[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COORDINATION OF INTERNATIONAL
SCIENCE PARTNERSHIPS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND
SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 24, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-14
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-030PS WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office nternet: bookstore.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois, Chair
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
PAUL D. TONKO, New York ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Subcommittee Staff Director
MELE WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member
BESS CAUGHRAN Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
March 24, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Chair, Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Witnesses:
Dr. Jon C. Strauss, President, Bainbridge Graduate Institute;
Member, National Science Board; Chairman, National Science
Board Task Force on International Science
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Biography.................................................... 14
Dr. Norman P. Neureiter, Director, Center for Science, Technology
and Security Policy; Senior Advisor, Center for Science
Diplomacy, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Biography.................................................... 19
Mr. Anthony F. ``Bud'' Rock, Vice President for Global
Engagement, Arizona State University
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 21
Biography.................................................... 27
Discussion....................................................... 27
Appendix: Additional Material for the Record
Statement of Dr. Gerald J. Hane, Managing Director, Q-Paradigm... 42
Biography.................................................... 54
COORDINATION OF INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE PARTNERSHIPS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Daniel
Lipinski [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Coordination of International
Science Partnerships
tuesday, march 24, 2009
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on draft
legislation to recreate a committee under the National Science and
Technology Council for the coordination and planning of international
science and technology activities and partnerships between and among
federal research agencies and the Department of State.
2. Witnesses:
Dr. Jon C. Strauss, Chairman of the National Science
Board Task Force on International Science, which produced the
2008 report, ``International Science and Engineering
Partnerships: A Priority for U.S. Foreign Policy and Our
Nation's Innovation Enterprise.''
Dr. Norman P. Neureiter, Director of the Center for
Science, Technology and Security Policy, American Association
for the Advancement of Science.
Mr. Anthony ``Bud'' Rock, Vice President for Global
Engagement at Arizona State University.
Dr. Gerald Hane, Managing Director, Q-Paradigm.
3. Overarching Questions:
What are the respective roles of the Department of
State and the science agencies, such as the National Science
Foundation, the Department of Energy and the National
Institutes of Health, in international science and technology
(S&T) cooperation? What is the role of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP) in fostering international S&T
cooperation and in coordinating federal activities?
If OSTP reconstituted a Committee on International
Science, Engineering and Technology (CISET) under the National
Science and Technology Council (NSTC), what should be the
unique role and responsibilities of that committee? What
lessons can be learned from the previous CISET of the 1990's?
Does the draft legislation being considered appropriately
describe the purpose and responsibilities of an effective
CISET?
Can CISET serve an important function absent
additional funding for S&T cooperation? Does creation of CISET
ensure active participation and support from the science
agencies and from the Department of State? If not, what other
steps must be taken to make CISET an effective coordinating
body? Are any of those steps legislative?
How else might OSTP and/or the science agencies play
a greater role in bringing science and technology to bear on
foreign policy?
4. Overview
Science and technology were closely tied to American diplomacy in
the early years after the founding of the United States. In fact, the
first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, was also designated the
administrator of the Nation's first patent law, and the first efforts
to establish a bureau of weights and measures were also associated with
the Department of State. By the 1830's, this close relationship between
diplomats and scientists seems to have diminished. It was not until
World War II that science and technology once again began to play a
prominent role in the State Department. Nevertheless, the U.S.
continued to engage in international S&T cooperation for other
purposes. For example, the first International Polar Year, a
coordinated international effort to collect and analyze data about the
polar regions, occurred in 1882-83. We just completed the third
International Polar Year.
There are a number of reasons why the United States has and will
continue to engage in international S&T cooperation, including:
to strengthen U.S. science and engineering by
providing our own researchers access to the best researchers
and research sites around the world;
to enable construction of and participation in
prohibitively expensive world-class research facilities (either
on U.S. soil or foreign sites) by partnering with foreign
countries to leverage their funds and scientific talent;
to address U.S. interests in global matters, such as
nonproliferation, water resources, climate change and
infectious diseases, in part by ensuring that foreign and
international (e.g., U.N.) decision-makers have access to the
best science;
to help build technological capacity and address
health and resource crises in other countries in order to help
maintain U.S. national security and economic interests; and
to help build more positive relationships with other
countries - what is often called ``science diplomacy.''
In addition to the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), every federal agency that either
does its own research or funds academic research (or in most cases,
both) supports international S&T cooperation, including Departments of
Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Commerce (includes NIST and NOAA), and
Health and Human Services (includes NIH) as well as NASA, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation
(NSF). The Office of Science and Technology Policy advises the
President on matters of science and technology as they relate to
international issues, and provides intellectual support to the
Department of State and USAID on S&T matters. State and USAID also turn
to NSF and the mission agencies for intellectual input on S&T-related
issues that fall within those agencies' areas of expertise, such as
health, energy or water. The mission agencies, on the other hand, turn
to the Department of State for assistance in negotiating formal
agreements with other nations. For a more detailed description of the
respective roles of State, NSF and the mission agencies, see the
charter from our April 2, 2008 hearing.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://science.house.gov/publications/
hearings-markups-details.aspx?NewsID=2134
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Science Board (NSB) recently issued a report,
``International Science and Engineering Partnerships: A Priority for
U.S. Foreign Policy and Our Nation's Innovation Agenda,'' \2\ in which
the Board makes a series of recommendations for increased coherence and
coordination of federally sponsored international science and
engineering activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2008/nsb084.pdf
5. Role of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the
National Science and Technology Council in
Coordination of International S&T partnerships
The Director of OSTP is, by statute, the President's adviser on
science and technology matters for all areas of national concern,
including foreign relations and national security, as well as for
``emerging international problems amenable to the contributions of
science and technology.''
The OSTP Director, through NSTC, is also responsible for
interagency coordination of federal research and development programs,
which includes programs, such as the International Polar Year, that are
part of an international partnership. But OSTP does not have an
explicit mandate for coordination of all international activities, nor
does the office have any program budget or management responsibilities
of its own.
The NSB report mentioned previously calls on OSTP to take a more
active and prominent role both in setting federal priorities for
international science and engineering cooperation and in coordinating
efforts across agencies. For example, the Board recommends that OSTP
``should directly charge federal agencies to include specific
components of international R&D in their integrated programs'' and
urges NSTC to reestablish a Committee on International Science,
Engineering and Technology (CISET). Such a Committee existed in the
1990's under the Clinton Administration. Two of today's witnesses sat
directly on that Committee, one from the State Department (Bud Rock)
and the other from OSTP (Gerald Hane). The 1998 Annual Report about
NSTC contained the following description of CISET:
The Committee on International Science, Engineering, and Technology
(CISET) addresses international scientific cooperation as it relates to
foreign policy and the Nation's R&D agenda. CISET's mandate is not
defined within any particular area of S&T. Rather, CISET's role is to
review the wide range of bilateral and multilateral international
scientific programs carried out by the technical agencies in the U.S.
Government, and to identify opportunities for international cooperation
and interagency coordination in response to new needs and
opportunities. CISET's activities are directed toward three broad,
complementary goals to:
Identify, and coordinate international cooperation that can
strengthen the domestic S&T enterprise and promote U.S.
economic competitiveness and national security;
Utilize American leadership in S&T to address global issues
and to support the post-Cold War tenets of U.S. foreign
policy--promoting democracy, maintaining peace, and fostering
economic growth and sustainable development; and
Coordinate the international aspects of federal R&D funding
across federal agencies.
CISET supported the following five working groups during 1998: the
Emerging Infectious Diseases Task Force; the Interagency Working Group
on Russia; the Interagency Working Group on the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); the Interagency Working
Group on Japan; and the Interagency Working Group on China. CISET also
operates a number of ad hoc working groups to address issues as they
arise, such as APEC and the Summit of the Americas.
The Bush Administration OSTP disbanded CISET in 2001. Dr. Marburger
explained in his testimony before the Research and Science Education
Subcommittee last year his approach to coordinating international STEM
partnerships:
During the past six years, OSTP has experimented with various
arrangements for coordinating agency international science and
technology programs. The most successful approach has been one
that draws together agencies in meetings focused on specific
science topics such as nanotechnology or genomics, or on
specific countries such as China or Brazil. The former meetings
occur naturally in the NSTC context, the latter occur on the
schedule of high-level bilateral commission meetings to review
progress under the S&T agreements.
But many other experts, including witnesses at today's hearing,
argue that significant opportunities are missed by this ad hoc approach
to international S&T cooperation, especially opportunities at the
intersection of science and diplomacy.
6. The International STEM Cooperation Act of 2009
The draft legislation being considered today would recreate a
Committee on International Science, Engineering and Technology under
NSTC. It would assign five key responsibilities to CISET:
coordinate international S&T research and education
activities and partnerships across the federal agencies (which
includes of course the technical agencies, but may also include
regulatory and other agencies that work internationally on
issues with an S&T component).
Establish priorities and policies for aligning, as
appropriate, international S&T partnerships with the foreign
policy goals of the United States.
Identify opportunities for new international S&T
partnerships that advance both the S&T mission of the technical
agencies involved and the public diplomacy, national security
or other foreign policy mission of the Department of State.
Work with foreign governments (in coordination with
the Department of State) to establish and maintain S&T
partnerships.
Maintain an inventory of international S&T activities
funded by the U.S. government for purposes of information
sharing between federal agencies and other stakeholders in the
U.S. S&T enterprise.
7. Questions for Witnesses:
Dr. Strauss
Does the draft legislation being considered
appropriately describe the purpose and responsibilities of an
effective CISET as imagined by the NSB Task Force on
International Science?
Can CISET serve an important function absent
additional funding for S&T cooperation? Does creation of CISET
ensure active participation and support from the science
agencies and from the Department of State? If not, what other
steps must be taken to make CISET an effective coordinating
body?
What additional recommendations did the NSB task
force make regarding the roles of the Office and Science and
Technology Policy and the science agencies in bringing their
science and technology expertise to bear on foreign policy?
Dr. Neureiter, Mr. Rock and Dr. Hane
Similarly, all three of these witnesses were asked a slight
variation of the overarching questions, tailored to their personal
experiences within the Department of State or the Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
Chair Lipinski. This hearing will come to order. Good
afternoon. Welcome to this Research and Science Education
Subcommittee hearing on Coordination of International Science
Partnerships. Last year the Subcommittee, then led by Dr.
Baird, held two hearings on the topic of international science
and technology cooperation, one on the role of federal
agencies, including the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, and the second on the role of non-governmental
organizations, including universities. Dr. Baird, Dr. Ehlers
and Mr. Carnahan also hosted a roundtable here in the committee
room and participated in a workshop hosted by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
I want to thank Dr. Baird for making international
cooperation a priority for the Subcommittee. I concur with him
that the new Administration gives us a tremendous opportunity
and a fresh outlook for both science and foreign policy. We
have a chance to take advantage of our preeminence in science
and technology to strengthen diplomatic ties, help ensure that
decision-makers around the world have access to the best
scientific advice, and leverage other countries' resources to
tackle common challenges in energy, climate, water resources
and health.
While the hearings last year included broad conversations
about the value and importance of science and technology
cooperation to our economic and national security, today we
will focus on the practical mechanisms for coordinating such
activities across the Federal Government, including between the
technical agencies and the State Department. In particular, we
are going to examine a legislative proposal that would create a
committee to coordinate U.S. participation in international S&T
partnerships and identify partnerships at the intersection of
our nation's S&T and foreign policy missions.
In the 1990's, there was such a committee, known as the
Committee on International Science, Engineering and Technology,
or CISET. CISET existed within the National Science and
Technology Council, which is managed by OSTP and is the main
interagency coordinating body for federal R&D activities. CISET
had three main goals. First, it was tasked to identify and
coordinate international cooperation that could strengthen the
domestic S&T enterprise and promote U.S. economic
competitiveness and national security. Second, CISET also
helped utilize American leadership in S&T to address global
issues and to support the post-Cold War tenets of U.S. foreign
policy--promoting democracy, maintaining peace, and fostering
economic growth and sustainable development.
Finally, CISET helped coordinate the international aspects
of federal R&D funding across federal agencies.
President Bush's OSTP Director chose to disband CISET in
favor of a distributed approach to coordination of
international activities, either subsumed within issue-area
committees under NSTC or convened in response to a call from
the State Department to work with a specific country. But such
an ad hoc, distributed approach almost certainly missed
opportunities for the State Department and technical agencies
to identify and engage in partnerships of mutual interest.
I am very happy that the new OSTP Director, Dr. Holdren,
has indicated his intention to appoint an Associate Director
for National Security and International Affairs at OSTP, a
position which his predecessor dismissed as unnecessary. But
the legislation we are discussing today would also ask Dr.
Holdren to go a step further in asserting a leadership role for
OSTP in international S&T cooperation by reconstituting a
Committee on International Science, Engineering and Technology
under NSTC.
The witnesses before us to today have extensive expertise
and personal experience with interagency coordination for
international S&T, and I look forward to their comments on our
legislative proposal. In particular, we want to make sure that
CISET has a unique purpose and role relative to subject area
committees within NSTC, that it effectively engages both the
technical agencies and the Department of State, and that it can
serve an important function even without new money for
international partnerships.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for taking the time to
appear before the Committee this afternoon and I look forward
to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chair Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chair Daniel Lipinski
Good afternoon. Welcome to this Research and Science Education
Subcommittee hearing on Coordination of International Science
Partnerships. Last year this subcommittee, then led by Dr. Baird, held
two hearings on the topic of international science and technology
cooperation: one on the role of federal agencies, including the Office
of Science and Technology Policy; and the second on the role of non-
governmental organizations, including universities. Dr. Baird, Dr.
Ehlers and Mr. Carnahan also hosted a roundtable here in the Committee
Room and participated in a workshop hosted by the American Association
for the Advancement of Science.
I want to thank Dr. Baird for making international cooperation a
priority for the Subcommittee. I concur with him that the new
Administration gives us a tremendous opportunity and a fresh outlook
for both science and foreign policy. We have a chance to take advantage
of our preeminence in science and technology to strengthen diplomatic
ties, help ensure that decision-makers around the world have access to
the best scientific advice, and leverage other country's resources to
tackle common challenges in energy, climate, water resources and
health.
While the hearings last year included broad conversations about the
value and importance of science and technology cooperation to our
economic and national security, today we will focus on the practical
mechanisms for coordinating such activities across the Federal
Government, including between the technical agencies and the State
Department. In particular, we are going to examine a legislative
proposal that would create a committee to coordinate U.S. participation
in international S&T partnerships and identify partnerships at the
intersection of our nation's S&T and foreign policy missions.
In the 1990's, there was such a committee, known as the Committee
on International Science, Engineering and Technology, or CISET. CISET
existed within the National Science and Technology Council, which is
managed by OSTP and is the main interagency coordinating body for
federal R&D activities. CISET had three main goals:
It was tasked to identify and coordinate
international cooperation that could strengthen the domestic
S&T enterprise and promote U.S. economic competitiveness and
national security.
CISET also helped utilize American leadership in S&T
to address global issues and to support the post-Cold War
tenets of U.S. foreign policy--promoting democracy, maintaining
peace, and fostering economic growth and sustainable
development.
Finally, CISET helped coordinate the international
aspects of federal R&D funding across federal agencies.
