58 



The bottom line is that in a typical year, more than 1100 highly trained 

 specialists will devote a major segment of their productive time to the 

 OOP, and many hundreds more will use DSDP or OOP cores, rocks, or other 

 samples and data in ongoing individual research projects. 



This factor, beyond all others, has Dictated that the program be 

 international. There are simply not enough people to carry out the program 

 without worldwide participation. 



SUMMING UP: LESSONS AND EXAMPLES 



What lessons might be drawn from the OOP experience? 



1) The existence of a strong scientific rationale is an essential 

 pre-condition tor international collaboration . Cost alone Ts noT 

 sufficient reason for scientists or governments to accept the 

 inconveniences, delays, and other disadvantages of international 

 cooperation. For these to be acceptable, the program must be at the 

 forefront of the scientific enterprise. If an instrument or facility is in 

 question, it must be uniquely capable of tackling the most compelling or 

 difficult problems of the field. 



Occasionally it is suggested that we should "stimulate some international 

 support" as a way of easing funding burdens for such costly but standard 

 facilities as research ships and observatories. Standard facilities are 

 not good candidates for formal cooperative programs. This does not rule 

 out ad hoc arrangements for shared use at a scientist-to-scientist level or 

 even on a bilateral basis. 



In the case of OOP and DSDP, as I have indicated, the needs of the program 

 for both scientific talent and forefront technology have combined to make 

 collaboration not just acceptable, but highly desirabTe-.f ^ A joint 

 international program of deep ocean drilling is vastly better in" terms W 

 scientific quality than any single nation could produce alone . 



2) International collaboration exacts costs . Monetary costs for 

 internationa I travel, communications, meetings and representation are 

 substantial. Wise managers should build them into their budgets. For an 

 international program, a meeting in Paris or Tokyo is no more exceptional 

 than one in Chicago or Omaha. And communication -- frequent and repeated 

 -- is absolutely indispensable. In OOP, a small part of the Trust Fund is 

 earmarked for the additional program management costs NSF incurs because of 

 the international nature of the program. 



But the far more important costs are measured in days, months and years. 

 International cooperation requires that scientists be willing to spend 

 their most limited resource — their productive time -- in non-scientifTc 

 but essential consensus-building . 



This means meetings that must be twice as long or twice as frequent as the 

 agenda suggests in order to allow for translation, jet lag, or consultation 

 with a home office that is several thousand miles and 10 time zones away. 

 It means allowing 3 months for joint scientific decisions that a national 

 committee might reach in an afternoon. At the policy level, it means that 

 no major change can be accomplished in less than 3 years -- and a more 

 realistic timeframe is probably 5 years. 



