oversight

Need for Improved Review and Coordination of the Foreign Affairs Aspects of Federal Research

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-05-27.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

REPORT TO THE CQIVGRESS




    ed For I
.And Coordin tion Of The
 Foreign Affairs
       deral R

Department of State and
  Qtker Agencies




BY THE COMPTROLLER    GIS’NERAL
OF THE UNITED  STATES
                 COMPTROLLER     GENERAL       OF      THE      IJNlTED    STATES
                               WASHINGTON,      D.C.         20548




B-171564




To the     President   of the Senate     and the
Speaker      of the House    of Representatives

          This is our report    on the need for improved         review     and
coordination     of the foreign    affairs aspects    of Federal      research
by the Department       of State and other    agencies.

       Our review  was made pursuant                              to the Budget    and Account-
ing Act, 1921 (31 U.S.G, 53), and the                            Accounting     and Auditing    Act
of 1950 (31 u.s.c.  67).

          Copies   of this report       are         being   sent to the Secretary             of
State     and to the Director,        Office          of Management     and Budget.




                                                               Comptroller          General
                                                               of the United        States




                         5QTi-i ANNIVERSARY                    1921-      1973
COJPTROLLERGENERAL'S                                NEED FOR IMPROVED REVIEW AND
REPORTTO THE COJlGl?ESS                             COORDINATION OF THE FOREIGN
                                                    AFFAIRS ASPECTS OF FEDERAL
                                                    RESEARCH
                                                    Department  of State and Other
                                                    Agencies
                                                    B-171564


DIGEST
------


WHYTHE REVIEW WAS MADE

     Research    performed     in foreign  countries     or otherwise                    bearing     on foreign
     affairs  is sponsored        in some degree     by nearly   every                 large     agency of
     the Federal      Government.

     The General            Accounting      Office      (GAO) reviewed         the management         of the
     foreign        affairs       aspects    of this       research       to identify       problems     and make
     o=vations-".concerning                  (1) the review            and clearance        by the State
     DepaC;;cmeri~'~~r'"pdlitical              sensitivity         of proposed        research     projects
     arid'(2)
           ._ __ _ .the _- _coordination
                             ._ _              of foreign        affairs     research       among agencies.


FINDINGS AND
          - CONCLUSIONS
     The full       dimensions   of United    States   foreign  research      and the amounts
     being expended         for such research      are obscure.    We have identified       in
     this    report     a level  of spending     of about $70 million        a years  but these
     figures     do not represent      all foreign     research   expenditures.

     The State     Department         has the responsibility            to ensure      that    federally
     sponsored     foreign       research       does not adversely         affect    United      States
     relations     with     other     countries.        However,    the Department          does not
     review    all   proposals        for foreign       research.       The State      Department        had
     not furnished        the agencies         with guidelines        for determining          conditions
     under which       research       proposed      might    affect   foreign     relations       and
     should    be submitted         for review.          (See pp. 19 and 20.)

     Not all     agency proposals        for research         to be performed            by scientists
     and institutions         of other     countries       had been submitted              to the State
     Department       for review    although       required.      Diplomatic            posts     GAO
     visited     had not performed         reviews      of those proposals              submitted      in
     accordance       with  the instructions          from the Department.                 (See pp. 24
     to 25.)

     Federal   agency proposals      for physical        and natural    science      research
     to be performed     by United     States    contractors      in other     countries       are
     not required    to be submitted        to the State     Department      for review.
     GAO believes    that such research        should     be reviewed    whenever        it is
           determined      to be potentially                             politically      sensitive.   (See   pp.   29
           through    3: 0 i

           Department     of Defense       sponsorship       of research       by foreign      scientists
           has resulted     in politically         embarrassing        incidents     in several        for-
           eign countries.        GAO believes         that    the Departments       of State       and De-
           fense should     study the political             impact   of such research          and, where
           appropriate,     take steps to reduce             the risk     of adverse      effect.         (See
           pp. 32 through      37.)

          GAO concluded         that    responsibility         for the State     Department     review
          function--presently            divided       between    the diplomatic     posts and two bureaus
          in Washinaton--should              be assigned       to the Washington      bureaus.       This
          would permit        the reviews        to be made under central          control     on a con-
          sistent      basis.       (See PP. 38 through          40.)

          Recent proposals        for improving       the coordination         of foreign      affairs
          research    among agencies        provide     for development        of an annual        Federal
          plan but do not provide           machinery      for carrying      it out.       In February
          1971, however,       the Under Secretaries           Committee     within    the National
          Security    Council     system was directed          to assume responsibility              for
          ensuring    interagency       coordination       of external     foreign     affairs       re-
          search    and for an annual consolidated               plan for such research            to be
          submitted     to the President         for approval.         (See PP. 41 through          51.)

          The State Department              had a very small external              research          program
           ($72,000     obligated       in fiscal       year 1970) and depended                largely       on other
          agencies      to support        research      bearing      on foreign      policy.           GAO believed
          that    the Department          should     establish       a research      program         of a scope
          commensurate        with    its responsibilities              in foreign       affairs        and should
          develop     a comprehensive           statement       of its external          research        policy.
          In fiscal      year 1971 the Department                 obtained     $724,000       for external          re-
          search--$241,000          from appropriated             funds and $483,000             allocated       from
          the Department          of Defense.         (See pp. 52 through            55.)


ii~i~,3r,~~“~~‘iV~~~.l-~~i~lS             LIti   s (‘I;GESy~OJ/s
 __-           -I---              - _-_-I_-_             .-~~


          GAO is                recommending                that   the   Secretary     of State:

                       --Issue      guidelines        to the domestic      agencies      stating     the factors
                           to be considered           in reviewing    social     and behavioral         research
                           proposals,       so that      the agencies    can make ,the required            reviews
                           on a basis        consistent     with the Foreign        Affairs      Research     Council
                           ieviews.        (See p. 20.)

                       --Issue       guidelines      to all agencies     to help them identify          research
                            in the physical        and natural    sciences    which   poses a potential
                           risk    to foreign      relations;   require    such research       proposals      to be
                           submitted        to the Department     for review;      and require     the agencies




                                                                           2
J I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  i                               to furnish           the Department      summary               information          about their
  I                               proposals          for foreign     research    in              the physical          and natural
  I
  I
                                  sciences.            (See p. 31.)
  I
  I                        --Require     all agencies                  to submit            their  proposals            for         research
   I
   I                          by foreign     performers                  directly           to the Department                 for      review.
   I                          (See p. 40.)
  I
  I                        --Develop         a comprehensive                statement           of the       Department's               ex-
  I
  I
                              ternal       research    policy.                (See p.          55.)
   I
  I
  I
  I           AGENCY
              -     ACTIONS AI"/9 6NRESOLVEliISSUZ?
  I
   I
   I               The State          Department          commented            that   it     was:
   I
   I
   I                       --Clarifying              procedures     for domestic    agencies      and Foreign                                 Service
   I                          posts to           follow     in reviewing   research     projects.
      I
      I
      I                    --Encouraging             improved     analysis                 by the posts of            the       impact         and
      I
      I                       scope of           Government-supported                      research  abroad.
      I
      I
      I
                           --Ensuring            better         coordination          between        its     bureaus.
      I
      I                    --Seeking         to establish     a new means for improving       coordination
      I
      I
                              among       agencies     of research  policies  and priorities.
      I
      I                    --Hoping        to        increase       substantially              its   funds      for     external              re-
      I
      I                       search.
      I
      I
      I
                   The Department               said that     it        considered the present   system to be the
      I            most economica              1 and effective            way to manage the review     funct ion.
       I
       I
                   (See p. 39.)
       I
      I            The Department               of    Defense       said:
       I
       I
       I                   --It       supported           the concept    that              foreign     research         should           be re-
       I
       I                          viewed for          political    impact.
       I
       I
       I
                           --Coordination       of foreign    area research     in the social                                        and be-
       I                      havioral    sciences     was necessary   to determine      political                                      impact
       I
       I
                              and to ensure       knowledge   of other   agencies'    programs.
       I
       I

       I      MATTERS FOR CONSICEPATIONBY THE CQNGRESS
       I
        I          The Congress     and its committees                          have shown considerable    interest                                 in the
        i          foreign  research    activities    of                       Federal  agencies,   and GAO believes                                  that
        I
        I
        I
        /
        I     Tear Sheet
        I
        I
        I
        I
          I
          I
          I
                                                                        3
          I
          I
          I
                                                                                                I


    the problems    in the management     of the     foreign    relations       aspects    of
    such research     discussed in this     report     are matters      of   concern    to
    the Congress.




N
                         --Contents
                                                                   Eass
DIGEST                                                               1

CHAPTER

  1       INTRODUCTION                                               4

  2       SCOPE OF FOREIGN RESEARCHACTIVITY                          7
             Social and Behavioral Science Contracts
                and Grants                                           7
             Research by Foreign Scientists                          9

  3       STATE DEPARTMENTREVIEW OF FOREIGN RESEARCH
          PROPOSALS                                                 11
              Authority     for Review                              11
              Social Science Research                               14
                   Project     Camelot                              14
                   The Foreign Affairs        Research Coun-
                      cil                                           16
                          Procedures of the Research
                            Council                                 16
                          Scope of the Research Council's
                            review                                  18
                          Need for improvement of review
                            procedures                              19
                          Recommendation                            20
                          Agency response                           20
                   Research by Federal employees                    21
                          Conclusion and agency comments            22
              Physical and natural        science research          23
                   Varying agency requirements          for sub-
                       mission of research proposals                24
                   Projects      not submitted   for review         24
                          Agency comments                           25
                   Review at the diplomatic         posts           27
                   Domestic contractors                             29
                          Conclusion and agency comments            30
                          Recommendations                           31
                   Defense Department Sponsorship of
                       Foreign Research                             32
                          Incidents    in Japan                     33
    CHAPTER

