372 



was provided to the National Academy of Sciences through grants from the 

 National Science Foundation. Earlier this year, the Office of Management and 

 Budget approved compensatory funds for ICSU to make up for the U.S. withdrawal 

 from UNESCO (these funds were described In AID's budget presentation as being 

 "essential and Important to U.S. Interests"), while simultaneously halving the 

 line In the NSF budget where the funds for U.S. ICSU activities were 

 contained. Although NSF director Erich Bloch has since committed himself to 

 level funding for ICSU, it appears that the funds will be found in various NSF 

 program accounts, lending uncertainty to the matter of future funding. 



This question of the difficulty of correctly quantifying support for 

 international scientific work is another Important matter for consideration by 

 the Task Force. As pointed out earlier, not all international science is 

 Intergovernmental science. The relatively small amount of the international 

 line-items at NSF does not reflect the fact that a good portion of the work 

 supported by the program areas has some international content (the Task Force 

 on NSF's International Strategy and Programs estimated this at 20%). 

 Universities, corporations, foundations, and professional scientific 

 associations also carry on significant International scientific activity. In 

 the case of the associations, and perhaps of some of the other entities as 

 well, the extent of the International contribution may not be accurately 

 reflected in program budgets. For example, APA's Psychological Abstracts is 

 an Important and unique documentary resource in the world of psychology; 

 however, it is not budgeted as an "International program." 



Thus it will certainly be difficult to determine how much we spend on 

 international science. But estimating the benefits we reap Is even more 

 difficult. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of international science, or the 

 return on Investments in this field, presents difficult problems not simply of 

 quantification, but of conceptualization. The danger is that too restrictive 

 a conception of benefit may lead to the elimination of support for activities 

 of great long-term promise. Although the Task Force's receptlveness to the 

 use of quantitative methods in policy analysis is commendable, and the level 

 of talent at the GAG and CRS is high, we would urge the greatest care and 

 deliberation in the design of studies intended to measure the costs and 

 benefits of international science. Such care is needed not only because 

 science is a complex, highly ramified and decentralized endeavor, but also 

 because it is an organic part of our society and the world community. 

 Analyses that take into account only easily quantifiable costs and benefits 

 will certainly miss certain systemic facts that are no less real for being 

 difficult to measure. A simple example is the diplomatic goodwill and 

 understanding generated by the exchange of scientists at all levels, on the 

 occasion of international meetings or for longer stays in residence at a 

 university of research center. 



International priorities for the social and behavioral sciences 



The social and behavioral sciences have a great deal to gain by increasing 

 their participation in existing international science mechanisms and by 

 assisting in the creation of additional such mechanisms. But these 