President Bush's OSTP Director chose to disband CISET in favor of a
distributed approach to coordination of international activities,
either subsumed within issue-area committees under NSTC or convened in
response to a call from the State Department to work with a specific
country. But such an ad hoc, distributed approach almost certainly
missed opportunities for the State Department and technical agencies to
identify and engage in partnerships of mutual interest.
I am very happy that the new OSTP Director, Dr. Holdren, has
indicated his intention to appoint an Associate Director for National
Security and International Affairs at OSTP, a position which his
predecessor dismissed as unnecessary. But the legislation we are
considering today would also ask Dr. Holdren to go a step further in
asserting a leadership role for OSTP in international S&T cooperation
by reconstituting a Committee on International Science, Engineering and
Technology under NSTC.
The witnesses before us to today have extensive expertise and
personal experience with interagency coordination for international
S&T, and I look forward to their comments on our legislative proposal.
In particular, we want to make sure that CISET has a unique purpose and
role relative to subject area committees within NSTC, that it
effectively engages both the technical agencies and the Department of
State, and that it can serve an important function even without new
money for international partnerships. I want to thank all of the
witnesses for taking the time to appear before the Committee this
afternoon and I look forward to your testimony.
Chair Lipinski. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Ehlers for an
opening statement.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this hearing.
It is a very important topic. As a scientist, I have been a
very strong supporter of international cooperation in science
and, if I may call it that, diplomacy or foreign affairs for
many, many years. In fact, when I got my Ph.D., I proceeded to
spend a year in Europe studying and getting to know the culture
and the science there. I was also a very strong supporter at
the very early stages of cooperation with the Soviet Union, and
as we all know by now, that was one of the key factors in
breaking open the doors of the Soviet Union not only to
scientists but to many others. You can imagine my surprise when
I came to the Congress and was asked to write a science policy
statement in which I intended to include issues related to this
and discovered that the State Department no longer even had
anyone in the realm of science within their walls. And
fortunately, Dr. Neureiter was willing to step into the breach
there as I put some pressure on them, and that was a start of
greater things, and I appreciate you being here, Dr. Neureiter,
and thank you also for what you did at that time.
Identifying and coordinating activities within the Federal
Government which mutually benefit our scientific enterprise and
our foreign policy goals is a valuable mission, and therefore I
very strongly support the goals of this legislation. I know all
of our witnesses seek to inform this committee regarding the
most efficient way to achieve these common goals, and I greatly
appreciate their expertise and their reflection on this topic.
In the last Congress, this subcommittee held a series of
three hearings on issues related to science and diplomacy from
the esoteric to the mundane, which is how do we get visas for
foreign scientists and how do we work with the State Department
to accomplish these goals, especially given the new
restrictions after 9/11. We have only seen glimpses of the
power behind leveraging these two communities because the
commitment to do so has not been sustained, focused, or well-
organized. Individual scientists who have partnered with peers
in other nations would unequivocally assure you that such
partnerships have been good for U.S. science, despite the fact
that their motivation for such a partnership was probably
purely based on discovery.
I look forward to learning from our witnesses today about
the proposal before us and how we could make it stronger, and I
certainly thank you for your attendance.
Let me add just one more personal note. My son is a
geophysicist and was at the University of Michigan teaching and
doing research. He discovered a German counterpart who was
interested in very similar experiments, and they immediately
developed ideas for a cooperative relationship. The German
government was very cooperative and provided funding for them
to work together, and my son was unable to get a research grant
in the United States for the same purpose. Ironically, he has
now accepted a position at a university in Germany. So reverse
brain drain, or maybe real brain drain, but certainly a loss of
contact with my son.
So it is clear we have a ways to go in the United States,
and I hope we will be able to resolve these problems. Thank you
very much. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Identifying and coordinating activities within the Federal
Government which mutually benefit our scientific enterprise and our
foreign policy goals is a valuable mission, and therefore I support the
goals of the draft legislation before us today. I know that all of our
witnesses seek to inform this committee regarding the most efficient
way to achieve these common goals, and I greatly appreciate their
expertise and reflection on this topic.
In the last Congress, this subcommittee held a series of three
hearings on issues related to science and diplomacy. We have only seen
glimpses of the power behind leveraging these two communities because
the commitment to do so has not been sustained, focused, or well-
organized. Individual scientists who have partnered with peers in other
nations would unequivocally assure you that such partnerships have been
good for U.S. science, despite the fact that their motivation for such
a partnership was probably purely based on discovery.
I look forward to learning from our witnesses today about the
proposal before us and how we could make it stronger. Thank you for
your attendance.
Chair Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. As usual, you have a
tremendous amount of knowledge and experience to add here at
this hearing today.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses. Dr.
Jon C. Strauss is the Chair of the National Science Board Task
Force on International Science which produced the 2008 report,
International Science and Engineering Partnerships: A Priority
for U.S. Foreign Policy and Our Nation's Innovation Enterprise.
Dr. Norman P. Neureiter is the Director for the Center for
Science, Technology and Security Policy at the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. Mr. Anthony ``Bud''
Rock is the Vice President for Global Engagement at Arizona
State University. We had a fourth witness, Dr. Gerald Hane, the
Managing Director of Q-Paradigm, but unfortunately, he is not
able to make it here this afternoon. He apparently is stuck in
Tokyo because of the unfortunate plane crash there yesterday,
so he is not able to join us, but Dr. Hane's testimony will be
submitted for the record [see Appendix: Additional Material for
the Record], and Members will have the opportunity to follow up
with written questions.
As our witnesses should know, you each have five minutes
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
included in the record for the hearing. When all of you have
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions.
Each Member will have five minutes to question the panel.
So with our witnesses, we will start with Dr. Strauss.
STATEMENT OF DR. JON C. STRAUSS, PRESIDENT, BAINBRIDGE GRADUATE
INSTITUTE; MEMBER, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD; CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
SCIENCE BOARD TASK FORCE ON INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE
Dr. Strauss. Chair Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers, and
Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to
speak with you today. My name is Jon Strauss, and I am
President of the Bainbridge Graduate Institute in the State of
Washington. I am also a member of the National Science Board
and appear before you today in my role as Chair of the Board's
former Task Force on International Science. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify on the important topic of science
diplomacy.
The Board Task Force on International Science, established
in September 2005, broadly examined international science and
engineering partnerships. The resulting report, International
Science and Engineering Partnerships: A Priority for U.S.
Foreign Policy and Our Nation's Innovation Enterprise, offers a
series of recommendations on supporting international science
and engineering partnerships as a tool to strengthen efforts in
international diplomacy. The Task Force recommendations were
developed after extensive formal and informal discussions with
scientists and engineers from around the world.
Over the last few years, international coordination among
federal entities has been conducted primarily on an ad hoc
basis. One of the key recommendations in the Board's report is
the re-establishment of the National Science and Technology
Council, NSTC, Committee on International Science, Engineering,
and Technology, CISET. The Board believes a reconstituted CISET
would serve to coordinate the activities of the various federal
science agencies and ensure a coherent, integrated, and strong
U.S. international science strategy.
An example of creating collaborations across borders and
organizational boundaries comes from the Partnerships for
International Research and Education, PIRE, program in the
NSF's Office of International Science and Engineering. While
PIRE coordinates international research efforts across the
entire spectrum of the NSF disciplines, similar activities
could readily be coordinated and leveraged across the federal
government through the NSTC CISET committee.
The global nature of many long-standing science challenges,
such as epidemics, natural disasters, and the search for
alternative energy sources, makes it critical for scientists
and engineers from around the world to collaborate in
addressing issues that cross geographic and national
boundaries. Successful international science partnerships are
critical to overcoming such global challenges. Science
diplomacy can advance international relations and U.S. foreign
policy efforts around the world. Science and engineering, with
its common language, methods, and values, has helped to
initiate and to reinforce positive relations between peoples
and nations with historic and deep-seated enmities. These
partnerships contribute to building more stable relations among
communities and nations based on commonly accepted scientific
values of objectivity, sharing, integrity, and free inquiry.
For science diplomacy to succeed, it is critical that the
Federal Government expand efforts to coordinate science and
engineering activities across all federal agencies through a
reconstituted CISET.
Improving the national capabilities of developing countries
stands to benefit all participants and advance U.S. diplomacy.
NSF has recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the
U.S. Agency for International Development to coordinate broadly
scoped research and higher education initiatives in which NSF
supports U.S. researchers and USAID supports science and
engineering capacity building in developing countries. Efforts
between individual agencies such as this MOU would be greatly
strengthened through an overall coordinating committee.
Since 1950 when President Truman convened the first meeting
of the National Science Board, the Board has worked to fulfill
our mission to the Nation: ``To promote the progress of
science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and
welfare; to secure the national defense.'' The President has
clearly demonstrated his commitment to science and spoken of
the importance of science in domestic and international policy.
On behalf of the National Science Board and our Chair, Dr.
Steven Beering, I want to thank the Subcommittee for its
support regarding our policy recommendations and for the
important work it does for U.S. scientific research, education,
and training.
Mr. Chair, that concludes my formal remarks.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Strauss follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jon C. Strauss
Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. My
name is Jon Strauss, and I am President of the Bainbridge Graduate
Institute in the State of Washington. I am also a member of the
National Science Board\1\ and appear before you today in my role as
Chairman of the Board's former Task Force on International Science.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the important topic of
science diplomacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Science Board (Board) is composed of 25
presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed Members, including the
Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF). The Board provides
oversight for, and establishes the policies of, NSF. In this capacity,
the Board identifies issues that are critical to NSF's future, approves
NSF's strategic budget directions, approves annual budget submissions
to the Office of Management and Budget, approves new programs and major
awards, analyzes NSF's budget to ensure progress and consistency along
the strategic direction set for NSF, and ensures balance between
initiatives and core programs. The Board also has a broad policy
advisory role to the President and Congress under the statutory
obligation to ``. . . render to the President and the Congress reports
on specific, individual policy matters related to science and
engineering and education in science and engineering, as the Board, the
President, or the Congress determines the need for such reports.''
National Science Foundation Act of 1950 4(j)(2), 42 U.S.C.
1863(j)(2) (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board Task Force on International Science, established in
September 2005, broadly examined international science and engineering
partnerships. The resulting report, International Science and
Engineering Partnerships: A Priority for U.S. Foreign Policy and Our
Nation's Innovation Enterprise,\2\ offers a series of recommendations
on supporting international science and engineering partnerships as a
tool to strengthen efforts in international diplomacy. The Task Force
recommendations were developed after extensive formal and informal
discussions with scientists and engineers from around the world. These
discussions provided valuable insight into the intricate workings of
international partnerships in relation to science and engineering
initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ International Science and Engineering Partnerships: A Priority
for U.S. Foreign Policy and Our Nation's Innovation Enterprise (NSB-08-
04) (February 14, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last few years, international coordination among federal
entities has been conducted primarily on an ad hoc basis. One of the
key recommendations in the Board's report is the re-establishment of
the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Committee on
International Science, Engineering, and Technology (CISET). In the
Board's judgment, a reconstituted CISET would serve to coordinate the
activities of the various federal science agencies and ensure a
coherent, integrated, and strong U.S. international science strategy.
Re-establishing such a committee would also advance national economic,
security, and sustainability goals and provide a formal mechanism for
interagency international policy review, planning, and coordination. An
example of creating collaborations across borders and organizational
boundaries comes from the Partnerships for International Research and
Education (PIRE) program. PIRE, in NSF's Office of International
Science and Engineering, supports U.S. scientists and engineers, and
their institutions, to engage in innovative research and education
projects in partnership with international colleagues. While PIRE
coordinates international research efforts across the entire spectrum
of NSF disciplines, similar activities could readily be coordinated and
leveraged across the Federal Government through the NSTC CISET
committee.
The global nature of many long-standing science challenges, such as
epidemics, natural disasters, and the search for alternative energy
sources, makes it critical for scientists and engineers from around the
world to collaborate in addressing issues that cross geographic and
national boundaries. Successful international science partnerships are
critical to overcoming global challenges. These partnerships are also
essential for ensuring that our economy remains competitive, our
national security remains sound, and our valuable resources are
effectively and efficiently used.
Science diplomacy can advance international relations and U.S.
foreign policy efforts around the world. Science and engineering--with
its common language, methods, and values--has helped to initiate and to
reinforce positive relations between peoples and nations with historic
and deep-seated enmities. These partnerships can create connections
among people to build trust and communication, which will then
facilitate future diplomatic endeavors. They also contribute to
building more stable relations among communities and nations based on
commonly accepted scientific values of objectivity, sharing, integrity,
and free inquiry. For science diplomacy to succeed, it is critical that
the Federal Government expand efforts to coordinate science and
engineering activities across all research agencies. Again, a
reconstituted CISET would help to ensure a coherent and integrated U.S.
international science and engineering strategy.
Improving the national capabilities of developing countries stands
to benefit all participants and advance U.S. diplomacy. Engaging in
science diplomacy and international science and engineering (S&E)
partnerships will also foster the development of indigenous science and
engineering capacity in developing countries, enabling them to become
full participants in the global enterprise. Science and engineering
partnerships among, and led by, developing countries are equally
important in capacity building. Strengthening scientific capacity and
promoting the free flow of information in developing countries will not
only expand their S&E enterprises, but will help those countries attain
a higher quality of life. NSF has recently signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with the U.S. Agency for International Development which
is intended to coordinate broadly scoped research and higher education
initiatives in which NSF supports U.S. researchers and USAID supports
S&E capacity building in developing countries. Efforts between
individual agencies such as this MOU would be greatly strengthened
through an overall coordinating committee.
The National Science Board, as always, appreciates the support of
the subcommittee regarding our policy recommendations. It was President
Clinton who established by Executive Order the National Science and
Technology Council with the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) taking leadership of the structure and organization of the NSTC.
The Board in our report recommended ``The National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC) should reestablish a committee on
international S&E to coordinate the activities of the . . . various
federal mission agencies . . ..'' We stand by that recommendation to
have the NSTC, under the leadership of OSTP, make the necessary changes
in the structure.
Closing Remarks
Reconstituting a NSTC committee on International Science,
Engineering, and Technology is vital to coordinate successful
international science and engineering partnerships as necessary tools
to address global challenges, to advance S&E frontiers, to build U.S.
S&E capacity and expertise, to energize U.S. innovation, to support
international relations, and to foster capacity building in developing
countries. U.S. leadership and participation in international science
and engineering partnerships is truly a key catalyst for global
prosperity.
Since 1950 when President Truman convened the first meeting of the
National Science Board, the Board has worked to fulfill our mission to
the nation: ``To promote the progress of science; to advance the
national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national
defense.'' The President has clearly demonstrated his commitment to
science and spoken of the importance of science in domestic and
international policy.
On behalf of the National Science Board and our Chairman, Dr.
Steven Beering, I want to thank the Subcommittee for the important work
it does for U.S. scientific research, education, and training.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks.
Biography for Jon C. Strauss
B.S.E.E., University of Wisconsin, 1959
M.S., Physics, University of Pittsburgh, 1962
Ph.D., Systems and Communication Sciences, Carnegie Institute of
Technology, 1965
Dr. Strauss is President Emeritus of Harvey Mudd College, a highly-
ranked liberal arts college of engineering, science, and mathematics,
where he served as its fourth President from 1997 until 2006.
