305 



for project development or planning or funds for needed travel just 

 to get a project started — almost always have to be dealt with ad 

 hoc and are usually viewed with skepticism or worse. There is usu- 

 ally a joke in OMB about international travel for developing scien- 

 tific projects. 



Nor is there a general climate in the Government that recognizes 

 the value to the United States of international cooperation, nor 

 widespread interest and pressure from the scientific community at 

 large advocating more international cooperation as a major policy 

 goal. 



It is interesting that in the fusion project that was referred to 

 before, the report of the National Academy of Sciences advocating 

 it in response to the request from DOE in fact had buried in the 

 middle of it a statement that, of course, basically, if all of this 

 could be done in the United States, we would prefer that route, 

 even though it advocated more for international cooperation. 



To begin to develop that perspective, to take more advantage of 

 the R&D benefits of international cooperation, and to realize the 

 potential value to this country of an international approach to the 

 problems that loom so large in all societies will not develop natu- 

 rally. 



Agencies, and particularly the lower levels of R&D management, 

 would have to be sure not only that there is high-level executive 

 branch and congressional interest in developing international ac- 

 tivities that support the agency's R&D objectives, but also that 

 international programs, if competitive, would be welcomed within 

 their overall program and that the likely greater uncertainties en- 

 countered in evaluation of new proposals would be sympathetically 

 taken into account. 



From this would also have to follow some changes in the funding 

 process that reflected the fact that international projects cannot be 

 treated identically to a typical proposal that is wholly domestic. 

 Up-front funding may be necessary to explore opportunities and to 

 allow initial development of proposals that may be harder to for- 

 mulate because of differing research styles or institutional prac- 

 tices. 



Some risks may have to be taken for situations in which there 

 could be serious political costs if a jointly developed proposal is ul- 

 timately rejected. Recognition of the importance of being a reliable 

 partner may also sometimes require longer commitment of funds 

 than is typical. 



In some cases, funding may also be necessary for higher infra- 

 structure and travel costs, even if overall costs of the project would 

 be lower. Those extra funds have always been difficult to appropri- 

 ate, and in particularly tight budgets, they appear as direct reduc- 

 tions in domestic research funds and thus inevitably very conten- 

 tious. 



Of course, all the obstacles do not reside within the Government, 

 though the process difficulties within Government do have their 

 resonance in the scientific community. Realization of the difficul- 

 ties in funding international cooperation, or experience in trying to 

 satisfy those difficulties, is often an effective disincentive for scien- 

 tists to invest the time required to bring cooperative projects to the 



