You note that "[a]1though ODP operates as a multi-lateral program, the 

 formal international structure consists of a series of bilateral 

 agreements between the National Science Foundation and its counterpart 

 agency in each participating country." What are the relative advantages 

 and disadvantages of bilateral and multilateral cooperative arrangement?? 



Because the U.S. is the predominant scientific and financial partner and 

 the sole manager of the ODP, bilateral agreements seem most appropriate. 

 This mechanism maintains a very clear line of contracting responsibility: 

 NSF authority is not diluted or attenuated by any multilateral management 

 body. It also makes NSF clearly responsible for program performance to 

 each partner country, which they view as highly beneficial. 



In a program in which participant "shares" are more nearly equal in size, 

 a multilateral structure would be preferable. 



What alternative arrangements might be considered to increase 

 international collaboration in the Ocean UriHing Program? 



As I mentioned in my testimony, there have been periodic attempts to 

 establish some sort of associate membership in JOIDES. This has not been 

 favorably received by the members. The recently adopted JOIDES policy of 

 admitting a consortium to membership is an attempt to make participation 

 accessible to smaller countries without diluting the egalitarian 

 membership principles of the organization. 



JOIDES is exploring several possibilities for systematically involving 

 scientists from developing countries in ODP. Such involvement occurs now, 

 but on an ad_ hoc basis. 



To what extent is NSF's job made more difficult by not having identical 

 bilateral agreements? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having 

 different Memoranda of Understanding ? 



On the contrary, the ability to make different arrangements with each 

 partner greatly eases our job. We can accommodate the budget cycles and 

 other administrative requirements of each partner. If we did not have 

 that latitude, management would be much more difficult. 



The OOP agreements are identical in all matters of substance (see 

 testimony, page 4.) This is essential to maintain equity among members 

 and to establish consistent and fully-understood statements of privileges 

 and responsibilities. 



On page 7 of your testimony you state that "[i]n JOIDES management Issues, 

 a slightly less-than-perfect decision that enjoys the support of all of 

 the participating countries is usually preferable to arT ideal solution' 

 which seriously offends the needs or sensibilities of one of them." To " 

 what extent might this arrangement tend to stifle individual scientific 

 creativity or initiative? 



Not at all. All scientific planning entities of JOIDES operate on a 

 straight majority, one person-one vote, procedure. (See page 7 of 

 testimony). Their deliberations focus entirely on scientific and 

 technical issues. Debate is intense; decisions are often close; and 



