81 



McDougaU, Science Policy Task Force, page 8 



military programs or competitive economic systems. This was prudent, but 

 as others have testified here, science and technolDgy can rarely be neatly 

 separated. Beginning with space science, then moving to applications, the 

 Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians have caught up with the U.S. in one 

 after another targeted field, and now compete for markets with 

 government-subsidized, fixed-price, neo- mercantilist "chartered 

 companies" like ARIANESPACE. 



Hence the dilemma faced by the U.S. Let us face the fact: the 

 .U.S. has been in relative decline in the world since the late 1940s and 

 again since the mid-1960s. Our sLtuation is not unlike of Britain in the 

 years between 1900 and World War L For a century Britain had enjoyed 

 naval, financial, and techncdDgical leadership. She was the keeper of the 

 balance of power and the leading force in the world for human rights. But 

 the industrial revolution inevitably spread to Europe, North America, 

 Japan, and finally Russia. By 1902, when Britain emerged from the Boer 

 War, a costiy guerilla war not unlike Vietnam in its effects, she was still 

 the world leader, but her relative power had shrunk markedly. New 

 industrial, naval, and colonial powers chipped away at British leadership 

 in this market or that region of the globe. German or American 

 technolDgy surpassed the British in some fields, and all the other powers 

 raised protective tariffs, smashing the Free Trade system led by Britain, 

 like America after Sputnik, Edwardian Britain echoed with cries to get 

 the country moving again: for science and engineering in the schools 

 instead of the Classics, emphasis on foreign languages, merger of British 

 firms to compete with foreign trusts, more aggressive exporting, funding 



