315 



is not a way to imagine expanding the legitimate and disciplined use of 

 scientific cooperation as a contributor to the nation's foreign policy 

 objectives. 



In the accompanying material submitted to the Task Force, I discuss the 

 pros and cons of various other solutions to this problem of how to plan, fund, 

 choose and implement cooperative programs with mixed political and scientific 

 motives, such as appropriating funds to the State Department, allowing line 

 item budgets in mission agencies, or other possibilities. My preferred 

 course, one attempted during the Carter Administration in part for this 

 purpose, was -- and still is — the creation of a new agency expressly for 

 international cooperation in science and technology that would be able to 

 contribute to development as well as political objectives. That proposal, 

 known as the Institute for Scientific and Technological Cooperation, you may 

 remember was authorized but not funded by the Congress. I assume it is not a 

 live option for some time to come. 



Barring that, it seems to me that for the bulk of international science 

 and technology activities justified in part on foreign policy grounds, it is 

 the resources of the mission agencies themselves, whether in an 

 "international" budget, or as part of regular programs that will have to be 

 relied upon. The other choices are simply not commensurate with the nature 

 and scale of the overall objective though all mechanisms are, and ought to be, 

 used to some extent. 



This conclusion that the bulk of the resources must come from the 

 agencies, however, requires coming to grips with the difficulties associated 

 with that route. If these are not dealt with, it is unrealistic to expect any 

 Administration, or any Congress, to approve. Primarily, those difficulties 

 have to do with evaluation and choice when a foreign policy motivation is 

 involved. Who is responsible and/or qualified to represent the foreign policy 

 interest? How should it be compareo with scientific evaulations? how can 

 activities with different countries, different fields, different agencies be 

 compared? What can provide the discipline that is requirea to force hard 

 choices? How objective can foreign policy criteria be in any case? 



An argument can be made that almost any science and technology 

 interaction with a country of interest is "good." Traditionally, the 

 Department of State has tended to be rather uncritical in its support of 

 international science and technology activities of other agencies within broad 

 foreign policy constraints. But that is inadequate, if it ever was otherwise, 

 in a period of growing interest in more effective use of U.S. science and 

 technology capacity internationally. Even if funding constraints were not as 

 serious as they are today, responsible use of public funds and resources would 

 require more appropriate discipline. 



In thinking about possible mechanisms for disciplined choice of 

 international projects, it is useful to remember that except in very unusual 

 circumstances, good politics requires good science. That is, political goals 

 are unlikely to be achieved unless the scientific project designed to achieve 

 them is legitimate and competent. The scientific quality cannot be expected 



52-283 O 



