1403 



changes. The implication, of course, was that the bilateral science 

 agreement could be an opening wedge to the restoration of normal ■ 

 diplomatic relations with otherwise unrecognized states. 



DISADVANTAGES 



The philosopher, asked by a friend how his wife was, replied: 

 "Compared with whom?" In like manner, bilateral science agreements 

 need to be assessed in comparison with some other organizational 

 arrangement for accomplishing their purposes. For example, the close 

 and rewarding relationship on science matters between the United 

 States and the United Kingdom does not appear to require any formal 

 method or institution for general coordination. At the other extreme, 

 a bilateral science agreement with Nepal would not be likely to be of 

 great significance to either country. 



Compared with multilateral science arrangements, bilaterals involve 

 larger funding in relation to the level of scientific effort because only 

 two countries share the costs. However, political complications of 

 multilateral programs are likely to be more exacting. 



When a large number of bilaterals are in force, each involving many 

 U.S. mission-oriented agencies, the administrative management func- 

 tion becomes quite difficult and even recordkeeping is not easy. 



Compared with U.S. science programs using foreign scientists re- 

 cruited on a personal basis as needed for theu' special expertise, the 

 bilateral is probably a more expensive and cumbersome method of 

 sponsoring research. 



In particular cases, bilaterals have been initiated in a burst of 

 diplomatic enthusiasm only to have it appear subsequently that there 

 was no solid scientific basis for joint action, with the result that the 

 agreement withered but v/ithout being crisply terminated because of 

 the diplomatic repercussions abrogation would invite. Even with some 

 potentially useful agreements, it is possible that a decline in interest 

 would accompany loss of funding support, or other more pressing 

 problems would divert interest and support. In' short, to be diplo- 

 matically as well as scientifically useful, the science bilateral needs to 

 have a solid technical justification, and sustained technical and admin- 

 istrative support on both sides 



One difficulty was invited by the Department of State by regarding 

 the bilateral science agreement or program as an appropriate subject 

 for experimentation. The 28-odd arrangements now in force did not 

 come about as a consequence of a deliberate determination that these 

 were the best places to have such arrangements, that all were meri- 

 torious and any others would be less so. Nor was there a conscious 

 effort to design an optimal plan that could generally be followed in 

 each case, with only minor modifications. Planning and priorities 

 appear to have played little role in these decisions; instead, an ad hoc 

 approach was followed, and the designs of the agreements evolved out 

 of the circumstances at the time. 



It should also be noted that to justify the experimental nature of the 

 design variation requires that information be dra\NTi from the experi- 

 ment. Which designs work best and wh}'? What criteria of effective- 

 ness have been established? What principles can be adduced? If 

 additional bilateral science programs are proposed, by what criteria 

 will they be evaluated and how should they be designed for optimal 



