380 



a sufficiently strong comcomitant commitment to the agonizingly slow process 

 of international cooperation. Progress in reorienting a U.N. agency in which 

 so many of the world's nations enjoy their ability to play the sort of active 

 role they see as being closed to them elsewhere, and in which the 

 multinational bureaucracy has become so entrenched, is bound to be difficult. 



We currently detect an unfortunate trend toward a protectionist and 

 neoisolationist attitude toward international scientific exchange. An overly 

 narrow pursuit of "science in the national interest," or worse, "science for 

 national security," is capable of doing great violence to science and its 

 longstanding tradition of internationalism by positing cooperation in science 

 as a threat to U.S. competitiveness. This is a false opposition. 

 Participation in multilateral organizations creates access for U.S. 

 scientists. Limiting that participation limits our access, isolating our 

 scientists. As the record of protectionism has shown, isolation is hardly 

 conducive to long-term competitiveness. 



We endorse the recommendation of the National Research Council that the 

 prorated portion of the U.S. contribution to UNESCO previously devoted to 

 biological, behavioral, and social science continue to be made available 

 through the National Science Foundation and the NRC to support international 

 cooperative research and training (1). 



While it appears true, as the NRC points out, that "U.S. social scientists 

 have had limited involvement in UNESCO projects" (1, p. 22) and that "the NSF 

 has not been especially active in the area of multilateral scientific 

 cooperation" (1, p. 18, emphasis ours), we believe that our country's 

 withdrawal presents us with an excellent opportunity to strengthen our 

 national performance on both counts. Upon reentry into UNESCO, such increased 

 involvement by U.S. social scientists might well help temper some of the 

 excesses of politicization to which UNESCO has been subject. 



For these reasons, we believe with the NRC that "it is extremely important 

 to ensure continuity of funding" (1, p. 17). We urge the relevant committees 

 of Congress, in cooperation with the Director of the National Science 

 Foundation, the President of the National Academy of Sciences, and the 

 Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to achieve this goal. 



We trust that the Department of State will continue to make known to the 

 Congress its commitment to international cooperation in education, science, 

 culture, and communications. 



CONSORTIUM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATIONS 

 By: David Jenness, Ph.D., Executive Director 



AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION 



By: Michael S. Pallak, Ph.D., Executive Officer, 



John J. Conger. Ph.D., APA Representative to the U.S. National Commission 



for UNESCO, and 



Wayne H. Holtiman, Ph.D., Chairman (1984), APA Committee 



on International Relations in Psychology and 

 President, International Union of Psychological Science 



