1392 



appointee has in the impacts of technological trends on the relations 

 among nations. The classic instance of Ambassador Gavin's relation- 

 ship with Dr. Piret demonstrates the kind of useful teamwork that can 

 be achieved with a technically sophisticated Ambassador.***' It is also 

 to the point to ask the extent to which the Ambassador and his ad- 

 ministrative officials are willing and able to provide the scientific 

 attach^ with the personnel and other resources he needs, or even to 

 urge the appointment of an attach^ where none exists. 



The contemporary assessments of the role of the scientific attache, 

 both from observers with broad experience in the science-diplomacy 

 interface, illustrate the difficulty of finding qualified personnel for 

 overseas science posts. According to the view of David Beckler (As- 

 sistant to the President, National Academy of Sciences), the attache 

 needs to have a grasp of the broad implications for the United States 

 of science — and especially technology — in the host country: 



The role of the science attach^ has largely been passive — to respond to detailed 

 requests and to make contacts for and assist visiting U.S. delegations. The passive 

 nature of the science attach^ role has been dictated in large measure by the limited 

 staff and administrative resources at his disposal. There is little time for thoughtful 

 assessment, appraisal, and initiative on his part, being submerged in day-to-day 

 detail which cannot be avoided or delegated. I believe the caliber of most of our 

 science attaches would permit them to perform a valuable creative role: a. to 

 assess the implications for the U.S. government of important changes and direc- 

 tions in policies affecting the development and use of science and technology in 

 the affairs of the foreign government; and b. to identify ways to stimulate, rein- 

 force, reinvigorate, and expedite bilateral arrangements with the U.S. involving 

 science and technology. 



To serve the U.S. needs, the science attach^ must, in reality, become a technology 

 attach 6, looking at technological developments in relation to the country objec- 

 tives and to U.S. objectives.'"* 



In comment on the same point, Dr. Harvey Brooks (Division of 

 Engineering and Applied Physics and the Kennedy School of Govern- 

 ment, Harvard University), attaches importance to the personal role 

 and contacts of the attache, but without diminishing the importance 

 of his scientific role : 



I think [writes Dean Brooks] all the functions of the science attach^ you mention 

 are important. I would probably rate them in the order: personal contacts, obser- 

 vation of major trends, information exchange, policy analysis, long range fore- 

 casts. I think the role of the science attach^ should be more that of a true science 

 and technology adviser to the Ambassador than has been the case in the past. 

 The size and configuration of the Embassy science staff is less important than 

 the personality and leadership of the Science Attach^ himself. He should be a 

 person who knows the local language and has good contacts in the local scientific 

 community, and at the same time, good connections with the governmental 

 science establishments in the U.S. He should be an individual with considerable 

 political "savvy" and experience, as well as scientific stature — a difficult com- 

 bination. 



A possible expedient to ease the total burden on the individual 

 attache, Dr. Brooks suggests, might be the use of supporting personnel 



">» Before Lt. Gen. Tames Gavin was named Ambassador to France, he had directed the research and 

 devplopment program of the Department of the Army, and upon retirement was named president of the 

 private research and development company Arthur D. Little, Inc. His receptivity to scientific counsel as 

 an Ambassador was unusually high. 



108 Beckler to Huddle, March 5, 1975. 



