209 



Question 2 . Should some or all future "big science" facilities be 

 developed on the basis of international cooperation? 



In my view, there are far too many "big science* facilities in our future 

 to justify the added burden of making them completely international. Perhaps 

 we should start with one, or a few, to get experience.^ Clearly the 

 Superconducting Super Collider and the large - gyelo tr<>n Radiation sources for 

 materials research with their exceptionally large budgets are prime 

 candidates. However, a large number of our future "big science" facilities, 

 those which are not burdened with defense or "key competitive technology" 

 constraints, can and should have open exchanges of research workers, 

 instrumentation information, etc. Most fields of science have good records in 

 providing such exchanges. 



Many Americans are concerned that we support and conduct more than our 

 fair share of basic research, while others concentrate their efforts on the 

 utilization of ensuing technologies. I share that concern though I believe 

 that the problem is much more complicated that that simply stated concern. 

 However, it would be much to our advantage if some government agency, perhaps 

 the NSF, were to monitor the quid pro quo of the basic science exchange. At 

 least we could then deal with the concern in an informed way. 



Question 3 . Should federal science funding include the aim of keeping the 

 U.S. first in every field of science, and if so, will international 

 cooperation be either beneficial or detrimental to achieving this aim? 



I think it is reasonable to have federal science funding include the aim 

 of keeping U.S. first in every major field of science, though we should 

 recognize that attaining that goal in some fields will result in just keeping 

 us on a par with other leading countries which have similar aims. We should 

 certainly never fall out of "world class" status in any major science field. 

 International cooperation will help us, in my view, in attaining leadership 

 and will certainly be an insurance that we do not fall out of "world class" 

 status. 



Comfortable as we have been with world leadership in science for several 

 decades, we must now realize that other leading, fully developed and some 

 largely developed nations now recognize the importance of the basic sciences 

 — applied science — technology trilogy to their economic future. The 

 competition in all three elements will be keener in the future, and we should 

 welcome it. 



Question 4 . What is the trend of international collaboration in science? 

 Is it increasing, decreasing or remaining relatively constant? 



Until the early or mid-seventies international collaboration in science 

 grew reasonably steadily, and by means of several modes — government 

 supported exchange, industrial company to industrial company exchange, as 

 supported by international governmental units and by international-minded 

 foundations. Funding limitations, especially those brought on by recessions, 



