316 



to be completely competitive with the best in the U.S. — that is the point of 

 considering projects with mixed objectives where, by definition, the science 

 may not be in the forefront -- but it should be appropriate in quality to its 

 setting. 



In practical terms, therefore, cooperative projects with these mixed 

 motives should only be considered for funding if they would rank only 

 marginally below the cutoff point in a mission agency's competitive ranking of 

 research projects based on scientific criteria. (Leaving aside, for the 

 moment, the question of how international projects can be developed to the 

 point of being competitively ranked.) Proposals above the cutoff can be 

 funded whatever the foreign policy interest because of their inherent 

 scientific interest to the agency. Proposals that fall near the bottom of the 

 ranking are presumed to be of little scientific interest to an agency and 

 should proceed only if there is a special foreign policy interest in having 

 them implemented. In that case, external (to the agency) funding is clearly 

 appropriate and, in fact, essential. Only those that are roughly in the 

 middle of an agency ranking — below but near the cutoff — need to be 

 considered further, for they have reasonable scientific merit and agency 

 engagement. 



This logic leads to the suggestion that it would be useful to attempt to 

 rank international science and technology programs across departments and 

 agencies according to foreign policy interest. Such a ranking, if it could be 

 done, would be compared with the independent ranking within departments and 

 agencies based on their normal scientific criteria. Projects that are 

 marginal on an agency ranking, but high on foreign policy ranking, would be 

 given an extra boost. Those marginal within the agency but low on the foreign 

 policy ranking would be dropped, while those low in agency ranking, but 

 particularly high on foreign policy grounds, would proceed only with funding 

 provided by the Department of State or other external source. 



Such a cross-department ranking makes sense in theory, but in practice 

 can it be done with competence and credibility? A separate agency for 

 international science and technology cooperation could have been the chosen 

 instrument, but the attempt to create that agency did not succeed. The State 

 Department is unlikely to be able to carry out such a ranking with sufficient 

 support from technical agencies, or with adequate authority to implement the 

 results. A possibility is an interagency working group, chaireo by the 

 Department of State, that provided the locus for a government-wide ranking. 

 Or, OflD or OSTP could chair the group to provide more objective leadership. 



Whatever the mechanism that could be used for "managing" agency budgets 

 for international cooperation, that will not be enough. The need for planning 

 flexibility, especially for broad programs of cooperation of high political 

 value and White House interest such as with China and the Soviet Union, and 

 the need for initial funds to define and develop projects, dictate a 

 requirement for some segregated (non-competitive) funds able to be used for 

 new international initiatives. The amounts can be reasonably limited on the 

 assumption that programs once initiated should move into a competitive process 

 of some kind as rapidly as possible. Under that assumption, the Department of 

 State could be the logical repository of such segregated funds; more 