Previously, he served as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer at
Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Chevy Chase, Maryland. He is also
President Emeritus of Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts,
and he served as Senior Vice President of Administration at the
University of Southern California where he also was a tenured Professor
of Electrical Engineering. He was Vice President for Budget and Finance
at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and also served as a
Professor of Computer Science at that institution and at Washington
University in St. Louis, the Technical University of Norway, and
Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. Dr. Strauss has published and
spoken widely, consulted for a wide variety of colleges, universities,
and corporations, and served on the Boards of a number of corporations
and professional and community organizations.
Strauss' professional interests include organizational development
and planning, modeling and performance enhancement, and sustainability
and decentralized management in higher education.
He was appointed to the National Science Board in 2004 where he has
led two important task forces on international science and sustainable
energy and chairs the Subcommittee on Polar Issues.
Dr. Strauss lives on Bainbridge Island, Washington with his wife
Jean, an award winning author, documentarian, open adoption records
activist, and competitive rower. They have two sons: Kristoffer, a
senior at Yale, and Jonathon, a junior at Penn. Dr. Strauss also has
two daughters, Susan and Stephanie, from a previous marriage.
Chair Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Strauss. Now I recognize Dr.
Neureiter for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. NORMAN P. NEUREITER, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SECURITY POLICY; SENIOR ADVISOR, CENTER
FOR SCIENCE DIPLOMACY, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT
OF SCIENCE
Dr. Neureiter. Chair Lipinski, Dr. Ehlers, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting me.
As an unabashed zealot for the value of international S&T
cooperation, both to science and to foreign policy, I commend
you for this hearing, and I applaud the interest of this
subcommittee on this topic.
In some 45 years of working in international science and
business I have seen how international S&T cooperation can be a
very effective instrument of non-political soft power
engagement and a key element of a constructive foreign policy.
At AAAS we call this science diplomacy in action. Furthermore,
solving present global challenges such as climate change,
energy, health, food, clean water, and so on demand both the
application of S&T and cooperation among many nations to do the
necessary research. This cooperation is a double winner. It
solves problems, and it builds relationships.
However, present mechanisms for U.S. response to these
opportunities and challenges are in my view inadequate. In the
new structure of the National Security Council, OSTP, and the
State Department, CISET can mitigate these shortcomings. I
support your proposal to reestablish CISET through legislation
as the government's focal point for international S&T. This
bill will send a powerful message to the agencies about
Congressional interest in this subject. The proposed reporting
mechanism will maintain an important record of progress.
It is critical that OSTP be fully integrated into the NSC
process of foreign policy decision-making with close ties to
the science units of the State Department, the OES bureaus, and
the Science Advisor.
CISET must also have top quality staffing from the NSTC and
authoritative membership from all of the federal agencies
involved. I do, however, caution against an international
negotiating role for CISET, and I distinguish between its
proper role of setting technical priorities while deferring to
State and the NFC on political or country priorities.
Once priorities are set and agency players identified,
planning the projects and negotiating with the foreign partners
must be left to the agencies with appropriate State Department
guidance.
Now, one other word of caution. I urge the Subcommittee to
make its intentions absolutely clear, namely that the role of
CISET is to foster mutually beneficial cooperation and not to
create another security gate of export controls and visa
barriers that will worsen an already serious problem,
eloquently described in the recent NAS report, Beyond Fortress
America.
My last point is perhaps the most important. I implore this
subcommittee to begin the process of establishing a dedicated
governmental fund for the conduct of high priority
international S&T cooperation. I know you are not
appropriators, but I urge you to do whatever you can to start
that process. Do what a scientist or engineer would do. Run a
test, run an experiment. Help put some money into the foreign
affairs budget for the State Department, not for USAID because
we do not want to project an image of foreign assistance. We
want to cooperate with respected partners who will very often
pay their own way in projects. We are talking cooperation, not
assistance.
These funds would be distributed in two ways. For science
diplomacy initiatives, the money would go to NSF which would
use it for agreed projects with countries designated by State
along with OSTP and NSF. NSF can then extend grants to
universities, appropriate NGO's or make transfers to technical
agencies.
Another portion of the money would be used for distribution
to federal agencies to complement their relevant domestic
programs and make possible the desired links to international
cooperation. Often agencies cannot justify such expenditures
from their domestic budgets, and I think that is critical.
CISET would have a major role in defining the projects. The
money will motivate agency participation, it will give CISET a
special focus, and it will make CISET a key adjunct to OSTP's
vital domestic role of guiding the U.S. S&T enterprise.
Moreover, seeing that internationally the OSTP Director is in
effect the U.S. minister for science, a reinvigorated CISET
will provide a well-crafted portfolio for him to carry around
the world. And when the President of the United States goes to
another country and has a deliverable--proposes an agreement
for S&T cooperation, the United States will finally be able to
do more than pass the cup to already stressed agencies in order
to cobble up a reasonable response.
In conclusion, your CISET proposal can provide an exciting
new way for the United States to reach out to the world. Using
S&T we will be solving problems and building relationships,
noble goals that would be hailed both at home and abroad. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Neureiter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Norman P. Neureiter
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Ehlers and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify before this
subcommittee on the subject of managing international scientific and
technical (S&T) cooperation in the U.S. Government. I greatly welcome
this opportunity and commend you for your interest in this important
subject. I feel strongly that international cooperation in S&T can be a
highly effective soft power instrument of a constructive foreign
policy. Unfortunately, it is one that is underutilized today.
This subject is also of special interest to the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The potential we see
for building mutually beneficial ties through science cooperation,
particularly with countries where political tensions may prevent normal
relationships, was a primary motivator for the recent establishment of
the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy. This was announced by our CEO
Alan Leshner before this very subcommittee on July 15, 2008.
Testimony Highlights:
In the spirit of full disclosure, I must confess that the many
benefits I have personally seen during 45 years of experience in this
field have made me an unapologetic zealot regarding international S&T
cooperation. It also seems clear that we at AAAS and the Subcommittee
are very much in agreement about the value of such cooperation. But it
is essential to try to establish the right machinery and mechanisms to
implement it. First, I think that creating a focal point for
international S&T cooperation at the level of the Executive Office of
the President is very desirable; and that re-establishing the Committee
on International Science, Engineering and Technology (CISET) under the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) CISET committee will
provide an appropriate body for that purpose. This new CISET must
effectively interact with the National Security Council (NSC) and the
State Department in its foreign policy dimensions and with all the S&T
agencies of the Federal Government in its technical substance. Its
effectiveness will depend in large part on an Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) that is well integrated into the NSC process
and has a high level of staff competence in the international arena.
Finally, there needs to be established some dedicated funding
appropriated for international S&T cooperation in order to give CISET
some real substance to focus on and opportunities to impact directly
the decision-making process.
Although it is likely that a CISET could be established by the NSTC
without a legislative mandate, I would support the legislative route
that is being proposed by this subcommittee, especially as it would
demonstrate strong Congressional interest in this subject. This
interest, however, must be seen as a way to strengthen such cooperation
and to optimize its benefits for science as well as for U.S. foreign
policy and for enhancing U.S. relations around the world. It must not
become another security gate focused on export control regimes or visa-
like barriers to interactions with other countries. I think one must be
aware of these dangers and actively guard against them.
CISET's Functions and Responsibilities
Historical Perspective. When I became the S&T Advisor at State in
2000, CISET existed under the NSTC. I was intrigued with such an
instrument and even thought that perhaps it would be appropriate for me
to chair a meeting, although it was not resolved at State whether the
Science Advisor or the Assistant Secretary for OES would be most
appropriate. However, I recall only one such meeting being held,
chaired by the OSTP Director or his deputy. It consisted essentially of
a recitation of the international activities of one or two agencies,
there were no action items, no follow-on and I am unaware of any other
meetings in my three years at State. In other words, the Committee
seemed to do very little, left no mark, and had little reason to exist.
My point is that if there is going to be a CISET, it has to be well
staffed and have a clear role. Certainly it should serve as a focal
point for knowledge of what the agencies are doing internationally and
for exchanging information among agencies. There will be important
chances for such coordination, particularly as we move forward on big,
multi-agency issues such as global climate change, energy, infectious
disease, security, etc.
With respect to setting priorities, however, the function and role
of CISET becomes a bit murkier. There are two kinds of priorities--
foreign policy priorities and priorities for advancing basic or applied
research. Science cooperation in support of foreign policy priorities
is science diplomacy; and international cooperation for the benefit of
science is essential for dealing with global problems and it often
requires diplomatic support when multiple governments are involved.
First, let's address science cooperation for foreign policy. At the
present time, there is a modest U.S. Government effort underway to
extend a hand toward Syria. On a non-government level, we at AAAS are
exploring whether S&T cooperation can be part of our future relations
with Syria (of course, in consultation with the State Department).
Based on our 90-minute meeting with President Assad, we think that a
closer relationship in science may be possible. But the next step is to
determine whether S&T cooperation with Syria should be a priority for
the U.S. Government. A problem is that as a committee of S&T agencies,
CISET cannot determine the priority countries based on foreign policy
considerations. That guidance must come from the State Department and
the NSC. And if that guidance is positive, then the CISET mechanisms
can be used to develop coordinated agency responses for possible
projects. It would also be useful to have a source of funding outside
present agency research and development (R&D) budgets to undertake the
projects. But more about that later.
Secondly, there are also priorities for the scientific projects to
be carried out, and I believe there is an important role for CISET in
setting the substantive priorities for cooperation--particularly if
they involve big projects or big money, such as nuclear fusion, carbon
sequestration, ocean observation, environmental degradation,
desertification--many of these summarizable in two words: global
warming. Such coordination at the NSTC level is vital, especially when
the budgets to support such activities cut across several agencies,
requiring cross-cutting decisions that have long been under OSTP
purview.
Finally, the draft legislation assigns the planning of
international STEM activities to CISET. Clearly, CISET could serve as a
constant reminder to the federal agencies of the potential for
international cooperation and alert them to opportunities that should
be vetted by them. However, planning a program is, I believe, a bridge
too far for CISET. The planning of programs by CISET is only possible
at the very broadest level of consideration. In general it seems
unlikely that CISET could plan agency activities without the ability to
provide funds specifically designated for those activities.
CISET's Relationship With Agencies and State Department
It is necessary in the legislation to distinguish between the role
of CISET and the roles of the S&T agencies and the State Department in
developing and executing cooperation with other countries. CISET is not
an operating body and cannot replace State or the agencies in
negotiating agreements with other countries or their technical
communities. Just as we talk about partnerships between the U.S. and
other countries, there must be a close partnership among the CISET
staff, the agencies and the State Department, if the CISET concept is
going to work effectively. This will be dependent on the character and
qualifications of the people involved, but would be greatly facilitated
if CISET in fact controlled some funds designated for international
science cooperation.
Regarding the role of CISET in relationship to the agencies, there
must be a value provided by CISET or it will be ignored by the agencies
or seen only as another bureaucratic nuisance from above. An important
service CISET could provide to the agencies would be as an advocate
with OMB and the President for adequate funding to take advantage of
international opportunities. When those opportunities are of a foreign
policy benefit, the funds should be made available to the State
Department as part of the funding for foreign affairs-not foreign
assistance--to be transferred to the appropriate agencies based on a
decision in CISET of the merit of the opportunity.
Role of NGOs
We believe that non-profit organizations like AAAS can also be
valuable in carrying out cooperative projects--particularly those of
modest size built on promising the best science possible, even though
chosen for the purpose of building new international relationships--in
other words, for foreign policy reasons. For instance, the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) has been involved in a series of mutually
beneficial scientific workshops with Iran over the past eight years,
achieving a remarkable level of engagement with Iran's science
community. AAAS has also been involved in this activity. But one must
be careful what funds are used for such programs and what rhetoric
accompanies them. When State declared that it had funds for NGOs to
focus on fostering democracy in Iran, it resulted in the arrest and
detention in Iran of a number of Iranians and Iranian-Americans
suspected of using State Department money to conspire against the
Iranian Government.
Funding International S&T Cooperation
Let me finish by once again touching on the subject of funding
international cooperation. I recognize that appropriations are not the
work of this subcommittee, but I can say from many years of experience
that the full potential of international S&T cooperation has been
greatly constrained by a lack of funds. There have been discussions by
several NGOs about the creation of a global science fund. But as one
gets into the details of how much and to whom and for what purpose it
should be expended, and who makes the decisions, the issue becomes
quite complicated. We need some experiments, some pilot projects--a
heuristic approach to the problem.
As a first step, a line item in the State Department budget
designated for international S&T cooperation could be established in
the range of $25-40M and disbursed based on decisions emerging from
CISET. These funds could be distributed to a variety of institutions
for carrying out the projects.
For instance, funds could be provided to a single or a set of NGOs
for specific projects. Funds could also go to the federal S&T agencies
to augment their own project funds and enable an international
dimension to a project which otherwise might be impossible or to
enhance an already internationalized program and improve its chances
for success.
Another good use of these funds could be a transfer to the National
Science Foundation (NSF), which would be able to fund NGOs or
universities in both the U.S. and abroad for cooperative basic research
projects of high merit between U.S. and foreign institutions, which
otherwise would not be possible. The State Department would provide
guidance regarding country or regional priorities. Programs could also
be established to send American professors as visiting scholars in
foreign universities that are being newly built or expanded as
developing countries are increasingly recognizing tertiary education as
a vital aspect of their own development plans.
Most importantly, as the U.S. continues to establish science
agreements with other countries, whether as political deliverables or
simply because they promise scientific benefit to both sides, there
must be some funding to follow-up on these commitments. It is not
acceptable for the U.S. to be unable to respond, even when the other
country has been perfectly willing to pay its side of the project. And
putting a modest amount of money under a CISET decision process and
into the State Department's budget would guarantee close cooperation
between the two institutions. It would also assure a high-level focus
on science cooperation that will involve the NSC and the President and
also be of great interest to the agencies whose international ambitions
in the past have been stymied by their domestically focused missions, a
lack of sufficient funds, or timid leadership. They would be
effectively brought into the international arena and because of CISET's
oversight role and data collection responsibility would also be well
monitored and the results more measurable than they have often been in
the past.
Conclusion
I firmly believe that every consideration should be given by this
Subcommittee to work with the appropriators and foreign affairs staff
to create and secure sufficient funding for a pilot program of this
kind. It has the potential to make a huge change in the effectiveness
of our international cooperation abroad and the ability to respond to
opportunities that will be of great value to this country's scientific,
technical and education community. It will also make CISET an important
and respected institution and bring high-level visibility to
international S&T cooperation as the effective soft power instrument of
foreign policy that it can truly be.
Biography for Norman P. Neureiter
Norman P. Neureiter was born in Illinois and grew up near
Rochester, New York. He received a B.A. degree in chemistry from the
University of Rochester in 1952 and a Ph.D. in organic chemistry from
Northwestern University in 1957. He spent a year ('55-6) as a Fulbright
Fellow in the Institute of Organic Chemistry at the University of
Munich.
In 1957, he joined Humble Oil and Refining (now part of Exxon) in
Baytown, Texas as a research chemist, also teaching German and Russian
at the University of Houston. On leave from Humble in 1959, he served
as a guide at the U.S. National Exhibition in Moscow, subsequently
qualifying as an escort interpreter for the Department of State. In
1963, he joined the International Affairs Office of the U.S. National
Science Foundation in Washington and managed the newly established
U.S.-Japan Cooperative Science Program. Entering the U.S. Foreign
Service in 1965, he was named Deputy Scientific Attache at the U.S.
