371 



Intergovernmental science programs (as distinguished from U.S. government 

 programs that support some science activities in other countries) must involve 

 the Department of State to some degree. In addition, they will, or at any 

 rate they should , involve other agencies as appropriate. The form of the 

 resulting interagency cooperation appears to me to be one of the key Issues in 

 the coordination and management of international cooperative research. This 

 question has been considered recently by the National Science Board 

 ("Statement on Science in the International Setting," September 16-17, 1982), 

 the Board's Committee on International Science ("Roles and Responsibilities of 

 the National Science Foundation for Aspects of International Cooperation 

 Related to the Health of American Science," May 11, 1984), the National 

 Research Council ("UNESCO Science Programs: Impacts of U.S. Withdrawal and 

 Suggestions for Alternative Interim Arrangements," Fall 1984), and the 

 National Science Foundation's Task Force on NSF International Strategy and 

 Programs ("International Science and Engineering: The Need for Reassessment," 

 March 20, 1985). The recommendations contained in these three reports are in 

 significant respects very similar, a phenomenon that should not be disdained 

 as merely a chance event. All of the reports urge a more vigorous 

 international role for NSF, and all urge better interagency coordination. In 

 addition, many commentators on international science favor a redefinition of 

 the role of the Department of State, although attitudes on this subject tend 

 to become muted when expressed in report language. 



The Department of State's handling of UNESCO, and of alternative funding 

 for multilateral science after the withdrawal, has occasioned much criticism, 

 including some very pointed comments by the House Subcommittee on 

 International Operations in Its report on the FY 86 State Authorization Bill. 

 The sad fact is that despite innumerable assurances In hearings and public 

 appearances, the department failed to devise and promote within the 

 administration an effective plan for alternative arrangements for U.S. science, 

 activities heretofore supported by UNESCO. (See our statement before the 

 Subcommittee on International Operations, attached.) This falling was perhaps' 

 not altogether surprising after several years of systematic reductions in the 

 department's support for the legislatively mandated U.S. National Commission 

 for UNESCO. (The department has even failed — or refused — to spend funds < 

 authorized by the Congress for the commission in past years, funds which were 

 again authorized this year.) At present, nearly 100 commissioners appointed • 

 by the Secretary of State and representing NGOs with a combined membership in 

 the hundreds of thousands are in limbo. The impasse between the Congress and 

 the Department of State must be broken so that the commission can resume Its 

 statutory role of advising the U.S. government on matters pertaining to UNESCO. 



FY 86 funding for the International Council of Scientific Unions provides 

 an interesting case study of the politics of International science. Prior to 

 withdrawal, the United States contributed through UNESCO to ICSU (and other 

 international conventions and scientific organizations such as the 

 Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, the International Geological 

 Correlation Program, the International Hydrological Program, the Man and the 

 Biosphere Program, and the International Brain Research Organization). At the 

 same time, support of U.S. activities within ICSU and its constituent unions 



