1051 



U.S. GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND POLICY PROCESS 41 



The binational foundation approach has considerable appeal for a 

 limited number of countries as a result of its permanent basis that does 

 not require annual appropriations or detailed oversight. By definition, 

 it is not available for short-term foreign policy purposes though its 

 existence and successful operation can obviously contribute to rela- 

 tionships. Its independence is an asset, but by the same token, it is 

 external to U.S. departments and agencies and not likely over time to 

 stimulate international interests within those agencies, or see its mis- 

 sion as integration of U.S. scientific and technological capacity with 

 U.S. international interests. Finally, its independent status makes pro- 

 gram review or modification difficult once a direction is set. 



Though all of the alternatives have their strengths and weaknesses, 

 it seems inescapable for now that for the bulk of international science 

 and technology activities justified in part on foreign policy grounds, it 

 is the resources of the agencies themselves, whether in an "interna- 

 tional" budget or as part of regular programs, that will have to be 

 relied upon. The other choices are simply not commensurate with the 

 nature and scale of the overall objective though all mechanisms are, 

 and ought to be, used to some extent. 



This conclusion that the bulk of the resources must come from the 

 agencies, however, requires coming to grips with the difficulties asso- 

 ciated with that route. Primarily, those difficulties have to do with 

 evaluation and choice when a foreign policy motivation is involved. 

 Who is responsible for representing and/or qualified to represent the 

 foreign policy interest? How much should it weigh against scientific 

 evaluation? How can activities with different countries, different 

 fields, and different agencies be compared? What can provide the dis- 

 cipline that is required to force hard choices? How objective can for- 

 eign policy criteria be in any case? 



An argument can be made that almost any science and technology 

 interaction with a country of interestis "good." Traditionally, the De- 

 partment of State has tended to be rather uncritical in its support of 

 international science and technology activities of other agencies within 

 broad foreign policy constraints. But that is inadequate, if it ever was 

 otherwise, in a period of growing interest in more effective use of U.S. 

 science and technology capacity internationally. Even if funding con- 

 straints were not as serious as they are today, responsible use of public 

 funds and resources would require more appropriate discipline. 



In thinking about various alternative mechanisms, it is important to 

 realize that the international activities that are actually relevant to this 

 analysis are only those that fall marginally below the cutoff point on 