Embassy in Bonn. In 1967, he was transferred to Warsaw as the first
U.S. Scientific Attache in Eastern Europe with responsibility for
Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
Dr. Neureiter returned to Washington in 1969 as Assistant for
International Affairs to the President's Science Advisor in the White
House Office of Science and Technology. He left the government in 1973
and joined Texas Instruments (TI), where he held a number of staff and
management positions including Manager, East-West Business Development;
Manager, TI Europe Division; Vice President, Corporate Staff; and Vice
President of TI Asia, resident in Tokyo from 1989-94.
After retirement from TI in 1996, he worked as a consultant until
being appointed in September 2000 as the first Science and Technology
Adviser to the U.S. Secretary of State. Finishing the three-year
assignment in 2003, he was made a Distinguished Presidential Fellow for
International Affairs at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. In May
2004, he joined the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) as the first Director of the new AAAS Center for Science,
Technology and Security Policy (CSTSP), funded by the MacArthur
Foundation. Dr. Neureiter is married with four children and speaks
German, Russian, Polish, French, Spanish and Japanese.
Dr. Neureiter was named 14 January 2008 to receive the Public
Welfare Medal, the highest honor of the National Academy of Sciences.
Chair Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Neureiter. With the extra 10
seconds there, you came right in at the five minutes. Thank
you.
Dr. Neureiter. That really bothered me. I am sorry.
Chair Lipinski. Recognize Mr. Rock now for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. ANTHONY F. ``BUD'' ROCK, VICE PRESIDENT FOR
GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Rock. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
today to speak on this important topic.
Mr. Chair, global advances in science and technology have
positioned us better than ever before to address the challenges
and the opportunities that we face as a nation and as a planet.
In my remarks today, I would like to refer very briefly to what
I call the core principles or reasons for our international
science collaboration and in talking about the mechanisms
within the executive branch to coordinate national R&D
priorities. I would like to discuss the strengths and
weaknesses of the former NSTC Committee on International
Science, Engineering and Technology.
Mr. Chair, I support the intent of the draft legislation to
reestablish this international committee, but I would urge that
the reconstituted committee take particular responsibility for
four essential areas, first to help strengthen the
international aspects of the so-called national R&D crosscut
priorities that are defined annually in the President's budget
submission; second, to reinforce and strengthen the mandates of
the federal agencies themselves to undertake international R&D;
third, to ensure senior-level engagement in international
science and technology collaboration that most advances our
foreign policy objectives; and fourth, I do think that the
committee should advise in the establishment and the
administration of a new global science fund to enable the
federal agencies and the broader scientific community, notably
universities, to participate more productively in this
enterprise.
Very briefly, the core principles for international science
collaboration, something that I call the four Ds, are for
discovery, that universal quest for human understanding; for
diplomacy, the recognition that these partnerships and this
cooperation are expressions of broader trust and mutual
respect; for decision-making, to ensure that governments and
individuals make decisions that are rooted in objectivity and
informed exchange; and for development, to be sure that the
tools of knowledge are working for those in greatest need and
to help those to strive to make even greater achievements.
Within the government, the 1976 act that authorized OSTP to
lead the interagency process also called upon OSTP to engage
the private sector, engage the State and local governments,
engage the higher education communities, and engage other
nations toward this end and similarly to advise the President
on the domestic and international implications of science and
technology. When CISET was established, it focused on
coordination and it focused particularly on the crosscut areas,
issues across agency boundaries.
Mr. Chair, each year the NSTC works with federal agencies
and departments to identify a set of R&D areas that require
coordinated investment across agencies and special attention in
the President's budget, the so-called crosscut issues.
A reconstituted and a revitalized CISET should first and
foremost be assigned the lead responsibility to define the
international dimensions of these national crosscuts and the
related areas of special emphasis. In the past, CISET has
struggled with this mission. They have often been overlooked in
that coordinating role. Instead the NSTC committees that
address these critical areas generally prefer to work within
their own member agencies of the committee and overlook the
role that CISET can play in this function. I think this has
exposed several weaknesses. I think that the international
aspects have not received sufficient attention, and I think
that when they are identified, they are not translated over to
the agencies that can follow through on them, the Department of
State, AID, and others.
Mr. Chair, I think that CISET should also provide thorough
review and analysis that can support the explicit and expanded
mandates and resources for federal agencies themselves to
engage in international research for U.S. interests. Again,
CISET has struggled to add value to the international issues in
the R&D budget process for the federal agencies themselves.
These two measures, taking the lead in defining the
international dimensions of our national research priorities
and supporting the resource commitments of the federal agencies
alone will inspire the agencies themselves to seek broader
research horizons and engage more actively internationally.
Without this, CISET or the U.S. Government more broadly, will
not be able to engage other than in a limited sense, in
activities with foreign counterparts. I think that CISET should
continue in every way possible to help facilitate the ability
for U.S. scientists to interact with their foreign
counterparts, deal with the barriers to collaboration, deal
with issues such as intellectual property protection, data
management, capacity building. I think that CISET should place
a special emphasis on ensuring that science and technology are
key components in our nation's strategies for development and
reduction of conflict in regions around the world.
Mr. Chair, Title V of the Foreign Relations Act calls on
the Department of State to serve as the lead federal agency in
developing the S&T agreements. I think that a close-working
relationship between a reconstituted CISET and the Department
of State is absolutely critical and potentially co-chairmanship
should be considered for the committee itself. Individually,
these agreements may not rise to the level of national
significance, but collectively, they are an important foreign
policy portfolio collectively.
Finally, Mr. Chair, I believe that discovery, decision-
making, and development are all partners to the progress that
we expect to achieve internationally. Diplomacy will be
critical in that process. I think that CISET should highlight
the value, defend the resource commitment, and facilitate the
actual exchange of international partnerships in the national
interest. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rock follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anthony F. ``Bud'' Rock
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to come before you today to discuss the subject
of coordination of international science partnerships and draft
legislation to recreate under the National Science and Technology
Council a committee for the coordination and planning of international
science, engineering, technology, and mathematics (STEM) activities. My
name is Anthony Rock, and I currently hold the position of Vice
President for Global Engagement at Arizona State University. Prior to
joining ASU, I served for 29 years in the United States Government,
with nearly all of that time devoted to the global issues of
environment, science, and technology in the Department of State, at
home and abroad.
Nearly all of the great challenges (and opportunities) faced by our
nation and by our planet have the capacity to be addressed in some
measure through advances in science, technology, and creative
innovation. We are positioned better than every before to address
challenges of growth and opportunities for economic prosperity, needs
for environmental protection and resource management, responsibilities
for public health, national security, and improvements in life for the
citizens of our nation and all nations of the world. Moreover, in using
science and technology to address these great challenges, given the
nature of science and the way in which research is conducted today,
international collaboration will be essential if we expect to make
meaningful progress in addressing these challenges.
Today, we understand full well that the conduct of science is not,
and should not be, constrained by national boundaries; rather, that
scientists must be afforded the broadest possible access to
collaborators, instrumentation and other resources if they are to
satisfy their knowledge quest. As a nation, we have transcended the
notion of scientific protectionism in favor of bonds of collaboration
on a global scale. Through international collaboration, our scientific
and engineering communities gain access to cutting-edge research, and
our researchers are found in some of the farthest reaches of the world
addressing global challenges. These collaborations have accelerated the
pace of idea exchange, the rate of investment, and the growth of talent
in science aimed at technological development. We are, collectively, a
more economically and environmentally sustainable world through these
international research linkages.
In my remarks today, I would like to review briefly the core
principles that have inspired international science collaboration for
decades and that are increasingly relevant today. I will review as well
the mechanisms within the Executive branch for establishing and
coordinating national research and development priorities, specifically
within the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), and I will discuss the
strengths and weaknesses of the former NSTC Committee on International
Science, Engineering and Technology (CISET). I will address my support
for the draft legislation to re-establish this committee with the
purpose to: 1) strengthen the international aspects of the so-called
national R&D ``cross-cut'' priorities, 2) reinforce and strengthen
mandates of federal agencies to undertake international R&D, 3)
coordinate and give priority to high-level international engagement in
science and technology, and 4) advise in the establishment and
administration of a Global Science Fund to enable federal agencies and
the broader U.S. science community (notably universities) to
participate more productively in global scientific and technological
cooperation.
CORE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION
In my experience, I have found there to be essentially four core
principles that inform the decisions made by our nation's institutions
(public and private) to advance science and technology in the global
arena; and international collaboration is nearly always a function of
one or more of these core themes:
1) Discovery
The simple acknowledgement that there exists an unceasing and
universal quest and need to advance the frontiers of human
understanding. International S&T collaboration can play a very vital
role in advancing S&T capacity worldwide. Through cooperative cross-
border endeavors, scientists and engineers gain access to foreign data,
platforms, facilities, sites, expertise, and technology. Broad access
to information and minds allows scientists and engineers to work
together to address issues of global concern and to develop, test, and
use new ideas on a global scale. The products of such collaborations--
models, methods, tools, services--can be vital to our national economic
and security goals, even as they improve the global condition.
2) Diplomacy
The recognition that these bonds of partnership and cooperation
toward common goals are themselves expressions of broader trust and
mutual respect. It is often expressed that scientists are ``enablers,''
goal-oriented and motivated by objectivity and openness. These traits
have, in turn, held (and even strengthened) ties (and perceptions of
America) in otherwise challenging times and circumstances with China,
Russia, India, Pakistan, and countries of the Middle East, to name but
a few. International S&T partnerships can contribute to building more
stable relations among communities and nations by creating a universal
culture based on commonly accepted S&T values of objectivity, sharing,
integrity, and free inquiry. Science, technology, and engineering
education can also be instruments to promote democracy and good
governance. Conversely, in the absence of diplomatic exchange,
scientific and technological advancement may be negatively (and
dramatically) impacted.
3) Decision-making
The growing imperative to ensure that policies and actions of
governments and individuals (domestically and internationally) are
rooted as much as possible in objectivity and informed exchange.
National policies informed by global science provide objectivity,
transparency, and consistency domestically and across borders. Both
domestically and internationally, science can play a vital role in
resolving disputes and disagreements that impede progress and endanger
welfare. International S&T partnerships can also play a key role in
energizing innovation and overall economic competitiveness. U.S.
leadership in international S&T partnerships helps to ensure a lead
position in the global S&T enterprise. In the current global climate of
interdependence across economic, social, technological, cultural, and
political spheres, every effort must be made to apply sound policies
that encourage progressive strengthening and application of our
research enterprise.
4) Development
The necessity, unchanged for generations, to put these tools of
knowledge to work for the lives of those in greatest need and to serve
the interests of those whose aspirations are to even greater
achievements. Scientific communities (public and private) have long
recognized their critical roles in providing for the health and welfare
of their own populations and of the less privileged. Cooperation that
advances the frontiers of knowledge can often provide as an added
benefit the basis upon which insure sustainable growth, quality-of-
life, and stability that serves the good of all mankind. International
S&T partnerships between developed and developing countries improve the
ability of developing countries to become self-sufficient, to
participate in the global enterprise, and to meet the goals of
sustainable development--ranging from the need for more secure national
infrastructures against global terrorism to preventing environmental
change and degradation; managing catastrophic natural disasters; or
mitigating the impacts of widespread health epidemics such as AIDS--all
challenges that require the collective efforts of the world's science
community.
Scientists are taking ever-increasingly active roles in public
dialogue concerning the issues of our times, and they are more directly
informing the policy process. These are important trends that must
continue because they bring the principles of objectivity and
scientific methodology into the arenas that most require these
principles. Dr. Bruce Alberts, then President of the National Academy
of Sciences, referred to an increasing role for ``global citizen
scientists'' who stand at the interface between new knowledge and major
national and international societal needs, with responsibilities to
serve as the vital informational link.
THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS OF NATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PRIORITIES
The National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and
Priorities Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-282) authorizes OSTP to lead
interagency efforts to develop and implement sound science and
technology policies and budgets, to work with the private sector, State
and local governments, the science and higher education communities,
and other nations toward this end, and to advise the President and
others within the Executive Office of the President on the direction
science and technology and its impact on domestic and international
affairs. In particular, the Act calls on the OSTP Director to ``assess
and advise [the President] on policies for international cooperation in
S&T which will advance the national and international objectives of the
United States.''
The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) was established
by President Clinton in 1993 as the principal means for the President
to advise and coordinate the federal research and development
enterprise with respect to science, space, engineering, and technology.
NSTC members include cabinet Secretaries and leaders of agencies with
significant science and technology responsibilities.
As noted in the National Science Board's Report entitled ``Toward a
More Effective Role for the U.S. Government in International Science
and Engineering,'' within the NSTC, the Committee on International
Science, Engineering and Technology (CISET) was established to
coordinate efforts to increase the overall effectiveness and
productivity of federal efforts in international science, engineering,
and technology. CISET was tasked to address significant international
policy, program and budget matters that cut across agency boundaries
and to provide a formal mechanism for interagency policy review,
planning and coordination, as well as exchanges of information
regarding international science, engineering and technology.
The issue before this subcommittee today is whether the subsequent
dissolution of CISET should be re-examined with consideration to
reconstitute the international committee as a formal and vital
component of the NSTC. I would support that decision and the substance
of the draft legislation to that effect, drawing, at the same time, on
a few lessons of history to inform the details of the future committee.
THE ROLE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND
TECHNOLOGY (CISET)
Broadly stated, the NSTC, and CISET in particular, should strive to
ensure that science and technology in the national interest benefits in
every way from collaborative engagement in the international arena. In
this context (and derived from the RAND Report of April 2002), the term
``science and technology'' refers to the full range of investments in
research, equipment and infrastructure, data management, and the
policies, guidelines, standards, and regulations that support these
efforts. The research and development agendas of federal agencies are,
in turn, the practical expressions of our national goals for science
and technology. To a large extent, these R&D agendas are defined and
implemented in a manner that will advance knowledge needed by these
agencies to fulfill their defined missions.
In short, federal agency research may be more appropriately
characterized as ``service-driven'' rather than ``discovery-driven'' in
the purest sense, though these are not entirely mutually exclusive
agendas. For this reason, when we look to the federal agencies as the
primary vehicles of international collaboration in science and
technology, it is perhaps more appropriate to refer to this
international cooperation as an alignment of mission priorities rather
than science priorities per se. CISET should lead the process of
strengthening agencies' capacities to engage internationally, and
should, at the same time, work diligently to establish a mechanism by
which the broader ``discovery-driven'' U.S. scientific community might
join and enhance our interests internationally.
1) Setting Priorities and Supporting Budgets
Each year, the NSTC works with federal agencies and departments to
identify a set of research and development (R&D) areas that require
coordinated investments across several agencies and, therefore, high-
level attention in the President's budget submission to Congress are--
``cross-cut'' issues associated with climate, energy, advanced
computing, critical infrastructure, etc. In the past this has taken the
form of memorandum in the spring of each year from the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Director of OSTP to the
heads of the relevant agencies outlining the Administration's R&D
priorities for use in the development of the next year's budget
request.
In this same exercise, the NSTC also identifies a number of special
emphasis areas that require budget oversight within the Executive
branch but that do not require formal budget cross-cuts. For these
areas of special emphasis, NSTC works to understand and compare ongoing
programs across agencies and to identify gaps and overlap in these
programs.