                                Reduction of Defense-sponsored
                                    foreign    research                  35
                                Study of impact of Defense-
                                    sponsored foreign      research      36
                           Conclusion      and agency comments           37
                      State Department Management of the Re-
                        viek7 Function                                   38
                           Coordination      between bureaus of the
                             State Deparfiment                           38
                           Conclusion      and agency comments           38
                           Recommendation                                40
       Lc      COORDINATION OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS RESEARCHBY
               I'Ht;: DEPAR'i'MENTOF STATE                               41
                      Need for improved coordination                     43
                           Coordination      by the Foreign Area Re-
                             search Coordination        Group            43
                           Coordination      by the Foreign Affairs
                             Research Council                            45
                           Coordjnation      by the Arms Control
                             and Disarnwment Agency                      45
                           Ccjmments by the National        Academy of
                             Sciences                                    47
                           National     Security    Council interest     48
                           ConcI.usion and agency cwtments               50
                           Recent action                                 51

       5       SCOPE OF STi'A'j'EDEPARTMENTEXTERNALRiXURCH               52
                   Conclusion and eg~ncy comments                        55
                   Recommendation                                        55

      6        SCOPE OF RKVIEW                                           56

    APPENDIX

          I    Letter  dated October 7, 1970, from the
Y                Deputy Assistant   Secretary for Budget and
                 Finance Department of State to the General
                 Accounting Office                                       61
APPENDIX

    II       Letter   dated October 12, 1970, from Director
                of Defense Research and Engineering,De-
               partment of Defense to the General Ac-
                counting Office                                    74

  III        Definitions                                           89

    IV       Description     of foreign     affairs   research
               programs     of Federal     agencies                92

         V   Federal Agency Obligations         for Social and
               Behavioral    Research on Foreign Areas and
               International    Affairs--Fiscal      year 1970     94

   VI        Federal Obligations  for Research to Foreign
               Performers  by Agency--Fiscal  year 1971            95

 VII         Principal    officials      of Government agencies
                responsible      for   administration  of activ-
                ities  discussed       in this report              96
                                                NEED FOR IMPROVED REVIEW AND
                                                COORDINATION OF THE FOREIGN
                                                AFFAIRS ASPECTS OF FEDERAL
                                                RESEARCH
                                                Department  of State and Other
                                                Agencies
                                                B-171564


DIGEST
------

bJHYTHE REVIEW --I__
               WAS l@ADE

    Research    performed     in foreign  countries     or otherwise                  bearing     on foreign
    affairs  is sponsored        in some degree     by nearly  every                large     agency of
    the Federal      Government.

    The General        Accounting      Office      (GAO) reviewed         the management         of the
    foreign     affairs     aspects     of this       research       to identify       problems      and make
    observations        concerning      (1) the review            and clearance        by the State
    Department       for political        sensitivity         of proposed        research     projects
    and (2) the coordination              of foreign        affairs     research       among agencies.


FINDINGS AND CQ%CLUSI@~l'S
    The full       dimensions    of United    States   foreign  research      and the amounts
    being expended          for such research      are obscure.    We have identified       in
    this    report     a level    of spending    of about $70 million        a year,  but these
    figures     do not represent        all foreign    research   expenditures.

     The State     Department         has the responsibility            to ensure      that    federally
     sponsored     foreign       research       does not adversely         affect     United     States
     relations     with     other     countries.        However,    the Department          does not
     review    all proposals          for foreign       research.       The State       Department       had
     not furnished        the agencies         with guidelines        for determining          conditions
     under which       research       proposed      might    affect   foreign     relations       and
     should    be submitted         for review.          (See pp. 19 and 20.)

     Not all agency proposals           for research         to be performed           by scientists
     and institutions        of other     countries       had been submitted             to the State
     Department       for review   although       required.      Diplomatic           posts GAO
     visited    had not performed         reviews      of those proposals             submitted      in
     accordance       with the instructions          from the Department.                (See pp. 24
     to 28.)

     Federal   agency proposals      for physical        and natural    science      research
     to be performed     by United     States    contractors      in other     countries       are
     not required    to be submitted        to the State     Department      for review.
     GAO believes    that such research        should be reviewed whenever               it is




                                                    1
    determined      to be potentially               politically        sensitive.          (See    pp.    29
    through    31.)

    Department    of Defense       sponsorship        of research      by foreign      scientists
    has resulted    in politically         embarrassing        incidents     in several        for-
    eign countries.       GAO believes         that     the Departments      of State       and De-
    fense should    study    the political          impact   of such research          and, where
    appropriate,    take steps        to reduce the risk of adverse               effect.         (See
    pp. 32 through     37.)

    GAO concluded         that   responsibility         for the State     Department     review
    function--presently           divided       between    the diplomatic    posts    and two bureaus
    in Washington--should             be assigned       to the Washington      bureaus.       This
    would permit        the reviews       to be made under central          control     on a con-
    sistent      basis.      (See PP. 38 through           40.)

    Recent proposals         for improving         the coordination          of foreign      affairs
    research     among agencies        provide       for development         of an annual        Federal
    plan but do not provide            machinery        for carrying       it out.       In February
    1971, however,        the Under Secretaries             Committee     within     the National
    Security     Council     system was directed            to assume responsibility               for
    ensuring     interagency       coordination         of external      foreign     affairs       re-
    search    and for an annual          consolidated         plan for such research             to be
    submitted      to the President         for approval.           (See PPe 41 through           51.)

     The State      Department         had a very small           external     research          program
     ($72,000     obligated        in fiscal       year 1970) and depended                 largely       on other
     agencies     to support         research      bearing      on foreign       policy.           GAO believed
     that   the Department           should     establish       a research       program         of a scope
    commensurate        with    its responsibilities               in foreign        affairs        and should
    develop     a comprehensive            statement       of its external           research        policy.
    In fiscal      year 1971 the Department                  obtained      $724,000       for external          re-
    search--$241,000          from appropriated             funds and $483,000               allocated       from
    the Department          of Defense.          (See pp. 52 through             55.)


RECOWEN~ATIONSOl? -.----
--_I---__-..      SUG!XS_rlONS
                         --
   GAO is      recommending         that    the    Secretary       of State:

           --Issue      guidelines       to the domestic     agencies      stating     the factors
               to be considered          in reviewing    social    and behavioral         research
               proposals,       so that     the agencies    can make the required            reviews
               on a basis       consistent     with the Foreign       Affairs      Research     Council
               i,evi ews . (See p. 20.)

           --Issue       guidelines     to all agencies     to help them identify           research
               in the physical        and natural    sciences    which poses a potential
               risk    to foreign     relations;   require    such research       proposals       to be
               submitted       to the Department     for review;      and require     the agencies




                                                     2
            to furnish             the Department      summary             information             about their,
            proposals            for foreign     research    in            the physical             and natural
            sciences.              (See p. 31.)

         --Require     all agencies                to submit           their  proposals              for         research
            by foreign     performers                directly          to the Department                   for      review.
            (See p. 40.)

         --Develop         a comprehensive               statement         of the        Department‘s                ex-
            ternal       research    policy.               (See p.        55.)


AGENCYACTIONS AND UNRESOLEDISSUES

   The State        Department          commented          that   it     was:

         --Clarifying              procedures     for domestic    agencies      and Foreign                                Service
            posts to           follow     in reviewing   research     projects.

         --Encouraging            improved     analysis                by the posts of             the       impact         and
            scope of           Government-supported                    research  abroad.

          --Ensuring           better       coordination          between        its      bureaus.

          --Seeking        to establish     a new means for improving       coordination
             among       agencies    of research  policies  and priorities.

          --Hoping        to     increase       substantially              its   funds       for     external              re-
             search.

    The Department          said that      it       considered the present   system     to be the
    most economical           and effective           way to manage the review     function.
    (See p. 39.)

    The Department          of     Defense       said:

          --It       supported        the concept    that              foreign         research       should          be re-
                 viewed for        political   impact.

          --Coordination       of foreign   area research     in the social                                         and be-
             havioral    sciences    was necessary   to determine      political                                       impact
             and to ensure      knowledge   of other   agencies'    programs.


MATTERS FOR._-"p-----l.
            CONSIDERATIONBY THE CONGRESS
                             ___-_--e
    The Congress    and its committees                       have shown considerable    interest                                 in the
    foreign  research   activities    of                    Federal  agencies,   and GAO believes                                  that




                                                     3
the problems    in' the management     of the     foreign    relations       aspects    of
such research     discussed  in this     report     are matters      of   concern    to
the Congress.
                                  CHAPTER 1

                               INTRODUCTION

      The General Accounting        Office    has made a review of the
management of the foreign        relations       aspects of Federal re-
search in foreign     countries      or affairs.        Its objective         was
to obtain information,       identify     problems,       and make observa-
tions relating    to the management of the foreign                 relations
considerations    attendant     to the research         activities       of some
of the principal     Federal agencies,         particularly        as activi-
ties concern:     (1) the clearance        for political          sensitivity
of proposed research projects          with the State Department and
(2) the coordination      of research plans among agencies.

       The review was limited        to individually        identified       work
units or tasks in science and technology              (projects)       that
meet the National      Science Foundation's         definitions        of basic
and applied research        (see app. III)     bearing on U.S. foreign
policy   and relations     and involving      either    significant         work
performance     in a foreign     country or domestic work related
to foreign     governments,     areas, or peoples (termed "foreign
research"    in this report).

      Foreign research   is sponsored in some degree                 by nearly
every large agency of the Federal Government for                    a variety
of purposes,    No summary data are available      as to             what part
of the estimated   $5.5 billion  obligated    in fiscal              year 1970
for Federal research   involved   foreign  research.

       The term "foreign  affairs  research"    is defined as re-
search in the social and behavioral       sciences dealing with
international   relations  or with foreign     areas and peoples,
whether conducted in the United States or abroad.

       The National      Science Foundation's          annual survey of Fed-
eral funds for research           (see app. VI) identified          estimated
obligations       for 1971 of $51.2 million          for contracts      and
grants to foreign        performers.         The term "foreign     performers"
includes      only foreign     scientists,      organizations,      or govern-
ments that carry on federally               sponsored research projects
outside     the United States.          About $38.2 million       of the es-
timated obligations         for foreign       performers    was from United
States owned foreign          currencies      excess to needs.       The re-
search by foreign        performers       is principally      in the physical
and natural     science fields    but may include some projects  in
the social    field   which would also be reported   in the survey
of foreign    affairs   research.




