1032 



U.S. PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL 5&T COOPERATION 19 



agreements is employed by the United States as a direct instrument of 

 diplomacy. Examples abound of the use of science and technology as 

 positive or negative reinforcement for the policies of another nation. 

 What is new about this situation is the increasing frequency with 

 which the realm of science has come to be viewed as a fundamental 

 component of U.S. foreign policy. This may be explained, in part, by 

 the fact that access to frontier S&T is greatly desired worldwide. 

 Greater use of S&T as instruments of foreign policy may also be un- 

 derstood, however, to reflect the simple fact that there are often con- 

 straints on other traditional sources of foreign policy leverage (e.g., 

 capital, food, or military assistance). 



This emerging pattern of increased use of S&T as elements of for- 

 eign policy raises two important and interrelated questions: (1) are 

 S&T effective as instruments of policy?, and (2) is involvement in the 

 political arena good for the health of science and technology? Clearly, 

 as a symbolic action, the development of a new cooperative initiative 

 is highly effective for public relations purposes. Witness, for example, 

 the high degree of publicity that surrounded the United States- 

 People's Republic of China S&T agreement during the Carter years. 

 But have such arrangements succeeded in influencing the foreign (or 

 domestic) policies of other nations? While there is little doubt that 

 S&T agreements have helped on some occasions to move relations 

 onto a more positive basis, and on others to signal U.S. displeasure 

 regarding certain behavior, there would appear to be little conclusive 

 evidence that the signing or termination of an agreement has been 

 very influential in persuading another nation to pursue or desist from 

 a particular policy position. 



With regard to the health of S&T, we have already made note of the 

 fact that cooperative S&T projects are sometimes designed more ac- 

 cording to the availability of funding and political support than on the 

 basis of scientific priority. Mention also has been made of the growing 

 preoccupation with national security and proprietary considerations, 

 resulting in some efforts to "close down" international scientific com- 

 munications. But, besides the problem of maintaining free and open 

 channels of communication among scientists, there is also the problem 

 of the apparent mismatch between the requirements of diplomacy and 

 the process of scientific inquiry. Sound cooperative projects do not 

 always materialize at politically opportune moments. Moreover, be- 

 cause the pace of scientific research must, of necessity, be slow and 

 methodical, results cannot always be provided within a short-term 

 time frame. In fact, high-quality S&T cooperation frequently requires 

 sustained multiyear funding in order to achieve anticipated outcomes. 



