Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XXV, Organization of Foreign Policy; Information Policy; United Nations; Scientific Matters

348. Memorandum From the President’s Special Assistant for Science and Technology (Wiesner) to Secretary of State Rusk¹

Washington, March 16, 1962.

The President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC), as I know you are aware, has been involved frequently in various aspects of the interaction between foreign relations and science and technology, and has always been interested in the effectiveness with which technical factors are included in the formulation and execution of foreign policy.

You recently mentioned your concern regarding the scientific activities in the Department of State, and I told you of the study being conducted by our International Science Panel chaired by Dr. Bronk.² We have focussed in some detail on the representation of science and technology within the Department on policy matters and on the needs, as we see them, for increasing State Department guidance of the growing overseas scientific and technical programs of the Government as a whole.

During the course of this study, we have held discussions with many representatives of the Department, and have now transmitted informally, through Mr. Alexis Johnson, our conclusions and recommendations. I am very pleased at this time to forward to you for your consideration the formal report we have prepared.

I hope you will find this useful to you. We attach great importance to the manner in which science and technology are integrated into the work of the Department, and thus can be enabled to serve effectively our national and foreign policy objectives. I would be pleased to discuss this with you at your convenience.

JB Wiesner

Attachment

Washington, February 27, 1962.

INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE PANEL

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

The relations between nations, and hence the formulation and execution of foreign policy, are today increasingly affected by scientific and technical considerations that in the past were only of peripheral interest to the statesman and diplomat. Many foreign policy issues require sophisticated technical analysis and understanding of the political implications of the technical facts before policy can be effectively determined or carried out. In some areas, the international operations of the Government or the private community in science and technology are now on a scale such that they have an important impact on our relations with others. And science and its technological fruits also offer opportunities for international initiatives that can contribute in significant ways to our national objectives.

With this in mind, this Panel of the President’s Science Advisory Committee considered the way these relationships are at present represented in the foreign policy organs of the United States Government and what further steps may be desirable. In the discussion that follows, we have outlined in some detail the needs as we see them, and the responsibilities we believe should fall to a strengthened and expanded science office in the Department of State.

Discussion

In 1950, an important study of the relation of science to international relations was carried out for the Secretary of State.³ The study outlined the many interactions between science and the formation and execution of foreign policy, and presented the need for a better mechanism within the Department to reflect this relationship. As a result, a Science Adviser to the Department of State was named, and a series of Science Attaches were appointed at major overseas posts.

The new posts were allowed to lapse in the mid-50s until the shock and surprise of the launching of an artificial earth satellite by the Soviet Union, with its subsequent repercussions, indicated once again that better technical inputs into policy formulation and planning were required. Accordingly, the post of Science Adviser was filled again, this time reporting directly to the Secretary of State; the attache program was renewed at the same time.

Since 1958, the scope and involvement of the Science Adviser and his Attaches have steadily grown and broadened. But what is most striking to this Panel is the development since the original report of 1950 of a steadily more pervasive and significant relationship between science and foreign affairs, across a broad spectrum of activities and foreign policy concerns.

Probably the most noticeable, though not necessarily the most important, change has been the growing volume of international activities of scientists and engineers, and of international programs of a technical nature of the Federal Government:

• —U.S. agencies now sponsor applied and fundamental research by foreign scientists in foreign countries amounting to more than $60 million per year;
• —many of our domestic programs are carried out partly in an international environment: notably the space program, the oceanographic program, the Antarctic program, Atoms-for-Peace, and significant parts of others, such as research programs in the atmospheric sciences, medical sciences, agriculture, and geophysics;
• —special international cooperative programs have arisen such as the IGY and cooperative space programs; many more are planned or proposed; for example, the Indian Ocean Oceanographic Expedition, an international hydrology program, the UN atmospheric sciences program, the US/Japanese scientific cooperation committee;
• —almost all international organizations now have science programs of one kind or another while some organizations—for example, the IAEA—are largely technical in nature; the U.S. contributions to the technical portions of the budgets are now in the neighborhood of $25–30 million per year;
• —many Federal agencies conduct special programs in the United States for the technical training of foreign nationals, especially the AEC, NASA, the Department of HEW, and the Department of State, while others devote substantial resources to the collection and dissemination of technical information abroad;
• —many agencies have their own programs to foster the exchange of scientists, and several provide technical missions to assist technical operations in other countries;
• —and, of course, the U.S. foreign aid program has a large technical and scientific component. This is only a partial list, and one for which it is difficult to attach a meaningful dollar tag.

