1489 



of the multinational corporation, normalization of world resources, 

 and seabed management, might warrant exploitation as mutual 

 interest initiatives. One of the more interesting possibilities is an 

 open invitation to foreign technologists to identify and help correct 

 technological lags in the United States as a counterpart to U.S. 

 assistance of this type abroad. 



Innovative institutional arrangements are another form of initiative 

 that might be considered. For example, 



Special attention is drawn to the possibility of making wider use of the services 

 of co-operative industrial research associations. Further, in view of the increasing 

 emphasis which in the advanced countries is continually being laid on the need for 

 co-operation between universities and industry, it is suggested that a "composite" 

 partner body comprising a university department plus support from industry 

 could be of immense assistance to a corresponding body in a developing country.^ss 



Such cooperative arrangements need not, of course, be limited to 

 services to less-developed countries. 



Ultimately, the difhcult}^ A\-ith smy attempt to create initiatives on 

 demand is that bold new ideas, forcefull}' advanced and adopted, 

 without careful screening and analysis as to implications and side 

 effects, can turn out to be injurious if not disastrous. On the other 

 hand, a labored screening of such ideas to ^vinnow out the risky or 

 dangerous ones can leave behind only the dull, commonplace, and 

 trivial. Diplomacy then must turn to endless repetition of things that 

 have worked before. 



But this approach, too, has its disadvantages. As was sho\vn in the 

 discussion of bilateral science agreements (Chapter VI), a small 

 number of such programs can be extremely rewarding but fift}' or a 

 hundred such programs would impose difficult problems of manage- 

 ment and policy coordination. Each new nuclear reactor given to 

 another country lessens the effect of such generosity, burdens the U.S. 

 atomic energ}^ industry with additional costs of fuel element processing 

 and radioactive waste disposal, and widens the problem of 

 "safeguards." 



Perhaps the best that can be said for this problem is that the study 

 of institutions to promote diplomatic creativity, and encouragement 

 of the U.S. academic community to generate creative thought in this 

 area, might show the wa}^ to a higher degree of initiative. The im- 

 portance of the Department of State in this field, moreover, should not 

 be overlooked. ^^^ 



2M United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Bilateral Institutional Links in 

 Science and Technology, Science Policy Studies and Documents Series, no. 13 (1969), p. 30. 



26» For example, in discussing the merits of s proposed Congressional diplomatic initiative "to facilitate 

 the transfer to certain less developed countries of United States discoveries, inventions, and research de- 

 velopments . . ." to be managed by NSF, Dr. H. Guyford Stever, director of NSF, warned: "The close 

 interrelation of science and technology with other U.S. policies and initiatives in international affairs would 

 seem to argue for the closest possible coordination of all of these efforts." Accordingly, it was necessary to 

 "take advantage of the capabilities of the Department of State, which I believe are essential to the success 

 of such an undertaking." (U.Si Congress, House, Committee on Science and Astronautics, International 

 Cooperation in Science and Space Subcommittee, International Science and Technology Transfer Act of 1974, 

 Hearings, 93d Cong., 2d sess.. May 21-23, 1974, p. 21.) 



