927 



The NSF science attache program, according to the Foundation, 

 has promoted the success of NSF cooperative activities. For instance, 

 in 1969 the Foundation reported: 



One factor which has made certain . . . cooperative activities . . . successful 

 is the Foundation Uaison staff .... As the Foundation's international programs 

 increase in size and scope, and as the needs of this country's scientific community 

 to know about foreign activities grow, the Foundation will need further repre- 

 sentation abroad. '5° 



Although the Foundation views the overseas offices as essential 

 to the administration of some programs, it has not expanded these 

 for several reasons. One of the most important is NSF's response in 

 1968 to a recommendation made by the Research and Technical 

 Programs Subcommittee, House Committee on Government Opera- 

 tions, for Federal agencies to cut back on their overseas research and 

 science representation in an effort to assist in solving the balance-of- 

 payments problem. ^^^ A second reason is the Foundation's apparent 

 adherence to a set of recommendations made jointly by the Federal 

 Council for Science and Technology and the State Department, in 

 December 1964, which recommended that all official overseas science 

 representation should be a part of the science attache's office in the 

 U.S. embassy. ^^^ 



However, "the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, which 

 oversees the NSF authorization, has consistently recommended that 

 the agency strengthen its science attache program. In 1966 the Com- 

 mitte reported : 



The international nature of science together with the high repute of the NSF 

 abroad . . . suggest the possibiUty that the Foundation should have a greater 

 role in representing American science within the community of nations. 



The Committee recommended that 



The Foundation's responsibilities [in] international science can be served 

 considerably better through the expanded use of science attaches closely identified 

 with the State Department, selected, funded by the Foundation and directly 

 linked to its science information activities. '^^ 



No action was taken in response to these recommendations. Further- 

 more, while both the Committee and the Foundation agree that the 

 Department of State science attache does not serve the functions of 

 NSF representation abroad, ^^* they have not reached agreement on a 

 desirable configuration of expanded NSF representation. In its report 

 on the 1971 NSF authorization, the House Committee reported that 



150 1970 XSF AuthOTizati(m : Hiarings. Vol. II, op. cit., p. 571. 



151 The issue of the balance of payments has significantly impacted on several major programs in support 

 ■of sending abroad American nongovernmental scientists. The Research and Technical Programs Sub- 

 committee, House Committee on Government Operations has looked into this question first in 1966. In 

 1968 the Committee recommended cuts in overseas science officers: "[In its 1966 report, the Committee ob- 

 served that] to administer dollar-financed foreign research, the five agencies maintained 15 science offices 

 «mploying 212 people in eight cities outside the U.S. at a cost in fiscal 1965 of .$3,033,000 Federal expendi- 

 tures for foreign research and overseas science offices are a part of [total dollar drain] and reductions in them 

 «an contribute significantly to the intensified Government-wide drive to achieve payments economies." 

 <U.S., Congress, House Committee on Government Operations, Foreign i?e«orcA iJoWarDrom.-^M/i Report, 

 ^Oth Cong., 2d sess.. House Report No. 1578, 1968, pp. 2, 6. 



152 "Appendix XII, Department of State, Office of International Scientific Affairs, statement relating to 

 U.S. agency scientific and technical representation overseas," In Federal Foreign Research Spending and the 

 Dollar Drain: Hearings, op. cit., pp. 209-210. 



153 The National Science Foundation: Its Present and Future op. cit., p. 95. See also U.S. Congress, House, 

 Committee on Science and Astronautics, Amending the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 To Make 

 Improvements in the Organization and Operation of the Foundation: Report No. 1650, 89th Cong., 2d sess., 

 1966, p. 18. 



i« For example Dr. Arthur Roe, then Head of the Office of International Programs testified m 1969: 'The 

 {Department of State] scientific attaches are now scientific politicians. They are doing an admirable job for 

 their embassies, for their ambassadors, and for the State Department. And they are so busy with chores of 

 a scientific-political nature that thev don't really have much time to do the sort of thing that we would 

 want an NSF man to do." (U.S., Congress, House. Committee on Science and Astronautics, Subcommittee 

 on Science, Research, and Development, 1970 Nation"l Science Foundation Authorization: Hearings: vol. I 

 ■91st Cong. 1st sess.. 1969, p. 465. 



