137 



contracted with Nutiiii to send him to Chile to undertake preliminary 

 investigations about the suitability of the country as an object of 

 study for this project.^* 



Throughout the hearings several questions recurred, without receiv- 

 ing satisfactory answers: Was the Department of State familiar with 

 Camelot? Did Camelot have State's endorsement? Was there an 

 adequate mechanism operating between the two Departments to evalu- 

 ate possible adverse consequences abroad of such research? In view 

 of the conflicting series of reports, according to Robert Nisbet, most 

 members of the subcommittee viewed Camelot as "* * * a sad con- 

 sequence of the dispersed, unfocused, and inadequate role of the be- 

 havioral sciences in the Federal Government," ^^ 



III. Determination of Alternatives and Enlargement of the 



Scope of the Issue 



Foreign area research coordination 



The absence of effective coordination by the Department of State 

 of social science research conducted abroad by other departments was 

 conclusively shown by the hearings. Secretary Rusk told the subcom- 

 mittee that the FAR Coordination Group had no authority to request 

 agencies to conduct particular tasks or studies, and was specifically 

 forbidden by its terms of reference to "veto or to direct the research 

 of any agency." Its primary function was to improve communication, 

 "both among contract research administrators and substantive research 

 specialists in Government." ^^ General Dick was asked by the chairman 

 if he thought there was need for such a coordination mechanism, 

 "that determined in advance the priority and the broad policy applica- 

 tions for the Defense Department" and that in fact there was not in 

 existence such a mechanism. He agreed that no such mechanism existed, 

 and that a group to perform this function "would be very valuable." ^^ 



On August 2, while the hearings were still in progress, the President 

 instructed Secretary Rusk to establish review procedures to insure 

 that federally sponsored foreign area social science research could not 

 damage U.S. foreign relations. While testifying to the subcommittee, 

 on August 4, 1965, Rusk announced the formation of a Foreign Affairs 

 Research Council to "* * * formulate policy for departmental action 

 with respect to Government-sponsored research bearing on foreign 

 affairs * * * [and to] * * * determine [State] Department needs 

 for foreign area research." He also announced that DOD would 

 "* * * designate an office within [DOD] to cooperate closely on re- 

 search matters." And he added that State had also "moved to 

 strengthen the interagency Foreign Area Research Coordination 

 Group." ^^ 



SubcoTninittee concern for the relationship of the social sciences and 

 the Federal Government 



The Fascell subcommittee report, issued December 6, 1965, reflected 

 the dilemma faced by Congress m solving the Camelot problem and the 



2^ Horowitz, ed., op. cit., pp. 14-15 : Lowe, op. cit. p. 45, citing a "Fact Sheet," issued 

 by SORO, June 28, 1965 ; and "Behavioral Sciences and the National Security," Hearings, 

 op. cit.. p. 53. 



« Robert A. Nisbet. "Project Camelot: An Autopsy." The Public Interest (fall 1966), 

 p. 46. 



» "Behavioral Sciences and National Security," Hearings, op. cit., p. 110. 



37 Ibid., p. 64. 



Mlbid., p. 107. 



