is the selection of science and technology issue areas. As the Table of Contents indicates, the chapters deal with: civilian space activities, populaton, oceans, environment, food and natural resources, nuclear energy, science and technology in NATO and the OECD, the U.N. Conference on Science and Technology for Development, and health. It would be useful to have a discussion of the rationale for selecting these particular science and technology issue-areas and for omitting such other issue-areas as communications, weather and climate, materials policy, and transborder data flows.

A second concern related to the sequence of the chapters: Some discussion of the rationale underlying the sequence (including the reason for placing the chapter on health after the chapters on science in OECD and NATO and the UNCSTD) would be helpful.

A third concern is that the Chapter titles tend to give a misleading impression that only two multilateral organization and one U.N.sponsored activity-NATO, OECD, and the U.N. Conference on Science and Technology for Development—are going to be considered. However, a reading of the introduction and summary as well as the chapters on particular issue areas (Chapters 1-6 and 9) indicates that there are many other multilateral (United Nations and non-UN) organizations whose activities form an important part of the discussion of particular science-technology-based issues, e.g. space, food and natural resources, environment. In this respect, it might be useful for the Department to consider the possibility, in preparing its 1981 Report on the subject, to present a chapter on Science and Technology in which various activities of multilateral agencies are referred to, in which the actvities of the OECD, NATO, and the Intergovernmental Committee on Science and Technology are discussed, as are the relevant scientific and technical bilateral agreements are considered.

Apart from these concerns for the overall organization and presentation of the material in the Report, we have some concern about the uniformity of the format of the presentation of material in each chapter. Section 503 (b) calls for specific discussion of multilateral and bilateral science and technology issues, their foreign policy implications and benefits, funding, personnel and training requirements. We commend in particular the format in the Chapter on the Environment because it provides most of the essential information requested by the Section. A common framework for dealing with each of the sciencetechnology issue-areas would enhance the Department of State's identification of foreign policy accomplishments as well as initiatives that the United States could develop in these various and complicated scientific and technologically-related issue-areas. In turn, such a framework could facilitate the preparation of recommendations that, according to section 503 (b) Title V, are to be included in the Report to the Congress.

B. Attention to Foreign Policy Implications and Benefits

Section 503 (b) of Title V requires that the Report include, inter alia, "recommendations with respect to... the continuation of existing bilateral and multilateral activities and agreements primarily

involving science and technology, including . . . an analysis of the foreign policy implications and the scientific and technological benefits of such activities or agreements for the United States and other parties."

While we commend the Department for its considerable effort to gather and organize such diverse and complex material, the discussion of foreign policy implications is uneven throughout the chapters. Some chapters include a discussion of "foreign policy implications" and "benefits" of bilateral and multilateral activities. Others refer to, but do not discuss "foreign policy implications" and "benefits." Still other chapters omit discussion of these.

It may be useful to recall the intent of this section articulated by Congressman Fascell on the House floor:

Title V is intended to insure that the State Department is informed and consulted about international scientific and technological activities with overall U.S. foreign policy objectives. State must be able to carry out four functions: First, State must be able to carry out its statutory responsibilities for reporting international agreements to the Congress.

Second, State should be able to advise other agencies with respect to the international implications of their scientific and technological activities. Third, State should provide information to other agencies on foreign scientific and technological developments that relate to their programs. Fourth, State should develop diplomatic initiatives based on U.S. Government science and technology programs.10

It is not clear whether the lack of a uniform format for discussing the various issue-areas, differing interpretations of legislative intent, or confidentiality requirements led to the unevenness of the discussion of foreign policy implications and benefits. This subject requires additional consultation between the Department and the relevant congressional committees.

C. Plans for Future Evaluation

Section 503(b) of Title V requires the Report by the President to discuss plans for future evaluation of U.S. bilateral and multilateral science and technology activities and their foreign policy implications and benefits.

