218 



I read with interest the goals of the Science Policy 

 Study being conducted by Congress- This is certainly an 

 important topic which needs to be addressed. I will 

 attempt to respond to specific questions about inter- 

 national activities raised in your Statement of Purpose 

 for these hearings and in the Agenda prepared by the Task 

 Force on Science Policy. 



The Task Force has posed the question as to whether in 

 fact joint programs really result in a cost savings for 

 the partners given the added complexity of inter- 

 national management. It is true that additional funds 

 may be necessary for travel abroad and more complex 

 administrative activities associated with international 

 projects, but in many cases the international cooper- 

 ation allows us to gain greater capabilities at no 

 additional cost to the U.S. government and in other forms 

 of cooperation the travel and administrative costs rarely 

 combine to equal the cost of providing the hardware 

 ourselves. By far the greatest benefit of international 

 cost sharing, however, is that by sharing the cost 

 burdens in a constrained budget environment, the time to 

 completion of a project is shorter than if the same money 

 had to be spread over many more years by one country 

 alone. As you know, while it may solve near term 

 problems, stretching out a program is always more costly 

 in the long run. This is especially true for large, 

 relatively expensive space facilities. 



I note your interest in technology transfer. NASA, too, 

 shares this concern. To reap the benefits of cooperation 

 without jeopardizing this nation's national security 

 interests or the competitive position of U.S. industry, 

 care must be exercised in selecting, defining and 

 implementing joint programs. Projects leading to the 

 early development of commercially useful technology are 

 not usually open for international participation. In 

 projects where there is foreign involvement, that 

 involvement is structured so as to avoid technology 

 transfer. Generally, foreign participants undertake to 

 provide a discrete piece of the overall project and are 

 then responsible for developing the resulting technology 

 and hardware with their own funds. Only the technical 

 information necessary to ensure effective interface among 

 the various elements of a project is exchanged. In this 

 way, we can enjoy successful cooperative endeavors while 

 protecting U.S. technological interests. As other 

 countries develop strong technology bases, they share 

 very similar objectives in this area. 



Another question raised by the Task Force Report is how 

 we can assure that we are supporting science directed at 

 specific goals (not science for science's sake or 

 international for international's sake), and making 

 optimum use of our resources. In tlie case of NASA's 

 programs, we have no separate budg-^hnry line item for 

 international projects. All of oar science projects must 

 gain the support of our scientific advisory committees in 



