Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285792987
label
Reports [2 of 3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285792987
contentType
document
title
Reports [2 of 3]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
62119-002
collections
Records of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Michelle K. Van Cleave Reports and Publications Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285792987
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e718a2987ff0265d
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2005-0336-F
2005-0336-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Van Cleave, Michelle, Files
Subseries:
Reports and Publications Files
OA/ID Number:
62119
Folder ID Number:
62119-002
Folder Title:
Reports [2 of 3]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
0
0
0
0
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Report
Project Socrates (11 pp.)
1/27/88
(b)(1)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Van Cleave, Michelle, Files
Subseries:
Reports and Publications Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Reports [2 of 3]
Date Closed:
6/7/2010
OA/ID Number:
62119-002
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
NATIONAL
AERONAUTICAL
R&D GOALS
AGENDA FOR ACHIEVEMENT
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy
ACTION PLAN SUMMARY
The Committee believes that now is the time for the United States to organize
a long-term, aggressive, and positive thrust to remain competitive in the
world aeronautics marketplace and secure in our national defense. The new
era of global competition and the constrained United States fiscal
environment pose a national challenge for sustained U.S. leadership. The
agenda for achievement of the National Aeronautical R&D Goals will require
concerted effort by the Federal Government, industry, and the nation's
universities. Specific recommendations for action are:
1
Increase innovative industry R&D efforts given the
certainty of intensifying global competition and
the importance of new technology for U.S.
competitiveness.
2
Aggressively pursue the National Aero-Space Plane
program, assuring maturation of critical
technologies leading to an experimental airplane.
3
Develop fundamental technology, design, and
business foundation for a long-range, supersonic
transport in preparation for a potential U.S.
industry initiative.
4
Expand domestic research and development
collaboration by creating an environment that
reflects the new era of global competition.
5
Encourage government aeronautical research in
long-term emerging technology areas which
promise high payoffs.
6
Strengthen American universities for basic research
and science education through enhanced
government and aerospace industry support and
cooperation.
7
Improve the development and integration of
advanced design, processing, and computer-
integrated manufacturing technologies to transform
emerging R&D results into affordable U.S. products.
8
Enhance the safety and capacity of the National
Airspace System through advanced automation and
electronics technology and new vehicle concepts,
including vertical and short takeoff and landing
aircraft.
FOREWORD
Almost two years ago, the Aeronautical Policy Review Committee-composed of sixteen leaders of
government, industry, and universities-considered the evolving international scene in aeronautics
and America's future in it. In their March 1985 report, "NATIONAL AERONAUTICAL R&D
GOALS: TECHNOLOGY FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE," the Committee recommended that all
sectors of American aeronautics direct their skills and energies toward the highest-payoff technology
areas to sustain the nation's leadership position.
Toward that end, three specific goals-in subsonic, supersonic and transatmospheric flight regimes-
were established. In the intervening time, these goals have been accepted by the American aviation
community as the centerpiece of national aeronautics strategy, and have attracted global attention.
CONTENTS
Action on all three goals is in progress.
However, the Committee believes that the depth of foreign aeronautical resolve and the concerted
U.S. Aeronautics:
national effort required to preserve American competitiveness are still largely underestimated. Sus-
A Changing
tained U.S. leadership will require greater achievement by all sectors-government, industry, and
Perspective
2
academia. Both the opportunity and challenge are unprecedented. Accordingly, the Committee
believes that this challenge to our competitiveness is so important-not just to the nation's diverse
National
aeronautics industry, but to the nation as a whole-that it now issues this call to action. This sequel
Aeronautical R&D
presents a cohesive U.S. strategy and an eight-point action plan to achieve the National Goals and
Goals: Framework
remain a viable competitor in the world aviation marketplace.
For Action
4
Subsonics Goal
4
Supersonics Goal 5
Transatmospherics
Goal
6
William R Graham
The Agenda For
Achievement
8
Action Plan
8
William R. Graham
Conclusion
12
Science Advisor to the President and
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
February 1987
"The depth of foreign
aeronautical resolve and
the concerted national
effort required to
preserve American
competitiveness are still
largely underestimated."
1
U.S.
Aerospace Balance of Trade
AERONAUTICS:
Billions of Current Dollars
12
A CHANGING
8
PERSPECTIVE
4
Exports minus imports
1960
65
70
75
80
85
The Challenge
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce
nnovation in science and technology has
I
been the driving force for American growth
and power since World War II. It has given
But that industry today faces profound changes:
us military strength, a high standard of living,
formidable competition for international and domes-
and-until recently-a broad range of superior
tic sales, challenges to military superiority requiring
products which dominated world trade.
technically sophisticated yet more affordable weap-
That picture has changed dramatically over the
ons systems, and limitations of capital and skilled
past decade. We are challenged by a new global
workers. The implications are unsettling.
economy with technologically equal, well-organized
Aeronautics has played a crucial role in national
competitors actively backed by foreign governments.
security for more than 40 years. With major R&D
"The aeronautics industry
European and Pacific Rim nations recognize that
investments in advanced technology aircraft, avia-
has long held a unique
science and technology hold the key to their future
tion will continue to fulfill a major defense role.
position in its contribution
economic and military well-being, and they are
Though requirements for civil and military aircraft
to trade and to national
expanding investments in upgrading their
differ, much of the technology base, the production
security, and as a symbol
capabilities.
base which is centered in 15,000 company suppliers
of U.S. technological
Instead of trade surpluses, the United States
supporting the major aircraft manufacturers, and
power.
has huge trade deficits. Most Americans are
many of the skills and processes used are common.
awakening to the serious dangers in this decline,
A weakening of the civil industry will ultimately
notably in steel, automobiles, and electronics. The
result in more expensive military systems, and the
trade deficit has meant slowed economic growth,
reverse is true as well.
business failures, and permanent loss of millions
Significant sustained foreign competition exists
of jobs.
in all three National Goal areas: subsonics, super-
Even in high technology, the United States has
sonics, and transatmospherics. In fact, other nations
steadily lost market share since 1980. In 1986, for
now dominate the world general-aviation and
the first time, high-technology imports exceeded
commuter-aircraft markets, account for nearly half
exports. These losses can do enormous damage to
the world sales of rotorcraft, and are achieving sig-
our future competitiveness and national security.
nificant market penetration in the large commercial
We must never again take our economic superiority
transport market. The R&D endeavor of the Soviet
for granted.
Union is the largest in the world, and aggressive
On balance, the United States is still the world
Soviet aeronautical R&D constantly threatens the
leader in aviation. The aeronautics industry has long
U.S. technological margin. Though America is today's
held a unique position in its contribution to trade
world aviation leader, where will we be tomorrow?
and to national security, and as a symbol of U.S.
technological power. Aircraft incorporate many
The Opportunity For Leadership
advanced technologies and stimulate the develop-
ment of high technology on a broad front.
Bold new technological thrusts are essential to
Aerospace trade surplus of $11.8 billion in 1986,
preserve U.S. aeronautical superiority in the world
the highest of all U.S. export sectors, contrasts to the
marketplace and enhance global security through
trade deficit in manufactured goods of $136 billion.
the excellence of our military aircraft.
Aircraft and parts comprise over 90 percent of this
The National Goals for Aeronautical R&D out-
surplus. These export sales are vital to amortize
line numerous opportunities for dramatic advances
huge R&D expenditures and to achieve economies
in technology that could reshape aviation by the
of scale. Aerospace total shipments exceeded $96
turn of the century. Achievement of these goals will
billion in 1986.
lead to entirely new types of aircraft with vastly
superior capabilities. Gains of this order will mean
major benefits to our national economy and secu-
rity, but only if we are the first to exploit them.
These opportunities are an equally powerful driving
force for foreign competitors.
The constrained U.S. fiscal environment, a con-
tinuing and difficult problem, requires a cohesive
national strategy and a new sense of collective
responsibility for achieving the National Goals. This
will challenge the resourcefulness and creativity of
2
the Federal Government, of industry, and of the na-
Industry must recognize the certainty of intensi-
tion's universities. With their effective cooperation,
fying global competition. It must continue to expand
we must cut the cost of technological advancement
its R&D investment while establishing a more risk-
and increase the speed at which new aeronautical
taking approach to world leadership in the com-
technologies translate into products and processes.
mercialization of product and process technology.
The changes may involve altering traditional ap-
A strong and healthy Independent Research and
proaches. But America holds the key for responding
Development (IR&D) program, which is the source
to the challenge: a genius for innovation and a solid
of much of the innovative work in the industry, is
foundation in research and development.
essential in expanding the nation's technology base
and strengthening American leadership.
Government, for its part, can best support long-
National Expenditures for R&D
term, high-risk, high-payoff research. Rapid and
effective transfer of this technology to the private
"The constrained U.S.
Percent of GNP
sector is essential in capitalizing on these results for
fiscal environment
4.0
U.S. competitive advantage. Government must also
requires a cohesive
create a policy environment which fosters U.S.
national strategy and a
3.5
U.S.S.R
competitiveness.
new sense of collective
The National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
responsibility.
"
3.0
tration (NASA) is this country's focal point for
aeronautical research and technology and national
United Kingdom
United States
2.5
aeronautical facilities. NASA must strengthen its
capabilities and take a more assertive leadership
2.0
role in coordinating and facilitating long-term U.S.
research efforts for maximum effectiveness. The
France
health and productivity of our national facilities are
1.5
Japan
fundamental to meeting the country's growing R&D
West Germany
requirements.
1.0
America has to compete in the international
arena, but it also has to cooperate. To enjoy a high
.5
standard of living we need trading partners with
healthy economies. The growing trend toward in-
ternationalization of aircraft manufacture will require
1961
65
70
75
80
85
learning how to work effectively with foreign part-
Source: National Science Foundation Science Indicators- 1985
ners while preserving technological leadership. This
leadership need not be threatened if we maintain a
"To preserve America's
vigorous program of basic research and technology
aeronautical leadership
Most important, to preserve America's aero-
development. However, the U.S. government and
we must accord a
nautical leadership we must accord a higher national
aeronautical firms must pursue equitable arrange-
higher national priority
priority to research and development. R&D is the
ments when actual or potential competitors seek to
to research and
highest leverage for revitalization of American
obtain our skills and technical knowledge.
development."
economic and strategic competitiveness. These
The Committee clearly recognizes that progress
R&D expenditures must be viewed as long-term
on many other issues such as the federal budget
investments in the nation's productive capacity, and
deficit, trade and tax policies, and exchange rates
should weigh heavily in government and board-
are essential to sustained improvements in America's
room decisions even when resources are tight.
competitive position. But in formulating an imple-
Underinvestment in R&D and facilities during the
mentation strategy for the National Aeronautical
1960's and 1970's has contributed heavily to the
R&D Goals, the Committee focused on R&D-related
current loss of competitiveness in many other U.S.
issues. The following pages detail specific recom-
industries.
mendations for action.
Greater attention must also be focused on the
availability and quality of scientific and engineering
manpower. Similarly, higher education must be
strengthened. The universities are vital, for both
new knowledge and trained minds. Disturbing signs,
however, suggest that university research capacity
is deteriorating.
Stronger cooperation between government and
industry within a free market framework will
strengthen American competitiveness. Working
together, each must fulfil the role for which it is
best suited.
3
NATIONAL
important impact on gas turbine engines, com-
posite structures, microelectronics, and fiber-
optics technology, and will contribute to future
AERONAUTICAL
cost superiority.
The Department of Defense (DOD), NASA,
R&D GOALS:
and the rotorcraft industry are making substantial
investments in revolutionary, high-speed auto-
mated rotorcraft now finding their way into mili-
FRAMEWORK
tary systems. These include the tilt rotor, which
combines the advantages of a helicopter and a tur-
FOR ACTION
boprop. Another is the X-wing, whose X-shaped
rotors lift the craft on takeoff and serve as wings in
forward flight.
SUBSONICS GOAL: A NEW GENERATION
Civil derivatives of some of these high-speed
OF SUPERIOR U.S. AIRCRAFT
rotorcraft, operating in the vertical or short takeoff
modes, are foreseen with the economy, productiv-
ubsonic aircraft dominate the world
S
ity, and maintainability of fixed-wing passenger
market, exceeding $35 billion annual
aircraft. Advanced craft of this kind can provide
sales by U.S. manufacturers alone, and are
improved inter-city and inter-region transporta-
expected to remain the largest aerospace
tion, reducing congestion in U.S. airports without
market into the next century. They
major investments in new runways.
include all commercial transport categories, from
Key advances in drag reduction, composites, and
general aviation and commuter aircraft to inter-
automation must be readied by the early 1990's.
continental transports; all military airlifters; and a
Several exciting laminar-flow concepts, that greatly
large array of helicopters and emerging high-speed
reduce drag by smoothing air flow over wing sur-
rotorcraft.
faces, have been successfully tested in NASA wind
Commercial subsonic aircraft rank first among
tunnels and in small-scale flight experiments.
U.S. manufacturing exports, with a $9.6 billion
However, large-scale flight experiments under
average trade surplus over the past five years. The
realistic conditions and operating environments
immense subsonic market is the foundation for
are needed before introduction in new transport
sustaining the major U.S. airframe manufacturers
aircraft.
and their 15,000-company suppliers, who support
New composite materials offer greater tough-
both civil and military needs. American pre-
ness and processability, and a 30-40% potential
eminence in this market will be critical to generate
reduction in structural weight. However, we lack a
capital for investments in modern manufacturing
comprehensive body of knowledge on how these
and to exploit opportunities in supersonic and
materials will behave in highly loaded structures
transatmospheric flight. It is in this pivotal world-
and in long-term operation. As new materials
wide market that foreign competition is having the
emerge from the laboratories, significant invest-
most impact.
ment for validation is essential. This endeavor
This first National Goal envisions an entirely
would clearly benefit from joint NASA, DOD,
new generation of fuel-efficient U.S. aircraft oper-
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and
ating in a flexible and modernized National Air-
industry cooperation.
space System. Its aim is a safe, congestion-free
Today's frequent and costly delays at metropoli-
interstate system, offering superior air transporta-
tan airports will become worse with the projected
tion at reduced cost. The subsonics goal also envi-
sions the development of advanced military airlift
capabilities, tankers, long-endurance aircraft, rotor-
craft and other spin-off military requirements.
Recent declines in fuel prices have heightened the
importance of aircraft affordability. Even with ris-
"Key advances in drag
ing fuel prices, cost of ownership, including acqui-
reduction, composites,
sition, will dominate the economics of the intensely
and automation must be
competitive world aircraft markets.
readied by the early
At present, the subsonic industry is busy with
1990's."
advanced R&D activities for next generation sys-
tems. Major aircraft and engine manufacturers are
accelerating technology readiness for application
to new aircraft carrying some 150 passengers for
the early 1990's. These aircraft will incorporate
revolutionary superbypass engines with 30% better
fuel consumption. Flight tests of some of these ad-
vanced propulsion systems are already under way.
A new military transport for the early 1990's,
the C-17, is also ongoing. This and other develop-
ments of advanced military aircraft will have an
4
growth in aviation. Aggressive pursuit of automa-
facturing innovation for all three goals. We are
tion, artificial intelligence, and electronic advances
approaching an important crossroad: one path
for both aircraft and the National Airspace System
leading to steady erosion of U.S. participation in
are vital. Full realization of the National Goals will
world markets; the other to economic growth, and
depend on how fast the National Airspace System
job creation. Industry creativity, leadership, and
can incorporate these advances and accommodate
resolve will be the decisive factors.
new vehicle capabilities such as tiltrotor, V/STOL,
supersonic, and hypersonic aircraft.
SUPERSONICS GOAL: LONG-DISTANCE
Technology validation is currently the weak link
EFFICIENCY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
in the R&D chain. Validation enables designers to
COMPATIBILITY
incorporate new advances into a product with
This national goal is a great market-driven
confidence in its performance, integrity, and cer-
opportunity. Trends into the next century almost
certainly will brighten the outlook for long-range,
high-speed transportation.