Moreover, most of the activities listed are growing, some very rapidly. Clearly, direct scientific and technical activities overseas today command budgets on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, and programs with important international implications in their operation and of a highly technical nature, are many times that size. But that, too, is misleading for the activities that may be in many ways the most significant for foreign policy may, in fact, cost very little.

The scientific community itself has greatly expanded its own international activities, with a growing number of international associations, international conferences and travel and visits to all parts of the world. These international contacts are a necessary part of science today and are required for the health and vitality of American science. The Department of State has a direct role, and not always a passive one, in safeguarding and assisting the scientific community in its international activities.

It seems to us that these extensive and intensive scientific and technical relations among governments and scientists have made it necessary to think in terms of a “foreign policy for science”, to help make these relations fruitful for U.S. international and domestic interests by providing guidance and assistance, by defining political objectives, and by monitoring programs and their international effects. This is not always being achieved today primarily, in our judgment, because there has not been sufficient recognition of the breadth of these activities, of the opportunities for U.S. objectives they provide, and of the obligations they demand.

There are other quite different aspects of this relationship between science and foreign policy as well. For example, we depend on American scientific and technical achievement more than ever before for the realization of foreign policy objectives. Obviously this is so for military strength. But more directly, the Atoms-for-Peace program, U.S. initiatives on outer space in the UN, the foreign aid program, international health programs, exchange programs with iron-curtain countries, information efforts to project a U.S. “image”, and many others all rely on using the excellence of American science as a basis for international operations where the political objectives are dominant. The State Department has the obvious need to utilize these achievements effectively and properly, and to take advantage of the many additional opportunities as they arise.

There is, in addition to these “overt” relations between foreign policy and science, the much more subtle and difficult, but perhaps more significant, implicit technical content of many of the areas in which policy must be developed. Obviously, our basic relations with other nations are determined in part by the technical capabilities of our military weapons, and by the weapons now in the development or research stage. Our disarmament policy, and studies necessary to develop that policy, have large technical components. The same is true of foreign aid efforts in which the prospects for economic development of Pakistan may depend on understanding and ameliorating the waterlogging problem, or in which the creation of a viable economic base for a one-crop nation may depend on the ability to locate new mineral resources or to develop new crop strains for special environments. Similar comments may be made about other policy areas, many of which simply cannot be adequately considered without understanding the often very intimate relationship between the technical and political factors.

A special case of the implicit technical content of foreign policy issues is the need to plan ahead in the development of policy to prepare for the changes being wrought by an exploding technological age. It is trite to say that the revolutions in communications, transportation, health, and a host of other fields have changed the relations among nations. How are the changes of tomorrow and of the day after going to alter further our international environment, and what should we be doing now to prepare for them? The issues can be as large as the effects of the development of simple, inexpensive means for any nation to produce atomic weapons, to the effect on a one-export nation of the development of an inexpensive synthetic substitute for its single export. The Department of State has the need to anticipate these developments, understand their likely effects, and lay the groundwork for the measures necessary to cope with them.

Conclusions

With this view of the inextricable and intense linking of science with foreign policy today, the Panel has come to the conclusion that it is time to plan for another step in the organization for science in the State Department. Working from outside the Department, we are obviously not familiar with the subtleties of Departmental organization and hence cannot recommend in detail a specific structure. However, we believe we can lay out the framework that is required based on our view of the needs and our knowledge of present organization and procedures.

It seems to us that it is necessary to have in one office in the Department the competence and the staff support to be aware of the breadth of activities and interests discussed above, and the responsibility, working with other desks in the Department and with other Federal agencies, to develop specific policy guidance. Where the issues are predominantly technical or scientific, we would expect the office to have primary responsibility; where the technical or scientific component is subsidiary, we would expect the office to play a secondary role, though it should be mandatory that they be consulted.

