745 



How CO bring abouc this change of accitude is, of course, noc easy 

 or likely to be accomplished overnight.. It will involve actions by the 

 UTiite House, OMS, OST?, and a continuing concern by an appropriate 

 interagency group, perhaps under the Federal Coordinating Corrmittee for 

 Science and Engineering Technology (FCCSET). A strategy for achieving 

 this goal deser\'es icnediate attention. 



It is also worthwhile noting not only the difficulty, but also the 

 importance, of making the "domestic" agencies of the US Governraent 

 conscious of the international framework in which R&D is actually 

 enbadded. Not only can US R&D benefit from work in other countries, 

 much more of which is now equal to US R&D in quality, but the results of 

 R&D will affect directly and indirectly people in all countries. They 

 have no voice in setting R&D objectives in the US even though they have 

 an interest in the outcome, nor can any process be Imagined in the near 

 future (at least) that could provide such participation. 



But, that only empliasizes the desirability of developing over tine 

 nuch greater sensitivitiy in the US to the international nature of the 

 R&D enterprise and to its social effects that are not limited by national 

 borders. The decision processes of the US Government in important 

 respects are suprisingly parochial. The conscious encouragement of 

 greater involvenent in the international programs and cooperation of US 

 domestically-oriented agencies in meeting their R&D objects can, in the 

 long run, serve to increase understanding of the international dimensions 

 of everything the US does in science and technology. 



Category II: International S&T activities carried out for 



mixed foreign policy and scientific purposes (excluding 

 those primarily for development objectives). 



Kev Recor~cnd3 t ions : 



1. For ongoing international programs funded from regular agency 

 budgets, an experiment is proposed in which the Department of State 

 would rank a limited number of international programs across agencies 

 according to criteria it developed, while agencies include those programs 

 within their own regular rankings. State rankings would be used to 

 adjust the final rankings within an agency for chose programs that fall 

 near the cutoff. 



2. Some international programc of cooperation, especially in their 

 initial development and implementation phase, require segregated funding. 

 Such funding should be strictly limited, and could be in the Department 

 of State or, more realistically in the NSF, in some cases the ISTC, or 



as line items in appropriate agencies. 



