Page images

volved, costs, duration, and other pertinent aspects of international scientific and technological activities. Information developed by an interagency study on bilateral agreements and in connection with this report will be used to provide an initial data base. Basic data is also available through Case Act reporting requirements (section 708 of Public Law 95- 426). Procedures will be developed to assure the maintenance and ready accessibility of this information which will also be required in the preparation of the annual report required by section 503(b) of the Public Law 95-426.

2. State will examine its current critera and procedures for distribution of messages from Foreign Service posts to Washington end-users. Existing arrangements have perhaps concentrated on the national security, economic, and financial agencies. They will be looked at with a view to changed agency requirements and better identification of messages which have implications for domestic programs. Distribution of field reports on foreign activities should be wide enough to insure that all interested agencies receive the information except when restrictions are necessary for reasons of national security or to protect sources. Domestic departments and agencies will be consulted on proposed changes and asked to review the adequacy of internal systems for providing foreign policy information and guidance to program managers.

3. Requirements for information on foreign programs in science and technology will continue to be periodically reviewed to insure that they adequately reflect those requirements of priority interest to the Government as a whole. The initial responsibility for placing reporting requirements on science attachés will lie in OES which will work through the geographic bureaus of the Department and cooperate with other agencies to establish current reporting priorities. The Department of State will establish a small science attaché support unit in OES to perform this and other tasks.

4. U.S. missions abroad will continue to take appropriate steps to insure the most efficient coverage of required information including the coordination of all science and technology reporting components.

5. A review of the workload of science and technology officers posted abroad will be undertaken to åssure that it corresponds with the requirements for information and U.S. foreign policy goals. Consultation, clearance and coordinating procedures

6. State, in coordination with OSTP and the technical agencies, under the aegis of the CISET, will take responsibility for the preparation of the annual report called for in section 503(6) of title V.

7. State will examine the means of improving internal coordination and strengthening the relationships between OES and the geographic and functional bureaus. It envisages use of such means as close cooperation between OES and the bureaus in planning and budgeting and the use of seminars and selective briefing sessions on major agency programs.

8. State plans to designate a full-time officer to serve as Executive Secretary to CISET with responsibilities to develop and put into operation an information system, to coordinate the preparation of the annual report referred to above, and to act as central point in OES for inquiries by other agencies about matters falling under the purview of the committee.

9. State will explore with other agencies the designation of a central contact and coordination point for international scientific and technological activities. This official should be in a position to be made aware of all such activities carried out by the agency. OES should likewise designate an official to serve as central contact point for each of the technical agencies. Where agencies have several large semiautonomous elements engaged in international activities, for example, the National Bureau of Standards within the Department of Commerce, a coordinator may be appointed.

10. State, in consultation with interested technical agencies, will develop Circular 175 procedures applicable to international activities including those related to science and technology and will report on these procedures in the followup report. State will insure that no duplication with other reporting systems arises and will define with the other agencies the scope of activities subject to such procedures.

C. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS The recommendations contained in this report will be implemented in a phased way. In many cases, they will be tested on a pilot basis. Thus, the initial stage of implementing the above recommendations can be carried out within existing personnel and budgetary resources.

The time available for the preparation of this report has not permitted the development of complete proposals for operating under the new mandate contained in the act. Therefore, we do not have a firm basis on which to project estimates of personnel and funding requirements. However, the following chart provides illustrative estimates of resources which might be required to carry out some of the activities discussed in the preceding pages. These estimates are not based on completed assessments of the scope of activities to be undertaken. As we gain experience and develop firm plans for implementing the provisions of title V, we will prepare the related estimates of resource requirements. These will be considered in established executive branch budget review process and presented to the Congress in accordance with the regular authorization and appropriation procedures.




Present level

Minimum level

Optimum level

To establish Science Attache Support I professional staff

Office in OES and to provide informa- $30,000, tion and guidance to posts on S. & T.

reporting. To support CISET subcommittee ?...-- B professional staff=

$15,000. To develop and put information sys- 43 professional staff = tem into effect.

$15,000. To develop criteria and procedures for

preparation of 503(b) report. To examine and monitor State criteria

and procedures for distributing messages and providing foreign policy guidance to technical agencies.

Total resource requirement. .-- 2 staff = $60,000.-.--.

1 professional staff=
$30,000; 1 support

1 professional staff

$30,000; support

i professional staff=

$30,000; y support

staff = $10,000.
A professional staff=

A professional staff=

2 professional staff =

$60,000: 1 support

staft = $20,000, 2 professional staff= $60,000: Y support

staff=$10,000. 3/2 professional staff =

$45,000: support staft=$10,000.

professional staff $15,000. Ya professional staff$15,000.

6 staff=$145,000.....

9 staff=$235,000.

! Approximately 1 man-year of professional and support staff time in various parts of OES is now spent on backstopping science attaches.

2 CISET will necessarily play an increased role in futuro.

* Even after a working information system is in place and functioning, it will require attention and should be adapted to management needs in State and other agencies,



[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

In Public Law 95–426, Congress asked the Secretary of State to
report on existing and planned programs for training officers and em-
ployees of the U.S. Government in the application of science and tech-
nology to foreign policy. Congress has described the required training
as (1) training in the use of science and technology as an instrument
in international relations, and (2) insuring that employees engaged in
formal and informal exchanges of scientific and technical informa-
tion, personnel, and hardware are knowledgeable in international
Specifically in training officers and employees of the Department of

