215 



themselves. I think that is the most solid and the most enduring 

 basis upon which to build cooperation. 



Another interesting question which your task force has raised is 

 whether the United States should attempt to be the world leader in 

 all areas of science or whether we should let other countries take 

 the lead in certain areas. I would like to point out that in areas 

 where the United States has made a decision that a given scientific 

 discipline is good science but not high enough on our priority list — 

 I am speaking for NASA now — to warrant extensive funding, inter- 

 national cooperation has allowed us to benefit from other coun- 

 tries' activities. 



For example, NASA has no current plans to carry out a dedicat- 

 ed astronomy mission; but there is a small community in the 

 United States with expertise and interest in this field. The Europe- 

 an Space Agency has such a mission, called Hipparcos, and they re- 

 cently have put out a call for proposals, which after many years of 

 similar treatment by the United States provides for reciprocity to 

 our scientific community, and it was indeed open to all American 

 scientists. As a result, some 20 U.S. scientists were selected and are 

 involved in planning the observation strategy with this mission, 

 with only modest funding from NASA. 



I would like, if I might divert from my testimony just for one 

 moment, I would like to respond to a point made by Dr. Friedman 

 in his testimony, in which he spoke about ISPM and ISTP. I think 

 that there is a danger if one draws too much analogy between 

 these two programs. ISPM, International Solar Polar Mission, was 

 a mission that was an approved program on both sides with an ex- 

 isting international agreement which was modified as a result of 

 the budgetary situation in this country and about which I can 

 assure you most people were not pleased or happy to be part of 

 having to do that. 



The International Solar Terrestrial Physics Program, on the 

 other hand, is an unapproved program which NASA is considering, 

 and has been considering, and has been discussing with our inter- 

 national partners with a full understanding on all sides that it is 

 not an approved program. But it is necessary to have good, thor- 

 ough discussions so that we can all assure ourselves that it is some- 

 thing that we want to do and is worth doing. 



I am terribly concerned in a program like this if it is represented 

 that if NASA or the administration or this Congress chooses not to 

 fund that program or not to decide to go ahead with that program, 

 that that would be viewed as a reneging on a commitment of the 

 same order of Solar Polar. They are not analogous, and my concern 

 would be, if we begin treating them in that manner, it may chill 

 the important prediscussions that go on before these missions that 

 are absolutely essential in determining the self-interest that I 

 spoke about earlier. If each discussion we undertake with other 

 countries in which we thoroughly represent our views and make 

 very clear that the program is not approved, it is later represented 

 to be a backing away of a commitment on the order of Solar Polar, 

 I am terribly afraid the effect will be that we would be reluctant to 

 undertake those sorts of discussions. And I think that would be 

 most unfortunate. 



Thank you for permitting the digression. 