The NSTC, in its FY 2000 Research and Development Priorities
Memorandum, notes that ``these interagency priority areas should
reflect the objectives of maintaining American excellence in science
and technology enterprise, through pursuit of specific agency missions
and through stewardship of critical research fields and scientific
facilities. They should help strengthen science, math, and engineering
education, ensure their broad availability, and contribute to preparing
the next generation of scientists and engineers. They should focus on
activities that require a Federal presence to attain national goals,
including national security, environmental quality, economic growth and
prosperity, and human health and well being; and they should promote
international cooperation in science and technology.''
A reconstituted and revitalized CISET should, first and foremost,
be assigned the lead responsibility to define the international
dimensions of these national research and development cross-cuts and
areas of special emphasis endorsed by the Administration in the annual
budget process. In the past, CISET struggled to execute this aspect of
its mission. This need not be the case in the future. CISET was often
overlooked in it role to identify and coordinate international
dimensions of key national research priorities. Instead, as other NSTC
committees addressed these critical areas, they generally preferred to
explore the international elements directly with the member agencies
within their committees, rather than through CISET. This approach
exposed two particular weaknesses. International aspects often did not
receive sufficient attention by the representatives to these
committees, and these aspects also failed to convey to agencies with
international mandates who were not active participants on these
committees or sub-groups--the Department of State, USAID, etc.
In conjunction with this responsibility, but not exclusively to its
end, CISET should be called upon to provide the thorough review and
analysis that is required to support OSTP's and OMB's endorsement of
explicit and expanded mandates and resources for federal agencies to
engage in international research for U.S. interests. Historically,
CISET also struggled to add value for international issues in the
deliberations on R&D funding for the federal agencies. While agencies
with primarily domestic service missions would associate with specific
national R&D priorities, they were often nonetheless reluctant to
identify and quantify international resource commitments and needs.
This must change, and CISET can lead that effort.
International collaboration can take the form of defined
cooperative research and development programs, formal and informal
international training programs, and/or representation at international
meetings, conferences, and activities of international organizations.
As noted by the Interagency Working Group on International Education
and Training, federal agency engagement in the international arena
generally serves one or more of the following objectives:
1. To increase U.S. access to expertise, research, unique
materials and technologies;
2. To share the intellectual and financial burden of large R&D
projects internationally;
3. To increase national and international safety and security
with regard to nuclear technologies, the environment, food
safety, and plant and animal disease transmission;
4. To conserve natural resources and animal and plant life
diversity;
5. To improve public health and welfare through international
cooperation to develop new medical technologies and
intervention/prevention strategies; and
6. To strengthen the U.S. market position.
2) Engaging the International Community
These two measures--taking the lead in defining the international
dimensions of our national research priorities and supporting the
resource commitments of federal agencies to engage internationally--
alone will inspire agencies to broaden their research horizons and
assume wider responsibility for international engagement as an
instrument of U.S. foreign policy. CISET will, in turn, be far better
positioned to inform and guide the OSTP Director as senior
representative of the U.S. federal science community with foreign
counterparts, including dialogues with other presidential level science
ministers and advisers. Absent these defined international priorities
and funded commitment of federal agencies, CISET will always be limited
in its ability to inspire new activities with foreign counterparts in
the bilateral and multilateral working groups on science and technology
chaired by the White House science adviser.
Among its additional responsibilities, CISET should also ensure
that research priorities of the United States are appropriately
represented in the science and technology components of major
international organizations including the G-8, the OECD, UNESCO, and
regional organizations.
CISET should also continue to address the broad issues that
facilitate the ability of U.S. scientists to interact with foreign
counterparts, eliminate barriers to collaboration and ensure access to
scientific information from other countries. Historically, CISET did
assume leadership on general topics associated with international
cooperation, including matters of intellectual property protection,
data management, capacity building, etc. In 2000, CISET supported the
Working Group on the Intellectual Property Rights Annex in
International S&T Agreements. The IPR issue had the potential to impact
all agencies across all disciplines.
CISET should place a special emphasis on ensuring that science and
technology are key components in our nation's strategies for
development and reduction of conflict in regions throughout the world.
The committee should focus on the importance of setting priorities and
coordinating research across all agencies engaged in the development
and national security agendas. The committee should direct its guidance
not only to our own development agencies, but also to regional and
multinational development organizations.
CISET led the Emerging Infectious Diseases Task Force, the
International Water S&T Working Group, the Agricultural Biotechnology
S&T Capacity Building in Developing Countries Working Group, and
working groups on U.S. bilateral and multilateral relationships.
Emerging infectious diseases and water resources management were issues
of uniquely growing concern in the developing world, yet with direct
implications for the United States, and for which there was a pressing
need to expand and coordinate the responsibilities of a range of U.S.
technical agencies, notably CDC. This effort also engaged the
Department of Defense actively, and demonstrated the close linkages
between quality of life issue and our national security.
Similarly, the growing domain of agricultural biotechnology and its
potential for the developing world brought together the domestic and
international agendas of several key U.S. agencies. CISET played
important roles in setting terms of international collaboration,
raising the profile of key agencies on important issues, and building
consensus and coordination among these agencies on these critical
issues. These functions should continue in a reconstituted CISET.
Through CISET, the NSTC should identify the international
dimensions of national R&D priorities for consideration and guidance
from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST). Ideally, the PCAST can ascribe the perspectives of the broader
scientific (and user) communities to these priorities. In all
instances, CISET should ensure that international priorities associated
with the national research are clearly defined in order that the OSTP
Director can accurately and comprehensively advise the President in
this arena at any time.
3) CISET and the Department of State
Title V of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year
1979 (P.L. 95-426, 22 U.S.C. 2656a-22 U.S.C. 2656d, as amended)
provides the legislative guidance for U.S. international S&T policy,
making the Department of State the lead federal agency in developing
S&T agreements. For this reason, a close working relationship between
CISET and the Department of State is critical. Co-chairmanship of CISET
by an OSTP Associate Director for International Affairs and the
Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, Environment and Science will
help to ensure the committee's effectiveness. Agency participation in
CISET must be diverse and comprehensive as well. The United States has
a rich history of engagement in international and multinational
programs of research--from the International Geophysical Year of 1957
to the International Global Change Research Program or advanced mega-
science programs with key partners. It should be an assigned function
of CISET to conduct regular reviews of these programs to ensure full
and coordinated engagement of all relevant agencies. Even where other
agencies champion the specific research direction of these programs,
CISET can play a valuable role in coordination and support for the
national resource commitments required.
At the same time, through the leadership of the Department of State
and the engagement of many federal agencies, the United States
maintains nearly 40 bilateral comprehensive science and technology
agreements (so-called umbrella agreements) and nearly 800 memoranda of
understanding for the conduct of specific programs with international
partners worldwide. Individually, these agreements may not rise to the
level of national research priorities; collectively, however, they
represent an important dimension of our foreign policy portfolio.
The establishment of these cooperative international science and
technology agreements, yielded results that few could have predicted,
providing valuable exchanges of scientific expertise during the Cold
War, securing avenues of information exchange, prompting new investment
in development in emerging countries, opening dialogue on intellectual
property protection in otherwise closed economies, ensuring the
prospect of science based decision-making in critical areas related to
health, resource management, and economic growth on a global scale. In
many instances, scientists have received recognition (domestic and
foreign) that has strengthened collaboration, provided for the more
expeditious exchange of data, personnel, materials and equipment, and
has advanced the process of discovery to application more rapidly than
would otherwise have been the case.
4) Empowering the Broader Scientific Community--a Global Science Fund
Historically, it may be said that the scientific community
generally saw little value in formalizing cooperative research
arrangements and working through diplomatic channels, favoring a
perceived primacy of U.S. science and the assumption that global doors
would always be open across all disciplines. Moreover, scientists
tended to value their roles as specialists, seeing no inherent value in
joining forces under the umbrella of a general, cooperative
international science agreement.
But, the great challenges that we face today call for scientific
research that is far more distributed and multidisciplinary in scope.
Moreover, the greater connectivity and flow of information across
national boundaries should not detract from the continued importance of
formal cooperative linkages, the terms of which ensure that all
participating nations benefit from the opportunities to put science to
productive use.
It would be a significant and valuable undertaking for CISET to
provide a regular evaluation of the impacts of these agreements on our
national research agenda and our foreign policy goals, with the
objective to set the terms for administration of a Global Science Fund
to support and leverage the expenditure of additional resources in
support of these activities. Internally, within the United States,
these deliberations should be informed by all relevant stakeholders.
Externally, to the international community, it should be clear that the
primary goal is to foster strong, vibrant scientific links. CISET
guidance can provide the critical link between the fulfillment of
agency mission-driven research and enabling agencies to engage more
actively in research programs of expanded impact to the international
community and to U.S. foreign policy interests. Without prejudice to
mission research budget allocations, this fund could stimulate
collaborations and potential for even greater unanticipated returns to
national interests.
Moreover, every effort should be made to engage the broadest
participation of the U.S. scientific community to include non-
governmental and academic institutions. CISET should explore the
potential for the National Science Foundation, a lead and
internationally respected science agency of the United States, to
administer such a fund and to establish a formal mechanism by which the
broader academic scientific community, under the guidance of CISET
leadership.
CONCLUSION
More than ever before, stresses on our population and our planet
will demand much tighter linkages between discovery, decision-making,
and development; and partnership for progress domestically and
internationally will be a complex, but very important, exercise in
diplomacy. CISET leadership should serve to reinforce the principle
that the universal quest for knowledge and the stature attributed to
scientific communities worldwide place scientific and technological
collaboration in the forefront of international relations, that science
is strengthened through international partnership. Science can serve as
a very tool by which bridges of understanding and collaboration are
forged and global interests are served.
A reconstituted CISET can, and should, highlight the value, defend
the resource commitment, and facilitate the actual engagement of
international partnerships in the national interest. It will do so most
effectively with shared leadership from the Department of State, active
participation from other federal agencies, and as a strong supporting
element to the other committees within the NSTC structure. Through its
creative guidance, CISET can also help to establish a mechanism by
which the broader U.S. scientific community can play a more active and
coordinated role in this enterprise. As a member of the academic
community, here today representing one of the nation's leading research
universities, I would greatly welcome that initiative.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I would be
happy to respond to any questions.
Biography for Anthony F. ``Bud'' Rock
Anthony ``Bud'' Rock is Vice President for Global Engagement at
Arizona State University. His office is focused on enhancing and
expanding ASU's global programs and presence and the international
dimensions of three essential themes: knowledge acquisition, research
and strategic engagement. Rock originally joined the university as
special adviser to President Michael Crow for strategic international
initiatives.
Before coming to ASU, Rock served 30 years in the U.S. Foreign
Service, attaining the rank of minister-counselor and retiring as
Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Science, Technology,
Environment, and Health Affairs. Rock also served for four years as
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and, simultaneously for
two years, as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Health. Prior
to joining the diplomatic corps, Rock was a physical scientist and
coordinator for international research with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. He also held the position of International
Director of the National Sea Grant Program.
Rock received his undergraduate training at Georgetown University
and Johns Hopkins University in the life sciences and psychology. His
graduate training and research were at George Washington University in
science and technology policy and Columbia University's Lamont Earth
Observatory in marine geophysics. He is a graduate of the 43rd Senior
Seminar, the Federal Government's highest-level civilian/military joint
training program. Rock also served in the United States Merchant
Marines.
Discussion
Chair Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Rock. I thank all the
witnesses for their testimony. At this point we are going to
move on to Members for questions. It is the Chair's prerogative
to go first, but I am going to recognize myself for five
minutes, but I am going to turn the time over to Dr. Baird who
has done so much work, I know, on this issue so I am going to
give five minutes to Dr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. Chair Lipinski, thank you very much. That is
very gracious of you to do so, and thank you for holding this
hearing. Dr. Ehlers has been a lead of this issue for many,
many years, and I am grateful for his work. And also Mr.
Carnahan who stepped outside has been working very diligently
along with the Foreign Affairs Committee on which he is also
appointed. I see in addition to our distinguished panel here a
number of folks who have been instrumental, Vaughan Turekian
with the AAAS and colleagues from the State Department, we are
glad to see you here as well.
As you know, I am committed to this and I remain so
committed to this, although I am on a different committee now.
I stayed on this one particularly to work with the Chair on
this issue.
But your testimony is encouraging. We are at least on the
right track with CISET. The need for a global fund is well-
taken, difficult in these budget times, but I think what we
will have to do is demonstrate the return that that would lead
to in terms of diplomatic benefits, S&T developments, the four
Ds, basically, communicate that.
One of my fundamental questions has always been if you have
an administration that is committed to this, as I think this
Administration is committed to science--they have demonstrated
that with public statements, with budgetary efforts both in the
Stimulus Act and in appointments that I think are very top-
flight appointments--where do you see the role, in addition to
CISET and maybe the global fund, what else can we do to get
State and OSTP working together? Do you think CISET will do the
job or are there other mechanisms to do that, because that
fundamental nexus, where both look to each other, seems to me
to be essential, that they work together hand in glove. Then,
how is our role in the legislative branch bringing that about?
I will just throw that out there. I am so privileged to have
learned from you in the past. Educate us again a little more on
this.
Dr. Strauss. I will take a shot at part of that, at least.
Obviously the representation on CISET is going to be very
important, and the Board recommended that each of the federal
agencies appoint a senior official to be responsible for the
international outreach aspects of their mission, presumably
that official being also a member of CISET and being involved
in the coordination. Clearly, too, the representation from
State, and the involvement of State in this is absolutely vital
to it. And I think that area needs a good deal of
consideration, and I know that my companion here, Norm, has
some very strong thoughts on that as well. Thank you.
Dr. Neureiter. Just a comment on it. When I first got to
the State Department, it was late September 2000, and I heard
about this committee and I thought, gee, what a terrific thing
because I had been, way back in the Nixon Administration, I had
been in OSTP for four years. And so I realized that the vantage
point that you have working out of the White House but being in
the State Department, and the link to the foreign policy
community, I think wouldn't it be great--my deputy, Andy
Reynolds, is back here--I said to Andy, wouldn't it be great if
we could chair that thing? Well, it turns out it was at the
end, and then it wasn't renewed and so it never happened. But I
thought then, what a perfect instrument, and that is why I am
so thrilled that you folks were thinking of regenerating it.
I think if you can come up with a well-structured and a
well-embodied, that is, with the right people in CISET from the
State Department, from the agencies, and particularly from the
strong leader in OSTP, I think you have got a mechanism. I
don't think you have to go beyond that. Then it is making that
function to work well. I think the potential is tremendous, I
really do.
Mr. Rock. Mr. Chair, thank you for the chance to comment
again, and let me just take the opportunity at this point to
say how fortunate I think you are to have Congressman Baird
remaining on the Committee with you. He has been a very active
supporter of this, and it is a very important issue as you
know.
My comment is only to say that the State Department and the
OSTP are leaders of a process, but they need to be able to look
around them to see the participants in that process along with
the leadership, and that means that we need to put some
strength behind the federal agencies, the technical agencies
themselves, the practical expression if you will, of this
international science collaboration. By and large, the federal
agencies are what I would call more sort of mission-oriented in
terms of their science than discovery oriented, and we need to
have both of those participants in the international science
collaboration enterprise, if you will. When we bring our
federal agencies to be the primary vehicles for that
collaboration, what we are really doing is not so much aligning
science priorities internationally as much as we are aligning
mission priorities, which is good for us as a government and I
think it serves our citizens. But at the same time, we need to
be able to reach the discovery enterprise and bring the
academic community more involved in this process, and CISET can
help that to happen.
