210 



first served to curb the growth; these limitations were augmented by the 

 depressing effect of the concern about the leak of critical technologies for 

 defense and industrial competition. On the other hand, newly developing or 

 changing political alliances, such as that with the Peoples Republic of China, 

 have certainly caused an acceleration of international collaboration. All of 

 this probably adds up to a plateau in the activities of international 

 collaboration in science, though it would be a difficult point to prove. 



Question 5 . What factors either (a) facilitate or (b) inhibit 

 international cooperation in a given field of science? 



Because all nations believe in strengthening their own scientific and 

 technological capabilities, peaceful and healthy economic relationships 

 overlay facile international collaboration in science. Still, occasionally 

 scientific collaboration has been used as a remaining link between nations 

 even when other relationships were strained. That use of scientific 

 collaboration was the basis for the establishment of the International 

 Institute for Scientific Analysis, proposed when East and West were at odds in 

 political and economic relationships. Also, scientific exchange is often the 

 leading and sometimes the only agreement reached when political leaders seek 

 to improve relationships generally. In many ways, scientific collaboration is 

 a useful international political tool. If properly handled, it can be an 

 excellent one, for all sides tend to gain because of the positive impact on 

 economic well-being. 



If the climate is right and the funds are there, scientists in all 



disciplines benefit from international exchange of information, equipment, 



facilities, and people. Their attitudes are almost universally positive with 

 regard to international exchange. 



Question 6 . What does "world leadership" in a particular field of science 

 mean? What particular benefits accrue to the "world leader" versus "number 

 two"? Why should a nation's policy makers care whether or not the nation is 

 first, second or third in a given field of science? 



Perhaps it is a good and timely question for our national policy makers to 

 ask whether they should care if our nation is first, second or third in a 

 given field of science. Certainly I believe that the answer should be that 

 U.S. science should be "world class" in all major fields of science, which 

 probably would mean we were first in many fields, given our dominant economic 

 role in the world and our defense burden. And we must be careful for we have 

 often depended on our world leadership in science to substitute for other 

 leadership factors in maintaining our strength. In military affairs, our high 

 technology emanating from our leading science position has been relied upon at 

 the expense of manpower in the armed forces, and number of ships, planes, 

 tanks, ballistic missiles and other weapons. Similarly, we have relied upon 

 high technology in production rather than many paid laborers to maintain our 

 industry. If we are to reexamine our world leadership in science, perhaps we 

 should also reexamine the implication of any change throughout our society as 

 well. 