                                  6
                                  CHAPTER 2

                SCORE OF FOREIGN RESEARCHACTIVITY

      Foreign research is generally          divided  into two groups
of sciences,       (1) the social and behavioral        sciences and (2)
the physical       and natural    sciences,     (See definitions    in app.
III,)     The researchers      may be Federal employees, United
States contractors        or grantees,     or foreign   contractors   or
grantees     (foreign    performers).

      The full    dimensions of United States foreign                research
activity    and the amounts being expended for such research
are somewhat obscure.          A survey by the Foreign Area Research
Coordination      Group identified       estimated      fiscal    year 1970
obligations      of $21 million       (see app. V) for social science
research contracts        and grants involving          foreign     affairs.
As indicated       in chapter 1,     the   National     Science    Foundation's
annual survey of Federal funds for research has identified
estimated      1971 obligations      of $51 million         by 20 agencies
for contracts        and grants to foreign        institutions        and indi-
viduals.       (See app. VI.)       Data are not readily          available      on
the extent of foreign         research in the physical            and natural
sciences by domestic contractors              or on foreign       research      in
any field      of science by Federal employees.                The current
level of spending in the field             of foreign       research,      as dis-
cussed in this report,          appears    to  be   something     over     $70 mil-
lion a year including         foreign     currency     expenditures.

       Agency officials  have advised us that foreign       research
by domestic contractors      and grantees    in the physical    and -
natural     sciences is not extensive    and that there is very
little    research undertaken   by Federal employees abroad ex-
cept that performed     in Federal installations,     such as Army
medical laboratories     or agricultural     research stations.

      The following    sections   describe    the principal     areas          of
activities     on which information      is readily   available.

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE
CONTRACTSPLNDGRANTS

     The estimated obligations    of $20.8 million   for 1970 for
 social and behavioral    science research contracts    and

                                          7
grants    involving    foreign      affairs   includes about $6 million,
or one third      of the total,        sponsored   by the Department of
Defense.      Four agencies sponsored 78 percent of the total:
the Departments of Defense and Health,                Education,   and Welfare;
the National      Science Foundation;         and the Agency for Interna-
tional    Development.       The estimated       obligations,    by agency,
are shown in appendix V. The relative                  amounts and percentages
of the $20.8 million         fiscal     year 1970 obligations      by the
principal     agencies are shown in the following             graph.


               SOCIAL      AND    BEHAVIORAL       SCIENCE           RESEARCH    CONTRACTS     AND          GRANTS        INVOLVING
                                        FOREIGN     AREAS           AND INTERNATIONAL      AFFAIRS
                                                                 FISCAL   YEAR 1970


            FEDERAL      AGENCY                                           AMOUNT      OF ESTIMATED   OELlGATlONS
                                                             I              I             I          I                I               I
                                             I

 DEPARTMENT        OF DEFENSE                I                                                                                            I 30%



 NATIONAL      SCIENCE     FOUNDATION                                                                           22%


 DEPARTMENT        OF HEALTH,
                                                                                               15%
    EDUCATION,      AND WELFARE

 AGENCY   FOR INTERNATIONAL
                                                                                11%
    DEVELOPMENT

 NATIONAL    ENDOWMENT           FOR   THE
                                                                     7%
    HUMANITIES


 SMITHSONIAN      INSTITUTION
                                             U6%
 UNITED  STATiS        INFORMATION
                                                        3%
    AGENCY
                                             I

 DEPARTMENT        OF STATE                        2%



 DEPARTMENT        OF AGRICULTURE                  2%



 OTHER      AGENCIES                               2%

                                             1               I             I               I          I               I               I
                                             0               1             2              3          4                5               6
                                                                                   MILLIONS    OF DOLLARS




        The 1970 survey of the Foreign Area Research Coordina-
tion Group shows that about 37 percent of the funds were ob-
ligated    for 382 basic research projects      and that 63 percent
were obligated      for 339 applied research projects.     Of the
721 projects,      273 were performed in the United States and
448 involved work abroad.        The wide variety   of purposes for
which foreign     affairs  research is performed and data on in-
dividual     agency programs is shown in appendix IV.
RESEARCHBY FOREIGN SCIENTISTS

        The National     Science Foundation report "Federal Funds
for Research Development and Other Scientific                Activities"
identified      estimated    obligations      of $51.2 million     for fis-
cal year 1971 for research to be performed by foreign                    sci-
entists,     organizations,      or governments.        (See app. VI.>
The relative      amounts and percentages          of the $51.2 million
fiscal     year 1971 obligations         to foreign   performers     by the
principal      agencies are shown in the graph below.              The graph
also indicates       the portion      obligated    under the Special For-
eign Currency Program.



                      FEDERAL      OBLIGATIONS FOR RESEARCH TO FOREIGN PERFORMERS
                                        BY AGENCY AND TYPE OF OBLIGATION
                                                 FISCAL YEAR 1971

               FEDERAL    AGENCY                               AMOUNT      OF ESTIMATED   OBLIGATIONS
                                               r                I                I              I       1

   DEPARTMENT         OF HEALTH,                                                                        75%
      EDUCATION,       AND WELFARE




   DEPARTMENT         OF AGRICULTURE




   DEPARTMENT         OF DEFENSE           .             8%




   OTHER       AGENCIES

                                               I                I                 I             I        I
                                               0                IO               20             30      40
                                                                         MILLIONS  OF DOLLARS
     lissssl    AMOUNT    OBLIGATED    UNDER       SPECIAL    FOREIGN     CURRENCY    PROGRAM
                                                                               -----



      The National     Science Foundation report      states that re-
search is contracted       abroad because of certain      unique nat-
ural conditions      or unusual materials     or specialized    facil-
ities  required    for the research,     which do not exist in the
United States.0      The report   states also that agencies make
use of well-qualified       and special scientific     talents



                                                                     9
available      in foreign countries,  which are needed for the
effective      conduct of the research activities  involved.

        Federal agencies support this research with regular
appropriations     and with separate appropriations        for special
foreign    currency programs*       These programs use excess for-
eign currencies      made available    largely   under the Agricul-
tural    Trade Development and Assistance        Act of 1954 (Public
Law 480), as amended (7 U.S.C. 1691).            Eleven countries
were designated      excess-currency     areas in 1970 and 1971:
Burma, Ceylon, Guinea, India,         Israel,   Morocco, Pakistan,    Po-
land, Tunisia,     United Arab Republic,       and Yugoslavia.     About
75 percent of the Federal support for research by foreign
scientists     and institutions     was funded with excess foreign
currencies.

       Three Departments- -Defense, Agriculture,       and Health,
Education,    and Welfare- -provided    95 percent of the Federal
support in fiscal       year 1970 for research by foreign     scien-
tists   and institutions.      About one fifth   of the obligations
were for basic research and four fifths         were for applied
research.     Funds for basic research were provided mainly by
the Department of Agriculture,         Research by foreign   per-
formers supported by the Department of Agriculture,          con-
cerned fields     of interest   to both the United States and the
country      involved,   such as marketing,     economics,   plant   and
animal      husbandry,   forestry,   and human nutrition.

      Most of the funds for applied research by foreign        per-
formers came from the Department of Health, Education,         and
Welfare.   The grants supplemented the objectives       of its do-
mestic program and related     to studies in subjects     such as
disease prevention    and environmental   control,  health ser-
vices, mental health,    and the physiology    of man.




                                      10
                                CHAPTER 3

   STATE DEPARTMENTREVIEW OF FOREIGN RESEARCHPROPOSALS

      As the agency principally              responsible     for United States
foreign      relations,      the State Department has a responsibility
to ensure that federally             sponsored research,        performed      in
foreign       countries     or having a bearing on foreign            affairs,
does not adversely           affect   United States foreign         relations.
To accomplish this objective,               the Department reviews pro-
posals for social and behavioral                science research by Fed-
eral contractors           and grantees and proposals          for research by
foreign       scientists     and institutions        to determine     if their
performance         could have an impact detrimental             to United
States'       interests     in foreign     countries,    and to suggest how
such impact can be avoided.                The reviews,     however, do not
cover foreign          research by Federal employees or research in
the physical         and natural     sciencesby      domestic contractors
and grantees,          which also have a potential          for political
 sensitivity.

        Nearly all foreign      research may be socially         or politi-
cally    sensitive      in some degree and the selection         of research
for review to safeguard United States foreign relations                     is
a subjective       judgment.     The Department has taken the ap-
proach that social and behavioral            science research is more
likely    to be sensitive      than physical     and natural     science
research,      and that research     in support of agency objectives,
particularly        that sponsored by the military       and foreign
affairs      agencies,    has more potential     for sensitivity      than
research      solely for the advancement of knowledge.

AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW

       The State Department authorities        for the review and
clearance    of foreign    research range from very broad to very
specific,    varying with different      agencies.    The Secretary
of State has broad authority        by law and delegation       to act
as the principal      advisor and agent of the President          in the
determination      and execution   of the foreign    policy of the
United States.       Also, under the reorganization        of the Na-
tional    Security   Council in February 1969, the Secretary           was
assigned:


                                        11
      "authority    and responsibility    to the full    extent
      permitted    by law for the overall     direction,    co-
      ordination    and supervision    of interdepartmental
      activities    of the United States Government over-
      seas."

Under section 201 of Executive Order No. 10893 of November
1960, the chiefs of the diplomatic  missions:

      "shall    have and exercise,        to the extent permitted
      by law and in accordance           with such instructions
      as the President       may from     time to time promulgate,
      affirmative     responsibility        for the coordination
      and supervision       over the     carrying    out by agencies
      of their    functions     in the    respective    countries."

      Specific   authority  is provided in section 13 of the
National   Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S,C, 1872)
which states that the Foundation's:

      "arrangements    with organizations      or individuals
      in foreign    countries  and with agencies of foreign
      countries   **?k shall be exercised      only with the
      approval of the Secretary       of State,    to the end
      that such authority     shall be exercised      in such
      manner as is consistent      with the foreign      policy
      objectives    of the United States."

