96 



Questions For the Record— McDougalU page 3 



information than in free and open communication. In short, 

 the U.S. has meant well, but has tended to take for granted that other 

 governments share our liberal goals, or that liberal governments will follow 

 from the ^read of oior technology. 



In sum, our cooperative efforts have failed to "buy" the 

 friendship of any nation* (the U.S.S.R. has also failed; we feared that Third 

 World countries would be attracted to Communism because of Soviet ^)ace 

 triumphs after Sputnik— none were except those who were inclined toward 

 Communism anyway). To be sure, certain forms of cooperation are in 

 everyone's interest or are simply necessary, whether we (or others) like it or 

 not, I discussed such "housekeeping" cooperation in my prepared remarks. 

 These types of cooperation produce the best results. In strategic arenas of 

 science, we have had some successes, but only in the realm of negative, 

 prohibitive cooperation: e.g., the Antarctic treaty and Non-proliferation 

 Treaty, in which the U.S., the Soviets, and others combine to prevent the 

 spread of national claims or expertise that could prove dangerous. 



*A footnote: The Space Treaty, for instance, was an offspring of 

 two abiding American mentalities. The first might be termed the Wilsonian, 

 stressing liberalism and the rule of law. Moral metaphors dominated the 

 Wilsonian vision. The international order was a post-lapsarian jungle teeming 

 with suspicion and fear, which in turn bred militarism, imperialism, and 

 tyranny. The United States should promote the rule of law, whereupon 

 cooperation, trust, and disarmament might remind man of the harmonious 

 aspirations for which he was made. In such a world science and material 

 progress would abound. The second strain might be termed the Hooverian, 

 stressing engineering and material prosperity. Here managerial and medical 

 metaphors dominated. Poverty and ignorance weakened bodies politic and 

 made them susceptible to tyranny, communism, and war. Unbridled growth, 

 fashioned by financial and technical engineers through trade, investment, and 

 technology, could eliminate the conditions that bred political disease. 

 In the first vision, law and democracy fosters science and development; in 

 the second, science and development fosters law and democracy. American 

 leaders since Roosevelt, and especially since Kennedy, have embodied both 

 strains— after alU at least they promise that there is something we can DO 

 about global problems. But they contradict each other to a degree, and in 

 any case have shown meagre results at tremendous cost (consider Third 

 Worid debt). 



4. Can you draw any conclusions from the historical record 

 regarding the relationship between government funding of science and a 

 nation's economic and miUtary strength? What effect, if any, has 

 international cooperation had on this relationship? 



Economists have been trying for decades to produce a model that 

 quantifies the relationship between R&D spending and growth. To my 

 knowledge, they have succeeded only in discovering the myriad influences 

 and conditions other than R&D that influence the productivity of an 

 economy, which is to say, the productivity of people. There is an intuitive 

 link between R&D and growth which none would deny, but R&D spending is 

 only a necessary, not a sufficient condition. Consider the Soviet Union, 



