1114 



168 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COOPERATION 



Adequacy of Agreements 



The creation of IPOD through a series of bilateral agreements, rather 

 than a multilateral agreement or treaty, has proven to be remarkably 

 successful. For example: 



• It has allowed for the Soviet dropout with minimal disadvantage 

 for the other partners. 



• It has allowed wording in individual Memorandums to be tailored 

 to home audiences (for improved salability) without compromising the 

 basic scientific and organizational goals. 



• It has allowed NSF to deal with an extremely diverse suite of organi- 

 zations. For comparison, the equivalent diversity within the United 

 States would require an organization to negotiate bilaterals with the Na- 

 tional Science Foundation (the analog of DFG and NERC), the National 

 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (the analog of CNEXO), the 

 U.S. Geological Survey (the analog of BGR), the National Academy of 

 Sciences (the analog of the USSR Academy), and a research institute at a 

 major university (the analog of ORI, at the University of Tokyo). 



• It has allowed NSF to deal with the vicissitudes of each country's 

 national budget cycle on a case-by-case basis. 



• And, perhaps most importantly, it has kept active scientists on 

 both sides very close to the negotiations. As a result, virtually all U.S. 

 and non-U. S. scientists perceive that IPOD works for them, rather than 

 the reverse. 



There is little doubt that NSF's job would be easier if all bilaterals were 

 identical, particularly with regard to funding cycles. The lack of such 

 uniformity seems a small price to pay for a productive program, 

 however. 



Operational and Scientific Interactions 



The Memorandums of Understanding created a legal framework for 

 IPOD, but the successful execution of the program has depended largely 

 on JOIDES. Several factors account for JOIDES's remarkable success. 



1. The basic structure is sound. The hierarchy of problem-oriented 

 panels reporting to a Planning Committee of experienced scientists who 

 make the operational decisions and who in turn report to an Executive 

 Committee of institutional heads who make policy decisions has proven 

 able to handle almost any scientific, technical, or policy problem. 



