1332 



tend to be larger by orders of magnitude than the investment in the 

 scientific discovery on which a new technology is based. 



It is a commonplace observation that science provides the "seedbed" 

 of technology, and to some extent this is true. But a great deal of 

 technology evolved almost independently of science — for example, 

 the processing of steel, copper, and aluminum; vulcanizing of rubber; 

 and many of the early American inventions in agricultural implements 

 and machinery. It might also be said that technology is the "seedbed" 

 of science, in that the successful development of a new technique raises 

 questions that only science can i;inswer, and whenever science departs 

 from theory for experiment it must resort to technology for its 

 instruments. 



The point is that while science and , technology interact at many 

 points and merge into each other, it is possible that they can be 

 differentiated and separate!}' treated. 



Some Issues To Be Explored 



Under the broad question of how to mobilize the resources of the 

 Department of State in the uses of science and technology' for U.S. 

 diplomatic goals, five subordinate issues warrant consideration. These 

 are: (1) the ad hoc approach of diplomacy versus the systems approach 

 of technology; (2) the issue of specialist versus generalist; (3) the 

 issue of emphasizing present problems versus planning for a longer 

 range future; (4) the issue of distinguishing the diplomatic impacts of 

 science versus those of technology; and (5) the issue of emphasizing 

 policy versus operations. 



UNIQUENESS VERSUS COMMONALITY OF PROBLEMS 



Some critics allege that every diplomatic problem tends to be 

 approached as unique, and that therefore no orderly, systematic 

 diplomatic method is acceptable to the practitioners. To the extent 

 that this is so, it is presumably because the main preoccupation of 

 diplomacy is with a complex, infinitely varied process of accommoda- 

 tions between people — people of ^videly differing cultures — rather 

 than with the relatively straightforward process of accommodation 

 between man and nature or man and machine. The scientist or engi- 

 neer, by contrast, seeks to find simplifying common elements and 

 workable general methodologies to help solve his problems in a uni- 

 verse that he recognizes as dynamic and ever-changing. Such general- 

 izations, of course, are at best approximate and partial. Yet to the 

 extent thatrthey are valid they suggest a problem of communication 

 and an obstacle to cooperation between the technical and the diplo- 

 matic communities. 



SPECIALIST VERSUS GENERALIST 



A persistent issue in the manning of the U.S. Foreign Service is 

 whether to emphasize recruitment of persons with special expertise 

 or persons having a broad, general education with presumed adapt- 

 ability. The issue is many-sided: what specialties are most needed? 

 Can they be recruited and trained up to the necessary level? Should 

 promotion be arbitrarily given equally as between specialists and 



