323 



Should federal science funding include fhe aim of keeping the U.S. first In 

 every field of science, and if so, will International cooperation help us to 

 achieve ttils aim? 



I personally -tti I nk It is foolish for the U.S. to attempt to be first In 

 every field of science, and I also fti I nk It Is not an achievable objective 

 any longer. It is clearly Important that we be strong in science, and I 

 would argue ftiat It is also important and valuable for us to be, in general, 

 the strongest scientific power. But that does not mean that we must be 

 first In very science, even if we could be, and in fact the effort to try to 

 be first In everyftiing would undoubtedly be so large as to make It 

 impossible of achievement. 



There are, however, fields of science in which it Is Important for us 

 to maintain a lead. I doubt if we could all agree on which ftose are, but I 

 do believe ftiere Is an argument to be made for maintaining not just excel- 

 lence but leadership in those fields that In our best Judgment are likely to 

 be the most Important for future economic, security, welfare, and Intellec- 

 tual benefits. 



International cooperation can. In fact, help to achieve fhls aim, es- 

 pecially In those areas where we have close competitors. Cooperation Is an 

 Important and useful technique for maintaining close involvement and know- 

 ledge of work in progress, of generating new ideas, and of multiplying pure- 

 ly domestic efforts. It Is a complement to cooperation, not an alternative. 



What is the appropriate level of funding or national research efforts versus 

 international efforts? How should these levels be determined? What priori- 

 tization scheme should be used? 



It would not be possible to answer In fhe abstract what the appropriate 

 level of funding for national vs. International efforts should be. Nor how 

 these levels should be determined. At the moment, the level of funding for 

 International activities is so far below funding for purely national acti- 

 vities fhat It seems to me not an Issue to be posed In that way. 



More appropriately, the questions should simply be asked how substan- 

 tial numbers of International projects can be developed to fhe point of even 

 being considered In the policy process, how they can be sensibly evaluated, 

 and how some kind of ranking for fhem can be achieved to allow policy choi- 

 ces. I deal with some aspects of this question In my testimony, though 

 there I was primarily concerned with fhose projects that are not purely sci- 

 entific in payoff, but have mixed scientific and political motivations. 



For those projects of competitive high quality science. It seems that 

 we will have to rely primarily on existing scientific assessment mechan I sms, 

 as Inadequate as they may be. The problem is in part fhe same one faced in 

 attempting to make judgments across disciplines. The comparative judgment 

 of international projects vs. purely domestic ones have to rely on rather 

 subjective criteria, very much more subjective fhan fhe evaluation of the 

 quality of fhe science Itself. 



W/ guess Is fhat this question will ultimately be answered only under 

 fhe duress of domestic budgetary limitations fhat force relevant communities 

 to look abroad for ways of achieving their objectives at lower domestic 

 costs. It Is unfortunate but only too true fhat even when dealing with 

 science, the policy decisions cannot be made on "scientific, rational" 

 grounds but are subject to the same judgments, pressures, and personal 

 motivations as are ofher nonquanti tative, nonsclenti f Ic subjects. 



