306 



point at which they could be considered in the research competi- 

 tion. 



Aside from the difficulties inherent in obtaining funding, other 

 factors serve as disincentives to scientists considering international 

 cooperation. The time delays necessarily involved; the extra travel, 

 language and cultural obstacles to initiate cross-national interac- 

 tion; and the different national patterns of allocation of research 

 funds also are important. 



Moreover, scientists are not immune from national biases, not- 

 withstanding the nonnational basis of scientific knowledge. Par- 

 ticularly in the United States, many scientists know little about 

 the details of work in other countries, even in their own fields — 

 that is particularly more true as you get away from the research 

 frontier — and have little interest in international cooperation. 

 Some view international cooperation as inimical to the competitive 

 race for national prestige and preeminence and are not inclined to 

 collaborate unless absolutely necessary. 



And, of course, the growing national concern with the presumed 

 economic and security costs of transfer of technology has served to 

 put a further damper on official interest or scientific interest in 

 international cooperation. 



The considerations above apply to programs with dominant sci- 

 entific interest. How much more difficult it is for those with impor- 

 tant political objectives that may be good science, but are not likely 

 to be competitive within agencies, nor able to be put through a 

 grant approval process even if they were. 



In effect, these programs attempt to "use" science for politi- 

 cal purposes, often a controversial concept on its own. The bilateral 

 United States-Soviet programs obviously are prime examples, 

 though there are others, and, in my view, there should be many 

 more. 



The question is not whether but how to use science and technolo- 

 gy in support of the Nation's foreign policy interests. International 

 activities in science and technology can serve a variety of objectives 

 in addition to R&D goals, including contributing to U.S. political 

 and economic interests with other countries, attracting high-level 

 attention to particular interests, creating advantages for American 

 industry in foreign countries, gaining knowledge of scientific and 

 technological progress in other countries, and stimulating work on 

 common or global problems. 



Presidents, Secretaries of State, and others in Government have 

 capitalized on the Nation's strength in science and technology for 

 cooperation designed to achieve more than scientific purposes and 

 will continue to want to do so. It seems to me that is perfectly ap- 

 propriate, for national goals can be served by sensible use of all re- 

 sources, as long as it is done responsibly and without damage to 

 the primary mission of those resources. 



The question is, How to carry out such programs responsibly, 

 from both scientific and political perspectives? Sadly, and surpris- 

 ingly, I think, the U.S. Government has no adequate mechanism 

 for dealing with programs with these kinds of mixed motives. 



Individual departments and agencies have no, or extremely limit- 

 ed, formal means to fund programs that cannot be fully justified on 

 scientific and mission criteria, nor have they the capability to in- 



