1383 



to U.S. policy." ^^ However, the Department publication added; 

 ". . . The major work of that program will continue, necessaril}-, to 

 be borne b}' highly qualified professional scientists such as those whO' 

 have been recruited in the past." 



THE QUESTION OF LENGTH OF TENURE OF THE SCIENTIFIC ATTACH^- 



Throughout most of the history of scientific attaches from 1898 

 on, the concept was that very senior scientists would be borrowed for 

 diplomatic service for periods of ("not to exceed") 2 years. They 

 would then be restored to their laboratories. It was held that only 

 scientists with outstanding professional reputations could properly 

 represent the United States to the foreign science community, and 

 play a proper diplomatic role. It was also discovered that most of 

 these "highl}^ quahfied scientists" were reluctant to leave the scientific 

 for the diplomatic environment for extended periods because in doing 

 so they would forfeit their close knowledge of research at home. Even 

 less desirable was^the prospect of relinquishing permanently a scientific 

 career for one as a diplomat. Yet, as the Department had discovered 

 in 1948-49, and again in 1951-56, was to discover still again in the 

 decade of the 1960s, recruitment of linguistically competent, senior 

 scientists in mid-career for 2 -year tours of duty abroad was a partic- 

 ularly difficult administrative burden.^* 



A recognition of the problems on the other side of the question was 

 expressed in an editorial comment by editor Dael Wolfle, in Science, in 

 1960. He pointed out that "In the 18 months since the first attaches 

 reached their posts, much of their time has gone into learning how to 

 work most usefully." The longer they stayed, apparently, the greater 

 the sense of accomplishment. Accordingly, Wolfle suggested the need 

 to "work out long-term staffing policies." 



. , . The well-selected amateurs in diplomacy we now use have dedication, 

 knowledge of American scientific activities, and considerable acquaintance with 

 the language, customs, and scientific activities of the countries in which they work. 

 Ideally, they should also have a greater understanding of national policy and of 

 Department of State procedures and problems. 



By way of solution he suggested that it would be possible to "com- 

 bine the advantages of an amateur with those of a professional . . . 

 by making periodic foreign service a recognized part of the career 

 pattern of appropriate scientists and science administrators. . . ." ^* 



Other criticisms of the system were offered by Daniel S. Greenberg 

 in 1962. He asserted that "if the State Department finds it difficult to 

 adapt itself to scientists, the scientists, with few exceptions, find it 

 even more difficult to adapt themselves to the State Department." 

 To secure "widely recognized" scientists, which the prevaiUng concept 

 required, the practice was to recruit scientists about to retire from 

 their universit}' connections. However, the language qualification 

 narrowed the choice severely. According to Greenberg, in a statement 

 describing an aspiration rather than a general level of achievement: 



The attache is provided with a deputy (usually his junior by a generation) with 

 training in a discipline different from his own. Attache and deputy have then 



M Ibid. 



" In the earlier part of the attachfi program an effort had been made to match the special expertise or 

 discipline of the appointees to the country to which they were posted. However, this further exacting speci- 

 fication proved to be unrealistically hard to meet and was dropped. 



" Dael Wolfle, " Science Ambassadors," Science, July 29, 1960, p. 267. 



