62 



DISCUSSION 



Mr. FuQUA. Thank you very much, Ms. Toye. 



When you speak of "big science" — and you mentioned ocean 

 drilling — I think about a third of the costs, support costs, really, 

 don't get you any science. We have other programs like the Antarc- 

 tica Program with tremendous support costs involved, and that has 

 been an international program. 



Ms. Toye. Yes. 



Mr. FuQUA. In these programs, is the science we get — and when 

 we are talking about SSC, we are talking about a big expense just 

 to operate compared to the science that we may get back, and 

 when you talk to a meteorologist or an astrophysicist, they have 

 different opinions about what you get back from that kind of 

 money. They say, "You give me that money and I'll bring you all 

 kinds of information." 



I am not trying to play one discipline off against the other, but 

 how do you equate where you allocate your resources, particularly 

 in these projects that have a very high support cost? 



Ms. Toye. In ocean drilling, first of all, let me make clear there 

 is a whole component of scientific cost which I have not alluded to 

 here because each country funds its own scientific activity. The 

 only joint part is the operation, and those run perhaps of the order 

 of $20 million a year that is invested in the research costs as such. 



Again, the question of balance. One of the virtues of ocean drill- 

 ing is this is a leased vessel. On the day that the scientific commu- 

 nity concerned does not feel it is worth the money, we will, with a 

 certain amount of pain, be able to end the contracts and fold it 

 down. So in our case 



Mr. FuQUA. Yes, but you are not helping us now. We don't want 

 to have to make that choice. 



Ms. Toye. Well, I think, in this case, the point is that the rele- 

 vant scientific communities have made that decision over and over 

 again within a set of sciences which are not enormously well 

 funded. The earth sciences and ocean sciences are relatively 

 modest, and I think that decision has been made repeatedly by ad- 

 visory groups that have looked at this, and most recently since we 

 have just renewed the program at a rather higher operating cost, 

 and they have overwhelmingly said that this is forefront work and 

 this should be done. 



Mr. FuQUA. One of the criticisms of U.S. joint international coop- 

 eration has been that the United States is not a good partner, not a 

 solid partner. We would be in this year and cut back next year and 

 back in, and we are not a reliable partner, as evidenced in this pro- 

 gram where the Soviet Union was to participate, and as a result of 

 a political and diplomatic decision, we disinvited them to join. 



Do you have memoranda of understanding, or are there long- 

 term contractual agreements, or how do we do that and make our 

 own selves be perceived as a reliable partner? 



Ms. Toye. We have memoranda of understanding for this pro- 

 gram for the entire 10-year planned life of the program. In the 

 Deep Sea Drilling Project, this was a much shorter renewal, and in 

 fact the political issue came to bear more and more frequently in 

 the later years. 