One trend is rapid growth of world population.
More than 75% of this growth will be in distant
"We are approaching an
developing nations. Another trend sees the axis of
important crossroad
global economy and technology shifting farther
creativity, leadership, and
and farther to East Asia and the Pacific Basin. Mu-
resolve will be the decisive
tual security bonds are of increasing importance in
factors."
this region in light of a potential Soviet buildup.
Yet, U.S. access to the vast Pacific area is con-
strained by distance. With subsonic planes, travel
time between these countries and their major trad-
ing partners in the United States and Europe is
from 12 to 18 hours. As travel and trade increase,
demand is mounting for more productive forms of
air travel. Substantial reduction of flying time
means great reduction in human fatigue and im-
tificability. It is the longest and most expensive
proved effectiveness at the destination.
stage in advancing new technology. It is also the
Supersonic cruise technology has important
point where U.S. R&D momentum has become
application to future combat aircraft as well as to
most vulnerable. Joint industry, NASA, and DOD
transports. Efficient supersonic cruise, coupled
programs have traditionally played an important
with high maneuver capability, would mean con-
role in this area. In this constrained fiscal environ-
siderable increase in military aircraft effectiveness
ment, greater industry mobilization as well as en-
and survivability. Even though military fore-
hanced industry-government cooperation in the
runners are often essential to advanced commer-
subsonic arena is vital. The aviation industry has
cial undertakings, future military requirements
recently accelerated technology readiness for
will differ significantly from a commercial super-
product application early in the 1990's. This trend
sonic transport. Economic and performance con-
must continue if the U.S. is to maintain its com-
siderations, operational requirements such as
petitive momentum into the next century.
NASA should focus primarily on long-term
fundamental research. Difficult and demanding
decisions must continue to emphasize emerging
technology areas that promise major improvements
in future aircraft. NASA must also strengthen its
capabilities and exert stronger leadership in na-
tional research efforts and rapidly disseminate
information to U.S. industry. While the potential
advancements in range and payload made possible
by development of key technologies will have sig-
nificant benefit to growing military requirements
for global operations, the DOD is appropriately
channeling much of its current subsonic R&D into
more specialized stealth, rotorcraft and cruise
missile technology.
Clearly, the nation needs to establish a collec-
airport and community noise levels and sonic
tive commitment among industry, DOD, NASA,
boom restrictions, as well as stringent operational
FAA, the universities, and Congress to assure
life, reliability and safety requirements are vital
American leadership in this pivotal subsonic area.
differences. However, recent military develop-
The huge market can provide the resources for
ments have resulted in advances in propulsion,
private-sector investment in technology and manu-
materials and systems which will benefit advanced
supersonic transports.
5
The U.S. aeronautics industry must strive to be
the leader of the advanced high-speed transport
enterprise. It should identify the most promising
concepts and the necessary technology for eco-
nomic competitiveness, safety, and environmental
compatibility at reasonable business risk. Deci-
sions must be based on a full understanding of the
potential market, economics, environmental impli-
cations, the future navigation and air traffic control
system, and a wide range of design options such as
flight speeds and fuel types. For the airlines, the
bottom line for any high-speed transport will be
"By the early 1990's, the
economic performance-competitive earnings
U.S. industry could begin
capability and operating costs compared with
design and development,
long-range subsonic jets.
culminating in a new
As the timing and need for high-speed trans-
supersonic transport
port come into better focus, the industry must
certification around the
begin to explore creative ways to assemble the
year 2000.'
required know-how and capital resources. Because
of the risks and the extremely heavy funding, a
high-speed transport is probably beyond the capa-
bilities of a single U.S. aircraft or engine company.
It may require pooled resources, or perhaps an
international consortium. If any arbitrary govern-
mental impediments to such development and
production collaboration by major commercial
competitors are encountered, they should be iden-
tified and eliminated.
On the engineering side, key technologies for
advancing supersonic cruise capability have not
been aggressively pursued by the U.S. since the
1971 termination of the U.S. Supersonic Transport
program. However, the NASA-funded Supersonic
Cruise Research program, which ended in 1981,
pants, not only in the Pacific but by potentially
established a constructive base for further advance-
capturing a majority of all long-range interconti-
ment. Operational experience with the Concorde
nental markets. An efficient supersonic transport
and SR-71 also provides a stepping stone for a
represents a logical and essential link between the
second-generation supersonic transport.
subsonics of this century and the hypersonics of
If the U.S. is to take the lead, a coordinated and
the next.
disciplined approach by industry and government
The latest Airbus models from Europe are a
is necessary. NASA and industry must hasten the
constant reminder that we have no corner on us-
development of promising technologies such as
ing advanced technology in competitive aircraft.
supersonic laminar flow, thermoplastics, metal
Japan and European nations are keenly interested
matrix composites, and supersonic through-flow
and can be expected to expand their R&D invest-
and variable-cycle engine technology. Airport and
ments in this area. Aeronautics remains a dynamic,
community noise standards present difficult chal-
competitive industry in which those who choose
lenges, but solutions can be found through tech-
to stand still are quickly left behind.
nology, design and flight management. Further
America's first step should be a focused and
research is urgently needed on the generation,
coordinated basic technology development effort
propagation and public perception of low-level
by NASA, industry, and academia including com-
sonic booms. The FAA and our air traffic manage-
prehensive preliminary design studies. By the early
ment and control capabilities must keep pace so
1990's, the U.S. industry could begin design and
that new aircraft can be certified in a timely man-
development, culminating in a new commercial
ner and operated efficiently within the National
supersonic transport certification around the turn
Airspace System.
of the century.
Without question an economically viable and
environmentally compatible supersonic transport,
TRANSATMOSPHERICS GOAL:
which would cut flying times to the Pacific Rim by
TO SECURE FUTURE OPTIONS
70 to 80 percent, could be available by the late
1990's or early next century. This holds tremen-
Significant progress since the announcement of
dous potential for the American aviation industry,
this goal has brought both its impressive opportu-
the world airlines, and the traveling public. It will
nities and its challenges into sharper focus.
create a multi-billion dollar market for its partici-
By the turn of the century an air-breathing vehi-
cle could take off from an airport runway and fly
between 5 and 25 times the speed of sound to the
6
treme heat during ascent and descent or during
sustained hypersonic flight in the atmosphere; and
new computational tools for analysis of the highly
interdependent airframe and propulsion systems.
We have the capability to integrate these technolo-
gies in the experimental X-30, which should begin
validation in actual flight by the early 1990's.
The usefulness of this project is hard to exag-
gerate. The U.S. military, increasingly dependent
on space for communications, intelligence, and
early warning, urgently requires such a space ve-
hicle. Transatmospheric craft could place military
and civil payloads into orbit and service them more
quickly, reliably, and inexpensively than the cur-
rent Space Shuttle or expendable launch vehicles.
Need for massive, fixed launch facilities at a few
vulnerable sites would be eliminated. Flexible, fast-
turnaround transatmospheric vehicles might cut
the cost of delivering payloads into orbit by an
order of magnitude.
The extreme altitude and speed capability
would make our military aircraft far less vulnera-
ble. Ability to fly to orbit on very short notice while
operating from conventional runways would give
the advantage of surprise. Flights on unpredicted
courses could observe secret installations and
activities before they could be hidden. A versatile
transatmospheric vehicle could react quickly to any
point on the globe in approximately 90 minutes.
A commercial transport derived from this tech-
nology could be considered following flight testing
of the X-30 research airplane and operational ex-
perience with hypersonic military aircraft or space
edge of the earth's atmosphere and into low earth
transportation vehicles. It could fly at altitudes of
orbit. The plane would return to a conventional
20 miles or higher and at five times the speed of
runway. Such a new class of aerospace vehicle is
sound or greater. Travelers would reach most dis-
foreshadowed by recent technical advances. It
tant destinations within two hours. A hypersonic
would save much weight and cost by using oxygen
transport, a major step beyond a supersonic trans-
in the air instead of carrying very large quantities
port, might prove an attractive option for the long-
of liquid oxygen as in rocket systems.
distance market in the next century. The very
A decision to go forward with research on an
significant economic, environmental, safety and
aerospace plane was announced by President
operational challenges of a public hypersonic
Reagan in his State of the Union address on Feb-
transport necessitate extensive research and tech-
ruary 4, 1986. The National Aero-Space Plane pro-
nology development to exploit the civil transpor-
gram, a bold new technology initiative to carry out
tation potential of hypersonic flight.
"The X-30 experimental
the decision, is being conducted jointly by DOD
As the United States vigorously pursues space
airplane should begin
and NASA. These agencies have already stimulated
transportation systems, foreign nations are not
technology validation in
a major expansion of research in all the technolo-
blind to their potential. They, too, are aggressively
actual flight by the early
gies key to hypersonic and transatmospheric flight.
working on a broad range of reusable spacecraft.
1990's."
Such rapid mobilization of this degree in both gov-
These include the French Hermes space transpor-
ernment and industry is unprecedented in recent
tation system, advanced horizontal takeoff systems
times. This initiative has reversed more than a
such as the British HOTOL and German Sanger
decade-long decline in the U.S. hypersonics ex-
vehicles, and the aerospace plane concepts being
pertise and technology base in industry and the
actively studied in Japan. The Soviets, who already
university community.
have more responsive space launch capabilities
The National Aero-Space Plane program is
with an annual launch rate many times greater
accelerating effort on critical technologies: air-
than ours, are well into developments, some of
breathing propulsion which must function effi-
which are beyond anything we have in either
ciently from takeoff to near orbital velocities;
operation or design.
high-temperature, lightweight materials, and ther-
Accordingly, the Committee strongly endorses
mal structures that can withstand exposure to ex-
the National Aero-Space Plane initiative in a broad
U.S. and global competitive context involving both
aerospace leadership and national security.
7
THE AGENDA
Aggressively pursue the National
FOR
2
Aero-Space Plane program, assuring
maturation of critical technologies
leading to an experimental airplane.
ACHIEVEMENT
learly, now is the time for the United
C
The Committee strongly endorses the National
States to organize a long-term, aggres-
Aero-Space Plane program. In pursuing this chal-
sive, and positive thrust to remain
lenging initiative, government and industry part-
competitive in the world aviation
ners should strive to:
marketplace and secure in our national
defense. As the leader of the free world, the
Strengthen preliminary design efforts so that
United States cannot retreat behind protectionist
attractive vehicle concepts and key technologies
barriers in the face of formidable economic com-
can be identified, shaped, and assigned priorities.
petitors or military adversaries. America has lost
Assure timely development and maturation of
momentum but not its basic capability. In aero-
the X-30 focused technologies critical to success
nautics, the expertise represented by the govern-
of the National Aero-Space Plane program.
ment, industry, and university partnership that
has evolved since the founding of the National
Conduct application studies for future opera-
tional vehicles of various sizes and missions to
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics in 1915 is
unsurpassed anywhere. The most decisive factor
provide a comparative assessment with competi-
"The United States
tive alternatives.
in America's favor is the pace of innovation itself.
cannot retreat behind
The current environment with its resource lim-
Assure broadest U.S. technical community
protectionist barriers.
"
itations poses a national challenge to our creativ-
involvement consistent with the need to protect
ity and resolve to make the difficult choices and
certain sensitive information for national security
necessary commitments for U.S. preeminence.
and U.S. competitiveness.
The agenda will require concerted effort and
Broaden the technology base to enable devel-
greater achievement by the Federal Government,
opment of a wide range of U.S. hypersonic cruise
industry, and the nation's universities. The Com-
vehicles.
mittee recommends an eight-point action plan to
strengthen U.S. competitiveness in the worldwide
Rebuild university expertise base in hyper-
aerospace marketplace and strategic arenas.
sonics and transatmospherics research.
ACTION PLAN
Develop fundamental technology,
Increase innovative industry R&D
1
efforts given the certainty of
3
design, and business foundation for
a long-range, supersonic transport
intensifying global competition and
in preparation for a potential U.S.
the importance of new technology for
industry initiative.
U.S. competitiveness.
The National Goal for long-distance super-
The U.S. is challenged by a new global econ-
sonic efficiency remains a great market-driven
omy. America's ability to compete depends heav-
opportunity. Second-generation commercial
ily on greater mobilization and commitment of
transports which would cut flying times to the
the major aircraft manufacturers and their sup-
Pacific Basin by 70 to 80 percent are possible by
pliers. Affordability and quality will be pivotal to
the turn of the century. A coordinated and disci-
the success or failure of U.S. entries in the world
plined approach by government and industry is
markets. With so much of our competitive posi-
necessary to develop the technology and to
tion dependent on new technology, the Commit-
mobilize the large capital resources for full-scale
tee recommends that:
development. The Committee recommends that:
U.S. aeronautics industry continue to expand
Industry analyze the market needs for an
its own investments in R&D.
advanced high-speed transport and identify the
American industry stress affordability and
economic, speed, size, range, and fuel character-
quality during product design, a longer-term
istics necessary to become a successful element
perspective in business strategies, and a more
in international air transportation. Government
risk-taking approach to strengthen American
and industry determine the necessary character-
leadership in light of the escalating global
istics for environmental compatibility.
competition.
Government continue to support a healthy
Independent Research And Development
(IR&D) program as a sound and proven way of
stimulating innovative industrial R&D.
8
Industry and NASA determine the most at-
ing is already commonplace in major military
tractive technical concepts and the necessary
aviation procurements. This is particularly impor-
technology developments for future long-range,
tant for a commercial supersonic transport, since
high-speed civil transports.
the magnitude and complexity of the required
NASA, industry and academia begin a focused
R&D efforts will probably require collaboration
and coordinated approach to ready required
of a number of companies.
technology for U.S. industry development and
The U.S. increase rate of technology transfer of
application.
government funded R&D to the American pri-
Industry provide strong, creative leadership.
vate sector for commercial development. Rapid
A high-speed transport will probably require
transfer and development are essential in pre-
pooled resources of a number of companies,
venting significant loss of that technology to for-
perhaps an international consortium. Arbitrary
eign companies. Federal agencies must balance
governmental impediments to collaboration in
the early open publication of research results with
design, development, and production by major
need for early domestic technology transfer. Im-
U.S. commercial competitors should be identified
portant new discoveries should receive proper
and eliminated.
intellectual property protection and early domes-
tic dissemination.
The U.S. aeronautics community explore the
development and application of new supersonic
Industry and the national laboratories expand
cruise technologies to advanced technology mili-
cooperative research, technology development,
tary aircraft.
and licensing arrangements under the terms of
the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986.
This Act offers a variety of new incentives and
Expand domestic research and
4
mechanisms for cooperation and rapid transfer
development collaboration by
of government-sponsored technology to the pri-
creating an environment that reflects
vate sector. Government and industry should
the new era of global competition.
identify those areas where U.S. industry might be
interested in sharing the costs-and benefits-of
technology development.
Encourage government aeronautical
American companies will have to depend more
5
research in long-term emerging
on themselves and on one another, if they are to
technology areas which promise
stay competitive internationally. Because of
high payoffs.
changes in the worldwide commercial markets
and dramatically rising research and develop-
ment costs, many U.S. aerospace manufacturers
have entered into cooperative relationships with
foreign companies to gain market share and re-
duce financial risk. Collaboration among foreign
Advances in composite materials, propulsion,
companies, enabled by less restrictive legal envi-
numerical simulation, and laminar flow will have
ronments overseas, is an increasingly powerful
a profound effect on future vehicles in all three
competitive force on the international scene.
goal areas. NASA provides a unique, central tech-
"A high-speed transport
Much of the research and development envi-
nological resource for this nation's aeronautical
will probably require
sioned in this report could benefit from several
preeminence and should now strengthen its
pooled resources.