Based on the 1979 Reports by the Department of State to the Congress called for by Section 504 of Title V, we recognize that the Department and its Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs has aimed to develop and support a competent policy assessment staff. We are also confident that this policy assessment effort can be applied to evaluating U.S. bilateral and multilateral activities in science and technology, including their foreign policy implications and benefits.

However, the 1980 Report only briefly mentions plans for future evaluation in some of the dozen chapters. The use of a uniform format in which plans for future evaluation would be specifically addressed may facilitate discussion of this important subject in subsequent reports.

10 Fascell, Dante B. Science, Technology and American Diplomacy. Remarks in the House. Congressional Record (Daily edition), v. 124, June 14, 1978: H5588.

D. Personnel and Training

Section 503 (b) (1) requires the report to include recommendations dealing with:

personnel requirements, and standards and training for service of officers and employees of the United States Government, with respect to assignments in any Federal agency which involve foreign relations and science or technology. The Report states that the Department of State, in cooperation with the Office of Personnel Management, undertook a survey of Federal agencies in the fall of 1979 to develop a database to make such recommendations. Results of the survey are presented in a Table indicating those agencies which have international offices, station personnel abroad, train foreign national, or engage in exchange programs. The discussion of personnel requirements is useful. However, it would be strengthened in future reports by including information on such categories as the number of overseas science attaches (fisheries, mineral, and science attaches in U.S. Embassies abroad); the number of foreign nationals trained by the agency and the number of scientific and/or technical exchanges supported by that agency.

The Report makes several general recommendations for improving training and personnel recruitment in the international science and technology area, such as:

Mission agencies should make better use of the science and technology training resources of the Foreign Service Institute;

Many new technological issues need to be added to the curriculum of the Foreign Service Institute;

Global aspects of energy supply and technology need particular attention in training curricula for appropriate mission agency personnel;

A national goal is the establishment of a cadre of knowledgeable specialists in international science and technology policy; and

Use should be made of the Committee on International Science, Engineering, and Technology to monitor personnel exchanges between mission agencies to help develop the cadre of knowledgeable specialists in international science and technology policy. It would be useful for future reports to discuss the extent to which the Department has been able to follow through in implementing these recommendations as well as to project future needs in training and personnel recruitment.

E. Funding for U.S. International Scientific and Technological Activities

Section 503(b)(2)(B) requires the President to provide the Congress with "... recommendations with respect to... the continuation of existing bilateral and multilateral activities and agreements primarily involving science and technology, including... the adequacy of the funding for and administration of such activities and agreements."

The highly important subject of "funding" is dealt with in Chapter 12. This chapter provides a brief survey of existing funding procedures and identifies agencies and their general mandate for funding. It

goes on to note that significant outstanding issues include determining whether there are foreign policy gaps that are attributable to funding arrangements.

The chapter indicates that international science and technology activities of the United States appear to be funded from four sources: mission agency programs budgets for domestic activities; development assistance program budget funding; bilateral science and technology agreements (Department of State); and reimbursable services to foreign countries. Foreign projects compete with U.S. domestic activities. Consultations between the Department of State and U.S. agencies with overseas mission are on the increase. A matrix analysis lists 11 U.S. agencies with overseas missions in terms of five categories of international scientific and technological activities (under the headings of "Legislative Mandates for International Scientific and Technological Activities"), but does not indicate either the scope, magnitude, or composition of activities within the five categories: domestic missions, international science and technology cooperation, global problems, development, and foreign policy.

This rather cursory discussion could have been strengthened by including information on such relevant related subjects as:

How much does the State Department spend to meet its science and technology related foreign policy activities?

In aggregated terms, how much did the Government allocate for foreign policy related science and technology activities in the last few years? What is planned for the future?

What areas, if any, have suffered as a result of funding inadequacies?

What is the importance of foreign currency support programs? How long can foreign currency support programs be expected to last?

Just how does the Administration's strategy for inflation control, affect funding for international science and technology activities?

A discussion of these matters in general and with respect to each of the issue-areas dealt with in the Report would provide a firmer basis for making recommendations to the Congress.

о