239 



and technology policy. 



That ferment can't help but spill over into_ the way in 



WHICH WE cooperate WITH OTHER NATIONS IN THE PURSUIT OF 

 MUTUAL INTERESTS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. YET I SUSPECT 

 THAT WE ALL HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT THE MECHANISMS— INDEED 

 THE ATTITUDES— THAT STILL INFLUENCE OUR INTERNATIONAL 

 SCIENTIFIC RELATIONS MAY BE ROOTED IN A DIFFERENT ERA/ ONE 

 CHARACTERIZED BY A SLOWER PACE OF TECHNICAL ADVANCES/ BY AN 

 ALMOST UNQUESTIONED DOMINANCE BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE 

 WORLD'S SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY/ AND BY UNSPOKEN ASSUMPTIONS 

 IN THE THE UNITED STATES THAT INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 

 WOULD INEVITABLY BE ONE-SIDED AND DONE MORE IN THE SENSE OF 

 PROVIDING U.S. ASSISTANCE TO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN 

 OTHER COUNTRIES THAN OF RECEIVING COMPARABLE TECHNICAL 

 RETURNS OURSELVES. TOO MANY OF OUR PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN 

 COOPERATIVE MORE IN NAME THAN IN REALITY. IT'S WELL PAST 



time to discard those outdated assumptions and rethink what 

 we expect and need in our international programs. 



Mr. Chairman, in a very real sense the primary force 



DRIVING science POLICY TODAY IS A PRODUCT OF THE SUCCESS OF 

 science policies in the FIFTIES AND SIXTIES. OUR POST-WAR 

 INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR BASIC 

 RESEARCH— AS EMBODIED IN THEN-NEW AGENCIES LIKE THE AEC/ 

 NSF/ NIH/ AND NASA/ AND IN THE ENORMOUSLY INFLUENTIAL 

 SUPPORT FOR BASIC RESEARCH WITHIN THE DEFENSE 