"
American firms working collaboratively-sharing
capabilities and take a more assertive leadership
the risk while pooling capital, technology, and
role in developing the fundamental knowledge
skilled personnel. The purpose is not to stifle
base in these emerging areas. Government must
U.S. competition but to enhance international
also assure the health and availability of critical
competitiveness. Increased cooperation between
national facilities to meet the projected increased
federal laboratories and the private sector is also
demands from new aircraft developments across
essential. Accordingly, the Committee recom-
the speed regime.
mends that:
Composites
The U.S. aeronautics industry consider the
advantages of teaming and other collaborative
Innovative research could yield high-strength,
ultra-lightweight, low-cost composite structures
opportunities now permitted by U.S. law. Re-
for use in advanced subsonic, supersonic and
search cooperatives that are created by private
initiative such as the Microelectronics and Com-
transatmospheric aircraft. To achieve the full
potential of composites, the Committee recom-
puter Technology Corporation might serve as a
mends that:
model. Associations such as the Aerospace In-
dustries Association are beginning to act as a
catalyst.
The Federal Government not impose barriers
to discussions and teaming between major U.S.
Aerospace competitors for development and pro-
duction projects as well as research. Such team-
9
Government, industry, and the universities
NASA and DOD explore advanced propulsion
intensify development and validation of a com-
cycles and determine the practicality of the most
prehensive knowledge base to enable the broad
promising concepts.
application of composite materials to future air-
Government and industry develop the funda-
craft and engine systems.
mental technology base for significant improve-
NASA and DOD focus research on promising
ments in fuel efficiency, operating life and
material systems such as thermoplastics and
acoustics of super-bypass subsonic propulsion
metal matrix composites, and on advanced struc-
systems and supersonic variable-cycle engines.
tural concepts and innovative fabrication tech-
"NASA should now
Laminar Flow
niques to increase damage tolerance and strength
take a more assertive
and lower cost.
Laminar-flow advances offer dramatic im-
leadership role in
Civil and military composite development be
provements in cruise efficiency of both subsonic
developing the
made a common, mutually supporting national
and supersonic aircraft. Flight testing of small-
fundamental knowledge
base in these emerging
undertaking.
scale, subsonic laminar-flow concepts has been
completed recently. However, important work
areas.
As new composite materials emerge from the
remains before these concepts can be introduced
research laboratories, government and industry
in large subsonic transports. Little laminar-flow
coordinate national technology validation efforts
research has been conducted in the supersonic
for large, next-generation primary structures.
regime. The Committee recommends that:
FAA ensure that appropriate certification stand-
ards and rules are developed.
NASA develop fundamental laminar-flow
technology for supersonic aircraft, with potential
Numerical Simulation
to double fuel efficiency and reduce skin surface
An area of extreme importance for rapid and
temperatures. This should include research on
effective evaluation and optimization of all classes
high-lift devices or techniques for highly-swept
of aircraft and propulsion system designs is
leading edges used during the approach and
numerical simulation, or computer modeling. It is
landing phases of flight.
already revolutionizing research in aerodynam-
NASA and DOD, in conjunction with industry,
ics, structures, propulsion, and related areas such
pursue the validation of promising subsonic con-
as wind shear. The design of highly integrated
cepts in realistic flight conditions and operating
aerospace vehicles and further improvements in
environments.
conventional aircraft are dependent on these
National Facilities
capabilities. Because these problems involve large
numbers of variables, the development of new
NASA and DOD are responsible for a large
powerful supercomputers will accelerate prog-
number of unique national facilities that are es-
ress. To maintain leadership in this vital tech-
sential to preserving U.S. leadership in aeronau-
nology area, the Committee recommends:
tics. These major government wind tunnels and
U.S. fully exploit leadership in supercomputer
propulsion facilities, represent the majority of our
national aeronautical R&D test capability. They
and numerical simulation technology for im-
proved understanding of fundamental physical
are experiencing significant increases in demand
phenomena and the optimal, cost-effective de-
because of new aircraft development programs
sign of all future aerospace vehicles. This will
currently underway across the entire speed range.
This demand is expected to grow. Certain of
require more extensive experimental activity to
NASA's wind tunnels are aging and in need of
verify numerical simulation results.
modernization. In addition, requirements for
U.S. industry and government accelerate de-
higher speeds, higher temperatures, and im-
velopment of parallel processing hardware and
proved flow and acoustic qualities may require
software technology and artificial intelligence to
enhanced capabilities. To ensure the health and
significantly increase the fidelity and accuracy of
availability of critical national facilities, the Com-
computer simulations.
mittee recommends that:
Propulsion
NASA, in conjunction with DOD and industry,
undertake a national assessment of future wind
Ceramic, carbon-carbon, and metal matrix
tunnel use requirements and the adequacy of
composite materials promise engine operations
at extremely high temperatures with improved
existing wind tunnels to meet these requirements.
This assessment should form the basis for devel-
performance, weight, and life. Successful devel-
opment of high-temperature materials will spur
oping and implementing a time-phased plan for
efficient supersonic cruise propulsion systems
modernizing, rehabilitating, or removing current
NASA wind tunnels from service and for provid-
and large increases in fighter capability, includ-
ing short or vertical takeoff and landing aircraft
ing new national capabilities.
operations. To realize dramatic improvements for
subsonic and supersonic propulsion systems, the
Committee recommends that:
NASA and DOD emphasize high-performance
propulsion technology with particular focus on
10
high-temperature composite materials.
Strengthen American universities for
Federal agencies, particularly DOD, facilitate
6
basic research and science education
U.S. manufacturers' use of advanced manufactur-
through enhanced government and
ing techniques or concepts sponsored by those
aerospace industry support and
agencies.
cooperation.
Industry and government strengthen research
activities that can lead to new manufacturing
techniques and greater productivity.
As centers of basic research, universities play a
Enhance the safety and capacity of
vital role in creating the basic technological foun-
dation for achievement of the National Goals.
advances and the training of future scientists and
8
the National Airspace System
through advanced automation and
Universities provide the dual benefit of scientific
electronics technology and new
vehicle concepts including vertical
engineers. Yet there are disturbing signs that our
and short takeoff and landing
universities' R&D infrastructure is deteriorating.
aircraft.
The U.S. must revitalize the critically important
interactions between universities, government
Airport congestion and delay have become sub-
and industry that have served this Nation so
stantial problems that will worsen with the ex-
well in the past. For these reasons, cooperative
pected growth in aviation. New high-performance
efforts between government and industry should
vehicles will also present significant challenges
be encouraged to help:
for the National Airspace System. To realize the
Expand, replace and modernize university
benefits of future technology advances, the Com-
R&D equipment, facilities, and instrumentation,
mittee recommends that:
to keep pace with research and training needs.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in
Support U.S. science and engineering students
conjunction with NASA, accelerate development
with adequate long-term stipends to encourage
and integration of advanced automation and
our best students to pursue graduate studies in
electronics technology into the National Airspace
engineering. Challenging graduate level curricula
System.
"Universities play a vital
should be established or strengthened in critical
FAA maintain flexibility for early certification
role in creating the basic
aerospace areas.
of future aircraft, including supersonic and hy-
technological foundation
Foster aerospace-oriented centers patterned
personic vehicles.
for achievement of the
after such successful ventures as NASA's Centers
National Goals."
FAA and NASA provide technology for timely
of Excellence, the National Science Foundation's
detection and avoidance of hazardous weather
Engineering Research Centers, and the Univer-
such as wind shear, and for computerized aids in
sity Research Initiative of the Defense Depart-
handling unavoidable encounters.
ment. This will help address critical needs for
more multi-disciplinary basic research and en-
NASA and DOD aggressively pursue advanced
courage greater technology transfer to the private
automation and electronics technology for future
sector.
aircraft. Effective integration of humans with
these highly-automated systems is pivotal for in-
Improve the development and
creased safety and performance.
7
integration of advanced design,
Industry explore development of timely and
processing, and computer-integrated
affordable civil derivatives of the new generations
manufacturing technologies to
of military VTOL and STOL aircraft for inter-
transform emerging R&D results
city and inter-region transportation.
into affordable U.S. products.
Flexible, automated manufacturing technology
is a key to affordability and quality in all three
goal areas and is a potential major leverage area
for U.S. manufacturers. To enhance the U.S. com-
petitive advantage, the Committee recommends
that:
Aerospace industry establish world leadership
in advanced processing and computer-integrated
manufacturing technology.
Aerospace industry improve the integration of
design with advanced processing techniques and
automated factories.
11
CONCLUSION
T
he Committee believes that the most crucial problem facing U.S.
aeronautics is that government and industry leaders underesti-
mate the depth and determination of foreign aeronautical com-
mitment and the magnitude of the R&D effort required to achieve
the National Goals. Real national growth
in R&D is essential.
The changing environment requires a new commitment and a new phi-
losophy, characterized by a collective sense of responsibility and a more
cooperative relationship among government, industry, and the university
community. Government alone cannot guarantee success. America's ability
to compete lies primarily within the private sector which must be effec-
tively mobilized. The recommended U.S. strategy will produce both a
strengthened defense and a clear-cut product superiority in the interna-
tional marketplace.
To hold on to American markets while competing in the new global
economy requires changes in the aeronautical community's traditional op-
erating procedures. Policies and approaches which were born when U.S.
industry was generally preeminent have little place in a world where many
competitors are essentially technological equals and actively backed by
foreign governments. Major increases in government spending are not
required, but necessary outlays will be a prudent investment in America's
"The central priority for
economic future and national security.
the balance of this century
Change is unsettling. Fortunately, many Americans are now recognizing
is to regain American
that something different must be done. From education to tax reform, we
competitiveness."
should be thinking seriously about how to sharpen the country's competi-
tive edge. Otherwise, America's quality of life can only slip relative to the
rest of the industrialized world. It is the Committee's hope that all involved
will realize that "business as usual" will not carry the U.S. through this
world competitive environment successfully.
None of these changes will be easy. The only question is whether they
will be made in time with a coherent purpose that will secure lasting U.S.
aerospace leadership. Otherwise, far tougher choices will be forced upon us
in the heat of a deepening crisis. It is the Committee's firm belief that the
central priority for the balance of this century is to regain American
competitiveness.
12
AERONAUTICAL POLICY
REVIEW COMMITTEE
John E. Steiner
Crawford F. Brubaker
Chairman
Deputy Asst. Secretary for Aerospace
Department of Commerce
John F. Cashen
Vice President, Advanced Projects
Northrop Corporation
Raymond S. Colladay
Associate Administrator for
Aeronautics and Space Technology
NASA
Thomas E. Cooper
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Research, Development, and Logistics
Eugene E. Covert
Head, Depart. of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
J. Roger Fleming
Senior Vice President, Technical Services
Air Transport Association
Bastian Hello
Senior Vice President, Government Relations
Rockwell International
Russell L. Hopps
Vice President, Engineering (Ret.)
Lockheed Corporation
Charles B. Husick
Senior Vice President
Fairchild Industries
Ronald L. Kerber
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Research and Advanced Technology
James N. Krebs
Vice President and General Manager (Ret.)
General Electric Company
Walter S. Luffsey
Director, Adv. Aviation System Design Team
Federal Aviation Administration
Robert R. Lynn
Senior Vice President of
Research and Engineering
Bell Helicopter Textron
Hershel Sams
Vice President, Engineering Technology
McDonnell Aircraft Company
John M. Swihart
Vice President, International Affairs
The Boeing Company
OSTP
Maurice A. Roesch III
Former Assistant Director for
Defense Technology and Systems
David R. Stone
Executive Secretary
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Washington, D.C. 20500
andre
/
I
-
e
and
$
/
/
/
-
- **** 1 adidas
/
... -------------------------
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< esses. -
><<<<
The U.S. scientific and technological enterprise is still by far the largest in
the world. The United States spends more on R&D activities (civilian and
military) than do France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom com-
bined. Federal investment in basic research has grown in real terms by over
320 percent since 1960 and by more than 40
percent since 1980 alone. Such growth con-
tinues, reflecting the Bush Administration's
strong and continuing commitment to the long-
established policy of investing in the creation
of new knowledge through support of basic
research.
Basic research aside, however, a somewhat
different picture emerges. Increases in non-
federal support and investment in research
and development have slackened in recent
years. This is a worrisome trend since global
economic competition takes place mostly in
the private sector and the central role of R&D
investment in economic growth is well es-
tablished. During the 1980s, the average an-
nual real rate of growth for non-federal R&D
fell from about 7.5 percent for 1980-1985 to
about 2 percent in the early 1990s. Reversing
this trend will require not only careful adjustments to Federal policy but en-
hanced investments on the part of the private sector and a renewed na-
tional commitment to educational excellence.
As part of this commitment, the Administration has established a coordi-
nated, government-wide program for improving mathematics and science
education, in order to maintain the country's science and technology base
and to train a more competitive work force.
Science, as Vannevar Bush pointed out nearly a half century ago, is an
endless frontier. Exploiting the opportunities of that frontier has helped to
strengthen this Nation and the entire world in the past and can continue to
do so in the future. In many ways, investment in science and technology re-
flects a deep-seated American belief in the possibility of a better future. With
concerted action, that future-that endless frontier-lies within our grasp.
- D. ALLAN BROMLEY
The President's Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology
In January 1990, President Bush created a new science and technology advi-
COUNCIL MEMBERS
sory body, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
Chairman
D. Allan Bromley
(PCAST), and appointed 12 highly distinguished individuals from the private
Assistant to the President for Science
and Technology and Director, Office of
sector to serve on the Council (see chart). The Council is chaired by the Director
Science and Technology Policy
Members
of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and reports directly to the
Norman Borlaug,
President. The inaugural meeting of PCAST was hosted by the President at
Distinguished Professor, Department of
Soils and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M
University.
Camp David on February 3, 1990.
Solomon Buchsbaum,
Senior Vice President, Technology
The Council responds to the President upon request, and also aggressively
Systems, AT&T Bell Laboratories.
maintains a general watch on developments in order to be in a position to raise
Charles Drake,
Albert Bradley Professor of Earth
Sciences and Professor of Geology,
issues, opportunities, and concerns to the President. The Council's work falls
Dartmouth College.
broadly into three categories:
Mary Good,
Senior Vice President for Technology,
Allied-Signal Incorporated.
Science and Technology; The Council work in this area requires broad and
Ralph Gomory,
President, The Sloan Foundation.
in-depth technical knowledge of specific areas of science and technology.
Peter Likins,
Examples include High Performance Computing and Communications; Bioscience
President, Lehigh University.
Thomas Lovejoy,
and Biotechnology; and the Global Environment.
Assistant Secretary for External Affairs,
The Smithsonian Institution.
Policy; Efforts here involve policy for science and technology as well as sci-
John McTague,
Vice President, Technical Affairs,
ence and technology for policy. Examples include advice on priorities for Federal
Ford Motor Company.
expenditures in science and technology as well as science and technology ad-
Thomas Murrin, Dean,
School of Business and Administration,
Duquesne University.
vice on issues involving manufacturing and U.S. economic competitiveness.
Daniel Nathans,
Organizational; This work addresses structural and strategic management
Professor of Molecular Biology and
Genetics, Johns Hopkins University
School of Medicine.
policies related to science and technology including policies within the Federal
David Packard,
Chairman of the Board,
Government as well as policies in non-governmental organizations. An ex-
Hewlett-Packard Company.
ample is the Council's work in Science, Technology, and National Security.
Harold Shapiro,
President, Princeton University.
Former Members:
Bernadine Healy,
Director, National Institutes of Health
Walter Massey,
Director, National Science Foundation.
Serving National Needs
In the brief span of their existence, modern science and technology have proved
to be powerful social and economic forces. Increasingly, they are the source of
new discoveries and advances that are transforming the industrial basis of
modern economies, improving health care and the quality of life, and provid-
ing a continuing supply of military capabilities. Equally important, science
serves to satisfy human curiosity and to expand intellectual horizons.