        By an exchange of letters    in January 1960, the Depart-
ments of State and Health,      Education,  and Welfare agreed
that the State Department      should clear research grant awards
made by the Public Health Service to foreign        scientists and
institutions.

       These authorities,     in conjunction     with the President's
letter   to the Secretary     of State dated August 2, 1965, as-
signing 'him responsibility      for review of social science re-
search in the area of foreign        policy    (see pe 15), constitute
the basis for the Department's        functions     of review and
clearance   of proposals    for foreign     research.

       There are no specific   authorities     or formal agreements
regarding    the State Department's     review and clearance   of
foreign   research other than those mentioned above.         Therefore,


                                     12
authority  for review and clearance       of foreign     research
undertaken   by other agencies,    including      the Departments  of
Defense and Agriculture      which are two of the principal
users of foreign    performers,   are covered by the broad au-
thorities  which have been variously        interpreted.      (See
p* 24.1




                                    13
SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH

         Before 1965 each Federal agency was generally                    respon-
sible for its own foreign                research activities      and applied
its own criteria           for review of proposed projects             and pro-
grams for their          possible      impact on U.S. foreign        relations.
There were exceptions,             such as the grants and contracts             to
foreign      institutions       of certain      agencies which were reviewed
at the diplomatic           posts; but most foreign          research of Fed-
eral agencies,          including      the social science research of the
military      and foreign       affairs      agencies, was usually planned
and carried        out without       referring     the projects    to the State
Department for review.

Project
-~         Camelot

        In June 1965 adverse reactions             in Chile to an Army-
 financed     study of political      instability,      Project     Camelot,
were such that the Secretary           of Defense subsequently             can-
celed it.        Project  Camelot was an effort         by the Army"s Office
of Research and Development working through a contractor,
the Special Operations          Research Office       at American Univer-
sity,    to produce a better understanding             of how the processes
of social change operate in developing                countries.        The ob-
jectives     were stated to be (1) the systematic               identification
of the symptoms of the breakdown of a society and (2) the
identification        of actions that might forestall            the breakdown.

        During the initial        design of the project,         a consultant
of the contractor        traveling     in Chile on personal business
discussed the project         with Chilan social scientists           to as-
certain     the interest     and resources      available     in that country.
His activities      were adversely       reported     in a local newspaper,
which led to considerable           adverse publicity       in Chile,    else-
where abroad, and in the United States;                a protest    to Wash-
ington by the American Ambassador to Chile; and cancellation
of the project      on August 2, 1965.

      As a result    the President   assigned the State Department
the responsibility      for clearance of foreign  affairs research
in a letter    to the Secretary    of State dated August 2, 1965,
which stated in part:



                                        14
"I am determined that no Government sponsorship
of foreign     area research should be undertaken
which in the judgment of the Secretary           of State
would adversely       affect   United States foreign
relations.       Therefore    1 am asking you to estab-
lish effective      procedures which will      enable you
to assure the propriety         of Government-sponsored
social science research in the area of foreign
policy.     I suggest that you consult with the
Director    of the Bureau of the Budget to deter-
mine the proper procedures          for the clearance of
foreign    affairs    research projects    on a
Government-wide basis."




                             15
The Foreign         Affairs   Research        Council

       To implement the President's       directive,   the Secretary
of State created the Foreign Affairs          Research Council.        The
Council is responsible      for assisting     the Secretary     in for-
mulating    policies  for review and clearance       of foreign    af-
fairs   research and for clearing      research projects       submitted
to the Department for that purpose by other Government
agencies,     The Council is also charged by the Secretary            with
determining     State Department needs for external         research
and with establishing     Department policy for such research.

        The Council consists     of 14 members of the Department
under the chairmanship        of the Director    of the Bureau of In-
telligence    and Research.      It includes    senior officers   from
each of the 5 geographic        and 7 functional     bureaus, the
Planning and Coordination        Staff,   and the Foreign Service
Institute.      The Council's    staff  is provided by the Bureau
of Intelligence     and Research.

       Procedures
       "-- _----. l_-_l   of the Research Council
                          --l--~-ll~.-.--T~-I~~---

        The social and behavioral       science research project            pro-
posals of other agencies submitted           to the Research Council
for clearance     are assigned to one of the project              officers
on the Council staff.        The project     officer      reviews the pro-
posal, discussing      it when necessary with representatives                 of
the sponsoring     agency, and prepares a recommendation for
Department action on the basis of his experience and avail-
able information      about conditions      abroad.      The proposal and
the accompanying recommendation are then reviewed and
cleared with the Research Council members directly                   concerned
with the subject matter and the geographic area involved
and, usually,     with other State Department officers               as well.
If the proposal involves        performance      in a foreign      country,
the diplomatic     post also is generally         consulted.       Upon com-
pletion    of the review,    the project     officer     prepares for the
Chairman of the Research Council a description                 of the proj-
ect 9 its problems,      and the recommendation for Department
action agreed upon by the reviewing           officers.        The Chair-
man's action on the recommendation is reported                 back to the
sponsoring    agency and to the interested           diplomatic      posts.




                                         16
        The ChairmanIs action may be approval of the proposed
research,     approval with conditions,             or disapproval.      When
the Chairman approves projects               conditionally,     the conditions
generally      concern such matters          as (1) coordination      of fiel.d
research plans by the agency with the diplomatic                    posts,
(2) classification          of the projects       or subsequent review for
possible     classification         of the report,      (3) acknowledgement
of Government support and purposes of the research to for-
eign researchers,         the host government,          or in the published
report,     or (4) restrictions          on travel    or requirements      for
subsequent review of travel              plans.     The State Department
makes no systematic          effort    to determine whether the agencies
have complied with the conditions                imposed by the Council
when research proposals             are cleared conditionally.          Our re-
view at selected agencies,             however, did not identify         any
significant      problems resulting          from the lack of such com-
pliance.

       The Research Council review is strictly          limited    to con-
sidering   whether the proposed research would have adverse
effects   upon United States foreign      relations.       The reviewing
officers    of the Council do not consider whether the research
(1) contributes     to the support of United States foreign            pol-
icy, (2) should be coordinated       with efforts      of other agen-
cies for their mutual benefit,       or (3) duplicates        the re-
search of other agencies.        (However, on some occasions ob-
vious cases of duplication       have been informally        brought to
the attention     of sponsoring   agency representatives         by the
Research Council staff.)        The Research Council procedures
state that approval of a proposed project            by the Department
is not an endorsement of the need, method, or value of the
research.

        The V'Procedures for Department of State Review of
Government-Sponsored      Foreign Affairs  Research,"    issued No-
vember 18, 1965, set limits       on the scope of the Council's
review,    primarily   on the basis of the sponsorship      of the re-
search.     Under the procedures,    Government-sponsored     foreign
affairs    research is defined as:

      ssresearch programs and studies   in the social and
      behavioral   sciences dealing with international  re-
      lations,   or with foreign  areas and peoples, whether
      conducted in the United States or abroad, which


                                        17
       are supported by contracts  or grants awarded by
       agencies of the United States.    In-house research
       is not included."

        The procedures distinguish         between research supported
by defense and foreign          affairs   agencies and that supported
by domestic agencies.           The defense and foreign          affairs
agencies (Department         of Defense, Department of State,              United
States Information         Agency, Arms Control       and Disarmament
Agency, Agency for International             Development,      and Central
Intelligence       Agency) are required       to obtain clearance from
the Research Council for their            proposals for social and
behavioral      science research projects         involving      foreign
travel    or contact with foreign         nationals.      The domestic
agencies are required         to supply the Research Council summary
information       on such research proposals and to submit them
for review and clearance           if requested or if the sponsoring
agency determines        that the research might have a potentially
adverse effect        on United States foreign        relations.         The same
requirements       for informing      the Council apply to military            and
foreign    affairs     agency projects     conducted in the United
States that do not involve contact with foreign                   nationals.

        The procedures require      that the Research Council be in-
formed about continuous       foreign   affairs     research programs,
such as those carried       on by federally      funded research cen-
ters,     and provide that specific     projects      in these programs
may be reviewed by the Council.          Federal grants to academic
institutions      for general purposes related          to foreign  affairs
research are exempted from review,          but the granting       agencies
are expected to keep the State Department informed about
such grants.

      Scope_-..-__
      -^      of .--
                   thy:: jiic:.,d,qrch
                               _        Council's
                                     I__.I                   review
                                         ..-/._._-,.-.".-^_.-_.- - .,-

      Relaf;i.vely  few of the pLojects    in the Covernment$ s en-
tire  research program are subj+Tl-rt to Resea.rch Council review.
The fiscal     year 1970 report of the Council shows the number
of new projects     srlbmi i ted and 1he CouncilB s disposition of
them.
                                Research Council
                                             --1-----Actions on New Protects
                                            throufih Jur.e 1970
                                               Cleared                                             Uithdrawn or
                  Totnl                          condi-                          Returned-exempt   suspended by
                submitted        Cleared       tionally          Not clear&        from review         sponsor
  Vpe of              Since           Since            Since             Since             Since            Since
sponsoring      FY July               July             July       FY     July        FY     July      M      July
  a6zency      1970    1965   &I      1965    go1965            1974     1965      1970     1965    1970     1965
 Domestic         14    87      6       59      3        15         0      1         4       II         1     1
 Foreign
    affairs     $02    353     48     156      40       I.55        3       9       10       23         1     10
 Military       12     195     1      69       9      -96       2         _5!       2       l2      0        r




      In addition     to reviewing new projects,     the Council
makes follow-up     reviews on continuing   projects    and reviews
some foreign    travel   plans and some of the final     reports  of
the researchers.
              Need for improvement                     of review
              procedures
       In our discussion     of "Procedures      for Department of State
Review of Government-Sponsored         Foreign Affairs       Research" on
page 18, we mentioned that the domestic agencies were not
required   to submit their     social and behavioral          science re-
search projects    involving    foreign    affairs    for Research
Council review unless specifically          requested or unless the
agency determined that the project          might have potentially
adverse effects    on United States foreign          relations.
       This procedure relieves   the Research Council staff        from
the need to review research in foreign       affairs   which may
have a lesser potential     of political   sensitivity   than re-
search performed overseas by military       and foreign    affairs
agencies;    but it places the burden for determining       potential
political    sensitivity  on the sponsoring agency, which is not
likely    to possess the same degree of expertise      in this field
as the State Department.
        No guidelines    or criteria     have been issued by the Re-
search Council to assist         the agencies in making their        deter-
minations;     and therefore     it is doubtful    that the determina-
tions of the sponsoring agencies have been made on a basis
consistent     with that used by the Research Council.             State
Department representatives           are available   for informal    advice
and consultation      if an agency elects to inquire          about a par-
ticular    project,   but the agencies have no basis for making

                                                               19
consistent  judgments of the projects in their   research pro-
grams as to whether they should be submitted   to the Council
for review.

