138 



issue of DOD sponsorship of foreign area research. First, it showed 

 that while the Congress objected to DOD sponsorship and wanted 

 State and AID to increase their foreign research programs, it realized 

 that DOD was best qualified to do such research and could do no more 

 than recommend that DOD and State effectuate structural reforms 

 geared toward greater coordination of review : 



(All recommendations here and below are summarized. ) ^^ 



It found that foreign area social science research was of significant value to 

 the foreign (military and political) objectives of the country and should be 

 continued ; that such research include significant components of economic and 

 social research designed to develop democratic political institutions ; that there 

 was an imbalance between State's and DOD's research program (while $30 million 

 was spent in behavioral sciences research, State spends less than 1 percent) ; 

 that State and AID should expand their programs ; but that in order to conduct 

 its mission, particularly with respect to fighting Communist subversion, that 

 DOD should continue to engage in a social science research program. 



The report also showed that the committee was dissatisfied with 

 interagency rivalries and was pleased to see greater efforts toward 

 coordination, but felt that they were not sufficient : 



The report cautioned against interdepartmental rivalry, citing leaks about 

 Camelot which originated in the State Department ; cited the establishment of 

 the Foreign Affairs Research Council, and suggested that State should take fur- 

 ther steps to "upgrade the work of the Foreign Area Coordination area re- 

 search ta.sks." 



The committee evidently realized that these steps could not solve 

 the basic problems regarding military sponsorship of foreign area 

 research, and further recommended that a general assessment of the 

 social science relationship with the Federal Government was needed : 



[There is] no single focal point within this growing govemmentwide effort 

 for a sustained and fruitful collaboration with private scholars and the academic 

 community. 



The committee recommended that the executive branch should take 

 further steps to put its own house in order, including the creation of 

 an Office of Behavioral Sciences Advisor to the President (Repre- 

 sentative Gross did not concur in this recommendation) ; and the con- 

 vocation of a White House conference on the behavioral sciences "* * * 

 to examine our national effort in these fields, and to bring to bear upon 

 Government policy the knowledge, the experience, and tlie insights of 

 the leading social scientists of our country." 



Assessment of the social science /Federal Govemnient relationship 



Congress 



As noted above, criticisms made by the Fascell subcommittee were 

 somewhat ambivalent concerning DOD sponsorship of foreign area 

 social science research. A few recommendations were made, and the 

 executive branch took preliminary steps to meet them. No legislative 

 proposals were made by members of the committee. (One i^roposal, 

 however, was introduced by Representative Paul Findley, not a mem- 

 ber of the committee, for establishment of a "Hoover-type commission 

 to bring U.S. sponsored foreign research projects under control.")^" 



»« "Behavioral Sciences and National Security. Report, op. clt., pp. 4R-10R. 



<" Representative Findley made a statement on the floor of the House, stating that the 

 President's creation of a FAR Council" * » * gives no hope for improvement;" he called 

 for creation of the commission, which would he composed of foreign policy specialists and 

 Government representatives. (Statement of the Honorable Paul Findley. Hoover-type com- 

 mission Is needed on foreign research projects. Congressional Record (Aug. 16, 1965), 

 -g. 19732). 