We live in a time of unprecedented change, and not just in science and tech-
nology. Revolutionary changes in political and social organization are occur-
ring in the former U.S.S.R. and in Eastern Europe, Africa, South America, and
Asia. A new and more competitive global economy is emerging. National se-
curity concerns face a major transformation, yet we will depend more than
ever on R&D to maintain a U.S. technological edge. The potential threat of glob-
al climate change and other potential or actual environmental changes caused
by human activity intensify the need for improved knowledge of fundamental
Earth system processes.
The Bush Administration has moved decisively to meet these challenges, in
part by more effectively harnessing science and technology to meet national
needs. It has:
reorganized and upgraded the Federal government's ability to deal with sci-
ence and technology;
increased Federal investment in the creation of new knowledge;
established a technology policy to achieve the national goals of improved
quality of life for all Americans, continued economic growth, and national se-
curity;
recognized unmet needs in translating new knowledge into new products
and services by identifying and supporting generic, pre-competitive technol-
ogy development in cooperation with the private sector;
moved to reduce barriers to competitiveness;
established a coordinated, government-wide effort to improve science and
mathematics education;
sought to increase international cooperation in science and technology; and
established a comprehensive strategy on climate change which includes the
promotion of economic growth and sound environmental policies.
1
Basic Research Foundations
Basic research is the foundation of the nation's research and development en-
An optical fiber illuminated
terprise. It generates the new ideas, concepts, techniques, and tools upon which
by a light source (right);
both science and technology endeavors are based. As such, basic research is
particle beam fusion
the fuel for new products and processes that stoke the engine of economic
accelerator using 36 beams
growth and improve the quality of life.
of atomic particles to
The quest for scientific understanding is one of mankind's great adventures.
generate x-rays (below);
Since about half of U.S. basic research is done in academic institutions, the ad-
telescope at the Whipple
venture also provides the advanced training experience for future generations
Observatory, Arizona
of research scientists. It enriches the educational environment in which scien-
(bottom).
tists and engineers receive their undergraduate training.
The U.S. basic research system is uniquely productive, mea-
sured not only by the number of Nobel Prizes won by U.S. re-
searchers but also by the degree to which U.S. research literature
is cited by other scientists. Modern basic research has outgrown
a narrow focus on a single discipline and now increasingly in-
volves many disciplines in cross-cutting research to fully under-
stand aspects of nature. Much attention has been devoted by the
Bush Administration to facilitate the support of cross-disciplinary
basic research while preserving and building the
strength of the base scientific disciplines. Interagency
Presidential initiatives, coordinated by the Office of
Science and Technology Policy through the Federal
Coordinating Council for Science and Technology, in-
clude High Performance Computing and Communications,
Advanced Materials, Processing Biotechnology, and
Global Climate Change Research; each contains a
significant basic research component.
The Federal government is appropriately the primary source of support for
the conduct of basic research, providing $13.3 billion for this purpose in 1992.
Expenditures of Federal funds for basic research have grown over 320 percent
in real terms since 1960, and over 40 percent during the 1980s alone. The Office
of Science and Technology Policy works with the Office of Management and
Budget and the Federal funding agencies to strike an appropriate balance be-
tween support for individual investigators and large basic research projects,
and between basic research and other critical Federal R&D responsibilities.
2
Learning by doing in the
laboratory (right);
elementary school
computer class (below);
pre-college science class
(far right).
Educating the Minds of Tomorrow
America is facing a crisis in science and mathematics education, a crisis that
extends throughout the U.S. educational system but is most serious in ele-
mentary and secondary education.
To respond to this crisis, President Bush, in September 1989, convened the
Nation's first Education Summit with the State Governors. The Summit led to
the establishment of six national goals for improving education in the United
States. The ongoing efforts to strengthen education received further impetus
in April, 1991, when President Bush announced AMERICA 2000, a long term
national strategy to move the United States toward the six national education
goals.
While primary responsibility for education will remain with the states and
localities, the Bush Administration has established a coordinated interagency
program, budget, and strategy for science and mathematics education. The
program was developed under the auspices of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget through the
Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology. The
4
-PCT-1
President's initiative gives priority to precollege
education, with the single most important near
term action in mathematics and science educa-
tion being to enhance the quality and enthusi-
asm of teachers now in the classroom. At the
same time, there is a focus on strengthening un-
dergraduate education and preserving U.S. lead-
ership in graduate education. Reform of mathe-
matics and science education is a major task within, and wholly complementary
to, the broader AMERICA 2000 education strategy.
Improved achievement in science and mathematics education, the goal of
the President's program, is central to economic competitiveness because re-
search and development-and the consequent improved technologies, new
knowledge, products and processes-play a crucial role in improving eco-
nomic productivity. At the same time, more efficient U.S. factories and service
industries of the future require a work force that is second to none in technical
skills related to mathematics and science achievement.
5
High Performance Computing and Communications
High performance computers and the data networks that connect them are be-
coming increasingly important to scientific advancement, economic competi-
tion, and national security. The technologies have the potential for extraordi-
narily rapid advances within the next five years-a 1000-fold improvement in
computing speed and a 100-fold improvement in the transmission rate of data
networks. Such developments could have transforming effects on industry, ed-
ucational institutions at all levels, and society as a whole.
Underlying such advances is a radically different approach to computing
that is known as parallel processing. Unlike most of today's computers that
have one processor and perform only one task at a time, parallel processing
computers can do a thousand or ten thousand things simultaneously, depending
on how many processors they employ.
High performance computing is expected to enhance research by making
possible the solution of critical scientific problems, to transform the process of
product design and production throughout the U.S. economy, and to contribute
in an essential way to national security and national defense. High capacity
networks will provide easier access to high performance computers and to the
vast stores of information that exist in laboratories, government agencies, mu-
seums, and libraries.
The Bush Administration has established a Presidential Initiative on High
The Connection Machine
Performance Computing and Communications, comprising a coordinated in-
(right), one of the first
teragency research program developed under the auspices of the Office of
massively parallel
Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget
supercomputers; collision of
through the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and
a cylinder and a wall
Technology. The program provides for development of these revolutionary
simulated on a
technologies within the framework of an enthusiastic partnership among gov-
supercomputer (top);
ernment, industry, and universities.
simulation of an electron
The High Performance Computing Act of 1991, signed into law by President
beam (bottom).
Bush on December 9, 1991, provides a
strong congressional endorsement of the
initiative. In time, this visionary initiative
will be seen as a watershed event in com-
puting and communications.
6
Petri dishes showing
bacterial, fungi, and yeast
cultures (right); purified
DNA under ultraviolet light
(below); electron
micrograph of a flower pistil
(far right).
Life Sciences and Biotechnology
From a beginning only 20 years ago, scientists have learned to alter precise-
ly the genetic constitution of living organisms, initiating a scientific and indus-
trial revolution based on what we now call the new biotechnology.
The new biotechnology is a rapidly expanding collection of tools and tech-
nologies that permits change and modification of the genetic material of liv-
ing organisms. It opens the way to the production of large quantities of rare
and medically-valuable proteins and the modification of plants and animals
to carry specific hereditary traits. It also provides novel means for detecting
and preventing disease, producing useful chemicals, and cleaning up envi-
ronmental contamination. In just a decade and a half, this nascent field has
grown to produce U.S. products worth $4 billion annually. Already, an in-
creasing proportion of new drugs approved for life-threatening diseases are
biotechnology products.
Biotechnology industries have the potential to join the computer industry in
size, importance, rate of growth, and significance to the economy.
8
The Bush Administration is taking decisive action-including a national
Biotechnology Research Initiative-to assist U.S. leadership and competitive-
ness in biotechnology and to enhance its role as an essential element in a grow-
ing and vigorous economy. The Office of Science and Technology Policy as
well as the Competitiveness Council are giving priority attention to measures
that can facilitate new discoveries and bring them to the market place:
Securing the science and technology base by supporting basic research and
research training;
Avoiding unneeded regulation by matching regulatory restraints to the de-
gree of risk posed by specific products;
Sustaining a vigorous market for biotechnology products by promoting cap-
ital investment and protecting intellectual property rights.
Given its broad range of applications, biotechnology offers potential bene-
fits to every nation. In fact, biotechnology is the essential key to enriching Earth's
productivity without depleting precious resources and to gaining, for human
benefit, full use of our vast genetic heritage accumulated over billions of years.
9
Science, Technology and National Security
America's scientific and technological strength has long provided the qualita-
tive edge that ensured the nation's security and helped preserve the peace.
This technological edge was clearly demonstrated in Operation Desert Storm.
The superiority of the current generation of U.S. weapons is a direct result of
F-15 fighter moves in for
decisions made in years past to harness American technical ingenuity and cre-
refueling during Operation
ativity and to develop military systems of unparalleled performance and qual-
Desert Shield (right);
ity. Costly though some are, these systems have saved the lives of many U.S.
Defense communications
servicemen and women as well as countless civilians. As the U.S. enters the
satellite (below); Patriot
1990s, the strength of our basic and applied research in defense technologies
missile battery on alert
must be sustained.
(bottom).
In providing for the nation's security, we need a defense research and tech-
nology base that will guard against technological surprise
and will keep the United States in the lead in uncovering the
rare revolutionary technology breakthroughs and in exploit-
ing evolutionary improvements that define tomorrow's mili-
tary advantage. The intelligence community also needs cre-
ative and productive R&D programs to meet the collection and
analysis requirements of the future. The Office of Science and
Technology Policy is working to ensure ap-
propriate levels of investment in critical and
cutting edge technologies central to tomor-
row's defense and to maintain a robust de-
fense and intelligence establishment that is
ready for the challenges of a changing world.
The conflict in the Gulf and the dramatic
developments underway in Eastern Europe
and the former Soviet Union presage far-
reaching changes in the international environment and in the security needs
of the West. With the globalization of technology and the spread of weapons
of mass destruction, even a relatively unsophisticated society can threaten the
U.S. and its allies. The development and application of technology to support
changing defense, foreign policy, and intelligence requirements are central
concerns of the Bush Administration.
10
OF
S HC
$
Science, Technology and Foreign Policy
Major global trends in recent decades have placed science and technology
ever closer to the center of international issues. Despite the current restructur-
ing of the world order, U.S. national security needs have not diminished. As
the Gulf War illustrated SO vividly, technology is, more than ever, critical to na-
tional security. And in economic terms, the world has become more intensive-
ly competitive. As the successes of Japan and the Asian "tigers" have shown,
technology can provide the competitive edge in economic growth. Finally, na-
tional concerns about global trends in our physical and human environment
are appearing with increasing frequen-
cy on the international agenda. Develop-
ing an adequate understanding of the
complexities of global change requires
major internationally-coordinated re-
NATIONAL
SCIENCE
FOUNDATI
search efforts.
The international character of the sci-
ence and technology enterprise is in-
creasing steadily. Industrial activity is be-
coming more global. Academic scientists are becoming more involved in
Researcher checks rocks
international exchanges. Federal agencies and their laboratories are becom-
for microorganisms in
ing more active in international cooperation. However, since the national se-
Antarctica (left); National
curity and economic interests of the United States are affected by the flow of
Science Foundation
technology and technological knowledge, the Federal government promotes
research base at McMurdo
or limits that flow, as appropriate to the national interest.
Sound (above).
International scientific and technological cooperation, fostered by the Federal
government through government-to-government agreements and other means,
promote the foreign policy interests of the United States while providing ben-
efit to our science and engineering communities. In cooperation with the poli-
cy coordination by the National Security Council, the Office of Science and
Technology Policy provides necessary coupling among the Department of State,
which has statutory responsibility for international agreements, and the Federal
agencies which manage the substantive programs of cooperation in science
and technology.
The Bush Administration's vigorous policy toward international cooperation
in science and technology incorporates steps to ensure "a level playing field"
in areas such as the protection of intellectual property rights and equal access
to research facilities.
13
Increasing Competitive Advantage through
Science and Technology
Technology is a major factor driving economic growth. For 150 years, techno-
logical innovation has helped to create new jobs and improve living standards.
More recently, most of the great post-war inventions-computers, microelec-
tronics, genetic engineering, fiber optics, to name but a few-have been "made
in America". To retain world industrial leadership, however, we must contin-
ue our commitment to the discovery of basic knowledge and new understanding,
foster the timely translation of ideas and discoveries into new products, and re-
vive the great American tradition of manufacturing SO that we not only start,
but sustain and retain new industries.
To this end, the Bush Administration published a report on U.S. Technology
Policy in September, 1990. Prepared by the Office of Science and Technology
Policy in cooperation with the Office of Management and Budget and the Council
of Economic Advisors, it is the first such report issued by any Administration.
The U.S. Technology Policy recognizes that the private sector has the prin-
cipal role in identifying, developing, and applying technology for commercial
products and processes. The Federal government's role is in establishing an
14
economic environment that fosters savings and stimu-
lates investment both in research and development and
in plant and equipment; funding basic research; and joint-
ly supporting, with industry, generic technologies; pro-
viding a stable and sensible regulatory system; encour-
aging cooperative government-industry relationships;
seeking better international protection of intellectual prop-
erty; and similar actions.
The Bush Administration's strategy is to invest directly in areas that support
Section of a microelectronic
agency missions but also have broad applications in the private sector. In sup-
chip (top); an automated
port of this strategy, it has established Presidential Initiatives, developed un-
assembly line (above).
der the auspices of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office
of Management and Budget through the Federal Coordinating Council for
Science, Engineering, and Technology. These initiatives will help bridge the
gap between discovery and commercialization, create new and better jobs for
American workers, and increase economic growth. Areas of special focus are
biotechnology, high performance computing and communications, advanced
materials and processing, and flexible manufacturing.
15
Global Change
During the past century, human society has entered into a new and momen-
tous relationship with the global environment. As the human population and
the scale of industrial civilization have increased, SO has their impact on the
Earth. For the first time in history, the scope of human activities is sufficient to
significantly influence the entire planet.
Already some of these activities have led to the partial degradation of the at-
mosphere's protective ozone shield. A far more complex potential threat to the
global environment is the possibility that human ac-
tions will lead to an intensification of the "green-
house effect" and thus to a significant warming of
the Earth's climate.
To create prudent long-term environmental poli-
cies requires a much improved scientific under-
standing of the Earth system, how it changes natu-
Computer simulation of a
rally, how human activities change it, and how it might respond to future
severe storm (right); sim-
changes in environmental conditions.
ulation of global climatic
A key component of the Administration's overall approach to global stew-
effects of increased
ardship is the U.S. Global Change Research Program. This Presidential Initiative,
greenhouse gases (above).
comprising a coordinated interagency research effort, was developed under
the auspices of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of
Management and Budget through the Federal Coordinating Council for Science,
Engineering, and Technology. It centers on four broad problem areas or themes:
Global water and energy cycles, focusing on a better understanding of the
role of clouds, oceans, terrestrial ecosystems, and polar ice sheets;
Global carbon cycle, focusing on a more precise knowledge of sources and
sinks of key carbon compounds such as carbon dioxide and methane and their
behavior within the Earth system;
Ecological systems and populations of living organisms, focusing on the ef-
fects of global change at regional scales;
Climate modeling and prediction, building on all of the above efforts to de-
velop an improved predictive capability of the Earth system.
The main task of the Program is to develop a productive understanding of
the Earth system; it is to be complemented by economic research to better un-
derstand the economic factors and consequences of global change.
16
AND
X
Office of Science and Technology Policy
The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), together with the Office
of Management and Budget, provides a central locus for science and technol-
ogy affairs within the Executive Office of the President. OSTP is charged with
providing access to authoritative information and expert scientific, engineer-
ing and technological advice for the President, Federal officials, and Congress
and with coordinating science and technology policy throughout the Federal
Government. The Director of OSTP is also the Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology and thus a senior member of the White House staff;
chairman of the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and
Technology; and chairman of the President's Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology.
