219 



competition with other science projects through our peer 

 review and advisory committee structure. Tliis process 

 has always ensured that NASA pursues the highest priority 

 science. In addition, a basic ground rule of our inter- 

 national projects is that the project be of mutual 

 interest since each side will fund its respective 

 responsibilities. This also assures that the project 

 enjoys equally high priority on the part of our partners. 



Another interesting question before the Task Force is 

 whether the U.S. 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 U.S. has made a 

 decision that a given scientific discipline is good 

 science but not high enough in our priority list to 

 warrant extensive funding, international cooperation 

 allows us to benefit from another country's lead. For 

 example, NASA has no plans to carry out a dedicated 

 astrometry mission but there is a small community in the 

 U.S. with expertise and interest in this field. The 

 European Space Agency's Call for Proposals to develop the 

 observing program for its Hipparcos astrometry mission 

 was open to American scientists. Some 20 U.S. scientists 

 were selected and are involved in planning the observa- 

 tion strategy for this mission with only modest funding 

 from NASA. 



Of course, there are science programs which can only be 

 done on an international basis. For example, to under- 

 stand tectonic plate movements requires measurements from 

 many locations around the world. In addition, the 

 ability to interpret data from earth-looking sensors 

 requires the gathering of ground truth data from areas 

 outside our national borders. 



I would now like' to turn to the Space Station Program. I 

 believe the Space Station is the kind of program that 

 demonstrates how leadership, international cooperation 

 and opportunities for space science endeavors can be 

 brought together in a mutually beneficial way. We have 

 made much progress since President Reagan's invitation in 

 his 1984 State of the Union message to America's friends 

 and allies to join us in developing a permanently manned 

 Space Station. Shortly thereafter, NASA Administrator 

 James M. Beggs traveled to Canada, Europe and Japan to 

 initiate discussions about possible cooperative efforts 

 and to lay the groundwork for the Space Station's being 

 raised at the London Economic Summit. Following the 

 Summit discussion of the President's invitation and its 

 commitment to consider cooperation on the program, 

 Canada, Europe and Japan all moved rapidly to make the 

 policy and budgetary decisions needed to join us in this 

 program. 



At the March Reagan-Mulroney "Shanrock" Simmit, Canada 

 formally accepted the President's invitation to 

 participate in the Space Station Program. The Canadian 



52-283 0-86 