, one method cited by the Congress is detached service for in-
depth graduate study at accredited colleges and universities, in addi-
tion to shorter courses or seminars at the Foreign Service Institute and
other existing Federal facilities. The Congress also has called for in-
formation about existing and planned programs to use contracts,
grants and consultants for assistance in training. Finally, Congress has
requested an assessment of personnel requirements to carry out the
responsibilities of the Secretary under title V.
The ability of the U.S. Government to apply science and technology
effectively in the long-range planning and coordinated conduct of for-
eign policy will depend on the quality of its personnel and their train-
ing. In the pages to follow, current personnel policies and training
procedures are described, problems identified, and recommendations

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]




Officers and employees of the U.S. Government concerned with the use of science and technology as an instrument in international relations," in the language of Public Law 95-426, include: -the Foreign Service Officer Corps as a whole, including its po

litical and economic officers whose responsibilities in the Department of State and at Embassies overseas are affected by

science and technology considerations in varying degree; -those Foreign Service officers currently filling positions in the

Department of State's science and technology bureau, the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scien

tific Affairs (OES), or in science functions overseas, currently -civil service employees and Foreign Service reserve officers

working for the Department of State as specialists in OES or as science attachés or specialists abroad, currently about 80; -civil service and Foreign Service reserve professionals work

ing for AID and engaged in the use of science and technology in

international development, currently about 35; --senior Department of State and Foreign Service program di

rection officers, including Ambassadors, Deputy Chiefs of Mission, and Embassy counselors, who undertake and supervise activities with scientific or technological content;

about 40;

-senior managers, planners, and policymakers in domestic agen

cies with international activities; -middle level officials of these domestic agencies engaged in in

ternational exchanges. Personnel policies

The Department of State believes that the fulfillment of its role in the interaction of science, technology, and foreign policy requires a mix of scientists, engineers, and other technical specialists recruited from outside the Department, and career Foreign Service officers with knowledge and skills in foreign political and economic affairs. A key issue is the optimum percentage of Foreign Service officers and others in this mix. At the present time, the majority of OES officers and science attachés are specialists recruited as Foreign Service reserve officers. Most possess advanced degrees in a physical or biological science discipline and are familiar with the broad spectrum of the scientific and technological activities of the U.S. academic, governmental, and industrial worlds.

Consultant T. Keith Glennan in his report on “Technology and Foreign Affairs” (1976) discussed the skills required of science attachés. His words apply equally to officials in Washington dealing with international science and technology issues.

It is now recognized that the Attaché's value depends more on his ability to relate scientific and technological developments to the political, economic or societal preoccupations of the embassy than on his scientific erudition or laboratory skills.

Since 1977 the Department of State has changed to a modest degree its examination procedures for career Foreign Service officers in ways intended to increase the number of new FSO's with scientific, engineering, or other technical backgrounds. It is expected that these changes will not bring many experienced specialists into a Foreign Service Officer Corps whose members must have the versatility to fill a variety of assignments worldwide. The effort is intended, instead, to promote a higher level of awareness of and sensitivity to science and technology considerations in foreign relations. A list of foreign affairs activities with a high science and technology component is furnished as appendix D to illustrate the variety of areas in which the Department of State needs both specialists and generalists.

The Department of State believes that its role in science and technology cannot be considered apart from its role in political, economic, security, and social areas. The issue arises whether science and technology ought to be considered an appropriate career specialization comparable to the traditional political, economic, consular, and administrative functions An immediate problem is the limited number of positions in the Department and the Foreign Service now identified as requiring such "S. & T.” specialists, in contrast with the many hundreds of positions in each of the other areas of specialization. Howerer, counting all officer level positions in the Department and overseas the number available in the future could increase significantly as positions occupied by non-Foreign Service officers become available.

This suggests the need to address at an early date the question of creating a subspecialty in science and technology for Foreign Service officers with primary political or economic specialties, similar to the subspecialty in politico-military affairs which is now widely recog. nized. Such a group in the Foreign Service Officer Corps might do much to enhance the credibility and access of OES to the rest of the Department and make OES and science attaché assignments more attractive to Foreign Service Officers by broadening career opportunities. The Department will evaluate this issue in the light of the results of a survey now being prepared of the work content of all political, economic, commercial and scientific positions at posts overseas and within the Department of State in Washington. This survey is expected to provide a detailed data base for future decisions on recruitment, training and assignment of personnel. The target date for completion of this survey is June 1, 1979, a date that should permit preliminary discussion of its implications in the followup to this report.

C. TRAINING Concept of training

Public Law 95–426 calls for appropriate measures to be taken by the U.S. Government to insure that individuals are trained in the use of science and technology as an instrument in international relations (section 502 (3)). Most training specialists in the Government and academic communities would agree that such training cannot be transmitted in any single course or seminar. There appears to be a consensus that such training must be multidisciplinary, a continuing process, built partly on formal university study and partly on short seminars or workshops within and outside the Government. It is gained on the job and through interagency exchange details, and is inadequate if out of touch with the experiences of industry. Inventory of training resources

In the course of preparing this report to the Congress, the Department of State and other cooperating departments and agencies of the U.S. Government have identified the following training opportunities currently available for use in attaining the training objectives called for in Publc Law 95 426.

(a) Department of State/Foreign Service Institute (FSI) annual 5-day "awareness” seminars on science, technology and foreign affairs;

(6) Exchange details between the Department of State and domestic technical agencies.

(c) Annual details of mid-level Foreign Service Officers for full-year university studies on the interaction of science, technology and policy;

(d) State/FSI 2-week interdepartmental seminars offered four times a year on foreign policy formulation and execution, intended primarily to benefit employees of domestic or technical agencies whose jobs require that they be knowledgeable in international affairs, and to bring these employees and Foreign Service Officers into contact with each other;

(e) State FSI 26- and 16-week economic and political/economic courses for Foreign Service Officers containing “modules" dealing with science and technology issues, and with global issues having significant science and technology components;

« PreviousContinue »