So if we get the resources behind the federal agencies and
bring the academics in, I think we help tremendously in the
process.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chair, but I want to also thank
the Committee staff for all their diligent work on this as
well, and I think they have done a great job maintaining that
continuity, and I am grateful for that and to all the
witnesses.
Chair Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Baird. We will have an
opportunity to come back to Dr. Neureiter on that. At this
time, let me recognize Dr. Ehlers for five minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rock, you suggested
that CISET be co-chaired by OSTP and the Department of State. I
am curious how the other members of the panel feel about that.
Does that make sense to have a co-chairmanship there?
Dr. Neureiter. I personally think it is a really good idea
because, I don't know, even though you are only a few blocks
from each other, when you are busy in your own house, you tend
to stay in your house, and I think creating a co-chair--now one
of the issues is that people have to get along with each other.
It somewhat depends on who those people are that are the co-
chairs and that they can really work together, and if they
can't it is a huge problem. But hopefully the leadership will
be such in both institutions that people who are compatible
with each other can find each other and can come together. I
really think it is not a bad idea at all.
Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Strauss.
Dr. Strauss. The Task Force talked about various
possibilities. We certainly agree that we needed high-level
involved representation from both the Department of State and
OSTP but chose not to make a specific recommendation in part
for the very reasons that Norm points out, that it is important
that if you have got co-chairs that they are really working
closely together.
Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Rock.
Mr. Rock. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. Thank you for raising that
particular point. I raised it primarily because we did in fact
have this situation in one of the past incarnations of CISET.
We did in fact have the co-chairmanship. I think the one thing
that it did bring to the table was that it is very hard to
select from among the 40-plus comprehensive S&T agreements,
those which really rise to the level of highest foreign policy
significance, and the State Department helped to guide that
decision about what came to CISET in terms of that level of
priority. OSTP in return focused on the national R&D priorities
of greatest significance internationally. So it tended to be I
think a pretty strong blend when we had it.
Mr. Ehlers. As you know, the bill does not do that now, but
that is more for personal reasons here and getting the bill
through rather than any item of substance. But if we didn't
have co-chairmanships, can you imagine a good interrelationship
between the two and some other formal arrangement or semi-
formal arrangement? Any suggestions on that?
Mr. Rock. Well, again, I think one of the aspects that the
committee was probably most successful in the past was to
divide itself into subgroups around technically significant
issues. I will tell you quite candidly, Congressman, that when
we did the pandemic influenza working group, we did it only
partly because that was an internationally significant issue.
We also did it because it helped elevate the visibility of CDC,
give more recognition to its mandate, give greater potential
for its resources, and to bring it into a closer working
relationship with DOD. That was a very valuable exercise, just
for that sub-group alone.
I could see the State Department exercising responsibility
over particular subgroups within the committee that would focus
on foreign policy priorities to ensure that, even at a subgroup
level, that we are attaching the greatest significance to the
items that are most important to our foreign policy as well as
our national R&D goals. Working group or subcommittee
chairmanship is valuable as well.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. That is very useful. One last question on
this score. Are you aware of arrangements that other nations
have made that we might use as a model for our relationship
between State and science? For anyone.
Dr. Neureiter. I am not aware of any particular arrangement
of broad. Another possibility would make the State Department a
deputy chair of the committee. Now again, maybe for reasons if
you don't want to do something like that, but that would at
least establish State as a very important partner in the
leadership process. But again, I think it could happen without
that provided the people can get along and work well together
and also if the real mission of this institution is broadly
accepted, supported by the President, and strongly supported by
the Director of OSTP. I think that can make for a very powerful
organization.
Mr. Ehlers. Actually, I think those are the two most
important factors, if you have the President's support and OSTP
support, you are home free. You can do a lot. If you don't have
it, it is very, very difficult.
I see my time just expired, so I will yield back.
Chair Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. I think we will have
time if you have more questions. The Chair now will recognize
himself. I will play a little loose with the rules in terms of
we will call this a second round of questions. I will call on
Dr. Baird who I believe is going to yield then his five minutes
to me, so thank you. Okay. So now we are officially still on
the first round of questions.
Dr. Hane was not here today, but in his written testimony
he discussed the need for CISET to draw upon the research
community broadly to identify and assess international
opportunities. So I want to ask all of you, how might CISET tap
into universities, industry, and non-profits with relevant
expertise? And this is something that I am particularly
interested in. It seems in so many areas we do not do enough of
that. I have a bias, having been a professor before I was
elected to Congress. I know the university research and how
important that is in the research community there but also
bringing industry, non-profits. We could do so much more in
working together. So I want to throw that question out there.
Who would like to start? Mr. Rock.
Mr. Rock. I would be delighted to start being now a
representative of the academic community after 30 years in
government, so obviously I strongly support your motivation in
this regard to reach out more broadly. When we look at
collaboration internationally and the scientific community and
other countries looks at us, they anticipate that they are
building a relationship with the broad, U.S. scientific
enterprise. Their only partners are the federal agencies. As I
said earlier, they aren't getting the full breadth of that
opportunity. For the benefit of U.S. science as well as the
international collaboration aspects, I am a strong supporter of
getting that reach as broad as possible. I might fine tune that
by saying that if the representative for science cooperation
only appears to be the State Department, it adds from the
foreign perspective a certain political dimension that does not
always favor scientific relationships. It is one of the reasons
why I personally as a person now sitting in academia would like
to see the National Science Foundation playing a more active
role in helping to build those relationships because it will
send the message internationally that it is a science-to-
science relationship that we are employing in this regard.
Chair Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Rock. Dr. Neureiter.
Dr. Neureiter. If one goes for something like the global
science fund model, and in a way, my suggestion of putting
money in the State Department which indicates that it would be
specifically for international cooperation but particularly for
science diplomacy initiatives transferring a portion of that
money to the National Science Foundation, I think that does
achieve it because the National Science Foundation can work
with NGO's, it can work with universities, and it can make
grants to whatever institution is appropriate to participate in
that cooperation. I think that Gerald's suggestion is a very
good one. If one does something slightly different with the
global science fund, they could of course call on any aspect of
American S&T strength to participate in the programs.
Chair Lipinski. Thank you. Dr. Strauss, do you have
anything to add?
Dr. Strauss. Very briefly. After spending virtually 50
years in higher education, I am embarrassed that the Task Force
didn't give more thought to the representation of that enormous
wealth of scientific and engineering talent in the work of
something like CISET. I believe our oversight is prompted
largely by our view that the National Science Foundation serves
so well in that regard, and we presume it would be active, very
active, in the CISET initiative.
Chair Lipinski. Thank you, gentlemen. I want to throw
something else out there, an opportunity to address an issue
that does come up. How would CISET complement and enhance
rather than duplicate the international work of subject area
committees such as the nanotechnology subcommittee and others?
So what is the addition rather than just duplicating the work
of other committees? Who wants to start out here? Dr.
Neureiter.
Dr. Neureiter. It just strikes me, I am so pre-occupied
with the importance, the diplomatic value, the scientific value
of international cooperation, that I think to count on the work
of these domestic committees, even if they are supposed to talk
about international and supposed to talk about competition
abroad and worry about our competitiveness, the fact is they
end up focusing on the domestic issues and domestic problems,
and you will never get the attention I would like to see on the
international relationship unless you have some other
mechanism. And I think CISET is probably the right mechanism
because you are bringing all of those groups together,
hopefully in a very effective way to concentrate on the
international dimension, drawing on the domestic strengths to
make it work.
Chair Lipinski. Mr. Rock.
Mr. Rock. Mr. Chair, science today is more distributed and
far more multi-disciplinary than it has ever been in the past.
My hope is the NSTC will recognize that even in its issue-based
committees and extend the concept of what that issue really
represents to begin with.
The biggest challenge that we had historically in this
regard was that the agencies with international mandates, and I
mean specifically the State Department and USAID, tended to be
the least participatory in the issue-based committees
themselves. SO they really did not exercise--even when the
opportunity was identified to work internationally in the
issue-based committee, it was never conveyed over to the
department, to the agencies that could carry that process
forward. I think that CISET needs to take that head-on. They
need to say, we understand the international dimensions, we
know it from the level of the national priority and crosscut,
all the way down to the individual federal agencies'
responsibilities and get behind supporting it.
Chair Lipinski. Thank you. Mr. Tonko, do you have any
questions at this time? Thank you. We are going to move onto
the second round of questions, and I will recognize myself for
five minutes and yield those five minutes to Dr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. I am enjoying this, Mr. Chair, thank you. I ask
a somewhat difficult question potentially. One of the
challenges seems to be that if you look--the broad question is
going to be this--in addition to the CISET proposal and
possibly a global science fund, what are other changes we need
to make? And let me put a couple of potential issues out there:
If you look at USAID and you talk to folks in the field, there
tends to be this sort of, they have got the thing they do and
that is what they do, and whether that is providing often
development assistance, sometimes emergency-type relief, but it
is, you know, feed people, get health care, clean the water,
that kind of thing. This is a bit of a different kind of
approach than the primary infrastructure and custom maybe of
USAID. At the same time, NSF, for their part, have certain
restrictions on what money can go overseas. They can't fund, it
is my understanding, international researchers.
What are your thoughts about how we can sort of impact
maybe the culture of USAID to where they would see that an
investment in science-diplomacy type activities is actually at
least as meritorious as the other thing, and conversely, what
are your thoughts about should we make some changes to NSF's
constrictures against foreign funding or would the global
science fund as you envisioned it take care of that? Those two
questions.
Dr. Strauss. Let me comment very briefly. The Task Force
considered these issues quite carefully, particularly
recognizing the very positive history of USAID and supporting
science around the world. And we were mindful of the work that
the National Research Council had done several years ago in
recommending some structural changes to try and reinforce the
science expertise within USAID to try to address this. In
thinking about this, we recommended increased attention in
USAID and the State Department to these issues, and then we
were delighted just a year ago now with the NSF and USAID
entered into a memorandum of understanding which I mentioned in
my remarks that has dual funding, with the NSF funding the
domestic side and the USAID funding the foreign partners side
of partnerships on issues of common global concern.
We are really quite comfortable with that, and so far this
memorandum of understanding has been applied in several
different areas that seem to be producing good results. And we
are anxious to see it further advanced.
Dr. Neureiter. I started working at NSF in 1963 in their
international operation, and I had a great dream for NSF at
that time that we might turn it into a major institution for
international cooperation in science. And in a way they have
been a model for similar organizations throughout the world. So
it has played a very important role.
This recent agreement between AID and NSF which was put
together with the help of Nina Federoff at the State Department
I think really does a very good job in that regard if AID will
buy into it and as AID emerges from the new Administration, how
it can really grab hold.
The important thing about the recommendation that I made
that the money from the State Department go to NSF but it would
be different money from the standard NSF money and would be
treated differently and hopefully legally can be handled
differently and would not be restricted. On the other hand, our
real model for this science cooperation is pretty much that the
partners, each partner, funds his side of the bargain. I mean,
it was just funny with India because I still chair the
government's relationship with India but we only have rupees
that we can use in that program, and when the Indians say to
me, you know, even the Slovenians for our cooperation are
paying a million dollars on their side for their share of
cooperation with us and we are willing to put in tons of money
on our side, why can't you find a few dollars on yours? Well,
anyway, we struggled with that and had a solution but not a
very good one.
So I think that kind of takes care of it. It you
appropriate money to a place where it can be specifically for
international activities, and then if they can transfer it to
NSF and NSF can use it effectively and not violate any
strictures, I think that takes care of it. And this AID
relationship is really quite exciting if that could be made to
work and AID buys in.
Mr. Baird. Part of the reason I ask the question is when
one travels internationally, it is pretty common to meet
scientists who were trained domestically here, got their Ph.D.
from major American universities, then went back, and
oftentimes, where as here they may have had state-of-the-art
access and they go back home and this whole career, that they
have worked their whole life, just dead ends. They have no
funding, they have no tools, and sometimes a fairly small
amount of money from us could help keep them going. And they
may be, in their home country they may be the person. You know,
here we may have umpteen hundred water purification scientists
or something. They may be it in their country, and to not give
them support and collaboration and professional esprit de corps
really could hurt us, and sometimes a small amount would not, I
don't think, detract measurably from available U.S. funding but
might increase immeasurably the benefit internationally. Mr.
Rock.
Mr. Rock. Thank you, Congressman. Three quick points. First
of all, I want to support what has already been said. I think
the value of the AID-NSF MOU is tremendous because it does set
some targets and direction.
The second point is that with regard to the establishment
of a global science fund, I think that if it were, for example,
exercised through NSF, that may perhaps be one of the most
important elements of a need for legislation at all, to define
those specific terms. But quite frankly, if those resources
help to energize federal agencies and leverage their resources
more actively, then the federal agencies can reach out
internationally. If it helps leverage the U.S. academic
community to engage more, they can reach out internationally.
So it is a bridge so to speak.
My final point in that regard is, you asked the question,
how will AID's orientation be to something like this? I go back
to my four Ds and say if you can help AID understand that
science plays a role in the decision-making process, to help
policy-makers make objective decisions for governance in their
countries, that science plays a role in that, that is an
extremely valuable tool that AID should be supporting.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Mr. Chair, thanks, your indulgence. I
will yield back seven minutes when it is my turn.
Chair Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Baird. Now, the Chair now
recognizes Dr. Ehlers for five minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. In that case, I will take the seven minutes he
just yielded.
Chairman Lipinski. This is our final round, so go ahead.
Mr. Ehlers. I don't have much in the way of questions but
Dr. Neureiter, you made some fairly strong and spirited
statements in your testimony, and in particular one that went
something like you wanted to prevent CISET from becoming
another security gate focused on export control regimes or
visa-like barriers to interaction with other countries. The
first question, was this an issue during the Clinton
Administration when CISET was around and are you speaking from
experience that this happened or is it a fear that it might
happen or both?
Dr. Neureiter. Well, just remember, I came back to
government seven years ago. No, it did not happen in the
Clinton Administration, but security and protection and keeping
us safe from everything and everybody around the world has been
such a dominant theme for the last eight years, I just wanted
to make the point that this must not happen with this
organization. That cannot be a preoccupation. And I think all
of the language and all of the rhetoric and all of the words
that have been used in connection with this activity--your
hearing, and your motivation, and your motivation, all point in
the direction of really fostering the international
relationship and reaching out to the world, and I just wanted
to make that point clear. Certainly there has nothing been
said, either in the history of CISET or in connection with this
hearing that suggests it is a danger, but I can tell you, the
last seven years, that is the way so many things have gone.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, your message came through loud and clear,
and I appreciate that. Basically you are saying you don't think
we should have another co-chair from Homeland Security on this
as well. Okay.
Dr. Neureiter. Just one more point on that. Just on the
report which the National Academies did on that subject, Beyond
Fortress America, I understand you have been briefed on that.
But that is a very important report. It was chaired by Brent
Scowcroft, and when he stood up--I was on that committee--and
when he stood up in one session and said, the system is broken,
the visa system is broken and the export control system is
broken and we have got to fix it, that is pretty strong
rhetoric from that man.
Mr. Ehlers. I don't have any further questions, so I will
yield back.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. You are
recognized, Dr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. I would be happy to yield my time to the Chair.
