advisory committees the Bureau 

 has created for assisting in programming other types of exchanges 

 conducted under the cultural exchange programs. NSF programs for 

 nongovernmental foreign and international scientific exchange might 

 be strengthened by closer coordination among all of the Agency's 

 scientific exchange activities (the majority of which are administered 

 by units other than the Ofiice of International Programs), and if the 

 Foundation revived the Advisory Committee on Foreign Scientific 

 Affairs. 



Interagency Coordination 



Another issue can be developed in assessing ways to improve the 

 scientific/diplomatic interface of scientific and technical exchange 

 programs. This is the issue of domestic and overseas interagency 

 coordination. Interagency^ coordination is a complex topic; several 

 factors should be considered in evaluating its merits. They include the 

 pros and cons of increased centralization, the failures of coordination 

 to date, and emerging international scientific and technological 

 imperatives and opportunities. 



A case can be made against centralization of the grounds that U.S. 

 scientific exchange programs now serve a variety of purposes and that 

 centralization or interagency coordination would invite charges from 

 both scientists and foreign observers of undue governmental inter- 

 ference in science and technology. These objections should be weighed 

 against the aforementioned administrative problems within each 

 program and the important fact that science and technology are an 

 increasingly salient commodity in international relations. Many U.S. 

 programs for nongovernmental scientists and technical personnel are 

 a response to diplomatic agreements for enhanced cooperation. At 

 the same time, many of the activities undertaken in bilateral agree- 

 ments, and even in international cooperative programs and meetings, 

 eventually lead to more formal programs. It would seem that oppor- 

 tunities for further cooperation of this nature will increase com- 

 mensurate ly with recent converging trends in international scientific 

 and political relations. Reference is made to such developments as the 



