1438 



as far as to be incorporated in the Foreign Affairs Manual of the 

 Department, Avith the following "job descriptions": 



DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR FUNCTIONAL RESEARCH (INR/dFR) 



a. Directs a program for the production of intelligence and research reports 

 and estimates on functional subjects pertinent to the formulation and execution 

 of foreign policy. 



b. Supervises the work of the offices within the Bureau dealing with strategic, 

 political-military, and specialized interregional political affairs; economic affairs; 

 science affairs; and geographic affairs. 



ASSISTANT DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR SCIENCE AFFAIRS (INR/DFR/SA) 



a. Maintains liaison with other agencies on research dealing with the impact 

 on foreign policy of both substantive and institutional developments in non- 

 military science and technology, including environmental affairs; and prepares 

 studies and reports on these subjects. 



b. Advises the Director and other senior officials on new analytical methods, 

 particularly quantitative techniques, applicable to research in international 

 relations. 



c. Participates in the preparation of reports and estimates on special topics 

 concerned with foreign affairs. '^^ 



However, the science element was never staffed and the parent office 

 was abolished in 1974 as a part of a reorganization of INR that was 

 still in progress in earl}'^ 1975. 



INR ORGANIZATIONAL UNCERTAINTIES 



Several uncertainties persist in this question of the role of INR in 

 science, technology, and intelligence generally. As the State Depart- 

 ment element of the intelligence community, INR would seem to be 

 confronted by the complications of the dual role of Mr. Kissinger as 

 both Secretary of State and Director of the NSC staff — in this latter 

 capacity the official to which the Central Intelligence Agency reports. 

 However, INR could still serve usefully as the bridge between CIA 

 and policy'' elements of State. 



Another question is whether INR ought to involve itself more 

 extensively in substantive matters of science and technology, perhaps 

 including augmentation of staff and establishment of a technological 

 data base, analytical capability, and organizational point of contact.''*^ 

 Can information about science and technology be compartmented 

 within the alread}'^ existing OES, or is it so pervasivelj'^ and intimately 

 a part of the Department's business— and so significant an influence 

 upon the diplomatic environment — that it needs attention in both 

 areas? During the past 15 years the State Department's science office 

 was competing for resources with the well-established regional and 

 functional bureaus. It alwaA^s needed more "job slots" tlian the 

 Department was prepared to allocate to it. However, the elevation 

 by Congress of the office to full bureau status under a statutory 

 Assistant Secretary provides an occasion for a reassessment of the 



"9 U.S. Department of State, Foreign Affairs Man.ual, October 5, 1972, FAM 333 and 333.1. 

 1'" However, on this point Professor Rusk writes: 



I do not believe that INR should try to staff itself for a comprehensive eflort in the fields of science 

 and technology. I have long felt that the U.S. Government as a whole should be better organized to 

 collect and evaluate information in these fields. The sheer scale of the effort required calls for a gov- 

 ernment-wide plan. INR should be a part, but only a part, of that total effort. 



(Rusk to Huddle, March 18, 1975.) 



