1050 



40 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COOPERATION 



agencies has several serious barriers, though it appears attractive in 

 the abstract as a way of forcing projects to compete within a defined 

 budget. One barrier is simply the political reality of expecting the De- 

 partment of State to be able to obtain funds of any scale for this pur- 

 pose (opposition would be substantial in both the executive branch 

 and the Congress). Another is the separation of the source of funds 

 from the scientific and technological resources, coupled with the De- 

 partment of State's inherent difficulty in identifying adequately the 

 opportunities in science and technology across the government and in 

 developing internal competence in science and technology. In addi- 

 tion, many activities should not be discrete separate programs, but 

 part of larger efforts. If most international funds had to come from the 

 Department of State, the bureaucratic burden for allocation and im- 

 plementation would be enormous and probably intolerable. More- 

 over, this route is not likely to develop the desired commitment and 

 competence in the agencies. 



Establishment of dedicated funds in another agency, such as the 

 NSF, has some of the same problems as a State Department fund, ex- 

 cept that it has proven more feasible to appropriate money to the NSF 

 for international programs, and NSF's internal competence in science 

 and technology could make it easier to work with the technical pro- 

 grams of other agencies. As is evident from past use of NSF in this 

 way, however, an agency finds it difficult to accommodate substantial 

 funds that, as a matter of course, are only to be justified and spent by 

 others. There has always been difficulty even in NSF funding of Na- 

 tional Academy of Sciences international programs over which NSF 

 has had little detailed control. It also puts NSF in the middle between 

 domestic and international agencies with little stake of its own. 



A separate agency created expressly for international cooperation 

 in science and technology would be a most interesting innovation, but 

 has little political reality in the near future. Though it would have 

 some of the same problems enumerated above, its dedicated mission 

 would minimize them. Moreover, it would have the capability of 

 overseeing a "cross-agency" budget that would make possible respon- 

 sible comparison of projects and budget management. And, it would 

 provide a focused instrument for international cooperation now lack- 

 ing in the U.S. government. Such an agency was proposed (Institute 

 for Scientific and Technological Cooperation, or ISTC) as part of a 

 foreign aid reorganization in the last administration and was autho- 

 rized but not funded by the Congress. It is unlikely to reappear again 

 for some time. 