The office works closely with a number of high level policy organizations and
councils in the Executive Office of the President. The Assistant to the President
for Science and Technology is chairman of the science and technology work-
ing group of the Policy Coordinating group. He is a member of the National
Space Council. In addition, he participates in the deliberations of the National
Security Council and the Competitiveness Council. OSTP also works closely
with the Office of Management and Budget and with more than 20 federal agen-
OSTP Director D.
cies on R&D budgets and with the Council of Economic Advisors and the Council
Allan Bromley with
on Environmental Quality on issues such as global change that have scientif-
President Bush during
ic, economic, and environmental policy implications.
a working meeting.
OSTP works with the Federal agencies that support R&D to ensure the health
18
and vitality of the U.S. science and technology bases and reviews Federal sci-
ence and technology programs to ensure that the Nation's R&D resources are
used efficiently. The Office also provides information, advice, and analysis on
broad national and international policy issues that involve important science
or technology components and serves as the U.S. focus for many bilateral and
multilateral international agreements in science and technology.
OSTP Organization Chart
Assistant to the President
and Director, OSTP
Associate Director for
Associate Director for
Associate Director for
Associate Director for
Industrial Technology
Life Sciences
Physical Sciences and
Policy and
Engineering
International Affairs
energy
social science
FCCSET
high performance
computing
mathematics and
science education
environment
national security
biotechnology
and global change
space
technologies
PCAST
materials
manufacturing
Under the Bush Administration, OSTP now incorporates a greater concern
with technology as well as with science. The Office now includes four Presidentially-
appointed, Senate confirmed, Associate Directors who together with the Director
carry responsibilities for industrial technology; national security; life sciences;
social sciences; physical science and engineering; policy and international af-
fairs; environment; and other areas (see chart).
The Director of OSTP has been appointed by the President to the chairman-
ship of the Operating Committee of the Critical Technologies Institute and to
membership in the National Critical Materials Council.
OSTP was established by statute in 1976, but can trace its origins back to
World War II and the success of the wartime Office of Scientific Research and
Development. The first science advisor to the President was named in 1958, af-
ter the launch of Sputnik showed the need for a permanent office close to the
President. The current director of OSTP, Dr. D. Allan Bromley, was appointed
by President Bush on August 4, 1989.
19
The Federal Coordinating Council for Science,
Engineering and Technology
FCCSET MEMBERS
The Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology
Chairman
was established in 1976 to address science and technology policy issues af-
The Honorable D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President for Science &
fecting multiple Federal agencies. The Council is an important means for CO-
Technology and Director, Office of
Science and Technology Policy
ordinating Federal R&D programs and other multi-agency science and tech-
Members
nology activities. It also provides a mechanism for focusing attention on science,
The Honorable Manuel Lujan, Jr.
Secretary of the Interior
engineering and technology policy issues within the Federal agencies.
The Honorable Donald J. Atwood, Jr.
Deputy Secretary of Defense
The Council is chaired by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
The Honorable Edward Madigan
Secretary of Agriculture
Policy and is comprised of Cabinet members or their deputies from the major
The Honorable Ivan Selin
Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory
Federal Departments and the heads of Federal science agencies (see chart).
Commission
In Fiscal Year 1992, these departments and agencies collectively accounted for
The Honorable Rockwell A. Schnabel
Deputy Secretary of Commerce
approximately $74 billion in Federal R&D expenditures.
The Honorable James B. Busey, IV
Deputy Secretary of Transportation
The interagency nature of the Council makes it a critical body for the plan-
The Honorable Lynn Martin
Secretary of Labor
ning, budgeting, and coordination necessary to set government-wide priori-
The Honorable Anthony J. Principi
ties on cross-cutting R&D initiatives and to ensure efficient use of Federal R&D
Deputy Secretary
Department of Veterans Affairs
resources. For this purpose, the Council has established seven high-level, in-
The Honorable Louis W. Sullivan
Secretary of Health
and Human Services
teragency standing committees spanning broad areas of science and tech-
Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew
nology.
Under Secretary for International
Security Affairs, Department of State
In close cooperation with the Office of Management and Budget, the Council
The Honorable James D. Watkins
Secretary of Energy
and its committees develop coordinated, integrated strategies, programs, and
The Honorable Alfred DelliBovi
Under Secretary, Department of
budgets for Federal research and development in high priority, cross-cutting
Housing and Urban Development
areas of science and technology. The areas include: global change, high per-
The Honorable Lamar Alexander
Secretary of Education
formance computing and communications, biotechnology, advanced materi-
The Honorable Richard Austin
Administrator, General Services
Administration
als and processing, and mathematics and science education. Interagency
The Honorable Richard G. Darman
groups also are examining topics ranging from coastal ocean science, genome
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
patenting, and natural disaster reduction to the structure of international sci-
The Honorable Daniel S. Goldin
Administrator, National Aeronautics and
ence and technology agreements. In each case, the goal is to achieve con-
Space Administration
The Honorable William K. Reilly
sensus that can then guide the actions of participating agencies.
Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency
The Honorable Brent Scowcroft
Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs
The Honorable Walter E. Massey
Director, National Science Foundation
20
(clockwise from left)
False-color
composite satellite
image of Earth's
biosphere showing
showing distribution
of vegetation and
phytoplankton;
Hubble Space
telescope image of
exploding star R.
Aquarii; computer
graphic image of the
B form of DNA
showing double helix
structure; silicon
wafers; computer
simulation of an
electron-positron
collision in a high
energy physics
detector.
Photo credits: cover, Hank
Morgan (Rainbow); inside
front cover (clockwise from
top), NASA, NASA, Photo
Researchers, Rene Sheret,
Photo Researchers; page
2-3, Dan McCoy (Rainbow),
Sandia National Labs,
Smithsonian Institution;
page 4-5, NIH/NINDS, Apple
Computer, National Cancer
Institute; page 6-7, National
Center for Supercomputer
Applications, Sandia National
Labs (2); page 8-9, Kay
Chernush, National Cancer
Institute, David Scharf/Peter
Arnold Inc.; page 10-11,
Department of Defense (3);
page 12-13, National
Science Foundation (2);
page 14-15, Rene Sheret,
Ford; page 16-17, National
Center for Supercomputing
Applications (2); page 18,
White House photo; cover 3,
NASA.
1 - /
N
NAS
R
NAE
C IOM
Reorientation of the
Research Capability of the
Former Soviet Union
A Report to the Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology
REORIENTATION OF THE RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION
A Report to the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
Results of a Workshop on March 3, 1992
Co-Chairmen of the Workshop
Frank Press
Guyford Stever
Ashton Carter
Chairmen of the Working Groups
Ashton Carter, Weapons Scientists and Engineers
James Wyngaarden, Basic Research
Gerald Dinneen, Commercialization of Technologies
Alvin Trivelpiece, Multidisciplinary, Problem-Oriented Research
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Academy Press
Washington, D.C. 1992
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars
engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use
for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a
mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is
president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of
Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection
of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government.
The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages
education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of
the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of
eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public.
The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to
be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and
education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the
broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the
federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the council has
become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The
Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M.
White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
Support for this project was provided jointly by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the National
Research Council.
Available in limited supply from:
Office for Central Europe and Eurasia
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
Printed in the United States of America
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
2101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON. D.C. 20418
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
March 13, 1992
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Washington, D. C. 20506
Dear Dr. Bromley:
As you requested, we brought together on March 3 approximately
120 leaders of the U.S. science and engineering community to
consider how to preserve the basic science capability of the former
Soviet Union (FSU). At that meeting, working groups were
constituted in four areas: weapon scientists and engineers, basic
research, commercialization of technology, and interdisciplinary
problem-oriented research (e.g., health, ecology, energy, polar,
etc.). Attached are the reports of these four working groups along
with the list of attendees.
As co-chairs of the meeting, we are providing in this letter
a summary of the key recommendations and observations drawn from
the discussions. Because of the urgency of providing this
response, we have not circulated this letter to the attendees for
review prior to sending it to you. We take full responsibility for
the contents below, and believe that they represent a reasonable
and accurate summary of the major recommendations and the views of
most participants. More complete details are provided in the
working group reports.
Preservation and Reorientation of FSU S&T Is in the U.S. Interest
Scientists and engineers in the FSU will play a key role in
the economic revitalization necessary for a successful transition
to open and stable market-driven democratic societies, which is in
the economic and security interests of the U.S. New scientific and
technological challenges in civilian areas for FSU specialists can
help divert technical talent away from military pursuits.
Achieving U.S. goals of shrinking and redirecting the FSU military
R&D effort and developing the S&T component of the civilian economy
will require providing new opportunities for both FSU weapon
scientists and non-weapon scientists, especially in collaborations
with American scientists. These opportunities for collaborative
efforts will also allow FSU specialists to help expand frontiers of
knowledge in areas of direct interest to the American scientific
community and to U.S. business.
Time Is of the Essence
Without opportunities and financial support to address
technical challenges, FSU S&T human capabilities are being rapidly
eroded through an external and internal "brain drain.' Of special
concern, temptations are increasing for FSU military scientists to
look abroad for opportunities to use their capabilities. Many of
the best S&T facilities which are standing idle may soon atrophy.
The window of opportunity for U.S. commercial interests to draw on
FSU S&T achievements may close as other countries select the best
commercial targets. The new FSU leadership will soon be making
critical decisions in areas such as research priorities,
intellectual property rights, and education accreditation and
related policies; and there are one-time opportunities to influence
these decisions. The U.S. can play a leadership role among western
countries in revitalizing FSU science and technology if we act
quickly. Cooperative projects with U.S. scientists and engineers
will encourage FSU specialists to remain in place and to help in
building a civilian market-oriented economy.
Summary of Key Recommendations
1. The national security, economic, and scientific interests of the
U.S. can significantly benefit by expanded cooperative programs in
the next several years that provide new research opportunities for
critical FSU weapon scientists and the best FSU non-weapon
scientists. The existing $400 million that Congress appropriated
pursuant to the Nunn-Lugar Act (the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction
Act of 1991) within the Department of Defense (DOD) budget is an
appropriate source for funding many of these programs this year.
2. Criteria for funding through the new International Science and
Technology Center proposed by Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister
Genscher should include a broad definition of "weapon scientists
and engineers, including relevant specialists at academic and
research institutes who have worked on Soviet military R&D efforts.
Special attention must, of course, be given to those specialists
with critical weapons knowledge and skills. Center-supported
proposals that are collaborations of FSU weapon scientists, FSU
non-weapon scientists, and U.S. researchers would be the most
effective means for achieving U.S. goals of shrinking and
redirecting FSU weapon R&D programs and in increasing the
transparency of FSU weapon laboratories.
3. In addition to the funds available in this and future fiscal
years for key FSU weapons scientists and engineers through the new
Center, funding at least on the same order of magnitude should be
made available for programs outside the Center for FSU non-weapon
scientists and engineers. Thus, at least $25 million for weapon
scientists through the Center and $25 million for non-weapon
scientists through other programs are needed in this fiscal year;
even more would be appropriate considering the urgency of the
2
situation and available opportunities. Expanded funding should be
made available in future years as justified through reviews of the
programs. Awards should be based on scientific merit and potential
contributions to U.S. objectives.
4. The extramural research programs of the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the
Department of Energy (DOE), and the Office of Naval Research (ONR)
offer the important opportunity of scientist-to-scientist
collaborations, which can be implemented rapidly. U.S. researchers
know the best specialists in the FSU in their fields who would make
excellent research partners. Funds should be allocated to these
agencies (from the $25 million for non-weapon scientists) for use
by their grantees for the purpose of direct scientist-to-scientist
collaboration. U.S. researchers could provide travel funds, short
term stipends, reagents, and spare parts from their supplemented
grants. Joint publications would result from these activities.
5. A portion of the new funding for non-weapon scientists should
also be made immediately available through the nine existing
intergovernmental agreements that support civilian research and
development (R&D) between the U.S. and FSU. This new funding would
be added to existing cooperative programs of the NSF, NIH, DOE,
USGS, EPA, NRC, NASA, and other federal agencies. This is an
effective mechanism for near-term impact in terms of improving
collaboration with competent scientists in the FSU on projects of
interest to the U.S.
6. Existing procurement regulations and other administrative
guidelines inhibiting research contracts from U.S. agencies to
research units in the FSU should be reviewed and minimized. The
recent contracts negotiated by DOE with FSU research institutes in
fusion research and high energy experimental physics provide useful
guidance.
7. The President's proposal for assistance to the FSU in
agriculture, health, and energy should be strongly endorsed. The
U.S. government should examine the science and technology (S&T)
needs and opportunities, including R&D needs, associated with these
assistance efforts.
8. The U.S. government should promptly modify the apparent
restrictive policy concerning acquisition of advanced technologies
and technical expertise from the FSU by American firms, including
those with large DOD contracts. Reducing U.S. governmental
impediments to appropriate activities of the U.S. private sector in
the FSU can have immediate impact in terms of increasing
collaboration with FSU scientists and engineers, reducing the FSU
military industrial complex by redirecting many of its scientists
and engineers to civilian projects, and promoting improvements in
the economies of the FSU republics. The U.S. government should
continue its related efforts to reduce unnecessary export controls,
3
particularly in the fields of computers and telecommunications, in
close consultation and coordination with its CoCom partners.
9. Additional funding from anticipated foreign aid programs and the
$400 million could be effectively used to facilitate conversion of
FSU non-nuclear military technologies to civilian applications
through such mechanisms as providing venture capital for U.S.-FSU
projects, supporting feasibility studies by U.S. firms interested
in investing in conversion projects, and providing technical
assistance to FSU firms that are assessing marketing and technical
opportunities for reorienting military technology to civilian
applications.
10. As part of the U.S. economic assistance program to the FSU, the
U.S. government should consider high technology R&D as a target for
investment support. Such an effort would build on the emerging
entrepreneurial abilities of FSU scientists and engineers while
stimulating high value-added commercial activity.
11. The U.S. should strongly encourage FSU authorities to promptly
enact legislation concerning real property ownership rights and
intellectual property rights; to eliminate tax on foreign currency
coming into FSU to support S&T; and to continue on the path to
ruble convertibility and privatization.
12. A special fund of $50 million to $100 million should be
established to help replenish and refurbish equipment, journals,
and books used in FSU laboratories of special importance. The U.S.
should take the lead in obtaining the necessary funds from
bilateral and multilateral assistance agencies.
13. The U.S. representatives to international organizations (e.g.,
World Bank, UNIDO, FAO, WHO, UNDP, OECD, NATO) should urge greater
support through these organizations for FSU S&T.
14. American and FSU specialists should undertake evaluations of
FSU capabilities in selected areas of science and engineering of
particular U.S. interest to assist in targeting cooperative
activities and in utilizing the capabilities of unique FSU
facilities and data banks of special importance.
15. Significantly expanded cooperation in environmental R&D would
support U.S. goals of sustainable growth in the FSU and would
enhance international efforts to understand global change.
Past U.S. Efforts Provide a Point of Departure for Expanded
Programs
Many intergovernmental S&T agreements are hindered due to
uncertainties regarding FSU collaborators. Air fares for FSU
participation inhibit business as usual, and some important aspects
4
of S&T are not being addressed. Nevertheless, some of these
agreements, as well as the extramural programs of some agencies,
provide mechanisms for identifying and funding programs of great
importance, and the partnerships within the FSU can be sorted out
very quickly. For example, the programs of NSF, NIH, DOE, and ONR
are well-suited to respond to the needs of basic research of
interest to U.S. scientists, while programs of mission agencies
such as EPA, DOE, USGS, and NASA provide mechanisms for Americans
to gain access in a highly cost-effective way to important FSU
specialists and facilities of direct interest to the programs of
these agencies.
U.S. businesses are prepared to take advantage of many
technical opportunities in the FSU, but many hesitate due to
uncertainties regarding U.S. policies on technology transfer as
well as inadequacies in the legal/economic framework within the
FSU. Meanwhile, competitors from Germany and other countries
receive stronger financial incentives from their governments and
are gradually establishing business alliances with many of the most
promising organizations in the FSU.
