136 



The conduct of foreign area research hy the Department of State 



The subcommittee gave considerable attention to the question, fea- 

 tured in many news stories, as to the existence of a "feud" between 

 the Departments of State and Defense over the conduct and coordina- 

 tion of foreign area research in the social sciences.^° The chairman 

 invited the comment of Secretary Rusk on the circumstance that the 

 "bulk of research in foreign areas and foreign populations is being 

 conducted by our Military Establishment * * *" while the Department 

 of State "* * * continues to shy away from any significant employ- 

 ment of this type of research," 



We have been told [continued Representative Fascell], that the absence of 

 an effective State Department role in social science research may be attributed 

 to two factors : Expectations of congressional nonsupport, and prejudice on the 

 part of some persons within the Department against this type of research as 

 such * * *. I hope that you, Secretary Rusk, will help to clarify these issues 

 and correct any misimpressions that I may be harboring.^^ 



The Secretary conceded the discrepancy between Defense and State 

 outlays for such research but offered no estimate as to a proper division 

 of responsibilities. He also implied that the Congress had a func- 

 tional role in establishing this division — 



We have difficulty in getting budgets in the Department of State for research 

 or even in the Disarmament Agency, for research. One percent * * * of the 

 total Government research budget in this field is Department of State. We 

 have not been in any sense in a dominant position here.^' 



There vrere various indications that coordination between State 

 and Defense needed strengthening, with respect to the area of mutual 

 interest represented by Camelot. According to one news story, Sec- 

 retary Rusk had urged the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 

 Committee not to respond to Senator McCarthy's request for hearings 

 on Camelot because he (Rusk) and Secretary McNamara w^ere work- 

 out a system "* * * which would guarantee that diplomats are kept 

 up to the date on all overseas defense research projects." ^^ 



Another evidence of interdepartmental discord was the press 

 account that the State Department was familiar wath Camelot all 

 along, but deficient in its efforts at review and monitoring. A State 

 Department aide, Pio Uliassi, was in fact a part-time member of the 

 Camelot core planning group — according to this report — and he along 

 with representatives of the Bureau of Intelligence, of State, had partic- 

 ipated in all of the briefings held by SORO and the National Acad- 

 emy of Sciences on the project. The Foreign Area Research Coordi- 

 nation Group, a voluntary foreign area social science research group 

 established by Federal agencies in 1964 and chaired by the State 

 Department, had also participated in the SORO briefings; held res- 

 ervations about the project, but had no authority to suggest changes 

 and reportedly was only considered as an observer. Other material has 

 since come to light which shows that SORO had not informed either 

 the Department of Defense nor the Department of State that it had 



3« One news story, convincing in its direct quotations, described a critique of Camelot 

 tliat had been circulating within the Department of State, which called the project "naive 

 and sometimes alarming." According to this source, the document challenged the idea that 

 social science research was yet able to "* * * arrive at generalizations about complex 

 social matters that are abstract enough to have serious theoretical significance and * ♦ * 

 immediate practical utility." (Lowe, op. cit., p. 40, and Pincus, June 27, 1965, op. dt., 

 pp. A-1, A-8.) 



'I "Behavioral Sciences and the National Security," Hearings, op. cit., p. 106. 



'2 Ibid., p. 117. 



"Walter Pincus, "Camelot Probe Fended Off, Washington Star (July 19, 1965), p. A-5. 



