75 



McDougaU^ Science Policy Task Force, page 2 



This anecdote inustrates four points pertinent to the Task 

 Force inquiry. First; even the dear industrial leader cannot ensure its 

 future without foresight and leadership. Second: the bureaucracy cannot 

 always be counted on to provide that leadership. Third: the Parliament 

 was wise to depend on the dynamic private sector that had made Britain 

 the wodd leader in the first place— while the French government, like the 

 Soviet today, lacked that private dynamism and had to crack the whip 

 itself. And even though France inaugurated the age of ironclads, as the 

 .USSR did the Space Age, she was unable to keep up with Britain. 



Fourth: all this testifies to the wisdom and boldness of this 

 survey of U.S. science pcQicy. My father is a patent attorney, and I 

 marvel at his combination of legal and technical knowledge. Yet this 

 committee delves into everything from DNA research to high-energy 

 physics to space stations, from the points of view of science, law, and 

 policy. I believe the committee has earned more thanks— and 

 sympathy— from the public than it probably gets. Your agenda notes that 

 changes in science polLoy usually occur only in times of crisis. I hope you 

 are able to change that tendency, although perhaps it is only in crises 

 that political and public support for extensive change can be marshalled. 

 This is surely the lesson cf history. 



I deeply appreciate your invitation to share my historical 

 perspective on international cooperation in science. I have little to 

 contribute to specific policy debates, but I shall try to help frame the 

 "big picture." 



