1485 



NONGOVERNMENTAL PREFERENCES OF SCIENTISTS 



Except in times of war emergenc}-, scientists have generally tended 

 to prefer to develop their own forms of cooperation, usually on a 

 person-to-person basis. -The chief role of organizations of scientists 

 has been to facilitate information evaluation and exchange. Herman I. 

 Chinn stresses this preference for apolitical relationships among 

 scientists; 



Scientists generally prefer informal co-operation among themselves with a 

 minimum of governmental involvement. The active investigators within a partic- 

 ular specialty are usually v.-ell known to each other. The}- have ample o]jpor- 

 tunilies to discuss mutual problems and to arrange suitable co-operative measures. 

 Such direct, informal dealings avoid the administrative and "l)ureaucratic" 

 prticedures often resulting from more formal arrangements. Although effective 

 administration should facilitate the scientific effort, it frequently has the opposite 

 effect. Reports, meetings and other requirements consume time that might be 

 more profitably spent in the laboratory. There is the danger that administrative 

 decisions may influence the scientific objectives. More seriously, some scientists 

 fear that involvement with an official program may compromise their scientific 

 integrity by subverting scientific considerations to political ends. Finally, a 

 formal co-operative program introduces certain restraints in the type, duration 

 and form of co-operation. Informal arrangements provide greater flexiljilitj- and 

 can be more easily altered, discontinued or expanded as the occasion demands.^^" 



However, the international relations among scientists have in- 

 creasingly become institutionalized. Partly because of the growth in 

 such "big science" programs as the IGY, space research, large 

 scale weather studies, and the like, scientific activities are becoming 

 global in scope and in organizational form.-^^ According to Roger 

 Revelle : 



The supra-national values that guide scientists in their search for truth conflict 

 at times with the foreign policies of nations; resolution of these conflicts calls for a 

 high order of statesmanship. Cooperation in scientific truth-seeking can be a 

 powerful tool for building international understanding onlj- if its cohesive force is 

 aided by national attitudes, policies, and actions. 



In the search for truth, a structure of world-wide working relationships among 

 scientists is essential in such major areas of inquiry as geophysics, meteorology, 

 oceanography, animal and human ecology, astrophysics, and public health. These 

 sciences take most meaningful form only on a global framework. Hurricanes, 

 droughts, and pestilence know no national boundaries."^^" 



Professor Revelle suggests the the Department of State has neglected 

 tb.c "immediate cultural values of American science for our relations 

 witli other countries." He saw such useful diplomatic gains to be 

 achieved in this direction as the following: 



Science ... is a form of art, and one in which the X'nited States now leads the 

 world. By encouraging and promoting the widesb possible range of international 

 activities for American science, the Department could greatly foster acceptance of 



-'" Ufnuaii I. Cliinn, "IiUernatioual Scientific Co-operation," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists '2r>, no. 9 

 (Xov,.mt.or l!i6H). p. 34. 



-• Thus, the "larpest, most complex, and most comprehensive international scientific undertaking" ever 

 carried on' in pea.-etime— the International Geophysical Year— is testimony to the aliilities of scientists to 

 ortianizo on a prand scale, pivea a purpose and an occasion. Not only was the I(i Y mainly developed and 

 ma'iawd hy I he scientists themselves, rather than by their governments: it established patterns of coopera- 

 tion for later government-to-government efforts and relationships, including the negotiation of treaties. See: 

 U.S. Cnngress, Itouse, Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on National Security Policy and 

 Scic'itific Oevelopments, Ttie Political Ltgacy (fttie Intemntionnl (;enf)tiij<iicnl Yfnr. in the series Science, 

 TcchnoloL'v. and American Dinlomacv. prepared bv Harold Bullis, Con^iressional Research Service, Litrary 

 of Congress, November 197.3. See vol. I, pp. 203-360. 



2M Hogcr Revelle, "International Cooperation and the Two Faces of Science," in Cultural Affairs and 

 Forcifiit Rtlatiuns (Washington, D.C.: Columbia Books, l'J6S), p. 137. 



