322 



Some of the projects could. In principle, be transferred to ottier 

 existing International organizations If ottier governments agreed. Others 

 could be done on a more restricted basis among the countries particularly 

 Interested. But others will require a new mechanism that does not now 

 exist. The National Academy of Sciences report on this last year provided 

 an excellent coverage of alternatives to UNESCO In specific project areas. 



I would add a more general comment that we have not adequately recog- 

 nized the need for successful operation of International organizations to 

 deal with the many "governmental" functions that must be performed In an 

 International framework (e.g., regulation, coordination, mediation, etc.). 

 The system of International organizations performs reasonably, and In many 

 cases very much better that the public realizes, but the demands on adequate 

 performance are likely to become more serious rather than less so as time 

 goes on. This Is an Important topic that has received very little attention 

 In recent years; the Issue of Institutions required for International coop- 

 eration In science Is but one piece of that larger topic. 



4. What specific steps would you reccmmend be taken to strengthen existing 

 entitles such as OSTP, the Department of State, and the National Science 

 Foundation In the area of International cooperation? 



My testimony and the accompanying materials had many references to the 

 steps that I believe need to be taken to strengthen existing government 

 agencies to deal with International cooperation. I would not try to sum- 

 marize that here, but I do believe that all of those mentioned In the ques- 

 tion ~ OSTP, DOS, NSF ~ are In fact central for the U.S. Government to do 

 a better and larger Job In the area of International cooperation. 



5. Should some or all future "big science" facilities be developed on the basis 

 of International cooperation? 



I do not know whether all future "big science" facilities should be 

 developed Internationally or not, for It seems to be a matter of deciding 

 what are the appropriate criteria. Some of those criteria are scientific, 

 some are budgetary, and some are also political. By and large, we have 

 found It so difficult to cooperate well and fully In science and technology 

 with other countries that I would recommend bias In favor of cooperation, 

 especially on forefront scientific projects, as away of exploring fully the 

 real problems In doing so. It seems on the face of It to be unwise that 

 each nation must be as nationalistic even In Its science as It seems to be 

 (though appropriate competition Is clearly also healthier for- science), and 

 one would expect that faster progress could be achle>^ed In many fields If 

 there were adequate pooling of competence and resources. 



But all that can be said as a general proposition Is that a preference 

 for cooperation should color examination of specific "big science" cases. 