      Recommendation

      We recommend that the Secretary    of State issue guide-
lines to the domestic agencies stating     the factors  to be
considered   in reviewing research proposals    so that the
agencies can make the required    review on a basis consistent
with Research Council reviews.

      Agency response

       The State Department in commenting on a draft           of this
report   (see app. I) stated that it would prepare and send
guidelines     to the domestic agencies,   which will     clarify    what
research constitutes     a potential  risk to foreign      relations
and which will help the agencies decide the projects              to be
submitted    to the Research Council.     We believe    that issuance
of such guidelines     should result  in greater    consistency      of
the agency reviews with those of the Research Council.




                                    20
Research   by Federal   employees

       Foreign research by Federal employees is excluded from
State Department review.           It would seem that social and be-
havioral    science research activities         of a Federal employee
in a foreign     country would be as li'kely        to cause adverse
reaction    as the same activities       performed by an employee of
a contractor     or grantee,     but the State Department procedure
for review of social and behavioral            science research propos-
als involving     foreign   affairs    covers only research performed
by contractors      and grantees and specifically        excludes "in-
house research,"        (See p. 17,)     The Director    of the Bureau
of Intelligence      and Research, who is also Chairman of the
Research Council,       in explaining    the procedures     in 1965
stated:

      "We have no intention   and no authority to review
      either private  research or research conducted
      within an agency by Government employees."

The research activities       of Federal employees may involve
traveling   in foreign     countries   and dealing with foreign
scientists,   institutions      and  government  representatives;
but such activities       have been interpreted     as being excluded
from review by the Research Council.

       Much of the policy planning         research of the military
departments    and agencies,       which is in large part within
the area of foreign       affairs,     is performed by a combination
of in-house research by Federal employees and research by
Federal contract     research centers having a quasi-in-house
status.     The broad programs of the centers are required              to
be reviewed by the Council,          and specific    projects  may be
reviewed upon request,         but the in-house aspects of the ac-
tivity   are omitted    from review.       When the research     is con-
ducted entirely     within     an agency's offices      and the results
are not made public,        there may be little      need for State
Department review;      but research by Federal employees can
include nearly all of the same activities             as performed by
researchers    under contracts       or grants;    and blanket   exclu-
sion of research activities          by Federal employees from review
by the Research Council appears inappropriate.




                                  21
      Conclusion    and agency comments

        We believe   that research activities     by Federal employees
in a foreign      country can be equally as sensitive       as the same
activities     by employees of contractors      and grantees and that
the State Department review function          should be expanded to
include appropriate       parts of such research activity.

      The Defense Department agreed that the State Department
should review these projects     and commented that all proposed
social and behavioral    science projects    (including     those per-
formed by Federal employees) were submitted         for approval
and coordination   with the State Department.         State De-
partment procedures,    however, exclude projects       performed by
Federal employees from review,     and, when such projects       are
submitted,   they are returned  without   review.

       The State Department commented that there was very lit-
tle research undertaken    by Federal employees abroad, that
what research there is comes under the control     of the ambas-
sador in the country,    and that the embassy review provided
better   control of such research activity   than could be pro-
vided by Research Council review.

       In our surveys at seven diplomatic          posts overseas, we
 found no records or other indications          that such reviews were
being performed.     The embassy maintains         a general surveil-
 lance of Federal employee activity         in the country,     but re-
view of social research proposals          before their    implementation
 is a function  of the Research Council.           We remain of the
view that proposals    for research in the social and behavioral
sciences in foreign    countries     by Federal employees should be
reviewed by the State Department in the same manner as pro-
posals for research by contractors          and grantees.      Such re-
view would take place before the research is initiated              when
the proposal could be more easily modified.             The Research
Council review usually     involves participation         by the embassy
concerned but also takes into account broader implications
of the proposed activity      involving     other countries     on which
the embassy may not have full        information.

      In view of the State Department's     advice that there is
very little    research undertaken  by Federal employees abroad,
we are inal~irig i10 recommendation on this matter e

                                   22
PHYSICAL AND NATURAL SCIENCE RFSEARCH

        State Department review of foreign         research proposals
in fields     other than the social and behavioral          sciences is
limited     to proposals for research to be performed by for-
eign scientists       and institutions    (foreign   performers).     For-
eign research in the physical          and natural    sciences by do-
mestic contractors        and grantees or by Federal employees is
not reviewed by the Department for possibly             adverse effects
on foreign     relations,

       The review of proposals       for research to be made by for-
eign performers     is essentially      carried    out at the diplomatic
posts in the countries     where the projects         are to be carried
out 0 For projects     to be funded by appropriations             in dol-
lars, agencies in the Departments of Defense and Agricul-
ture are expected to submit their proposals              directly     to the
diplomatic    posts for review and approval as to their pos- '
sible effect    on foreign   relations.        Other agencies are ex-
pected to submit their project          proposals,    as appropriate,
either   to the posts or the Bureau of International                Scien-
tific   and Technological    Affairs     in Washington, which, in
turn, refers them to the diplomatic            posts for comment.
Bureau approval is generally         based on the post's         comments.

       For research projects         to be funded from excess foreign
currencies,    all agencies are required           by section 27.1 of
Bureau of the Budget Circular            A-11 to show the results        of
consultations     with the State Department in their justifica-
tion material     for appropriations.          The details    of the
agency research proposals          submitted under these requirements
are transmitted      to the diplomatic        posts for comment as part
of the State Department review process,                 The Department's
review, as it concerns the possible             effects    of the proposed
research on foreign       relations,       is generally    based on the
post's comments.       The project       proposals    are subsequently
submitted by the diplomatic            post to representatives      of the
government of the foreign          country concerned for approval
and contract    execution.




                                     23
Varying agency requirements     for
submission of research proposals

       The Office     of Aerospace Research, Department of the
Air Force, issued regulations           requiring     review and clearance
by the diplomatic        posts of proposed contracts         to foreign
performers.      Officials     of the   Department     of  Agriculture         ad-
vised us that they had consistently              submitted   their pro-
posals for such research to the posts but had issued no in-
structions    requiring      such action.      Responsible     officials
of the Army,     i?;avy,and   Agency  for   International      Development
have expressed the view that there is no requirement                      for
State Department review and          clearance     of  proposals      for     con-
tracts    and grants to foreign       performers      except for proposals
in the social and behavioral           sciences which are to be re-
viewed by the Research Council.

       It     appears that the different         requirements     for sub-
mission      of research proposals         to the State Department for
review      stem from the lack of clear and specific              State De-
partment       guidelines     to the agencies defining        its requirements
for the       submission of proposals        for research grants and con-
tracts      involving     foreign   performers.

Projects --II not - submitted
-__--               ---           for   review

       Our reviews at the National               Science Foundation and at
the National      Institute      of Mental Health,           where specific        re-
quirements had been established                by law or agreement for
State Department review of proposals                  for grants and con-
tracts   to foreign       performers,       indicated      that such proposals
for fiscal    years 1969 and 1970 were properly                    submitted     for
State Department review.              The Agency for International               De-
velopment,    where      no  specific    requirement         for   such   review
had been established,           submitted      its entire        central    research
program to the Research Council for review;                       but the Council
reviewed only the research proposals                  concerned with the
social and behavioral           sciences.        Neither     the Council nor
the Agency submitted          the proposals        for contracts         with for-
eign performers        for research       in the physical          and natural
sciences included in the program, to the Bureau of Interna-
tional   Scientific       and Technological          Affairs      or to the dip-
lomatic posts.



                                           24
       In addition     to the Agency for International           Develop-
ment's central      research program, its overseas missions             also
contract    for research by foreign         performers.       Our reviews
at the missions in India and Pakistan established                 that they
had not submitted        any of their proposals        for contracts    with
foreign    per-ixmers     to the diplomatic       posts for clearance.
During fiscal      years 1968-70, the dollar          equivalent    of about
$3 million     was obligated     for such contracts        in India and
$700,000 was obligated         in Pakistan.

       The Office    of Naval Research had not submitted          its
proposals    for contracts    with foreign    performers     to the dip-
lomatic posts.       Our review identified      73 contracts    with
foreign    performers,   representing    obligations     of about
$2 million     during fiscal   years 1968-70, for which proposals
had not been submitted       to the diplomatic      posts for review
and clearance.

       Our reviews at five diplomatic         posts (United Kingdom,
Sweden, Germany, Italy,          and Japan) and at the overseas lo-
cations of various Federal agencies included tests of the
clearance    of proposals      for research by contracts       and grants
to foreign     performers    during the period July 1967 through
February 1970. We found evidence that,             of 483 proposals
accepted by the Federal agencies'           overseas offices      for fur-
ther review,      378, or 78 percent had been received           at the
diplomatic     posts.     The remainder either     were not sent to
the posts or no record was made of their            receipt.      Our re-
view, however, did not identify          any grant or contract        to a
foreign    performer    where the research proposal's         not having
been cleared by the diplomatic          post adversely     affected
United States foreign        relations.

      Agency Comments

       The State Department advised us that,        when Circular
Airgram CA-9481 on clearance       of research    by foreign     per-
formers was issued (see p0 27), it was concurred in by the
affected   agencies and that the Department expected the agen-
cies to follow     the guidelines    in the airgram for clearing
their foreign    research with the Department,         The Department
has agreed to reissue      the airgram and to request the Fed-
eral Council on Science and Technology to follow             through to
ensure compliance by the agencies.