Chairman Lipinski. I am actually going to pass my time to
Mr. Tonko because then I want to go to Mr. Tonko and if no one
else is here, I want to wrap up so use the five minutes, Mr.
Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Gentlemen, welcome. Being
new, I have also heard in some circles that anecdotally many
foreign science ministers or organizations look to start a
conversation with the United States agencies about potential
partnerships but that because of the depth and breadth of our
portfolio of programs that are, you know, placed amongst many
agencies, it makes it very difficult. My question is, can the
Committee on International Science, Engineering and Technology
be helpful in serving as a point of contact that can then
direct these potential partners to the right sources and maybe
streamline those actions?
Dr. Strauss. When our Task Force was recommending the
creation of such a committee, that wasn't on our minds but as
you phrase it, it strikes me as an important issue. Something
we address within NSF through our Office of Science and
Engineering in terms of coordinating the work or the various
directorates across the international marketplace, and you
could well see that being an important function in CISET.
Mr. Rock. Thank you, Congressman. I guess I would exercise
only word of caution in this process and that is I do believe
that the Title V of the Foreign Authorization Act in 1979 which
sets the terms for the State Department's role in implementing
science and technology agreements puts them as the lead federal
agency. My biggest concern historically with CISET was that we
didn't bury it in minutia. There are many ministries of science
and many higher councils of science and technology and many
organizations that seek relationships with the United States,
and I think our federal agencies have done a pretty good job in
trying to balance those priorities against their own mission
priorities. I worry that we tax the federal agency sometimes
too much and that if we put the pressure down on them from a
senior-level executive branch committee, that we make it very
difficult for them to be objective in the relationships that
they try to build. I think CISET selectively, the OSTP
director, should lead, not just advise but should lead those
relationships, and it is up to the State Department with the
support of the federal agencies to work with CISET to identify
in which relationships that leadership should be exerted.
Dr. Neureiter. I think typically you'll see that an initial
contact, say from a foreign science minister, often will come
to an ambassador or come to the State Department, so that will
tend to be the initial gate through which someone enters the
United States. So I think it is up to kind of a reinvigorated,
internationally oriented science community in the government to
direct that inquiry in whatever way is appropriate. So I think
to assign that specifically to CISET is probably something I
would not do. I would count on the structures which emerge from
this whole CISET complex to handle those inquiries which will
tend to come through the State Department gate.
Mr. Tonko. I think Dr. Neureiter and Mr. Rock, you both
worked at the State Department, am I correct? How would the
Office of Science and Technology policy work the State
Department into accepting the coordination and planning role
that CISET could offer? How could they build the buy-in to that
kind of partnership?
Mr. Rock. I would reiterate one point that I made earlier
which is that CISET, OSTP, and the Department of State both
would serve as leaders of a process. But the actual execution,
the practical expression of it, is coming from the federal
agencies and from the broader U.S. science community. So we
have to have a process that brings all of those players into
the room together. I think that the State Department, I would
like to believe from my 29 years associated with the
institution, I do think that they appreciate the value of
science and technology in our foreign policy objectives. I
think they need the tools to make sure that they can execute,
and those tools come first and foremost from the federal
agencies and secondarily from some mechanism which we are now
discussing to reach out more broadly into the U.S. science
community. They are helped tremendously when OSTP endorses that
objective. And it is okay with me if OSTP is endorsing it to
advance our national R&D priorities at the same time. I don't
think that is an inconsistency, to advance the national R&D
objectives and the foreign policy objectives at the same time.
Dr. Neureiter. Generally speaking there is no problem
getting State Department buy-in to OSTP. We were always
grateful when they paid attention to us.
Mr. Tonko. Is there a way to more cleverly or effectively
construct that outcome in the language of this legislation?
Mr. Rock. Congressman, there is a painful way of doing it,
speaking as someone from the State Department side, and that is
historically we had a process whereby OSTP prepared a document
which they delivered to Congress annually, the so-called Title
V report which was under the leadership of OSTP and was
prepared by the State Department. It was a very labor-intensive
document. I am mindful of the fact I have State Department
colleagues behind me, and if I were to say at this moment that
we should reinstitute that approach, I don't know if I could
make it out of the room.
Mr. Tonko. There is always the back door.
Mr. Rock. That is right. But there is an abbreviated
version of that annual reporting exercise that might provide
some value in ensuring that the State Department and OSTP are
in sync, and CISET would play a valuable role in that.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Chair Lipinski. Thank you for those good questions, Mr.
Tonko, and the Chair would like to recognize now Mr. Carnahan
for five minutes.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the
panel. I apologize for being out for a minute. I had a Foreign
Affairs Committee going on, and so it is a great overlap here
between what we are doing with the Foreign Affairs Committee
and the work of this committee.
I guess I have got a comment and a suggestion and a
question. My comment, it was great that one of you mentioned
President Truman in the 1950's convening this, so being from
the State of Missouri, I appreciate that. But the leadership
really does come from the top down, and I am also pleased that
we have a new President who has been very vocal in promoting
science, good science, and making science cool again, let us
face it. So it is a great difference in the community.
I guess my suggestion, it is one of my personal missions
here to eliminate from our vocabulary the use of the term soft
power. I think it is counter-intuitive, and I would much prefer
and suggest we use the term smart power in terms of describing
these other tools of diplomacy. Enough of my lecturing, but
onto my question. When Secretary Chu testified before the Full
Committee on R&D efforts in the Department of Energy, he stated
that one of the most promising sectors for international
science cooperation was in building R&D, and I just wanted to
ask the witnesses to comment on this potential, in particular,
or any other areas that you think would be top priorities for
this type of science diplomacy engagement. Dr. Strauss, we will
start with you.
Dr. Strauss. I was sort of hiding there for a moment. I
certainly wouldn't dismiss the importance of building
engineering, both as a major source of energy usage that is
clearly a national and international issue, but I look at all
the other global science and engineering related problems and I
wouldn't put the building issue at the front of those. I am
thinking now of natural disasters, epidemics, sustainable
energy, writ large, non-proliferation and some of these other
major global issues. So I don't mean to take exception with my
colleague on that because I understand the importance of the
building thing. That wouldn't be at the top of my list.
Mr. Carnahan. Dr. Neureiter.
Dr. Neureiter. I was focusing on your comment at the
beginning on using instead of soft power, smart power, and I
wanted to add that we have actually changed powers. We have
just come back from the science diplomacy trip to Syria.
Remarkable. Spent 90 minutes with the President of the country
and talked about how maybe a relationship in science can begin
to change. We talked about working in water, energy, and
agriculture and trying to find some things. We are trying to
make that happen now. But we didn't like using power too much
when we are trying to relate to another country, so we came up
with the word smart engagement which I thought was another
interesting way of going.
I don't think I have really much to add on the other point.
I was thinking very much about your terminology, which I find
very interesting.
Mr. Carnahan. I think we are on the same page on that one.
Mr. Rock.
Mr. Rock. I would just make one brief comment on this and
that is that I do have some concerns when we focus our
objectives on what appear to be sector-driven priorities. I
think we should be focused on challenge-driven priorities
instead. So if one were to ask me today, you know, do I think
that the energy sector is more important than the water sector
is more than the health sector, I would say I simply can't draw
that distinction, but I recognize the challenges for
development, I recognize the challenges for quality of life,
for sustainability. And that is why science today has become so
much more distributed in its scope and so much more multi-
disciplinary. Each year when OSTP sets forward its national R&D
priorities, the so-called crosscuts, the emphasis is placed on
the kinds of initiatives that will require crossing agency
boundaries, really, in a budget sense as much as anything else.
And that is why you might get climate or you might get critical
infrastructure or national security and issues of that sort
identified, but the fact is, they are all focused on challenges
and not just on the sector itself. And I would hope that we can
start to begin thinking in those terms.
Mr. Carnahan. I appreciate that. I thank you all.
Chair Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan. I want to thank
our witnesses for testifying today. I think this is the second
hearing of the Subcommittee this year, and I think this is
another great opportunity that we have had. The testimony was
excellent. I think the questions from the Members were
excellent. I liked a lot of what came out of this. I think all
of our witnesses and Members have really done a good job of
really getting out there why it is important for CISET to
exist. I think this would help clear up a lot of questions that
there may have been. Of course, there is always much more work
to be done. I like the smart engagement. I am going to be using
that from now on. Remember that and use it. Mr. Carnahan has
said the President has made science cool again. I am not
certain about that yet but moving in the right direction
certainly. I think that is something Dr. Ehlers likes to talk
about, that we need to make science cool in some ways so we get
more people interested, more kids interested in going into all
the STEM fields.
But I want to thank our witnesses and the record will
remain open for two weeks for additional statements for the
Members and for answers to any follow-up questions the
Committee may ask the witnesses, and with that the witnesses
are excused and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Prepared Statement of Gerald J. Hane
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to testify
on the draft legislation to enhance international cooperation in
science and technology that can strengthen the domestic STEM enterprise
and U.S. foreign policy goals.
My name is Gerald Hane and I was the Assistant Director for
International Strategy and Affairs for the Office of Science and
Technology Policy under Neal Lane at the end of the Clinton
Administration. In that position I reported directly to Dr. Lane and
was the principal OSTP coordinator for the Committee on International
Science, Engineering and Technology (CISET). I was with OSTP from the
beginning of 1995 to the beginning of 2001 and during that time I also
had responsibilities in the area of commerce and security. Currently I
am a consultant to venture companies and investors interested in trans-
Pacific partnerships as well as in the area of science and technology
policy.
In my current work I see firsthand both the fast rise of science
and technology capabilities internationally, particularly in Asia, and
the expanding possibilities for win-win cooperation. In the past few
years, for example, I have organized four science missions to China as
part of assessments of the World Technology Evaluation Center, and in
every case the senior U.S. scientists found at least one major surprise
in which researchers or institutes in China were defining the
scientific frontier. In all cases they were impressed by the fast rate
of development of the science enterprise there. In the venture capital
world, Asia, and again China in particular, has been a hot spot of
growth activity.
Ensuring the re-establishment of responsibility for strategic
international cooperation in the National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC) is an important step toward strengthening the ability of
the U.S. Government to more effectively leverage rapidly advancing
resources and expertise in other countries and to accelerate the speed
of discovery.
In my testimony, I would like to focus on issues of execution and
go directly to the questions posed in the hearing charter. There are
three things that the agencies need if they are to move ahead to more
fully exploit the benefits of international cooperation in S&T:
mission, money, and motivation. I will incorporate these themes in my
discussion as I attempt to respond to the questions for this hearing.
Question 1. What are the respective roles of the Department of State
and the science agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, the
Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health, in
international science and technology cooperation? How does each agency
set its priorities for S&T cooperation? What is the role of the Office
of Science and Technology Policy in fostering international S&T
cooperation and in coordinating federal activities?
The agencies are typically careful about defining their use of
international cooperation in science and technology in manners
consistent with their missions, and consistent with the priorities
established by their leadership. Representatives of these agencies can
speak in much greater detail about their missions, priorities and
activities, but the approaches have clearly differed among the S&T
agencies. For example, the Department of Defense and the National
Institutes of Health, together accounting for the bulk of federal
research and development, are the most active in seeking the best R&D
partners around the globe and have major international programs that
involve substantial direct funding of international researchers. Prior
to NIH doubling which began at the end of the Clinton Administration,
one estimate from NIH was that perhaps five percent of their research
budget at that time funded international researchers, bearing in mind
of course that NIH has major visiting researcher programs.
The National Science Foundation appears to be restrengthening its
international partnerships to take advantage of this global rise in S&T
capabilities spanning Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America
as well as traditional partners in Europe. The Partnerships for
International Research and Education (PIRE) is one program that has
resonated well in the academic research community, maintaining a high
standard of research while catalyzing collaborations often in parts of
the world where S&T links with the US have not been well established.
The Department of Energy must engage in international cooperation
if it is to effective address the global challenges in energy and
climate. However, in the past, DOE has been among the more reticent
agencies regarding entering the international arena, particularly in
energy efficiency and renewable energy. There has been a perception
that international projects open doors to criticism and budget cutting.
Other agencies, such as the U.S. Geological Survey, have been
restrained in international cooperation by their interpretation of the
domestic focus of their mission. Yet data and technologies developed by
USGS such as geographic information systems are highly complementary to
efforts abroad, with applications that range from disaster mitigation
to bio-diversity management to humanitarian relief in regions of
conflict.
The Office of Science and Technology Policy has responsibilities to
advise the President and Vice President and to lead in the development
of S&T policy priorities and strategies that will advance the
President's goals. However the staff size of OSTP is small and limited
by its budget which has been flat over many years.
In order to more effectively define and in particular execute
Presidential priorities, the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC) is an invaluable asset. The value of the NSTC derives from the
fact that it is a body to which the most senior member of each
department or agency also belongs, so each participant is a part of the
NSTC and the incentives for participation are more clearly aligned with
department and agency leadership.
Question 2. If OSTP reconstituted a Committee on International Science,
Engineering and Technology (CISET) under the National Science and
Technology Council, what should be the unique role and responsibilities
of that committee? What lessons can be learned from the previous CISET
of the 1990's? Does the draft legislation being considered
appropriately describe the purpose and responsibilities of an effective
CISET?
The draft legislation captures well the principle roles of CISET.
CISET plays a role in the areas in which strategic coordination of
international S&T activities can enhance the ability to achieve policy
goals set by the President and Congress. Roles that CISET can play
include the following:
-- Developing interagency strategies for international
cooperation in science and technology to address strategic and
scientific priorities.
-- Developing of a more strategic approach to working with
other nations in meeting common challenges.
-- Coordinating the activities among various agencies to
better ensure the effective use of resources.
-- Validating priority areas of attention for planning and
budgeting within each of the agencies.
-- Enabling scientists to identify and assess international
challenges and to propose interagency solutions.
-- Creating a means to, with a collective position, engage
with the Office of Management and Budget and National Security
Council to ensure appropriate support.
An Example--CISET Emerging Infectious Diseases Initiative
The CISET Emerging Infectious Diseases Initiative provides one
illustration of how this process can work effectively. The need was
identified by the public health and medical communities, the strategy
for the U.S. Government's response was developed by CISET, and the
principals of the working group provided the leadership to strengthen
the resources needed to execute the strategy.
Momentum for this initiative was catalyzed by a report of the
Institute of Medicine in 1992, Emerging Infections, Microbial Threats
to Health in the United States, led by Josh Lederberg. This report
built on prior IOM studies of this area and made specific
recommendations for actions that should be taken across numerous
federal agencies. The principles of CISET--the OSTP Associate Director
for National Security and International Affairs, Jane Wales, the Under
Secretary for Global Affairs, Tim Wirth, and the Deputy Administrator
of USAID, Carol Lancaster, directed the formation of a Working Group to
examine the issue. This Working Group on Emerging and Re-emerging
Infectious Diseases was chaired by the Surgeon General, David Satcher.
CISET issued the report of this working group in 1995. Although
CISET could have proceeded directly to develop the strategy, the CISET
principals felt that an even higher level of engagement would be useful
to solidify commitment to the importance of this issue as well as to
gain the needed resources.
CISET principals thus used the report and its recommendations as
the basis for a Presidential Decision Directive (NSTC-7) in 1996. NSTC-
7 became the cornerstone for subsequent work in this area, with the PDD
directing the formation of a Task Force on Emerging Infectious Diseases
co-chaired by the Surgeon General and the Associate Director of OSTP
and charged with developing a government-wide strategy to address the
global threats of emerging and reemerging infectious diseases.
