1355 



Other assessments available to the author suggest that the role 

 of the science office was not fully appreciated or accepted at this 

 time by other bureaus of the Department. Moreover, the specifica- 

 tions for the "Director" were exacting: not only should he be an 

 outstanding scientist, but also sophisticated in international relations 

 and diplornacv, aggressive and knowledgeable in administration, 

 and skilled in bureaucratic maneuver. 



INSISTENCE ox SCIENTIFIC EMINENCE 



During the years between 1950 and 1965 the emphasis was on 

 recruitment of a "top flight scientist" to run the oflSce. The science 

 community generally insisted that the incumbent should be given 

 a high enough rank so that he would automatically command "political 

 clout" in the Department matching his "scientific clout" in the 

 community. (It is not evident that any "clout" automatically accom- 

 panies rank; the clout comes from the skill with which the rank is 

 exercised.) However, the insistence on high rank and scientific achieve- 

 ment combined to make recruitment difficult, and the results fell 

 short of expectation. From the Berkner Report on, the arguments in 

 favor of a strong "science" oflBce in the Department of State were 

 persuasive in force and impressive in scope. But the actual product 

 never came close to justifying the claims, and the resources allocated 

 to the effort were meagre and sporadic. Possibly almost as large an 

 effort was devoted to recruitment as to execution.^" 



FURTHER REVIEWS OF SCIENCE IN STATE 



Shortly after Dr. Rollefson returned to the Universit}^ of Wisconsin, 

 a seminal critique appeared in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Au- 

 thored by W. Murray- Todd of the Foreign Office of the National 

 Academy of Sciences, it suggested that a time of "changing of the 

 guard" was also an opportune moment to take stock. He noted that 

 the 1962 change in title of the office had served to decide a persistent 

 controversy over its function and purpose. ^' The issue was: "Should the 

 incumbent preside over scientific polic}^ matters as the personal ad- 

 viser to the SecretarA^ of State and hopefully to the Assistant Secre- 

 taries, or should he administer the scientific attache apparatus, pro- 

 vide guidance on matters of international scientific policy, and co- 

 ordinate the multiplicity of international scientific commitments of 

 agencies of the U.S. government?" The change in title pointed in the 

 latter direction. At this time (December 1964) the office consisted of 21 

 officers, 15 clerical personnel, 15 overseas attaches, and six deputy 

 attaches. 



*> According to the recollection of Professor Dean Rusk of the School of Law, University of Georgia: 



In the mid-60s we tried very hard to find an internationally recognized scientist to head up SCI. 

 For a variety of reasons we failed in our recruitment effort but not through lack of trying. We turned 

 to Herman Pollack who had a real talent for calling upon outside help in the scientific community 

 and for injecting scientific dimensions into policy studies. 



My own view is that the Department of State .'should have a good scientist or scientists in such 

 places as the Policy Planning Staff, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and with special 

 groups dealing with such questions as the Environment, Hunger, the Law of the Sea, etc. These 

 might be based in the new Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific 

 Affairs but spend much of their time outside the Biueau — somewhat as does the Legal Adviser's 

 Office. I am quite stn-e that the Department should not attempt to staff itself with top peisonnel 

 from all fields of science and technology— but it should have people who know where to go for the 

 best scientific advice possible on given problems. 



(Dean Rusk, Professor of International Law, University of Geoi^ia School of Law, to Franklin Huddle, 

 March 18. 1975.) 



" W. Murray Todd, "Science in the State Department," Bulletin of the Atomic ScierUistg 20, no. 10 (Decem- 

 ber 1964), pp. 27-29. 



