1487 



d. To meet the need in many studies of simultaneous or coordinated observa- 

 tions from many sites (e.g., World Weather Watch). 



e. To compare the effects of geographic, climatic, cultural, etc., variables on a 

 target sj^stem under study (e.g.. International Biological Program). 



f. To avoid unnecessary duplicator}'^ research by information and personnel 

 exchange (e.g. Medlars (Medical Literature Abstract and Retrieval System) 

 information exchange). 



g. To make available to scientists everywhere unique resources or experimental 

 conditions otherwise available to only a few (e.g., SEATO Cholera Research 

 Laboratory, Pakistan). 



h. To develop international "banks" of scarce materials (germ plasm, micro- 

 organisms, geological samples, etc.) for the use of all scientists (e.g., lunar rock 

 study program). 



i. To concentrate the talents of many nations on a transitory phenomenon: 

 (eclipse, volcanic eruption, etc.) to provide maximum scientific benefit (e.g.y 

 international task force at Mexico solar eclipse) .^^^ 



The exploitation of international science for diplomatic advantage 

 appears to require that the several participating nations share the 

 advantages of cooperation. For the United States, publicly funded 

 enterprises of this kind would seem appropriately to require some sort 

 of initial finding by the diplomatic apparatus of Government that 

 proposed undertakings met the criteria of scientific merit, economic 

 feasibility, soundness of the organizational approach, and the like. 

 In view of the enormous numbers of different institutional forms that 

 can be taken by international scientific activities, a heavy administra- 

 tive burden would be placed on any institution (OES, for exan^ple) 

 that attempted a comprehensive preevaluation of such activities, 

 even if restricted to basic science alone. Joint researches of this kind 

 may be performed b}^ UNESCO or other of the United Nations 

 family of institutions, OECD, NATO, any of the hundreds of interna- 

 tional scientific societies under the general cognizance of the National 

 Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, various 

 European joint agencies in which the United States is more than an 

 interested bystander, many of the bilateral science programs, and 

 many mission agencies of the U.S. Government. Keeping track of 

 such enterprises in their entiret}'^, and of their U.S. component in 

 particular, would be an onerous task indeed. Yet, it may be contended 

 that the diplomatic and other national goals of the United States 

 warrant substantial effort. 



One possible line of development might be the encouragement of a 

 closer relationship between OES and tke National Academy of 

 Sciences-National Academy of Engineering-National Institute of 

 Medicine-National Research Council complex. Both Dean Harvey 

 Brooks and David Beckler advocate this course."" Herman Ppllack, 

 while concurring, suggests that the general relationship is already 

 quite close and useful, within existing lunits of funds and manpower.^*^^ 



Sources of Foreign Policy Initiatives in Science and Technology 



The technical aspects of diplomacy can be categorized roughly as 

 follows: (1) policies to encourage the international advance of basic 

 science, e.g., support for the International Biological Program; (2) 

 policies to advance and exploit the national posture in technology, 

 e.g., agreements for the sale of enriched uranium fuel elements; (3) 



2M Herman Pollack, "Objectives of International Cooperation in Science and T^ciimAogy ," Department oJ 

 Slate Bulletin, June 28, 1971, pp. aiO-841. 

 2M See footnote 282, p. 175. 

 »M PoUack to Huddle, March 25, 1975. 