                                      2.5
       The Defense Department commented that all research
projects   with foreign     scientists   and institutions     have con-
sistently    been submitted     to the diplomatic      posts in the
respective    countries   for clearance prior       to final   procure-
ment action.     Our review shows that Defense projects            are
generally    submitted;  however, we found some Navy projects
which were not submitted        and other projects      where there was
no clearance record,      as discussed earlier.




                                  26
Review at the diplomatic         posts

       The Department of State issued guidelines              to the posts
for review and clearance        of proposals       for grants and con-
tracts    for research in the physical          and natural     sciences by
foreign    performers    in Circular     Airgram CA-9481, dated
July 18, 1968.        The airgram transmitted         a copy of the state-
ment of the Federal Council for Science and Technology ap-
proved in September 1964, entitled             "Policy   Guidance for Re-
search Investment       Abroad by U.S. Agencies."           In addition,
the airgram provided criteria          for reviews by diplomatic         posts
of proposals      for physical    and natural      science grants and
contracts     to foreign   performers.       It provided that the post:

      1. Not attempt      a scientific        evaluation   of proposed     re-
         search.

      2.   Be alert for    any possible harmful effects           of cumula-
           tive support    by Federal agencies on local           science or
           the economy.

      3. Encourage     support    of research       by the host   government.

      4. Determine that the proposed grant or contract                   does
         not replace local support for research,

      5. When appropriate,   question local authorities to en-
         sure that the proposed research does not meet with
         objections   by the host government.

      Because of the difference in political  sensitivity     and
other factors  in each country, the airgram did not prescribe
review and clearance procedures for the missions,      but stated:

             "The Chief of Mission should establish          re-
      view procedures which he considers         appropriate
      to the local situation.       The policy    review should
      be vested in the officer      best qualified     to pro-
      vide that review,     and internal    Mission procedures
      should provide adequate coordination          on these
      matters between the offices        of the Defense Atta-
      che, the AID Mission or Agricultural         Attache,
      the Scientific    Attache,   and with other appro-
      priate   elements of the Diplomatic      Mission."


                                         27
            None of the seven posts            we visited      during January-
     March 1970, had established             written     procedures for review
     of research proposals.             For  the    majority    of the proposals
     cleared,     the review involved only the checking of the prin-
     cipal investigator's           name against various          security     sources
     in an effort       to determine whether he might create a politi-
     cally    sensitive     situation.       T'nere was little        coordination
     of the review between elements of the posts.                       Proposals     sub-
     mitted    to the scientific         attache or the agricultural             attache
     were not generally         distributed       outside    their respective         of-
     fices.     Proposals      submitted     to   the   defense    attache    were
     usually    referred     only to the office          of the scientific         attache,
     Proposals      submitted     from the Research Council in Washington
     were generally       reviewed by the political             affairs    officer
     only.

           The State Department has advised us that the correction
     of this situation   will be taken up with the individual    posts
     and the appropriate    geographic bureaus in the Department.

           We have found that certain        Defense research agencies
     located overseas are required       by their   guidelines    to submit
     all research project     proposals    to diplomatic    posts for
     clearance   at the same time that the proposals         are forwarded
jj
!!
     to the parent organizations       in the United States for review.
     These proposals    are forwarded    to the posts after      a cursory
     review by the overseas research offices,          and a more detailed
A    review is performed after      comments are received from the
     parent organization    in the United States.

             Our test of 132 proposals              submitted      to the posts under
     these guidelines           indicated     that the research offices,           after
     performing       a detailed       review,     actually     approved only 36, or
     27 percent,        of the proposals         transmitted       to the posts for
     clearance.         The remaining proposals             that had been transmitted
     were either        deferred,      21 percent,      or rejected,     52 percent,
     by the research officer.               Therefore,        on the basis of our
     limited     tests,     it appears that the posts were required                  to
     review and clear at least twice as many proposals                      as ulti-
     mately    resulted       in contracts       or grants to foreign       performers.

           State Department officials             have informally     advised us
     that they will  take appropriate             action to eliminate      the un-
     necessary reviews by the posts              of research proposals.
Domestic    contractors

        Foreign research in the physical           and natural     sciences
by United States scientists          and institutions      under Federal
contracts     and grants may involve traveling           in foreign      coun-
tries    and dealing with foreign       government agencies,          insti-
tutions,     and scientists,     Such activity        may be politically
sensitive,.    p articularly  if it is sponsored by a military
agency; but the State Department,           and in some circumstances
even the sponsoring agency, may not be informed of the re-
searcher's     plans for activities      in foreign      countries      at the
time the grant or contract         is made. The State Department
does not exercise a review function             over these research
activities     and the diplomatic      posts generally      do not review
activities     in the foreign    country by domestic researchers.
Data on the scope and extent          of such research activity            is
not readily      available.

        That foreign       physical        and natural     science research can
be politically         sensitive      is demonstrated         by the following
example.       The Smithsonian           Institution,      under a research
project     financed in part by a grant from the Office of Aero-
space Research, initiated                a study of the behavior of birds
in the tropical         rain forests          of Brazil,      This research was
adversely      reported      in both the United States and Brazilian
news media.         The article        in the Washington Post, February 5,
1969, was headed "Smithsonian                   Bird Research Tied to Germ
Warfare Study."           The   article       indicated    that the Brazil     study,
which was related          to a larger Smithsonian             program for study
of migratory        birds financed by the Defense Department,                  may
ultimately       be used in the germ warfare program.                  The project
was also similarly           reported       on February 4, 1969, on a na-
tional     television      program.         The publicity      may not have af-
fected this particular             project        because the fieldwork      was
already completed,           but the Brazilian           Government temporarily
suspended the acceptance of Smithsonian                      support of other
research in Brazil.             However, no lasting           adverse effects
appear to have resulted.

      In an airgram to all posts dated July 18, 1968, the
Department expressed concern that American scientists       may
be in foreign   areas conducting   Government-sponsored   physical
and natural   science research without     the knowledge of the
Department.    The airgram indicated    that the Department was


                                          29
planning     to request all agencies to incorporate     appropriate
instructions     within    their grant and contract procedures,
which would provide that the Department be informed when
proposed research       involved  foreign countries or their    in-
stitutions.

     As of January 1971,           the Department of State had not
made the above-indicated           request of other Federal agencies.

       Conclusion      and
                       -   agency comments

       We believe     that the State Department           should review
proposed research activities           of domestic contractors          in
foreign   countries       when the research      involves      the physical
and natural     sciences,     as well as when it involves           the social
and behavioral      sciences,     to effectively       safeguard United
States foreign      relations,because        the nature of the research
can be sensitive        in either   case and in both cases can in-
volve dealing with foreign          scientists,      institutions,      and
government representatives.

         In commenting on this matter,            the State Department
agreed that domestic grantees in the physical                     and natural
 sciences should be aware of possible                political      sensitivity
when research is performed abroad but stated that the few
cases where political          sensitivity      would be involved would
not warrant      the additional       work load nor the adverse domes-
tic reaction       to the direct      involvement       of the Department.
We were informed that the Department planned to request all
agencies to incorporate           in their    grant and contract           proce-
dures appropriate        instructions      outlining        the possible       sen-
sitivity     to research or related          activities        conducted abroad.
The Department agreed also that it might be useful                       if the
Department were to issue appropriate                 guidelines      to the agen-
cies on projects       or areas which might have political                   sensi-
tivity     and to review proposed grants and contracts                  whenever
the granting      agency considered         such review necessary.

        The Defense Department commented that research contracts
and grants with domestic contractors            and grantees and proj-
ects performed by Federal employees that require              significant
foreign    effort  were carefully     reviewed.     We found that when
such researchers     visited   foreign    countries    the only informa-
tion furnished     to the State Department on these projects
was a notification     to the embassies of the purposes of the
visits.   We    do not consider that such notification     consti-
tutes a submission of research proposals       for review.

       We believe that the Department should review proposals
for grants and contracts       for research in the physical       and
natural    sciences on much the same basis as the Research
Council reviews the proposals        for grants and contracts      of
domestic agencies for research in the social and behavioral
sciences.      That is, in addition     to issuing appropriate     in-
structions     and guidelines    as proposed by the Department,
there should be a requirement        that the agencies furnish       the
Department pertinent       summary information    about their pro-
posals for research contracts        and grants involving    foreign
performance     in advance of such performance      and that they
submit the proposals       for review and approval by the Depart-
ment when requested.

      Recommendations

         We recommend that the Secretary          of State (1) issue in-
structions       and guidelines     to the agencies to help them iden-
tify     and clarify     what research in the physical          and natural
sciences constitutes          a potential    risk to foreign      relations,
(2) require        the agencies to furnish       pertinent     summary in-
formation      to the Department on proposals           for research      in-
volving     foreign     performance    in the physical      and natural
sciences by domestic contractors             and grantees,      and (3) re-
quire the agencies to submit their proposals                 for such re-
search to the Department for review and clearance                   for sen-
sitivity     when requested by the Department or when the agency
determines       that the proposed research has a potential               for
political      sensitivity.




                                      31
Defense Department sponsorsha
of foreign research

        There has been concern expressed over the effect            on
United States foreign        relations  of the Department of Defense
policy of sponsoring       research by foreign     institutions     and
scientists.        In 1962 the President's    Science Advisory Com-
mittee,     International    Science Panel, in its report       on jsRe-
search Support Abroad through Grants and Contracts"              stated:

      "The reaction       to the support of science by U.S.
      military      agencies will    vary from country to coun-
      try and region to region.          The State Department
      should make a judgment for each coun'try about the
      desirability      of a military     support program on the
      basis of the local situation,          the need for prompt
      action,      and other factors.

     "IThe Panel does recommend, however, that where
     military     programs are authorized      in countries  in
     which programs do not now exist,          it would be de-
     sirable    to mount a civilian      agency program at the
     same time and in any case, to have the military
     operate out of an office       staffed   by civili.ans,
     preferably     under the science attache,      as is
     planned for Rio de Janeiro."