In effect, we are suggesting that the science office have staff responsibility in the formulation of general policy and primary or line responsibility for the formulation of policy in certain defined areas. The existing office of The Science Adviser has of course been performing well a good part of this function, but with existing staff support and lack of delineation of authority, many of the important tasks we see cannot now be fully discharged. The Office of the Special Assistant to the Secretary for Space and Atomic Energy has also been performing part of this role well for its specialized areas, and we would expect that the two offices would be combined into one. In fact, one of the tasks the Science Office should perform is to give more of the kind of guidance, support, and initiative in the technical areas of health, agriculture, geophysics, etc. that is now being provided in detail for space and atomic energy.

We recognize in this recommendation that along with line responsibility goes, inevitably, responsibility for a considerable amount of detailed work, e.g., negotiating or preparing complicated technical agreements or reviewing programs of international organizations in detail. Though this may be time-consuming and require a sizable staff, it is a necessary part of the policy process, without which “policy responsibility” would be an empty phrase.

An important phase of a Science Office’s responsibility, as is the case now, is as a focus of relations between the State Department and other agencies of the Government and with the non-government scientific community on scientific matters. One of the advantages of a well-staffed office with clear responsibility will be to provide a single, authoritative voice in the Department able to give detailed guidance and support for the international scientific programs of Federal agencies. This relationship will always be a delicate one, for the State Department must not become a bottleneck to action, but at the same time must have clearly-formed policies and knowledge of foreign situations to be able to provide prompt decisions and adequate support when required. More positively, the State Department should be in the position more often than it has to date of proposing new international programs in science and technology to further U.S. foreign policy objectives, and of acting on those proposals generated by scientists throughout the country.

The relations with the private scientific community are of course of great importance; the creation of the present Office of the Science Adviser has proven to be very significant in helping to understand the effect of foreign policy decisions on science in the United States, and in providing a link for the ideas and concerns of the scientific community to be brought to the attention of the Department of State. As the international activities and interests of scientists grow, so too does the need to increase the contacts between them and the Department. The opportunities are great, for example, in more effectively tapping the scientific community to provide a manpower resource for our mushrooming overseas needs. The interest of the scientists is there, but we have not yet learned how to make effective use of it.

The Science Office can also provide, through ad hoc panels or consultants, more extensive technical advice to the Department on the specific technical-political issues it faces. This device has been relatively little used in the past and could be considerably expanded.

We would note as a final point that for an expanded science office to carry out its functions adequately, also implies a strengthened and enlarged Science Attache program in the field. Only in that way could the office obtain the detailed information about situations in other countries, and the necessary evaluations to enable wise formulation of policy.

Detailed Functions

An expanded science function in the Department will probably require some organizational changes, though the Panel does not feel competent to advise on the exact form within the Department. We believe the head of a science office should be designated a Principal Officer of the Department, with the rank of Assistant Secretary, but whether he should have the title of Assistant Secretary or Director of an Office of Scientific Affairs, or some other designation, must depend on other considerations. We would recommend that in time it would be advisable to establish the post by statute as a means of alerting Congress to the changing requirements of foreign policy.

To sum up the responsibilities we feel should be exercised by an office for science, we list below nine major categories of responsibility drawn from this discussion:

1. Development of a national foreign policy for science

Here we have reference to the need to define an effective role for science in the evolution and execution of foreign policy, to bring greater coherence and policy guidance into the myriad international scientific activities of Federal agencies—many of which are only superficially known in the Department now—to enlist the technical resources of Government more effectively and widely in the support of foreign policy objectives, to encourage private scientific activities when in the nation’s interest, to be aware of deficiencies as well as excesses, and to represent in the Department the relatively new awareness that the international contacts of scientists have become one of the significant interfaces between this and other nations. The relationship between the private scientific community and the foreign policy organs of Government can be yet closer and more extensive than they are today, and offer opportunities as well as responsibilities to the Department which make it necessary to have a more thoroughly developed and understood foreign policy for science.

2. Specific programs for international cooperation

This Government has a general policy that international cooperative programs carried out properly can contribute significantly to the nation’s objectives. To bring these about, the Government must usually take the lead, but each proposal takes extensive thought and preparation, scientific planning, intragovernment arrangements, tactical planning, international discussions and negotiations, and finally monitoring and guidance during the operations. Relatively few such programs have emerged because of the time and effort each takes. But many additional proposals and ideas exist that require an interested and well-staffed office in the State Department to reach fruition.

