1026 



A fourth consideration which must minimize expectations of effec- 

 tive coordination is the unsuccessful history of actual attempts to pro- 

 vide this function. Two agencies have had responsibility in the past for 

 coordinating, on a government-wide basis, international science 

 policies and exchange policies. These are the International Committee 

 of the Federal Council for Science and Technology and the Bureau of 

 International Scientific and Technological Affairs, Department of 

 State. 



THE BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL 



AFFAIRS 



The Bureau of International Scientific and Technological Affairs, 

 Department of State (SCI), was established as the Office of Inter- 

 national Scientific and Technological Affairs in 1958 on recommenda- 

 tion of the President's Science Advisory Committee. The Director of 

 the Bureau ranks as an Assistant Secretary of State. SCI has several 

 basic responsibilities: 



— formulation and implementation of some of the Department 

 of State's international and foreign scientific policies and 

 programs ; 



— provision of diplomatic advice and liaison to other Federal 

 agencies with international scientific and technological programs, 

 either directly or through its membership in (and usually chair- 

 manship of) the International Committee of the Federal Council 

 for Science and Technology; and 



— direction of the U.S. science attach^ program.*®* 

 Activities of the Bureau have been described to the Congress only 

 in passing in House and Senate Committee hearings on appropria- 

 tions for the Department of State and in testimony before the Sub- 

 committee on Science, Research and Development, House Committee 

 on Science and Astronautics. Although no substantial in-depth eval- 

 uation has been made of the Bureau, several critiques indicate that 

 because of political and organizational constraints, SCI has been less 

 than effective in coordinating U.S. science policies abroad. For in- 

 stance, according to Roger Revelle, a widely traveled U.S. scientist, 

 the Department of State is constrained from making initiatives in 

 designing policies for science and technology. He continues: "one 

 reason for this deficiency may be a feeling among the leaders of the 

 Department that the changes brought about by these developments 

 will be slow to take effect and can be brought into account as they 

 emerge by conventional diplomatic means." *®® As another weakness,, 

 Revelle notes that frequently, in the past, the holder of the Office has 

 not been a scientist who could command credibility from scientists or 

 who could effectively relate science to foreign policy.*®^ 



As a second problem, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation 

 and Development faults the Bureau with concern for minor tasks and 

 deferring responsibility for guiding major international scientific and 

 technological policies and programs to the White House, the center of 

 effective power in foreign policymaking: 



The Office ... is said to be too concerned with minor tasks, to the detriment 

 of its more fundamental functions, and to rely too much on the technical skills 



"« U.S., Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, A Guide to U.S. OovernmenV 

 Agencies Involved in International Educational and Cultural Affairs, September 1968, p. 9. 

 "» Revelle, "International Cooperation and the Two Faces of Science," op. cit., pp. 169-170. 

 "' Ibid., pp. 170-171. 