The new Center for support of FSU nuclear weapons scientists
should offer many opportunities for FSU specialists to redirect
their activities to civilian purposes and thereby shrink the size
of the FSU military R&D effort. It also provides a base for
rapidly expanding cooperative programs in other areas of science
and technology.
Many FSU S&T activities are linked to programs of
international organizations in which the U.S. plays an influential
role (e.g., World Bank, UNIDO, FAO, WHO, NATO, OECD), and these
organizations are in a position to direct additional resources to
the FSU with encouragement from the U.S.
Several major U.S. private foundations are interested in
helping to preserve the science and technology community in the
FSU, and they can launch new programs very quickly. Their
resources are limited, but they should be encouraged and
complimented for their efforts to select special niches for their
support (e.g., providing journals and electronic mail equipment).
American scientific professional societies are also rising to
the challenge and creating innovative programs to assist their
colleagues in the FSU. The American Astronomical Society has
raised funds from its members to provide small research grants to
FSU astronomers. The American Association for the Advancement of
Science, with support from the MacArthur Foundation, will be
providing help in maintaining journal subscriptions. Individual
American scientists are seeking mechanisms for donating their
journals and used equipment to FSU colleagues.
The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of
5
Engineering, and Institute of Medicine are examining ways in which
they can contribute to the revitalization of FSU scientific and
engineering capabilities. The National Academy of Sciences has
already changed its long-standing cooperative program to ensure
that FSU participants are selected on the basis of evaluations by
their American colleagues. In addition, consideration is being
given to: undertaking evaluations together with FSU colleagues of
FSU capabilities in important fields of science and technology
(including those of potential commercial importance such as
materials), sponsoring workshops for FSU and American researchers
to develop collaborative research agendas and proposals in selected
subfields, and working with counterpart organizations in Europe to
improve coordination of western initiatives. The American Academy
of Arts and Sciences is also pursuing, through a recently-created
special committee, ways in which it might help the FSU communities
in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities.
Special Considerations for New Programs
Programs supported by the United States should be based on
mutual benefit and should not simply be responses to the economic
plight of FSU specialists and institutions. Programs should be a
mix of: (a) collaborative projects developed jointly by FSU and
U.S. researchers and/or teams of researchers with the projects
selected competitively on the basis of merit and (b) targeted
projects designed to preserve and utilize the capabilities of
unique FSU facilities and data banks of special importance to U.S.
science and technology interests. Coordination of bilateral
approaches with activities of other countries and international
organizations is important and synergistic, but should not slow
down the U.S. response. Whenever possible, implementation should
begin within the next several months. Programs should be subject
to careful review after the first year, with attention both to
technical payoff and financial accountability. If benefits of
these programs to the U.S. are as high as we believe they will be,
the programs should be supported with increased funding over the
next several years.
Other Promising Approaches that Deserve Careful Study
The proposal of Representative George Brown to establish a
binational science foundation between the FSU republics and the
U.S. is a welcome initiative with the possibility for long-term
mutual benefit. The Brown proposal deserves careful study by the
U.S. government. The policies and activities of the Export Import
Bank, OPIC, and the Trade and Development Program might offer
greater incentives for American investments in the FSU. Expanded
authorities of U.S. agencies to enter into contracts with FSU
organizations, when such arrangements are particularly beneficial
to the missions of the agencies, can be very important; and the
administrative details need to be carefully worked out.
6
In conclusion, we appreciate very much your soliciting the
advice of the U.S. science and engineering community on these
important issues. We hope that the recommendations and comments in
this letter and in the four working group reports will be helpful
to you in developing U.S. initiatives to respond to challenges and
opportunities provided by developments within the FSU S&T
community.
We would like to thank for their efforts in leading three of
the working groups: Dr. James Wyngaarden, Foreign Secretary of the
National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine (Basic
Research Working Group) i Dr. Gerald Dinneen, Foreign Secretary,
National Academy of Engineering (Commercialization of Technology
Working Group) i and Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece, Director, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (Interdisciplinary Problem-Oriented Research
Working Group). We would also like to thank for their help in
organizing the meeting and preparing this report the Office of
International Affairs of the National Research Council (Dr. William
Colglazier, Executive Director; Mr. Glenn Schweitzer, Director,
Office for Central Europe and Eurasia; Dr. Gary Waxmonsky,
Associate Director, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia; and
Peter MacDonald and Kathleen Trivers of their staff.) We are
especially grateful to Dr. David Hamburg and the Carnegie
Corporation which, along with the National Research Council,
provided financial support for the meeting.
We believe that it is in U.S. interest to act immediately and
aggressively. If we or the National Research Council can provide
you with any further assistance, we would be pleased to do so.
Sincerely,
GuyShern
Trank Press
Ashton B. Carter
Dr. Guyford Stever
Dr. Frank Press
Dr. Ashton Carter
Commissioner
President
Director
Carnegie Commission
National Academy
Center for Science
on Science, Technology of Sciences
and International
and Government
Affairs
7
REPORTS OF WORKING GROUPS
AND
PARTICIPANT LIST
Working Group on Weapons Scientists and Engineers
The working group addressed the US interest in programs of
assistance and cooperation with weapons scientists and engineers
(S&Es) in the FSU and considered how such programs might be
structured for maximum effect. While the working group foresees
and supports sustained programs of assistance and cooperation
extending over years, the group's deliberations focused on first
steps that could be taken immediately and urgently. The working
group took particular note of the applicability of the Soviet
Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 1991 (the so-called Nunn-Lugar Act)
to the support of such a program in this fiscal year.
The group encourages a broad view of military-related work,
urging that it not be confined to nuclear weapons but encompass all
military-related technical work in the FSU. Moreover, since one
of the objectives of the programs of assistance and cooperation is
to foster the reorientation of weapons scientists and engineers to
peaceful civil work, programs should not be confined to weapons
scientists only, but should extend to other types of projects
covered by other working groups in this meeting.
Objectives
The working group noted that the objectives of the programs of
assistance and cooperation discussed and the interests of the
United States in such programs are broad and diverse. They are not
completely encompassed by the familiar stereotype that involves
somehow preventing an FSU "weapons scientist" from emigrating to
a country that is the target of US nonproliferation policy, though
that is surely an objective. The full range of US objectives
includes:
1. To promote the shrinkage and reorientation to productive,
peaceful purposes of weapons-related activities carried out in
laboratories, institutes, and state enterprises of the FSU;
2. To stabilize the situation of weapons scientists and to anchor
them in peaceful projects designed to benefit their own homeland
so they are not tempted or forced to seek employment or military
markets outside the FSU and thus to contribute to proliferation;
3. To assist the transition to democratic institutions and a market
economy in the FSU by encouraging its S&E communities to conduct
basic and applied research aimed at addressing pressing social
needs and economic development;
4. To promote access and transparency in the hitherto closed
weapons complex of the FSU;
5. To promote joint research of mutual benefit between S&Es in the
FSU and American or other western partners; and
1
6. To demonstrate the respect of the American people and the
international scientific community for the considerable technical
capabilities of FSU S&Es.
General Characteristics of Needed Programs of Assistance and
Cooperation
The programs should support projects that satisfy the above
objectives and also the following criteria:
1. The projects are technically sound.
2. The results of research will address pressing social and
economic needs of the FSU and/or are of mutual benefit to the
FSU and the United States.
3. The proposing entities can demonstrate their ability to
accomplish the work.
In terms of technical content, the working group judged that
useful projects of technical assistance and cooperation could
probably be devised in the areas of:
-- secure and environmentally safe interim storage and
eventual elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of
mass destruction;
-- storage and disposal of special nuclear materials;
-- nuclear safety, including biological effects of low-
level ionizing radiation;
-- environmental monitoring and cleanup, including cleanup
of military-related facilities;
-- civil energy, transportation, and telecommunications;
-- fundamental research and associated instrumentation in
such fields as high-energy physics, nuclear physics, fusion,
plasma physics, geophysics, and computer science; and
-- social systems science, technology assessment, and public
policy (similar to the types of studies conducted by the US
Office of Technology Assessment or the International Institute
for Applied Systems Analysis that are focused on the
relationship of science and technology to society).
The working group believes that useful assistance and
cooperation projects can take many forms and that it would be
premature at this time to focus them on a single model type.
Useful projects might involve collaboration of FSU weapons
laboratories/institutes/enterprises with selected US Government
2
laboratories, industry, or universities; three-fold collaboration
among FSU weapons and non-weapons establishments and US partners;
and projects undertaken individually by FSU weapons establishments
and monitored by US entities. (The group recommends that when
there is no US partner in a project, a US monitor be named to
certify that the work proposed is being accomplished.) Likewise,
projects might be proposed by FSU laboratories or other
institutions or proposed by individual scientists or groups,
provided that they can demonstrate an ability to carry out work.
While both individuals/small groups and institutions in the
FSU should be encouraged to develop proposals (and some groups
might want to separate themselves from their institutions and
establish new civil/commercial entities), maximum effect will be
achieved if weapons-related institutions are engaged as
institutions in some programs, and if cooperative programs
contribute to reorienting their programs and infrastructures away
from military work to peaceful purposes. Thus, unlike other types
of assistance and cooperation discussed by the other working
groups, collaboration with FSU weapons communities requires
emphasis on involvement of institutions (and their accompanying
infrastructures) in addition to individual investigators. There
are good reasons for this difference: first, emigration abroad of
engineers and technicians from the FSU weapons establishment is no
less serious than the emigration of key scientists; second, the
infrastructures of the weapons laboratories are very well developed
(generally better than those of the civilian sector); third, in
many cases the shrinkage of the FSU weapons program will be
promoted better by involving entire institutions (key scientists
and infrastructures) in non-military activities. Identification
of joint, multilateral, or FSU-only projects worthy of support
should take account of these special circumstances. The working
group believes that there are indeed worthy projects that take this
form.
However, the working group is aware of the necessity to
embolden investigators to act independently of existing bureaucracy
and management. Thus, US-supported programs should also emphasize
projects proposed by individual investigators and by new
civil/commercial enterprises spun off from military enterprises,
and such projects with spinoffs should be encouraged in addition
to institutional projects.
Starting the Process: Catalytic Efforts
The working group recognized the very fluid situation in the
FSU, the historic isolation of FSU weapons-related scientists, and
the fact that western scientists are just beginning to explore the
scientific strengths and weaknesses of the former Soviet system.
Thus early attention must be given to the processes of expanding
access to the FSU weapons establishment, promoting contact between
potential collaborators, and developing project proposals.
3
These catalytic efforts could begin immediately and could
include grants to support problem-focused workshops, joint
conferences, and site visits; conceptual design of projects, test
beds, and pilot projects; and electronic mail and other elements
of telecommunications infrastructure (e.g., direct links via
satellite dishes located at key collaborating facilities in the
FSU). The working group recommends that such activities begin
immediately. They should not await determination of the overall
future scope of the program, and indeed they are a necessary
prerequisite to such a program.
The working group did not attempt to estimate the dollar
volume of useful projects that would likely develop in such a
program but believes the program should not be confined to the $25
million under discussion in connection with the Center (see below).
The Moscow Center
The United States, Russia, and Germany (through the EC) have
agreed to establish an International Center for Science and
Technology in the Moscow area to serve as a "clearinghouse" for
research projects involving entities in the FSU that have special
weapons expertise. Discussion of the ground rules and modus
operandi of the Center is just beginning. The working group was
generally impressed with the preliminary US plans for the Center
and urges prompt commitment of at least $25 million of Nunn-Lugar
funds to the Center and prompt establishment of the Center. The
working group makes the following additional observations.
The Center seems to be an appropriate vehicle for the
"catalyzing effort" described above, and could become an
institutional mechanism for the program of sustained assistance
and cooperation with FSU weapons entities in future years. The
Center's location in the FSU is important, given the need to gain
on-the-ground acquaintance with the weapons enterprises and
scientific communities of the FSU. The working group urges
attention to republics in addition to Russia, which also have
considerable military industries. The Center also can serve as
"matchmaker" between scientists and appropriate projects and
funders. Finally, the Center promises to engage the resources of
European and possibly Japanese participants, which the working
group regards as highly desirable. However, the working group
believes that the Center should not be the sole or exclusive
vehicle for such cooperation.
Present plans call for the Center to act on proposals in two
steps. In the initial step, projects will be vetted for
appropriateness and merit by the Center staff and board. In the
second step, funders (governments and private parties) will choose
projects for support on a case-by-case basis. The Center itself
will have no power to make funding commitments apart from the
national representatives on its board. The working group is
4
concerned that unless some funds are committed to the Center from
the beginning, the Center will be seen as a needless and powerless
middleman between proposers and funders rather than as a
clearinghouse. More importantly, the establishment of the Center
will not reflect the commitment and seriousness of purpose of its
founding governments. The working group therefore recommends
creation of a Director's Fund of committed funds, comprising
perhaps one quarter of Center funding, to be obligated by the
Center itself.
Finally, the working group noted that in order for projects
to fulfill the objectives outlined above, involved scientists will
need to make multi-year commitments to them. This commitment in
turn calls for Center funding that extends beyond this year's Nunn-
Lugar appropriation. The United States therefore needs to ensure
continuing funding commitments to the Center. Additionally, the
Center should be capable of making multi-year commitments.
Potential Role of Existing Bilateral Agreements
Several of the nine existing science and technology agreements
also provide a mechanism for engaging FSU weapons S&Es in
collaborative activities. For example, the agreements administered
by DOE/NRC, NSF, and EPA could involve participation of FSU
specialists who previously were not given the opportunity to
collaborate in areas of obvious importance to these agencies.
Additional Steps in the United States
The working group believes that collaborative projects
involving FSU weapons activities and western partners (public or
private) will emerge spontaneously if veils of secrecy are lifted
in the FSU. Projects of mutual advantage might even be supported
through barter agreements between the collaborating parties. But
substantial bureaucratic and legal barriers exist to such
spontaneous collaboration in the United States, and the working
group recommends that a complete review of such barriers be
undertaken urgently to remove all those that derive from the cold
war period and no longer serve US interests.
The working group also notes that legal counsel in different
agencies is interpreting the Nunn-Lugar legislation in different
ways and in a manner that seems excessively cautious and strict,
especially regarding the so-called certifications. Government-
wide consensus on these interpretations should be reached soon, so
that they do not remain a barrier to action.
Additional Steps in the FSU
The working group believes that for the proposed types of
programs to succeed, the Russian government (and, where applicable,
other governments of the FSU) must take the following steps, which
5
are preconditions to success:
1. Participating weapons facilities need to open up to
outside visitors and collaborators, limiting restricted
security areas to the maximum extent possible ("higher fences
around smaller areas").
2. Weapons laboratories must relax controls over individual
scientists and engineers so they can communicate directly with
western collaborators.
3. Participating FSU weapons facilities need to allow
establishment of electronic communications with the outside.
4. Participating weapons facilities need to make laboratories,
instrumentation, and other infrastructure available for non-
weapons work. Access to that infrastructure will often be the
principal attraction for western collaborators.
5. FSU governments need to establish appropriate tax treatment
for foreign currency funds provided to institutions as part
of this program.
6
Working Group on Basic Research
The working group on Basic Research proceeded from the
position that it is in the economic and national security interests
of the United States to preserve the strong scientific and
technical capability of the Former Soviet Union (FSU) in order to
sustain the transition to an open society and a market-oriented
economy.
The FSU is in crisis. Dramatic changes in the region,
although undoubtedly positive in a political sense, leave
scientists in a precarious niche since there is very limited money
for science. Salaries for scientists within and outside the
academy structure are pitifully low, and FSU scientists are
becoming increasingly isolated from their international colleagues
owing to the virtual absence of hard currency necessary for western
journals and for travel to meetings outside the FSU. Outstanding
research groups are disintegrating, and some of the best scientists
of all ages are leaving for temporary, and in some cases permanent,
positions abroad. If the exodus of FSU scientists continues, and
if FSU science and technology wither and flounder, it is difficult
to see how the FSU nations can prosper. Science and technology,
together with capital and free social institutions, propel a modern
economy.