3. UN and Other International Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations

Almost all of the UN Specialized Agencies have scientific or technical programs of one kind or another; some in fact such as WHO and WMO are largely technical in nature. The science office should provide major inputs into the determination of U.S. policy towards all of these technical programs, and is the logical point at which to tie in the private scientific community and the technical resources of the other agencies of government.

4. Scientific Exchange and Fellowship Programs

These areas of State Department interest necessarily involve the private scientific and academic community very heavily, and require a knowledgeable, and accepted, point of contact in the Department to work between the non-Governmental community and the Department. Only with an effective relationship can the programs serve U.S. policy well; it is instructive to note the reduction in difficulties and misunderstandings during the last few years since the appointment of the Science Adviser. These programs are sure to be increased in the future, and good advice and initiative on the scientific side will be crucial.

5. Foreign Aid

The foreign aid program will require particularly intensive effort in the future to increase the quality and quantity of its scientific programs, to ensure the technical quality of its work, and to embark on a meaningful research program. This cannot be the job of the State Department’s science officer; the AID must have its own scientific and technical personnel. But the science officer in State may in fact be of invaluable assistance in helping AID mount its own efforts (particularly needed now) in utilizing the Science Attaches in those countries receiving U.S. assistance to help the USOMs, and, most important, in integrating the overseas science efforts of other Federal agencies to assist in the development objectives.

6. Scientific Image of the United States

As with the foreign aid program, the Information Agency requires greater scientific input in their activities. They, too, need their own scientific personnel, but the ability to call on a well-staffed office also within the State Department for help overseas, for contacts with the scientific community, for advice about U.S. Government activities, and for independent evaluation of their activities, would be of great use.

7. Anticipated Technical Developments

The science officer of State, through his general familiarity and contacts with the technical communities, is the most logical one to become aware of the trends of technical development and their implications for international relations and foreign policy. We can imagine a representative of the office meeting with the Policy Planning Staff regularly, but, in addition, what is needed is an awareness in affected areas of the Department of developments likely to be of importance in their countries or regions.

8. Monitoring and information through Science Attaches

To carry out all of these functions adequately and to monitor and guide government programs will require better information on the situation in each country, and more day-to-day contact with overseas U.S. activities. The Science Attache program must provide much of this, and to do so it will have to be strengthened. In bringing this about, we should not overlook the reservoir of scientific talent from other U.S. agencies that could be available for this purpose to the benefit of both the State Department and the agencies. In addition, agency personnel already stationed abroad could be used to assist the State Department in this function. We would also note that a strengthened Attache program would require additional funds for travel, and particularly for regular meetings in Washington.

9. Representation in General Policy Formulation

Perhaps the single most important of all the functions a science officer can perform we have left for the last of those we will list here. We have done this because we believe that the usefulness of the man in the science post to the Secretary and to the Department on the formulation of general foreign policy matters depends much more on the man and his relation to the Secretary than on his title or size of office.

We are referring under this heading to the part such a science officer would or could play in discussions on political-military policy matters in, let us say, the implications of new weapons or of a domestic shelter program, and to his potential role in discussions of nuclear test cut-off or atmospheric testing, or to his role in disarmament policy. Obviously, the individual’s own background and interest, his relationship with the Secretary, and his usefulness in such discussions will determine in large part the extent of his participation. But it is also worth noting that with the many other responsibilities we see for this post, unless there is adequate staff it would not be possible for the incumbent to maintain the contact and knowledge necessary to be useful in this role.

We have presented our concept, as seen from outside the Department, of a strengthened and expanded science section of the Department of State, and have suggested that the science officer be designated a Principal Officer of the Department as a recognition of his extensive responsibilities in policy formulation and execution. Such an office to perform well the functions we have outlined would, we believe, have additional staff requirements in Washington and in the field; some of the staff, both at home and overseas, should, in our view, be provided from other Federal agencies for the advantage of both the Department of State and those agencies.

It is our judgment that this proposal is a logical recognition of the changing character of international relations, and of the need for organizational changes within the Department to keep up to those changes.

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files, 1960–63, 110.10/3–1662. Official Use Only.
2. Dr. Detlev W. Bronk, President of the National Academy of Sciences.
3. Science and Foreign Relations, a report by Lloyd Berkner, Special Consultant to the Secretary of State, Department of State Publication 3860, General Foreign Policy Series 30, May 1950. [Footnote in the source text.]