At that time, there was a movie, Outbreak, starring Dustin Hoffman,
which portrayed a fictional outbreak of the Ebola virus. It was
reported that Dustin Hoffman received over $8 million for this role.
The entire budget of the Centers for Disease Control to address global
emerging infections was about $5.6 million.
As a result of a subsequent year of work, the CISET task force
developed a multi-year, budget specific plan for addressing this area.
The clear articulation of this strategy strengthened support for the
initiative with the administration and Congress. Budgets were increased
over time, with the CDC's FY 2001 budget for infectious diseases
increasing to $182 million of which emerging infectious diseases was a
principal theme.
Parenthetically, I should note that even with the backing of a PDD,
full cooperation is not ensured among all members of the agencies. In
an early OMB meeting one examiner resisted the initiative noting that
he had never heard that emerging infectious diseases were a substantial
problem. When the issue of countering bioterrorism was raised as a
potential benefit, another OMB staff member objected that making such
connections was exploiting alarmism. When the U.S. Senior Official to
APEC was encouraged to raise this in that forum, he replied that he did
not see the significance of the issue.
The CISET task force strengthened coordination between the agencies
and provided a jump-start to the government's response to infectious
disease in bioterror after 9/11. A solid foundation was thus laid for
the rapid increase in funding that occurred in the post 9/11
environment. The issue also became and remains a key theme of the APEC
Leaders Meeting.
Other CISET Initiatives
At the time of the end of the Clinton Administration, there were
CISET working groups which were beginning to address a range of issues.
-- Water--a working group was formed to investigate ways that
strengthened international cooperation in S&T could better help
the U.S. address both our own water challenges as well as our
foreign policy priorities. This work emerged from grassroots
activities organized through the Sandia National Laboratory.
This work was also designed to support U.S. contributions to
the growing international policy dialogue over water.
-- Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)--GMOs were just
emerging on a large scale at that time and the global debate
was intense. This effort arose from professors and industry
many of whom felt that the benefits and risks of GMOs as known
by science, were being lost in the high volume politicized
debate. Also, the emergent InterAcademy Council comprising
academies of sciences in numerous countries was taking up the
GMO issue as one of the first that they wished to address.
-- S&T and capacity building--This initiative emerged from the
international AID community. In USAID there are generally
speaking two factions, one which gives priority to longer-term
capacity building partnerships such as those involving S&T, and
the other, currently more powerful faction, that emphasizes
attention to emergencies and immediate challenges of the
moment. PCAST took this up as an issue and recommended that the
President issue an executive order to reinvigorate U.S.
commitment to the longer-term capacity building advantages of
S&T. Unfortunately time ran out prior to the full approval of
the executive order.
-- Natural disasters--The initial effort in this area emerged
from disaster research and mitigation community. There was a
sense that monitoring, research and response capabilities were
uncoordinated both domestically and internationally, weakening
the U.S. capability to respond. This became overshadowed by a
disaster initiative out of the Vice President's office,
although it is relevant to note that the lower level,
interagency planning for more coordinated and strategic
domestic R&D yield approval from OMB of more than $100 million
in new support.
-- Green Chemistry--This was a bit different as here we were
fortunate to have on staff someone who by his mid-30s was being
honored as the ``father of green chemistry,'' Paul Anastas, who
is now a professor at Yale. But here too, I think he would
agree, defining the importance of the problem and potential for
solutions came from the work of those in the field.
-- International Technology Transfer--This group focused on
U.S. Government policies in an attempt to better ensure
consistency in the U.S. approach to international technology
transfer from its laboratories.
Each of these initiatives, like the emerging infectious disease
initiative, came from the relevant community, ``bottom up.'' Each of
these initiatives also had some level of bipartisan support.
There is also the example of the seed of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative. This concept was first put forth by a group
of scientists from various agencies in a meeting that I chaired on
international cooperation in materials research. At the time there was
no other NSTC activity dealing with materials science, so this was the
one route available for agency research managers to share views. The
scientists at the meeting, including Dr. Michael Roco from NSF, noted
that there was growing informal, interagency interdisciplinary
cooperation in nanotechnology enabled in part by new tools, but that
there was no formal ability to coordinate and better connect this work.
This seed from a discussion in the international context mushroomed
into the eventual National Nanotechnology Initiative.
Regional and Bilateral Strategic Support
CISET can also be used as a means of defining and coordinating U.S.
interests in regional and bilateral forums. Regional forums such as the
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum, Organization of
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and Summit of Americas
(SoA) can provide opportunities to advance U.S. interests in
international S&T cooperation in multilateral settings. Similarly,
CISET can facilitate the development of joint strategies of cooperation
with key partners, which target the leveraging of key facilities and
areas of expertise. One such bilateral strategy was developed with
Japan, for example.
Lessons Learned
CISET works well when there is a process for drawing upon the
research community broadly to identify and assess opportunities, using
its interagency forum to develop a government strategy, and calling on
its leaders to bring about the necessary support to effectively address
the policy. When CISET has struggled in the past, I believe that one
reason was the lack of such an operationalized system.
Just as the quality of U.S. science is built from the bottom up,
advancing on the work of those who know well the frontiers, defining
where the frontiers of S&T can be best advanced through international
cooperation is effectively done drawing on this bottom-up web of
expertise. Tapping the knowledge and capabilities of the agencies and
their laboratories, universities and non-profit organizations, and
industry are equally critical in identifying which challenges can be
effectively advanced through international S&T.
CISET should not rely on just the ideas of those at the top. When
this happens, the options tend to shrink and the options more limited.
A practical factor which seemed to affect CISET in the mid-1990s
was an emphasis on working groups formed to support the bilateral
priorities of the Vice President. The Vice President led several high
priority bilateral initiatives intended to strengthen peaceful
development and bilateral ties with such countries as Russia, China,
Ukraine, South Africa, and Egypt. Supporting the S&T components of
these initiatives was a substantial activity of CISET. Although a
certainly worthy use of CISET's role, this shifted the focus of CISET
away from broader issues-oriented work.
Question 3. Can CISET serve an important function absent additional
funding for S&T cooperation? Does creation of CISET ensure active
participation and support from the science agencies and from the
Department of State? If not, what other steps must be taken to make
CISET an effective coordinating body? Are any of those steps
legislative?
Funding and Process
Initiatives often require resources, therefore additional funds for
S&T cooperation would certainly be of value in assessing options and
executing strategies defined through CISET, particularly by
accelerating the initial phases of assessment, planning and
development.
The State Department is chronically short of funding and virtually
no funding support seemed to exist to organize discussions of issues
and approaches. The S&T agencies are thus typically approached to
support funding for any activities even at the earliest stages of
discussion, but it wastes a good deal of time and effort in OSTP to
explain to the right agency representative the reasons actions support
their respective agency missions, and then for the agency to find
appropriate accounts. Launching discussions and assessments of issues
in a more timely manner would help all S&T agencies more effectively
engage in strengthening the links between S&T and foreign policy.
Agency Participation
One reason that agencies will participate in the NSTC process in
general, including the CISET process, is because of the value in the
overall budgeting process.
A typical process for gaining additional funds is to have workshops
or forums with governmental and non-governmental representatives to
discuss and define challenges and solutions, much as one would explore
new challenges in S&T in general. Funds for this step are typically
very difficult to achieve as there are few if any line items in agency
budgets for this purpose. Despite NIH's vast budget, for example, I
found NIH to be the most difficult agency with which to work regarding
workshop support for interagency, international priorities, due at
least in part to a lack of appropriate accounts.
Next is the interagency planning process to develop a strategy of
action and to list the resources necessary to execute the actions.
After multiple prioritization exercises, the strategy is submitted to
the CISET and NSTC principals for review. If approved, the next step
involves budget requests to OMB, agency by agency, which brings us to a
point still 16 months away from getting budget if successful.
From this point, each agency must articulate to OMB and then to
Congress the value of the effort within the context of its own agency
priorities. Here CISET can assist by defining the bigger picture within
which the agency's contribution is an important part, and this seems
appreciated by both entities. With both OMB and Congress, CISET can
help to explain the necessity of various elements to achieve an overall
government-wide goal.
Regarding the State Department, staff members are quite vigilant
about the department's role as the lead agency for U.S. Government
foreign affairs. The Department is typically willing to have a
representative participate in international S&T issues, with their main
limitation being budget.
Other Steps
Designating a non-profit center or FFRDC. If enhanced support for
international cooperation were available, the necessary bottom up
process of identifying solutions and proposing paths forward through
research, workshops and forums can be executed much more efficiently.
Such a fund might be best managed in conjunction with a non-profit
organization such as the Civilian Research and Development Foundation
(CRDF) which has extensive experience executing cooperative programs
abroad and can act quickly. Or, perhaps a Federally Funded Research and
Development Center (FFRDC) might be formed at such an existing
organization to provide for a closer administrative link to government
priorities.
Clarify Mission and/or Oversight. Regarding other legislative change,
Congress could amend authorizing legislation or oversight measures to
explicitly include agency development and execution of international
science and technology strategies as well as priority participation in
CISET to ensure an effective U.S. Government-wide response.
The U.S. Geological Survey has advanced such tools as Geographic
Information Systems, valuable in a wide range of uses from agriculture
to disaster mitigation to humanitarian relief, yet USGS is often
hamstrung for directly supporting or engaging in international
activities. Adjusting its mission statement would be helpful.
If this is difficult for jurisdictional reasons, then perhaps the
Committee, with its sole or shared jurisdiction on most government R&D
programs can clarify that strategies to advance R&D for their agencies
missions should be defined with a global scope, to leverage growing
global assets.
Furthermore, any oversight of R&D programs such as those called for
through the Government Results and Performance Act (GPRA) might be
amended to ensure that performance evaluations also include the
considered use of international S&T.
Question 4. How else might OSTP and/or the science agencies play a
greater role in bringing S&T to bear on foreign policy?
Focus and Authority in Leadership
One challenge is ensuring energetic and focused leadership for
CISET. In reviving CISET at the end of the Clinton Administration, the
Director of OSTP, Neal Lane decided to co-chair this working group with
the Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Frank Loy. The OSTP
Director does not typically chair NSTC committees. However Dr. Lane
made this decision recognizing that high level commitment would be
needed to reenergize CISET in a timely manner and to gain the
commitment of both higher level agency and department policy-makers as
well as staff. This decision was key to successfully re-energizing
CISET at the end of that administration.
Under the Clinton Administration there were four associate
directors of OSTP but five NSTC Committees. One Associate Director co-
chaired the Committee on National Security and CISET. This is not an
impossible situation, but the reality is that any Associate Director
has very limited time. Those who want to accomplish something in the
few years of tenure at OSTP will be highly focused. Thus achieving the
high level of attention needed can be a challenge.
Congress does not provide for five Associate Directors. However,
there may be other possibilities. The Director of OSTP could, for
example, create a position of Deputy Director for International who,
with appropriate staff, could work across all parts of OSTP and also
run the CISET process. When building new issues with diverse
constituencies, rank and authority are extremely important.
Better Integrating S&T into Decision-making Process
There are some issues in which the S&T agencies might better assist
with in-kind resources, or which could be aided by a center or FFRDC in
this area. Examples would include dealing with:
-- visa issues and foreign researchers,
-- export controls, and
-- international technology transfer.
CISET should play a more active role in bringing the civilian S&T
agencies and the diplomacy and security focused agencies such as the
Departments of State, Homeland Security and Defense, closer
operationally. Clear areas of possibility are visa approvals and export
controls.
Although the situation with visa approvals for foreign scientists
is much improved over the post-911 period, there are still numerous
stories of seemingly excessive delays. A major part of the reason is
lack of staff and expertise in the approving agencies. The S&T agencies
may be able to substantially facilitate this process by drawing on the
wide range of experts in their networks. Some system that will enable a
more expedited and informed review of the science and technology
aspects of visa applications seems to be worthy of consideration.
Regarding export controls, an ongoing concern of the academic
science community is the lingering use of the ``sensitive but
unclassified'' classification of academic research. The Bush
Administration reaffirmed the position of the National Security
Decision Directive 189 issued by the Reagan Administration in 1985,
exempting basic academic research from this restriction, but stories of
overly ambitious application still emerge.
At an operational level, more classified export control review
often occurs in a black box and may benefit from the input and analysis
from a wider body of scientists. The dual-use export control list
managed by the Department of Commerce is one that requires an ongoing
understanding of the state of technology abroad for any restrictions to
be effective. The munitions control list managed by the Departments of
State and Defense might also benefit by enriching the set of evaluators
to achieve for a more timely review of restrictions placed on research
or commercial technologies.
Summary
In summary, CISET can facilitate the effective planning and
execution of international cooperation by ensuring agencies see this
use of R&D as part of their mission, and by developing strategies to
meet common missions through international S&T. CISET can offer a
cross-governmental strategy that is coordinated in actions and budgets,
which assists in gaining support from OMB and Congress.
CISET benefits when ideas and analysis come from the bottom up,
drawing on the large pool of expertise through the governmental and
non-governmental sectors. CISET principals can provide the higher level
leadership that is often critical when pursuing change.
In order to strengthen CISET's contribution to international
cooperation in R&D and its contribution to foreign policy, agencies
missions and oversight could be adjusted to clarify this priority.
Finally, in order to facilitate faster action, more thorough
analysis of options, and the more considered integration of S&T and
foreign policy, a center or FFRDC might be formed to bring together the
many capabilities needed to address this complex but increasingly
important issue area.
Biography for Gerald J. Hane
Dr. Hane is Managing Director with the advisory firm, Q-Paradigm,
where he focuses on venture innovation in the Asia Pacific. His work
includes facilitating venture technology and investment partnerships
and directly assisting venture companies in the areas of energy,
biotechnology/medical devices, and communications. Clients include
financial institutions, large corporations, and venture companies. He
also consults with the U.S. Government and science and technology
organizations in Asia regarding science and technology policy, venture
businesses and venture capital.
Prior to this work, Dr. Hane was the Assistant Director for
International Strategy and Affairs at the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP). Dr. Hane co-led with the Director the
Centers for Disease Control the U.S. Government-wide effort to address
emerging infectious diseases. He also oversaw international initiatives
addressing such challenges as energy and environment, natural
disasters, food and nutrition, water quality, counter-terrorism, and
export controls. Dr. Hane was responsible for priority bilateral
science and technology relations including China, India, Japan, Russia,
Egypt, Mexico and South Africa, as well as multilateral relations with
APEC, OECD, the G8 and Summit of the Americas.
Before entering OSTP, Dr. Hane was a Professional Staff Member of
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the U.S. House of
Representatives. There his responsibilities included clean
technologies, advanced manufacturing technologies, medical
technologies, defense dual-use technologies, and aviation and aerospace
technologies. He has been a Visiting Researcher at the National
Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) of Japan's Science
and Technology Agency, and has worked for the Pacific Northwest
Laboratory of the Battelle Memorial Institute as a Research Engineer,
specializing in international technology assessments and research and
development planning. Dr. Hane received his Ph.D. in Political Economy
and Government from Harvard University. His dissertation, supported by
a Fulbright-Hays Grant for Dissertation Research Abroad, examined the
management of innovation and the role of collaborative research and
development activities in Japan. He has B.S. and M.S. degrees in
Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University.