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

355. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, November 8, 1963.

SUBJECT

• Meeting between SCI and NSF, November 8, 1963

PARTICIPANTS

• NSF:
  • Dr. John T. Wilson
  • OST—Mr. Irwin Tobin
  • Dr. Arthur Roe
• State:
  • Dr. R. Rollefson
  • Dr. Edwin M. J. Kretzmann
  • Dr. Eugene G. Kovach
  • Col. Wm. R. Sturges, Jr.
  • Mr. August Velletri
  • Mr. Arthur E. Pardee, Jr.

Dr. Rollefson opened the meeting by saying that we wished to discuss four general items which were: (1) NSF support for OECD science activities; (2) NSF’s support of the U.S.-Japan Committee on Scientific Cooperation; (3) publication and distribution of International Science Notes and International Science Reports; and (4) NSF science representation overseas.²

Dr. Wilson spoke to the first question by saying that his recollection was that the Department of State had sent a letter to the Foundation for continuing support of OECD during FY-1962. He did not recall any formal requests for this continued support since that date. His recollection also was that NSF, in replying to the Tyler letter from State, did limit NSF’s support to FY-1962. The general recollection by State representatives was that they did not recall this limitation. Dr. Wilson believed that some formal arrangements were needed to clarify this relationship. Dr. Wilson said that in 1962 when the ICA support was withdrawn from OECD science activities in Paris, NSF proceeded to station personnel in Paris to continue these activities. He related that the Bureau of the Budget had raised with NSF the question as to why the support of such activities required the presence of representatives in Paris since such support prior to 1962 was accomplished without such representation. In the light of NSF’s budget situation for FY-1964, Dr. Wilson’s position was that NSF had no alternative but to withdraw the representation in Paris.

Dr. Rollefson stated that we had considered this possibility and that as soon as Dr. Walske had more experience in Paris that we would like to raise the possibility of his assuming this responsibility with the assistance of Dr. Scott’s replacement. This discussion led to the question of which agency should provide leadership on the question of OECD science. Dr. Wilson said that NSF was quite willing to listen to any legitimate requests for support which were within NSF’s competence and mission. However, a number of matters such as “fouling of ships’ hulls” did not fit this category. In the course of time, other agencies of government should be responsible for providing U.S. support for such matters. Dr. Rollefson suggested that the International Committee of the Federal Council might be used for channeling these responsibilities to the appropriate agency. Mr. Tobin from the White House agreed that the Committee might be a useful channel or umbrella but that it should not be considered as the only channel for carrying forward this responsibility. Leadership with responsibility should be designated outside and above the International Committee. He felt that back-stopping could change in light of each matter being considered. Col. Sturges suggested SCI be designated as leader in this matter. There was general agreement that this could be done.

Under the general question of providing funds for OECD science support, Dr. Kovach believed that the present arrangement on U.S. support often had gaps in obtaining adequate coverage. Dr. Wilson did not see where this was a problem. He believed that so long as it pertained to the work of OECD that OECD should certainly pay for it. Dr. Kovach pointed out that this had certain limitations. He said that often additional or special studies were required which did not fit this arrangement. Consequently it is often difficult to find an agency to pay for these projects. Mr. Tobin felt that the present funding structure for OECD in the Department was quite adequate and that it only required asking for sufficient funds to cover these matters. Mr. Pardee pointed out that the obtaining of agreement to request additional funds was often difficult to accomplish. There was general agreement that the present funding system was haphazard.

On the general question of the U.S.-Japan Committee, the general discussion was opened on the question of the Advisory Panels in that the present ones were being dissolved and new Panels would be appointed by the Foundation to serve for one year. Dr. Wilson brought up the fact that the Foundation was recommending to SCI that Panel Chairmen also be designated as members of the Joint Committee, and that a letter would be coming from the Foundation on this. Dr. Rollefson pointed out that this arrangement would have certain disadvantages. The various vested interests would be represented on the Committee which might cause a certain lack of flexibility in either expanding or contracting certain of the programs. Since we propose to limit the Committee to eight (8) members, if we appointed all of the Panel Chairmen there would not be room for any other members. If only certain Panel Chairmen were appointed, this would cause difficulties with those Panel Chairmen who were not appointed. It was certainly agreed that this arrangement might improve the coordination between the Panels and the work of the Committee. Dr. Wilson said that this was only a recommendation of the Foundation and they were not pushing for it.

The Foundation’s further position on the subject of Panels was that this management approach was an awkward and top-heavy arrangement and they would like to look to the day when the Panels could be dissolved. It was decided that this possibility should be discussed informally with Dr. Kaneshige through Harry Kelly. Dr. Roe said he would call Dr. Kelly to this effect.

On the third question dealing with the International Science Notes, Dr. Wilson said that they really believed that the publication of such notes, since the information came basically from State Department sources, should be published by SCI. Dr. Kretzmann disagreed saying that it was not the business of the State Department to be informing U.S. scientists about such matters. Dr. Wilson disagreed with this position saying that if you follow this rationale, the Foundation should also be publishing information sent into the Department of Agriculture by Agriculture Attaches. He reiterated that this should be done by SCI. Mr. Pardee said that he would have difficulty arguing with Dr. Wilson’s position since he had been using the statement with the Bureau of the Budget that our Attaches were the sole source of such information and that it did not flow back into this country by any other source. Dr. Kretzmann suggested that this matter be raised with State’s Bureau of Public Affairs as to whether this could be done by the Department of State. Mr. Pardee agreed to do this.

On the last question about NSF representation overseas, Mr. Pardee said that it basically referred to the situation that existed in Tokyo on the policy position taken by Dr. Oetjen. Col. Sturges went on to explain some of the internal difficulties in Tokyo in terms of philosophy of NSF representative as to his responsibility, viz-a-viz, those of the Scientific Attache but it was obvious in recent months that the situation had been much improved. Dr. Wilson said that as far as the Foundation was concerned, there is no question as to supremacy of the Scientific Attache in terms of representing U.S. science abroad. As a matter of fact, he said he at one time prepared a paper on the subject. Because of the shortness of time, it was agreed that the question would be put off to be examined in more detail at a later meeting.

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Management Staff Files: Lot 69 D 434, Miscellaneous Subject Files, Scientific Attache. No classification marking. Drafted by Pardee on November 29.
2. In June 1963 the Department of State submitted its balance-of-payments proposals to the Bureau of the Budget. These included “plans to examine all science functions presently assigned to various Federal Agencies at Embassies in Tokyo, Rio de Janeiro, Paris, and New Delhi, with the view of avoiding duplication and overstaffing, and centralizing responsibility in the Science Attache.” (Memorandum from Pardee to Lee Dashner, Chief of the Program Review Division, Office of Budget, October 29; ibid.)