More recently,    in May 1969, the Chairman of the Senate For-
eign Relations    Committee,  in commenting on the Defense De-
partment's   fi seal year 1970 research authorization  request,
stated:

     "There is tro!jble      aplenty over military     research
     being carried      out in our own educational       institu-
     tions and there is no need to ask for the same
     kind of trouble       in 44 other countries.     Unless
     the brakes are put on this program, more incidents
     are inevitable.        A compelling   need in our foreign
     affairs    today is to make the American presence
     abroad l.css visible.        We do not accomplish that by
     linking    foreign   universities   to our military       es-
      tablishment."




                                  32
       Our review identified       politically     embarrassing   situa-
tions in four countries--Sweden,            Germany, India,    and Japan--
that involved Department of Defense sponsorship               of research
by foreign    scientists    and institutions.        The type of problems
that can result      from military      contracts   and grants to for-
eign scientists,       when opposition       groups attempt to exploit
them for their     own purposesp are illustrated          by events in
Japan.

      Incidents   in Japan

       There have been two political       incidents    in Japan, both
of which have involved Army-sponsored           research by Japanese
scientists   and institutions.       The first     and most serious of
these resulted   from Army support of a conference          on semicon-
ductor physics held in Kyoto, Japan, in September 1966.               The
second incident    concerned an Army grant involving         a scientist
at a Japanese university       and linked to the United States
Army's chemical biological       warfare    research in a book by an
American author.

        The embassy approved an Army grant of $8,000 to the
Japan Society of Physics to help cover the expenses of an
international      semiconductor      physics conference     to be held in
Kyoto, Japan, in September 1966. The money was to be used
to cover the traveling          expenses of the American scientists
who had been invited         to attend.     In recommending Army finan-
cial support of the physics conference,               an Army official
recognized     that certain      members of the Japanese organizing
committee were reluctant           to associate    themselves with a
military    organization       by accepting     support but expressed the
opinion that such support would help to break down the anti-
military    feeling    within    the Japanese scientific       conlmunity.

       No trouble   resulted from the Army grant for nearly a
year; but then, in May 1967, it became the subject of an
"expose I1 by one of Japan's leading newspapers, which led to
a critical    assessment by the Japanese Government on the
whole United States military     research program in Japan.

      The article  acknowledged the Army Research Office's
statement  that the Army grants were given with no restric-
tions and were not related    in any way to military research;
however, it quoted the opinions of several Japanese


                                    33
scientists     to the effect   that Japanese scientific integrity
could become compromised through such Army support,         As a
result,    according to the Japanese press, Japanese Govern-
ment officials     were questioned   by the legislature concern-
ing the purpose of the U.S. research program in Japan.
       As a result   of the newspaper articles     and the related
discussions    in the legislature,   the Japanese Ministry         of Ed-
ucation published new regulations,       effective   October 1967,
governing the acceptance of grants by national           universities.
Several university      presidents spoke out against the United
States Army research program; some universities           took steps
to sever ties with the United States military;           and others
tightened   their   procedures for scrutinizing     military     grants.

      In July 1967 the Chairman            of the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Committee,  in commenting            on the incident,  stated:

      IsI am not saying that the research is not benefi-
      cial.     What I do not understand    is the reason be-
      hind the military    sponsorship   of such projects.
      *J;* I cannot understand why our government takes
      the risk of bruising    our relations    with other
      countries   by having the Department of Defense un-
      dertake such research."

        In another instance adverse publicity             in Japan on the
 nature of military-sponsored          research resulted       from a book
 published by an American writer           in June 1968. On June 2,
 1968, the Washington Post published an advance review of a
new book by Seymour M. Hersh entitled            "Chemical       and Biologi-
 cal Warfare."     According to the Post's review,           the book
stated that there were 27 chemical and biological                  warfare
research contracts         with prominent universities         and medical
colleges     in Japan.       Two grants to Japanese schools were
specifically      ci.ted, one with Keio University          on a brain-
disease-causing        parasite   and the other with the Sasaki In-
stitute     on chromosomal changes associated          with altered       bio-
logical     characteristics.       The Japanese press published the
review the following          day along with the denials by the re-
searchers     that i-heir work was related       to chemical and biolog-
ical warfare.




                                      34
       The newspapers reported      that at Keio University     members
of the student government association         on June 18 held the
director     for student affairs    for several hours demanding an
explanation.      The director    denied the allegations    but ap-
parently    did not satisfy    the student demands.      On July 1
the universf.tb     announced that it would decline further       De-
partment of Defense research grants.

        The immediate result        of the political       attacks   and re-
lated student protests          on the Army program in Japan was the
discontinuance         of 24 grants,   which had been approved or
awarded, totaling         $328,197.    In addition      the regulations
 issued by the Japanese Ministry           of Education in 1967 in con-
junction      with the antimilitary       sentiment     in Japan have pre-
cluded any new grants by the Army to the national                   educa-
tional     institutions.      These include some 74 national           schools,
 including      seven former imperial      universities       reputed to be
 the leading centers of academic research in Japan.                   We were
advised by the Defense Department,             however, that other
grants were made in Japan in 1968, 1969, and 1970.

       An unintentional       result   of these regulations   had been
to preclude any further          grants to Japanese national      schools
by the National      Institutes      of Health.    The grant regulations
of the Institutes       are similar     to those of the Army and hence
are not in accord with the Japanese regulations.              There had
been protracted      negotiations      between the National    Institutes
of Health and the Japanese Ministry             of Education,  but the
differences    had not been resolved by February 1970.

      Reduction
             ,------ of Defense-sponsored
      forar_esearch
      --                           ---

     The Department of Defense has planned to reduce its
expenditures for research in foreign  countries in 1970 and
1971 for a number of reasons.

       1. In response to the recommendation of the                House Com-
          mittee     on Government Operations       in 1968,      the De-
          partment of Defense established           criteria      restrict-
          ing the award of contracts          and grants to       foreign
          scientists     and institutions       to assist    in   reducing
          the balance-of-payments         deficit.



                                     35
STATE DEPARTMENTMANAGEMENT
OF THE REVIEW FUNCTION

       Responsibility    for review of foreign  research is di-
vided in the State Department between the Bureau of Intelli-
gence and Research and the Bureau of International        Scien-
tific    and Technological   Affairs.  The diplomatic   posts
serve both Bureaus in the review process and perform a sub-
stantial    segment of the function   independently.

Coordination    between
       ____ -.-w--w-         bureaus    of
the State -- Dxartment

       As we mentioned on page 24 the Agency for International
Development has suhmitted             its entire      central     research pro-
gram including        proposals     for research by both domestic and
foreign    performers       to the staff       of the Research Council in
the Bureau of Intelligence              and Research for review,            but the
Council reviewed only the research proposals concerned with
the social and behavioral             sciences.       Neither     the Council nor
the Agency submitted           the proposals for research in the phys-
ical and natural         sciences by foreign          performers      included in
the program, to the Bureau of International                      Scientific    and
Technological       Affairs.       Conversely,      our survey at the Na-
tional   Institute       of Mental Health showed that the Institute
submitted     all of its proposed research to be performed by
foreign    scientists       and institutions        to the Bureau of Inter-
national    Scientific        and Technological        Affairs,      but the pro-
posals contained         therein    which involved        social and behavioral
research were not referred              to the Research Council by either
the Institute       or the Bureau.          The State Department acknowl-
edged that the coordination               procedures between the two Bu-
reaus needed to be clarified               and strengthened.          They ad-
vised us tha,t discussions           between the Bureaus would be
scheduled to establish            adequate guidelines          to ensure that
this was done.

Conclusion _I_
------       and
               .-- agenq_c_o_;ents

       The review objectives   are essentially  the same for the
posts and the two Bureaus in Washington.       We believe there-
fore that assignment of the review responsibility        to a sin-
gle central    organization  would tend to improve its effec-
tiveness   by ensuring that the reviews were made under a


                                       3x
central   control     on a consistent         basis.     The research propo-
sals of the Departments of Defense and Agriculture                      which
are now submitted       directly      to the posts would be submitted
to the central      organization        for transmission        to the posts
after   administrative      review,        The central      organization
would have responsibility           for overseeing        the posts'     research
review functions       and for ascertaining           that the agencies sub-
mitting   research proposals          clearly    understood       and complied
with the Department's         requirements.          A single central       organi-
zation receiving       all proposals        for research in foreign           areas
and affairs    would be afforded           an overview of foreign         re-
search activity       on a Government-wide           basis which would pro-
vide a perspective        not presently        available     and would con-
tribute   to the overall        effectiveness        of the review function.

         The State Department has expressed the view that,               in-
asmuch as the potential         for political       sensitivity    is less
in the physical       and natural    sciences than in the social and
behavioral      sciences and the criteria         used for reviewing       re-
search proposals       for political     sensitivity       in these two
areas are different,       the present dj.vision         of review respon-
sibility     between the two Bureaus is the most practical               ar-
rangement.

       We believe that review by a single organization     would
be more effective,      although  the planned improvement of co-
ordination    between the two Bureaus (see p. 38) should bene-
fit  the overall    review function.

       We believe,      however,, that to obtain consistent             reviews,
develop an overall          perspective,      and exercise    effective     over-
sight over the review performance               at the posts, the research
proposals      now submitted      to the post directly         from the spon-
soring agencies should be submitted               through the Department
of State in Washington regardless               of whether the review
there is performed by one organization                 or two.     We believe
that,    in addition      to providing       more consistent      reviews and
an overall       perspective     as mentioned above, focusing           the re-
views within        the Department,        would place the reviewers         in a
better     position    to assess sensitivity         relating     to the social
implications        in physical. and natural        research proposals         and
to deal with the increasing              trend toward interdisciplinary
research     in modern science.



                                        39
Recommendation

      We recommend that the Secretary       of State require all
agencies,    including  the Departments of Defense and Agricul-
ture,  to submit their     proposals for research by foreign
performers     to the Department of State for review rather
than directly     to the diplomatic  posts.




