24 

 participated in a seminar. Sunday they rested before catching a return 

 flight that permitted them to teach class on Monday morning. A few weeks 

 earlier the research staff at one university laboratory flew to Caracas on 

 Thursday night to undertake a full day of conferences with their Venezuelan 

 associates on Friday. That night they enjoyed each others company socially, 

 and by noon the next day the U.S. travelers were at home working in their 

 yards. Travel time will be halved again by the end of the decade, and there 

 will be equivalent improvement in communications possibilities. Research 

 associates at the Massachusetts Institute of Tecnnology and Buenos Aires have 

 already linked computers at the two locations by means of teletype and short 

 wave radio. Within a year, a permanent hook-up will be possible via communi- 

 cations satellite. It is already possible to effect continuing research 

 collaboration with foreign associates on a commuting basis and, looked at 

 closely, this may be the more economic way to do so. 



A second archaic perception holds that there is no substitute for 

 foreign residence, that language facility and cultural sensitivity are pre- 

 requisite to effective service at a foreign location. This value is forwarded 

 most vigorously by those who earlier traded foreign exposure for domestic 

 professional centrality, and who have not recognized the changes that time 

 has wrought. While no longer valid, it still accounts for a proportion of 

 the casualties among the busy professionals who are not about to invest 

 important time at mid-career acquiring language ability and political and 

 cultural sensitivity. The fact is that the professionals with whom they will 

 be dealing abroad speak English and prefer to speak English in the research 

 context. Cultural sensitivity is also a two-edged sword and certainly not 

 something to be acquired in a vacuum. The very cultural differences that the 



