1141 



GRADUATE STUDENT/ POSTDOCTORAL INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE 213 



There should be a U.S. effort to assist foreign institutions on a reciprocal basis— 

 not to place researchers in the U.S. (this is still possible since the links established 

 for this in the forties and fifties continue to work successfully)— but to get post- 

 doctoral fellowships and travel grants for the outgoing Americans and postdoc- 

 toral foreigners. U.S. Foundation assistance would be warmly welcomed.^-' 



Among the conclusions of the workshop, three, in particular, are 

 relevant to providing convincing arguments for encouraging in- 

 creased international mobility of the young researcher: 



International mobility of scientists and engineers is important to the excellence of 

 the scientific enterprise, the health of technologically-based industries, and the 

 intellectual and professional growth of the individual. 



For individuals, international mobility constitutes a major vehicle for the devel- 

 opment of inventive and innovative ability. Such experience is particularly valu- 

 able early in a professional career— for it is at this stage of intellectual and profes- 

 sional growth when one is especially responsive to new ideas and opportunities. 

 At later career stages international mobility may allow a mature investigator to 

 renew his innovative capabilities. 



International mobility is a valuable component in the development and renewal 

 of research systems. The mutual confidence that is built between host and guest 

 leads to long-term cooperation, understanding of different concepts and tech- 

 niques, and adaption of new technologies more quickly and accurately than is 

 possible when working in isolation.^'* 



The key point here is national "isolation"— a condition inimical to 

 scientists and the dynamism of the research system. We are proud of 

 our mobility within and among national institutions. For reasons 

 noted above, we found international interactions of critical impor- 

 tance during the first half of this century. Why not now? And to 

 whom should we pose this question? 



Recent policy statements portray a curious perspective on the posi- 

 tion of the United States in the world research system on the part of 

 important decision makers. The National Science Board document re- 

 ferred to earlier, entitled "Statement on Science in the International 

 Setting," introduces a first idea that "American scientists no longer 



lead in every field of science "^^ Similarly, the President's Science 



Adviser in the President's "Annual Science and Technology Report to 

 the Congress" for 1981 states that "one of the realities of the 1980s is 

 that whereas the United States retains international preeminence in 

 many areas across the spectrum of science and technology, we no 

 longer hold undisputed dominance in virtually all fields. "^^ 