This situation is clearly a security issue for the United
States. The United States has already invested huge resources in
the "containment" of communism, and a comparatively small
investment now could be very effective in stabilizing the FSU
scientific establishment. This investment may also encourage
scientists who have left for temporary positions to return to
assist in the stabilization process. In our view, international
disaster could ensue if the present political and economic
restructuring of the FSU were to fail and new totalitarian regimes
were to reemerge. An enlightened program that would help to
stabilize FSU science and technology would make an important,
perhaps decisive, contribution to the future of these burgeoning
democracies.
Even though many prominent scientists have left the FSU, large
numbers remain. The major scientific resources are to a large
extent still intact and now free from bureaucratic strangleholds.
They are free from undesirable interference, free to enter into
collaborative agreements, and free to accept financial support open
to accounting supervision. The cost of operation in the FSU
(salary, maintenance, etc., but excluding equipment) is much less
than the cost of comparable activities in the West. Moreover, the
FSU possesses unique assets such as research ships, astronomy
installations, botanical collections, and historic libraries, as
well as world-class research groups.
7
The working group recommends that the United States undertake
a number of initiatives that will help to stabilize science and
technology in the FSU. We have based these recommendations on the
concept of mutually advantageous binational collaboration. There
are many competent and well known FSU scientists and high-quality
research groups with whom American scientists could form
collaborative research and technical projects. Such projects
should not be viewed primarily as assistance programs; the working
group is not proposing a welfare system for FSU scientists. We are
proposing an expansion of international collaborative efforts, the
results of which could be of substantial value to the American
people and the American economy. There are, in fact, critically
important projects to which both partners can make significant,
complementary contributions.
The working group recommends identification of high-quality
individuals and groups with whom to collaborate directly. Although
many such are known to the American scientific community, the
working group recommends that small teams of American scientists
visit the FSU to assess first hand the current situation in
institutes and university departments. Decisions regarding
feasibility of productive collaborations should be based upon the
judgment of such teams. These visits would also help to identify
emerging younger researchers who could participate in collaborative
activities, but may not yet be well known to American scientists.
The working group recommends that US contributions to
collaborative research be principally in the form of supplies, such
as equipment, journal subscriptions, travel funds, and
communication systems (for example, e-mail), rather than direct
transfer of currency or salary support (except during brief
fellowships outside the FSU). Furthermore, the working group
recommends that any form of assistance be provided directly to the
individual scientists and groups, rather than to institute
administrators or academy officials for distribution. Whenever
possible, cooperation between scientific institutes and educational
institutions in the FSU should be encouraged.
Decisions regarding potentially advantageous collaborations
should be based upon principles of merit review now thoroughly
familiar to US scientists. However, in recognition of the newness
of such concepts to FSU scientists, merit review should give
predominant weight to track records rather than to "grantsmanship."
In addition, the application process should be kept relatively
simple (short applications) and the review process should be
expedited.
The discussion focused on an emergency, short-term approach
to stabilizing science in the FSU and establishing collaborative
projects between FSU and American scientists. The situation is
urgent, and we believe that measures should be taken during this
fiscal year. American support of selected FSU individual
8
scientists and research groups that qualify for extensions of peer-
reviewed US research projects could be highly beneficial to both
countries and would send a message of hope to FSU scientists far
beyond the quantitative scope of initial efforts.
Clearly, American efforts to preserve science should not focus
exclusively upon redirection of scientists who have participated
in the creation and production of weapons of mass destruction. It
is equally important that the United States pay close attention to
scientists in the basic physical, chemical, geological, biological
and mathematical sciences.
Recommendations for the US Government
Within the next six months
1. Immediately allocate between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000
of additional funds for supplements to existing American
grantees of agencies such as, but not limited to, NIH, NSF,
DOE, and ONR. Such supplements might come from the
$400,000,000 authorized by the Nunn-Lugar Act through
interagency transfer to the research agencies or from other
sources if more appropriate. These supplements will allow the
grantees to initiate or expand collaborative activities with
FSU scientists and rapidly provide some assistance. By using
the best features of the NIH and NSF mechanisms to support the
collaboration of American scientists with FSU scientists,
immediate amplification of funds may allow these models to be
expanded many-fold in the current fiscal year. Such an effort
would represent a significant response to the present
emergency and send much needed encouragement to beleaguered
FSU scientists who are a main resource in rebuilding the
societies and economies of the FSU. In addition, such efforts
would substantially expand research projects of benefit to the
American people.
2. Immediately develop an administrative mechanism for
transfer to FSU scientists of equipment from US laboratories
that has been displaced by more recent acquisitions and that
remains capable of producing valuable research results. Such
equipment should only be transferred to FSU scientists who
qualify for collaborative projects with US scientists and who
can effectively use the equipment in the approved
collaborative research, thus ensuring that the US investment
will further benefit domestic research objectives.
3. Facilitate the issuance of multiple-entry US visas for
non-weapons scientists and engineers, such as are now offered
to members of the business community, unless there are
overriding concerns over potential violations of export
controls. The Department of State should give special
consideration to FSU scientists returning home for short
9
visits to assist in the improvement of working conditions in
the FSU.
The near term
1. Support Congressman George Brown's proposal for a
binational foundation, with the modification that the
foundation be in the form of a withering endowment of 10
years. At the end of this period, both sides should evaluate
the state of FSU science to determine if the continuation of
this type of support for research cooperation is necessary and
mutually beneficial. In order for a binational science
foundation to have significant impact, it should be
capitalized at a minimum of $200,000,000, with both interest
and approximately 10 per cent of principal available for
support of peer reviewed research projects each year. Many
of the experiences and lessons of the US-Israel Binational
Science Foundation (as well as experiences of the Binational
Agricultural Research and Development Foundation and
Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation) can
serve as general guidelines for the establishment and
management of the proposed US-FSU foundation.
2. Initial assistance should be offered in the form of
laboratory equipment, development of improved means of
communication, and travel, but not in the form of salary
assistance. When a banking system with appropriate
accountability is in place, the United States should not rule
out efforts to transfer foreign currency directly to FSU
scientists for support of research programs.
3. Encourage efforts of non-governmental organizations that
are seeking ways to assist FSU scientists by supporting their
research.
The long term
1. Cooperate and coordinate with activities initiated by
other governments, scientific societies, the European
Community, the World Bank, and international organizations
involved in science and technology.
2. Sponsor programs on the management of science for FSU
research administrators and scientists. Such programs should
include an introduction to peer review procedures and grant
management for many colleagues throughout the FSU.
Recommendations for FSU Governments
Within the next six months
1. Encourage FSU scientists now working in the West to return
10
to the FSU to work with other scientists, and assure freedom
to travel back to their jobs outside the FSU. The offer of
a leave of absence is in the best interest of the home
institution, and job security should be assured even beyond
the one-year period of absence currently recognized by the
Russian Academy of Sciences, at least for a portion of
established FSU scientists.
2. Guarantee continued salary support to FSU scientists
involved in collaboration with American scientists throughout
the period of the collaboration.
3. Provide internal travel support to FSU scientists.
4. Provide tax exemptions for hard-currency grants.
5. Facilitate the issuance of multiple-exit documentation for
FSU citizens working in the West who wish to return for
frequent visits to assist their home institutions and/or
scientific colleagues.
The near term
1. Assist in identifying promising young researchers who are
not yet known to American scientists (i.e. in basic sciences
such as genetics that are essential for advances in
agriculture and medicine).
2. Establish a clearing house or secretariat that can assist
FSU scientists to make contact with organizations, programs,
and scientists in the United States and other countries.
The long term
1. Implement promised reforms as quickly as possible,
including the reform of tax laws, intellectual property
rights, and education.
2. Encourage academies, universities, and industries to
establish cooperative linkages and to bridge the non-
interactive traditions of the previous regime.
Recommendations for Non-Governmental Organizations
The near term
1. Scientific societies (national and international) should
be encouraged to ask members to assist FSU scientists by
sending journals, expanding electronic mail networks
(especially outside Moscow), and providing funds for travel
to meetings.
11
2. NGOs can help to identify individual scientists and
research groups that are leaders in their fields with whom
collaborative research could be established.
3. Private foundations and professional societies can help
to publicize opportunities for collaboration of FSU scientists
with American scientists.
4. Private organizations should establish mechanisms for the
transfer of hard currency to the FSU, when accountable banking
systems have been established.
The long term
1. NGOs and scientific societies are encouraged to identify
and support similar organizations in the FSU and to promote
their growth.
Recommendations for NAS/NAE/IOM
The NAS had more than 30 years of experience in cooperating with
the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. The Academy complex should
build upon this experience of cooperation with FSU institutes and
scientists in the following ways:
The near term
1. Make recommendations to the US and FSU governments on new
approaches to technical assistance based on experiences with
the Support for East European Democracy Act.
2. Send small exploratory groups to the FSU in as many
different fields as possible to assess the quality and
viability of small research groups and the opportunities for
productive collaboration.
3. Take an increasingly active role in counseling prospective
American collaborators on available opportunities and
programs.
The long term:
1. Establish a bilateral advisory committee to assist the FSU
and US Governments to implement new programs of cooperation.
The committee would include FSU scientists who know western
science well. The FSU members of the committee should extend
beyond the established academies of sciences in the FSU and
should be supported by the FSU governments. Among its
activities, it could assist in defining a framework for
intellectual property rights.
12
2.
Serve as a catalyst for assembling national and
international experts to participate in peer/merit review of
proposals of FSU scientists. Provide guidelines similar to
those established and tested over time by NSF, NIH, and other
US funding agencies.
13
Working Group on Commercialization of Technology
The working group included senior executives from companies
with strong business interests in the FSU, specialists with
experience in transferring FSU technologies to American firms,
economists specializing in FSU developments, representatives of US
federal agencies with strong engineering interests, and
representatives of engineering societies.
There should be considerable opportunities for establishing
commercially viable enterprises in the FSU. The FSU has developed
many good technologies, particularly in military enterprises (e.g.
opportunities for application of BW capabilities to vaccine
production and for new applications of aerospace technologies).
Many young FSU scientists and engineers have exhibited considerable
grass roots entrepreneurship, although on occasion some of their
enthusiasm may be misdirected. Also, there is widespread interest
in the FSU in working with American businesses and learning western
approaches to a market economy.
However, the paradox is that relatively few commercial
arrangements have been made between American and FSU organizations.
Companies of other countries seem to be more successful,
particularly firms from Germany and recently Korea and Japan. This
limited American involvement is particularly significant since the
window of opportunity for joint ventures and other types of
business alliances may be closing either because firms of other
countries simply usurp the most attractive joint venture
opportunities or existing FSU capabilities erode to the point that
they are no longer interesting.
There are few generalized conclusions and recommendations that
apply to all industrial sectors and all types of organizations. For
example, large firms have specialized staffs for identifying
business opportunities in the FSU whereas small companies cannot
afford such specialization. Firms involved in development of
hardware have different concerns than software firms. Also, service
companies use different criteria than manufacturing companies when
considering investment commitments. Nonetheless, a few desirable
actions that are applicable on a broad basis and would be
beneficial to both American and FSU interests can be identified.
Much of the discussion centered on foreign investment, but the
importance of FSU efforts to commercialize their own technologies
for the internal market was also highlighted. While many
technologies developed with or without foreign partners can
potentially serve both the internal and global markets, there are
special considerations for FSU firms attempting internal
commercialization without access to the expertise of foreign
partners.
Throughout the discussions, the complexities of understanding
14
the many factors that affect business decisions or should affect
decisions within the FSU were very apparent, and the need for more
extended consideration of the likely impacts of any individual
measure that is proposed was recognized. Adding to the
complications are the uncertainties within the FSU military
industrial complex associated with the process of conversion.
Conversion affects not only individual firms and local areas but
in some cases can have dramatic effects on large geographic regions
where the defense industry has become the only source of possible
employment for hundreds of thousands of workers.
Four suggestions for immediate consideration emerged from the
discussions:
-- The FSU must clarify real property ownership rights as a first
step toward any type of meaningful market economy.
-- If US firms are to become more seriously engaged in
commercialization of FSU technologies, and especially technologies
that have been developed within the military sector, the US
government must clarify its policy, and particularly the policy of
DOD, toward acquisition by US firms of high technology from the
FSU.
-- A portion of the $400 already earmarked for dismantling of the
FSU weapons complex (e.g. $25 million in addition to the $25
million allocated for reorienting the activities of the nuclear
weapons scientists) should be made available to facilitate
conversion of FSU non-nuclear military technologies to civilian
applications through such mechanisms as providing venture capital
for US-FSU projects, supporting feasibility studies by US firms
interested in investing in conversion projects, and providing
technical assistance to FSU firms that are assessing marketing and
technical opportunities for reorienting military technology to
civilian applications.
-- The US government should review its policies for sharing risks
and financial burdens with American firms interested in investing
in the FSU in the near term, including the policies, programs, and
financial capabilities of ExIm Bank, OPIC, and the Trade and
Development Program.
These and other suggestions for near-term actions by FSU and
American institutions are set forth below.
Suggestions to Governmental Organizations of the FSU
The Legal/Regulatory Framework
1. Real property ownership rights need to be clarified as soon as
possible.
15
2. The efforts that have been underway for many years to establish,
implement, and enforce an appropriate legal framework for
intellectual property rights should be revitalized.
3. Special steps are needed to ensure that regulatory agencies
(e.g. organizations with responsibilities similar to those of FAA
and FDA) do not become bottlenecks during the transition from
Soviet to other institutions.
The Economic/Financial Framework
4. Establishment of a banking system that can serve as a reliable
source of investment capital, including venture capital for
innovation, and at the same time can help ensure the integrity of
financial arrangements among FSU institutions and between FSU and
foreign organizations deserves high priority.
5. Current efforts toward convertibility of the ruble should
continue to receive strong emphasis.
6. Systems that encourage and reward economic competitiveness among
firms should be strongly supported.
7. The current policy of heavy taxation on flows of foreign
currency into the FSU should be modified.
Physical and Technical Infrastructure
8. Greater attention is needed at the national and local levels to
providing access to electricity, heat, water, transportation,
communication, waste disposal, and other services required for
enterprises to operate on a competitive basis.
9. With the devolution of centralized responsibilities from the FSU
to the independent states, special efforts are needed to ensure
that there is no backsliding on the development and implementation
of appropriate industrial standards which are consistent with
international standards.
Attitudes and Approaches toward Science and Engineering
10. Scientific and engineering entrepreneurs, including key
specialists spinning off from leading FSU research institutes,
should be encouraged and not considered as an internal brain drain.
11. The size of many FSU research, development, and production
organizations should be reduced to improve their economic
competitiveness.
12. New systems of rewards are needed throughout the research
establishment to foster projects that result in outputs which have
clear relevance to economic needs of the FSU in addition to
16
resulting in publishable papers.
13. Greater attention to economics and management is needed in
higher technical education institutions.
Suggestions for Agencies of the US Government
For NSC/OSTP/State/DOD/Commerce
1. US policy toward acquisition by American firms of high
technologies from the former Soviet defense industry should be
clarified, and American defense firms should be given a clear
signal regarding those activities which are acceptable to DOD. This
policy should be formulated on the basis of a careful evaluation
of the many US interests that are involved, including the
importance of high technology to a successful FSU transition to an
open market economy, and the possibility that the current window
of opportunity to acquire FSU technology may close as other
countries increase their interest in FSU technologies.
2. A continuing relaxation of US export controls should be
considered, particularly with regard to computer and
telecommunication technologies.
