1446 



Table 10.— -Sciewce, Technology and Foreign Affairs^ — Continued 



G. FIELD TRIPS AND VISITS 



1. National -Institutes of Healths . . ,- - < - 



2. E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware. 



3. Agricultural Research Center, BeltsviUe, Maryland. 



4. Goddard Space Flight Center; . * 



H. ADVANCES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



1. See Item G. 



2. General lectures. 



I L. F. Audrieth and H. T. Chinn, Science, Technddgy and foreign Affairs, report on the seminar held at 

 the Foreign Service Institute, January 11 to February 5, 1965, pp. 21-22. 



The following year, the course was substantially reduced in scope, 

 duration, and attendance. It went from 4 to 2 weeks, and eventually 

 became a 1-week course given once yearly. The course was scheduled 

 to be given the first week in December 1974, but when only two 

 applications were received from cahdidat/C students the course 

 was cancelled. Apparently there was thereafter some question as to 

 ■v^ether the course should be dropped for want of interest. 



rt::- ^ ...... 



OPTIONS FOR INCREASING THE TECHNICAL CONTENT OF THE FSI 



CtJRRlCULUM 



The purpose of the Institute is to enlarge the professional skills of 

 diplomatic personnel. There appears to be a consensus that one of the 

 requisite skills has to do with technical or scientific "literacy." Broadly 

 defined, this skill implies a familiarity with science, its institutions and 

 practitioners, and technological applications important for U.S. 

 foreign relations. 



The evidence is that a major attempt was made in 1965 to present 

 "a training program in FSI to meet this need, but that the level of 

 effort declined, the response of candidate students diminished, and 

 the substantive content of the training fell away. This decline in 

 emphasis and effectiveness occurred at a time when the impact and 

 pace of technological change were both accelerating and the need for 

 scientific and technological literacy among the FSOs was increasing. 



There appear to be four problems that remain unsolved in this 

 matter: (1) The defining of what precisely is needed by the FSO in 

 the way of scientific and technological familiarity for diplomatic 

 service; (2) the development of curricula, course work, and training 

 materials to meet the FSOs need; (3) the convincing of the FSOs 

 and their superiors of the need for them to spare adequate time and 

 effort to acquire the needed training; and (4) the maintenance of 

 an up-to-date program of high utility, attractiveness, and acceptability 

 to sustain it over the future. 



Possible solutions to this set of problems, could include the following: 

 — Development of a set of simulated but realistic, technical- 

 diplomatic problems to be undertaken by a seminar study 

 team; 



— Establishment of a relationship between the FSI and the 

 Policy Planning Staff to enrich the curriculum; 



