154 



ordination of review so that the conduct of research would not conflict 

 with the foreign policies of the country. Such efforts have only had a 

 partial success. The State Department's FAR Council was established 

 and its procedures promulgated; projects are reviewed for political 

 sensitivity, but the review process has been challenged and criticized 

 by social scientists who assert that State is not equipped to review, and 

 that the review of projects (eliminating those with adverse political 

 effects) tends to leave only those that are scientifically worthless and 

 intellectually uninteresting.^^ 



The Foreign Area Research Coordination Group began to assess 

 sponsorship and operational problems with the National Academy of 

 Sciences Advisory Committee on Government Programs in the Be- 

 havioral Sciences. Late in 1967, the group issued a set of guidelines 

 which member Federal agencies "° are voluntarily to follow in con- 

 tracting for social science research. Guidelines include the recommenda- 

 tions that sponsors should be publicized, author should have full pub- 

 lication privileges, and that every effort .should be made to keep classi- 

 fied research out of the university."^ These guidelines, too, have been 

 criticized. They apply only to contract work with universities, which 

 may do classified work (in the national interest) ; they do not apply 

 to grants or to contracts with individuals or with nonacademic institu- 

 tions; they are voluntary and unpoliced; they do nothing to remove 

 foreign suspicions that all American social science research is a covert 

 intelligence-gathering operation.^"^ And above all, they are challenged 

 as being negative and as not providing for any review of the scientific 

 merit of research projects or for coordination of Federal foreign area 

 social science research activities. 



DOD response 



DOD's research program has continued to be the subject of some 

 congressional protest against military sponsorship of foreign area 

 social science research. But the costs of not continuing it have been too 

 great, and the military has prevailed, with Congress assenting. (Con- 

 gress has also discovered that many social scientists themselves are 

 ambivalent toward military sponsorship, and that some prefer DOD 

 to State on the grounds of available funds, experience in using social 

 science technology, blanket congressional authorization, and the need 

 to conduct such researches for the purpose of national security. )^'^^ 



While the DOD's budget for social science research remained sub- 

 stantially level, the Department and the National Academy of Sciences 

 assessed sponsorship and utilization problems. The results of these 

 assessments suggest that the DOD will continue to exercise research 

 leadership in the foreign area research disciplines. 



»» Dael Wolfle, "Social Science Research and International Relations." Science (vol. 151, 

 Jan. 14. 1966). editorial. 



IP" AID. CIA, Arms Control and Disarmament Agencv. Department of Agriculture, 

 Health. Education, and Welfare, Labor, State, and Defense (ARPA, ODD R. & E. 

 International Security Affairs. DIA, Air Force. Army, Navy) : NASA, National Endowment 

 for the Humanities, NSF, USIA, Executive Office of the President ; and as observers. NAS 

 and the Peace Corps. 



ici rptjp. jrui(jelines were issued by State on Dec. 19, 1967. "Foreign Area Research Guide- 

 linos Adopted." Department of State Bulletin. Jan. 8, 196S, pp. 55-59. (Containing De- 

 partment of State announcement, press release 297, Dec. 19, 1967.) 



^"^D. S. Grponberg. "Social Science: Federal Agencies Agree To End Covert Support." 

 Science (vol. 159, Jan. ?,. 1968). pp. 64-66 . 



^0' In his recent critique of military sponsorship of foreign area social science research, 

 Horowitz has given the following reasons to explain why the DOD is "No. 1" in foreign 

 area social science research : The scope of congressional appropriations, blanket con- 

 gressional appropriations for DOD. DOD's national security need. (Irving Louis Horo- 

 witz. "Social Science Yogis and Military Commissars." Trans-action (May 1968), p. 32.) 