For ExIm Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Trade
and Development Program, AID
3. Consideration should be given to providing financial incentives
through risk sharing and other approaches that will encourage
American investment in the FSU. Among the approaches are support
(through feasibility studies and guarantees) of local production
of drugs and food processing equipment, possibly within the context
of humanitarian assistance, export guarantees for investments in
manufacturing equipment installed in the FSU, and encouragement of
subcontracting of American firms with FSU institutions.
For Commerce/NSF
4. Cooperative research projects involving American industrial
scientists spending time in the FSU and FSU scientists in the US
should be encouraged.
5. Benchmark evaluations of selected subfields of FSU science and
technology with potential for early commercialization should be
carried out jointly between American and FSU specialists and
institutions as a basis for targeting FSU internal financial
support and American cooperative projects.
For State/Commerce
6. With the disappearance of services provided to foreign business
by many agencies of the FSU, the US Government should strengthen
17
its supporting administrative infrastructure in the FSU to
facilitate American business interests.
For State/NASA
7. A review of the opportunities for major collaborative space
programs, including programs with commercial significance, should
be undertaken before the FSU capability to participate disappears.
For AID/Commerce
8. Assistance in identifying opportunities for redirecting the
enormous engineering capabilities of the military industrial
complexes to commercially viable services and products, and
particularly identification of marketability of services and
products at home and abroad, is needed.
9. Assistance in the field of research management at the institute,
laboratory, and enterprise levels is needed. This is in addition
to the well recognized need for assistance in basic economics and
cost accounting procedures in managing privatized enterprises. A
major US initiative in this area could build on related US
experiences in strengthening management capabilities in Central
Europe, China, and other parts of the world.
Suggestions for US Industry
Becoming better informed of opportunities and impediments
1. Participation in trade fairs and exhibitions and in other
activities organized by the FSU can open many doors in the FSU.
2. Special meetings devoted to developments in the FSU organized
by trade and professional associations and other interested
business organizations can help identify opportunities and
problems.
3. Participation in consortia of business firms that establish
offices in the FSU may be helpful to some companies.
4. Firms should take advantage of trade offices established in the
US at the federal and state levels which follow developments in the
FSU.
5. Business opportunities should be explored beyond Moscow --
throughout the Russian Federation and in other newly independent
states as well.
Considerations for technology-based companies
6. Manufacturing and engineering staffs should explore
possibilities for subcontracting in the FSU.
18
7. The experiences of companies which have established direct
linkages among engineers and which have successfully defined
subcontract tasks for component development should be reviewed by
other companies with related interests.
Steps to improve the investment environment
8. Companies should bring problems and relevant experiences to the
attention of the US Government with specific suggestions as to how
to reduce legal, regulatory, financial, and other barriers to doing
business in the FSU.
Suggestions for the NAS/NAE/IOM
1. The Academy Industry Program should consider organizing a
meeting in Washington on commercialization of technology in the
FSU.
2. The Academies should consider undertaking an evaluation together
with FSU counterparts of FSU capabilities in one or two selected
subfields of technology of potential commercial importance to the
FSU (e.g. materials science).
3. The Academies should work with counterpart organizations in
Europe to improve coordination of western initiatives related to
commercialization of technology in the FSU.
19
Working Group on Interdisciplnary Problem-Oriented Research
The former Soviet Union (FSU) is undergoing a wrenching
transition from a centrally planned to a market economy. In this
process, it is imperative that the FSU successor states retain an
ability to function in a complex technical world with the tools of
a modern state. The FSU had a large and complex science enterprise
that served its interests adequately. In the process of transition
to a new economic structure, this enterprise is under serious
threat of being dismantled in such a way that it may not recover.
Without a suitable science and technology (S&T) base, the
transition to a properly functioning, market economy will be
difficult if not impossible. It is in the interests of the United
States and of the entire international community that the S&T
enterprise of the FSU be preserved and, as appropriate, reoriented,
in such a way as to support the transition to a peaceful, modern,
technology-based economy.
Part of the S&T enterprise of the FSU involves many areas of
applied and interdisciplinary science and technology. These
include management of biological diversity, preservation of the
world's ocean resources, assessment of risks of earthquakes,
stewardship of the Arctic regions, safe utilization of nuclear
power, and the possible development of fusion power.
Collaboration between the United States and the FSU in many
of these areas has a long history. For nearly twenty years, US
mission agencies have collaborated with Soviet counterparts under
a number of executive agreements. Known collectively as "S&T
agreements," these instruments have facilitated bilateral
collaboration in a number of areas including public health,
environmental protection, space exploration, transportation, and
energy. Activity under all such agreements was grounded in three
principles, equality, reciprocity, and mutual benefit, and funded
by each agency from its existing budget. An interagency working
group on Soviet science and technology, known most recently as
GOSSAT and chaired by the State Department, has sought to ensure
coordination among the various programs and their conformity to US
policy.
In general, the steps outlined below under the heading "Prompt
Action" should be initiated by US Government entities.
"Evaluations" and related activities, while they should include
government specialists, should be organized by the non-governmental
scientific community with financial support from agency
supplements. "Events" such as workshops and colloquia could be
undertaken by either governmental or non-governmental sponsors.
"Longer Term Programs" will require greater involvement by the
private sector, academic, corporate, and philanthropic, and will
depend largely on the success of activities which have gone before.
20
Statement of Principles
1. It is in the interests of the United States to have a
scientifically and technically strong FSU, so that when the former
republics complete the transition to new political and economic
structures, they have the capability to participate effectively in
international scientific programs and also to establish modern
science and technology-based commercial enterprises.
2. An important outcome of assistance should be maximization of
mutually beneficial collaboration on important international
problems of energy, the environment, public health, agriculture,
and natural hazard mitigation.
3. The FSU is home to priceless scientific resources: collections,
facilities, archives, data sets, and unique geographical sites.
4. Indigenous capacity to understand and manage environmental and
energy processes and resources in the FSU is of interest to the
international community.
5. Financial assistance should involve a mix of grants/contracts
to individual researchers/small groups and core support for unique
research facilities.
Steps FSU Authorities Should Take
1. Waive taxation on hard currency provided through contracts and
grants and duty on all equipment and supplies provided in
connection with collaborative research.
2. Facilitate open and unfettered access to research sites and
data.
3. Inventory and make available appropriate former government/
party facilities as FSU contributions to bilateral/multilateral
centers for interdisciplinary research, education, and training.
4.
Seek PL-480-type arrangements for support for research
collaboration if and when suitable resources become available.
Steps US Side Should Take
Prompt Action
1. To the extent possible, modify procurement regulations or other
administrative guidelines inhibiting research contracts from US
Government agencies to research units in the FSU. On the condition
that FSU authorities act to ensure the integrity of USG research
contract fund transfers, a US mission agency should be able to
contract directly with FSU laboratories when the agency finds it
cost-effective to do so from current accounts.
21
2. Existing cooperative S&T programs with the FSU should be
augmented through supplements to participating US agencies via
the NSC Working Group on FSU Soviet Science and Technology
(GOSSAT).
3. Defray portions of FSU hard-currency costs associated with
their participation in major international or bilateral research
programs (e.g., ocean drilling, IIASA) in the current year.
4. Dispatch small team(s) to assess conditions affecting the most
valuable FSU scientific collections, archives, facilities, data
sets, and real-time networks. The most endangered of these would
be targeted for priority attention via augmentation of existing
agency programs (see above).
Evaluations
1. The US scientific community should both respond to requests
from FSU authorities for evaluations of specific research sectors
and initiate proposals to evaluate sectors, including those which
best available information suggests are deficient (e.g., resource
economics, epidemiology, multi-media ecological processes).
2. In advising on or carrying out research evaluations in the FSU,
US participants should strive to enhance or create indigenous
evaluation capabilities and more open, representative science
policy processes.
3. In prioritizing among potential foci of research evaluation,
an important consideration should be the goals and priorities of
the larger US assistance effort.
4. In consultation with relevant technical agencies and the US
scientific community, the Assistant Administrator for Research and
Development within the Agency for International Development should
undertake an assessment of the S&T needs and opportunities
associated with the current US assistance effort vis-a-vis the FSU
in the fields of health, food, and energy (e.g., technical
infrastructure for maintaining standards of food and drug purity).
Events
1. Workshops on research management and grantsmanship to be held
at various locations in the FSU.
2. Colloquia on ethical aspects of human/experimental subjects.
3. Specific problem-oriented symposia and conferences (e.g.,
Arctic methane emissions, die-back of marine mammal populations in
Bering Sea) to be held in the United States or FSU.
4. Individual support for FSU researchers invited to participate
22
in activities outside the FSU concerning international scientific
programs of major interest.
Longer-Term Programs
1. Young investigator exchanges on multidisciplinary problems
(biodiversity, energy efficiency, coastal zone management, etc.).
2. Pilot-scale demonstrations of innovative low/non-waste or
energy-saving technologies.
3. Establishment of interdisciplinary research and study centers
within existing FSU facilities.
4.
"Mentoring" or "sister laboratory" relationships between
critical FSU research facilities undergoing restructuring or
reorientation and US counterparts.
23
PARTICIPANTS IN WORKSHOP AND WORKING GROUPS
Perry L. Adkisson, Texas A&M University
Victor Alessi, Department of Energy
Lew Allen, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Michael Artin, American Mathematical Society
Ivo Babuska, University of Maryland
Harley Balzer, Georgetown University
Marcel Bardon, National Science Foundation
Jordan J. Baruch, Jordan Baruch Associates
DeAndra Beck, Agency for International Development
R. Stephen Berry, University of Chicago
Frederick M. Bernthal, National Science Foundation
Richard E. Bissell, Agency for International Development
Spud Bradley, American Mathematical Society
Jerry Brown, National Science Foundation (retired)
Bradford Biegon, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
John P. Boright, Department of State
Jack Brougher, Department of Commerce
Felix Browder, Rutgers University
Bernard F. Burke, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Sandra Burns, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Bruce Cameron, International Disarmament Corporation
Ashton Carter, Harvard University
Richard F. Celeste, NRC Government-University-Industry Research
Roundtable
F. Albert Cotton, Texas A&M University
Paul Cocks, Central Intelligence Agency
John Daly, Agency for International Development
Carl Dahlman, World Bank
Raymond F. Decker, University Science Partners
James Devine, U.S. Geological Survey
Gerald Dinneen, National Academy of Engineering
Craig Dorman, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Paul Doty, Harvard University
Edward Dowdy, Department of State
R. Gordon Douglas, Merck and Co., Inc.
Eduardo Duek, Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Robert Earl, General Dynamics
Dennis Erickson, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Robert Etkins, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Nina Fedoroff, Carnegie Institution of Washington
James Fento, Environmental Protection Agency
Herman Feshbach, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Murray Feshbach, Georgetown University
John Filson, U.S. Geological Survey
Joseph Fletcher, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Gordon Fowler, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Hans Frauenfelder, University of Illinois - Urbana
Doyle G. Frederick, U.S. Geological Survey
24
Herbert Friedman, Hulbert Center for Space Research
Theodore Frison, Randle, Inc.
William Fulkerson, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Clifford Gaddy, Brookings Institution
Robert Galucci, Department of State
William W. Geimer, Jamestown Foundation
Larry Grossman, National Public Radio (retired)
David Hafemeister, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
F. Gray Handley, Fogarty International Center
Peter Henry, Department of Health and Human Services
Gilbert Herrera, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Allan Hirsch, Midwest Research Institute
Roland Hirsch, American Chemical Society
John Holmfeld, Council of Scientific Society Presidents
John Hopcroft, Cornell University
Michelle Hugelet, Office of Science and Technology Policy
John Hurley, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Barry W. Ickes, Pennsylvania State University
Robert E.W. Jansson, Monsanto Company
D. Gale Johnson, University of Chicago
Lionel S. Johns, Office of Technology Assessment
Norris Keeler, Kaman Aerospace Corporation
Catherine Kelleher, Brookings Institution
Samuel Keller, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
K.I. Kellermann, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Arthur Kelman, Department of Agriculture
David Kincaid, Department of Agriculture
Masauki Kondo, World Bank
Leigh Lamora, Jamestown Foundation
Hiram Larew, Agency for International Development
Arvid Larson, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Charles Larson, Industrial Research Institute
William Layson, Science Applications International Corporation
Woodrow W. Leake, American Society for Engineering Education
Irving Lerch, American Physical Society
William Lewis, Merck and Co., Inc.
Gloria Lubkin, American Physical Society
Frode Maaseidvaag, Ford Motor Company
John Malin, American Chemical Society
Vasant Malshet, Environmental Protection Agency
Nancy Maynard, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Helen McCammon, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Bernard McDonald, National Science Foundation
Edward McGaffigan, Office of Senator Bingaman
William McHenry, Georgetown University
Jane Metcalf, Environmental Protection Agency
James Miller, House Armed Services Committee
William C. Miller, Office of Naval Research
John H. Moore, George Mason University
Frederic Mosher, Carnegie Corporation of New York
L. Manning Muntzing, American Nuclear Society
Daniel Nathans, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
25
Michael Nelson, Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and
Space
Richard Nichols, American Association for the Advancement of
Science
Rodney Nichols, Carnegie Corporation of New York
John O'Neil, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Harold O'Conner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ned Ostenso, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Wolfgang Panofsky, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Robert L. Park, American Physical Society
David Pethick, International Disarmament Corporation
David Pines, University of Illinois
Leslie E. Pitts, EG&G, Inc.
Captain Edward Pope, Office of Naval Research
James L. Powell, Franklin Institute
Frank Press, National Academy of Sciences
Michael Quear, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
J. Thomas Ratchford, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Peter Raven, Missouri Botanical Garden
Miloslav Rechcigl, Agency for International Development
Andrew Reynolds, Department of State
Walter A. Rosenblith, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Daniel Sarowitz, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Roald Z. Sagdeev, University of Maryland
Philip E. Schambra, Fogarty International Center
William Schneider, BDM International, Inc.
Majorie L. Senechal, Smith College
Benjamin S. Shen, University of Pennsylvania
Richard B. Sheppard, Agency for International Development
Gerson Sher, National Science Foundation
Edward Shomaker, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Patricia Sholl, Department of Energy
George Sinnott, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Valery Soyfer, George Mason University
John Steinbrunner, Brookings Institution
Alexandra Stepanian, Fogarty International Center
H. Guyford Stever, Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and
Government
Judy Sunley, National Science Foundation
Michael S. Teitelbaum, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
John Thomas, Department of Defense
Alvin W. Trivelpiece, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Michelle Van Cleave, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Pace VanDevender, Sandia National Laboratory
Peter Walsh, Kiser Research, Inc.
Robert White, National Academy of Engineering
Daniel Wikler, University of Wisconsin
James Wyngaarden, National Academy of Sciences
Rick Yannuzzi, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Michael Yarymovych, Rockwell International
26
NAS/NAE/IOM/NRC Staff
Sherburne Abbot, Polar Research Board
Inta Brikovskis, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia
Elisa Chait, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia
William Colglazier, Office of International Affairs
Stephen Deets, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia
Polly Harrison, Institute of Medicine
Jo Husbands, Committee on International Security and Arms Control
John Lavery, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and
Applications
Peter MacDonald, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia
Norman Metzger, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and
Applications
Hans Oser, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and
Applications
Stephen Rattien, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and
Resources
Robert L. Riemer, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics,
and Applications
Glenn Schweitzer, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia
Inga Sedlovsky, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia
Philip Smith, Executive Office
Kathleen Trivers, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia
Cassandra Turczak, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia
Mitchel Wallerstein, Executive Office
Andre Varchaver, Division of Natural Hazard Mitigation
Gary Waxmonsky, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia
27
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
The National Academy Press was created by the
National Academy of Sciences to publish the reports
issued by the Academy and by the National Academy
of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the
National Research Council, all operating under the
charter granted to the National Academy of Sciences
by the Congress of the United States.