3) International programs demand long term commitments . This requirement 

 derives in some measure from the preceding point -- that is, that 

 international decision-making is inherently slow. For instance, I have not 

 yet found a country which uses the same fiscal year as we do. Thus any 

 proposal that is timely for the U.S. appropriation and planning cycle has 

 just missed the deadlines of half of the partners, and is six months too 

 early for the other half! 



The timing problem is also inherent in the nature of basic research, and 

 particularly in the "big science" that is in the candidate category for 

 internationalization. This month, JOIDES panels will meet to evaluate 

 proposals for drilling in the Pacific in 1989 or 1990. The planning cycle 

 for many large scale cooperative research efforts is similarly long. 



A classic chicken-and-egg syndrome can easily develop. Before the partner 

 governments are willing to commit to a significant change, they want some 

 assurance that the majority partner, the U.S., will do the same. And U.S. 

 decision makers, on the other hand, want reasonable assurance of 

 international support before they give the go-ahead. Indecision or 

 precipitous change anywhere in the system reverberates for a long, long 

 time. 



In ODP, we have benefited greatly from the attitude of our Congressional 

 oversight committees and the Executive Branch policy agencies, OSTP and 

 0MB. They have recognized the need for U.S. commitment and they have been 

 willing to accept a degree of risk, carefully limited and defined, to get 

 the program moving. The international partners have also found ways to make 

 commitments-in-principle for the planned 10-year duration of the ODP. 

 Their decisions, like ours, will be reviewed in the course of annual budget 

 cycles; but any unilateral negative decision on renewal will be seen as the 

 wery. serious matter that.it is. 



4) Governance and management of international programs must provide for 

 significant' involvement of partners . When countries joined the DSOP in 

 1974, they wer^- joining a U.S. program in mid-stream. The new partners 

 received equity in scientific activities but they did not participate 

 significantly -- nor did they expect to -- in the management and 

 administration of an ongoing program. When planning for ODP began, 

 however, the partners made it clear that they would not accept similar 

 exclusion in a new program designed from the start as a cooperative 

 venture. We have opened significant areas of ODP staffing and procurement 

 to the participating -international community; strengthened and formalized 

 government-to-government consultation by setting up the ODP Council; and 

 brought the international partners systematically into budget review, 

 audit, and other control functions for the program. 



THE LARGER QUESTION: IS ODP A MODEL FOR OTHER PROGRAMS ? 



ODP is a program in which the U.S. is^the acknowledged leader and majority 

 participant. If the U.S. is to take part in a wide range of international 

 programs, we will almost surely be a minority shareholder in some, and a 

 visitor on other nations' home turf in others. We need to give some thought 

 to the rights and responsibilities of effective membership , and well as of 

 effective leadership , in international science. 



52-283 O - 86 - 3 