                               40
                                   CHaPTEX4

             COORDINATION OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS RESEARCH

                       BY THE DEPARTMENTOF STATE

       Research by contract    and grant in foreign       affairs     was
estimated    to amount to $21 million      in Federal obligations
for fiscal    year 1970.    (See app. V.)      These estimates      were
compiled by the Department of State from information               fur-
nished by various Federal agencies,           Included were widely
varying research activities,         such as grants to individual
social and behavioral     scientists,     contracts   for both short-
range investigations     and continuing      projects   applicable      to
specific   agency missions,    limited    studies of policy,       and
data collection.

       About $11 million    of the total,   comprising       grants under
the programs of the Department of Health,         Education,        and
Welfare;     the National  Science Foundation;     the National        En-
dowment for the Humanities;       the Smithsonian     Institution;       and
the exchange program of the Department of State,              represents
general support of research which may have little               direct
relationship     to the foreign   policy or affairs.

      The remaining $10 million         represents    social and behav-
ioral  sciences research       in foreign    affairs    by the military
and foreign   affairs     agencies in support of their missions
and, in general,      represents    the research directly      related
to foreign   policy.      About $6.2 million       is funded by the De-
fense agencies,      $2.2 million     by the Agency for International
Development,   and the remainder        is made up of small amounts
from a number of agencies.          (See p. 54.)

        Most a encies'    foreign      research activities          are an inte-
gral part 0 f their     total     research       program and supplement
larger    domestic research functions;              and each agency has its
own procedures     for setting       priorities,       allocating      responsi-
bilities,    and ensuring coordination             within    the agency.       Some
agencies have set up agencywide research committees;                       others
have a series of formal reviews within                 the organization;         but
each generally     coordinates       foreign      research with its other
research activities.          The variety        of research programs among
Federal agencies,      however, has resulted              in multiple

                                        41
investigations     on similar  problem areas.      Although multiple
approaches to problem solving are probably desirable,           we
believe that they need to be carefully         coordinated  and that
priorities     need to be established     to obtain the maximum
benefits    from the resources    available.




                                  42
NEED FOR Ii'PRQVED COORDINATION

       As early as April 1964, the Subcommittee on Interna-
tional    Organizations     and Movements of the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs      called attention   to the pressing need to im-
prove the coordination        of Government-sponsored    research in
foreign    affairs    in its Report No. 2: llIdeologieal      Opera-
tions and Foreign Policy"" (I-I. Rept. No. 1352, 88th Cong.).
The subcommittee urged the executive          branch to devise ap-
propriate     means for the assignment of responsibilities,         and
allocation      of resources to the various agencies active       in
this field.

      "'Effective  methods must be evolved to insure that
      the results    of research conducted by Government
      agencies are promptly made available       to all agen-
      cies concerned with foreign     policy operations.
      Other arrangements     must be worked out to divide
      research assignments and make certain        that all
      requirements    are covered to the extent that funds
      are available.     A system of priorities     must be
      established    and enforced to insure that scarce
      resources-- human and financial--are      applied first
      to the most urgent tasks,"

       The foregoing  statement was repeated in the Subcommit-
tee9s Report No. 4: "Behavioral        Sciences and the National
SecurityqD in January 1966 (H. Rept. 1224, 89th Cong.).           The
report acknowledged actions       taken in response to their     con-
cern but stated that the actions        fell  short of the goals
outlined   in their  earlier   report.

       In his statement        before the subcommittee       in August 1965,
the Secretary      of State commented that research had become
indispensable      to the intelligent       formulation     and implementa-
tion of foreign      policy and stated that the Department bore
the main responsibility           for coordinating     research in the
field    of foreign   affairs.

Coordination-^   by the Foreign    Agea Research


      The Foreign Area Research Coordination Group was estab-
lished in 1964 by the Department of State to achieve


                                   43
systematic     coordination    among agencies of Government-
sponsored foreign       area and affairs   research in the social
sciences.      Its purposes are to ensure cooperative        effort     in
research activities,        to prevent duplication   between agen-
cies, to encourage maximum use of research results,,            and to
promote good relations        between Government and private        re-
search organizations,         The  Deputy Director  of  the  Bureau     of
Intelligence      and Research is Chairman, and the Office of
External     Research of the Bureau provides the staff        support
for the Group.       Its members are representatives       of the:

      Agency for International             Development
      Arms Control        #and Disarmament Agency
      Department of Agriculture
      Central     Intelligence       Agency
      Department of Defense:
           Advanced Research Projects              Agency
            Defense Research and Engineering
            International         Security   Affairs
           Defense Intelligence            Agency
           Department of the Air Force
           Department of the Army
           Department of the Navy
      Department of Health,           Education,     and Welfare
      Department of Labor
      Department of State
      Executive      Office of the President
      National     Academy of Sciences (observer)
      National     Aeronautics       and Space Administration
      National     Endowment for the Humanities
      National     Science Foundation
      Smithsonian       Institution
      United States Information             Agency

       Most of the Group's 21 members are represented              on its
eight standing subcommittees        and its ad hoc subcommittee,
where most of the work is done.           The Group has established
standards for Government use of academic research;                com-
piled lists    of research needs of geographic areas; published
annual funding tables for foreign           research;    maintained    an
inventory    of Government-sponsored        research;    and provided a
setting   for occasional   joint     projects,     information    exchange,
and Government-academic      relationships.



                                     44
                                                                               -- . .




          The Foreign Area Research Coordination          Group has no
budget of its own to support research and has no authority
to request agencies to conduct particular              tasks or studies.
 Its guidelines       specifically      forbid  its seeking to veto or
 to direct     the research of any agency.          Because of the
 strictly     voluntary     nature of agency participation      and the
widely varying        interests     and objectives   of its members, the
Group is not in a position            to achieve the coordination        ob-
jectives      prescribed     in the subcommittee's     report;  i.e.,
 (1) l'to divide research assignments and make certain                that
all requirements         are covered to the extent funds are avail-
able" and (2) establish            and enforce a system of priorities
 to ensure that scarce resources are applied first              to the
most urgent tasks.

Coordination    by the Foreign      AffairsAesearch
Council

      The Foreign Affairs     Research Council has the authority
to impose conditions    on research performance          or, if neces-
sary, veto research proposals,        but its activities       are nar-
rowly limited.    As we commented on page 17, the Research
Council is limited    to considering       only whether the proposed
research would have adverse effects           upon United States for-
eign relations.    The reviewing      officers     of the Council do
not consider whether the research          (1) contributes      to the
support of United States foreign         policy,     (2) duplicates    the
research of other agencies,        or (3) should be coordinated
with that of other agencies for their mutual benefit.                 The
Council procedures provide that approval of a proposed proj-
ect by the Department is not an endorsement of the need,
method, or value of the research.           The Research Council re-
view, therefore,    is essentially      negative     in character    and
does not purport    to contribute     to the expansion of knowl-
edge and information     in foreign     relations.

Coordination  bl the Arms Control
and Disarmament Agency

        Executive  Order No. 11044, dated August 20, 1962, pro-
vided for the Arms Control     and Disarmament Agency to coor-
dinate,    with the advice and assistance    of affected  agencies,
research development and other studies to be conducted by or
for the Government for arms control       and disarmament policy
formulation.

                                      45
         Arms Control and Disarmament Agency officials      have ad-
vised us that they have been able to obtain information
from other agencies about arms control         or disarmament re-
search completed or in progress and to obtain some informa-
tion about funds obligated,       but that information    about the
other agencies'      research plans in this field has not been
supplied to them. As a result          the Arms Control and Disarma-
ment Agency has not been able to achieve effective          coordina-
tion between Federal departments and agencies of research
plans related      to its arms control    and disarmament responsi-
bilities.




                                 46
Comments by-the     National     Academy of Sciences

       In a 1968 report   the National   Academy of Sciences" Ad-
visory   Committee on Government Programs in the Behavioral
Sciences recommended that,      in the field  of foreign  affairs,
long-range   behavioral   science research objectives    be drawn
up by an interagency    planning group headed by the Depart-
ment of State.

        In commenting on the Foreign Area Research Coordina-
tion Group and the Foreign Affairs        Research Council of the
Department of State,      the Committee stated that neither
mechanism provided a basis for defining        Government-wide  ob-
jectives    for research in international     affairs and that
there were no organized means of ensuring that areas of re-
 search essential     to policy planning were supported or that
cumulative     bodies of knowledge on international    problems
were developed.       The committee also commented:
     "By and large,         the research programs of depart-
     ments and agencies with foreign                operations       have
     developed according            to the perception       each had
     of its needs in relation              to its own mission.
     The variety       of research programs has encouraged
     a pluralism        in approach to policy          issues that
     is important        to retain.        But it has reflected
     the lack of central            coordination     that has been
     a constant problem of American foreign                   policy
     since the second world war.                 It has produced
     pluralism      without      the counterbalance        of central
     overview and a heavy domination                of funding from
     defense agencies,,            Generally    research     in civilian
     foreign     affairs      has been fragmentary,          erratic,     and
     weakly defended.            Moreover,     a low value has been
     placed on research            as an instrument       of planning
     in the Department of State.                This has served to
     limit    the Department's          role in providing        leader-
     ship for government-=.wide research               in international
     affairs     and in supporting           a place for research         ini
     other foreign         affairs    agencies."
      Also in 1968 the Panel on the Behavioral      Sciences of
the Defense Science Board, National      Academy of Sciences,
issued a report with similar    conclusions   and recommendations.
The report   stated that (1) the Department of Defense had an


                                       47
         increasing   need        for behavioral  science information    on for-
         eign areas,    (2)       Defense and the civilian   foreign  affairs
         agencies shared          many research needs, and (3) there was no
         organization    to       provide coherent planning for meeting these
         shared needs.

               The Panel recommended that the Secretary    of Defense
         propose the establishment   of an interagency  planning group
         for behavioral  science foreign  area research which would:

                 1. Evolve an overall   plan of research    in foreign areas
                    to ensure coverage of fields    of common interest    and
                    to allocate  leadership  responsibility    among depart-
                    ments for action on research topics.

                 2. Review major       agency proposals   for   foreign   area re-
    El              search.

    i            3. Agree on an allocation       of funding and managerial
                       responsibility   for projects    of common interest to
                       and among the several agencies to which the re-
                       search is particularly    relevant.

                In its discussion    of the problem, the Panel commented
         that some agencies,      such as the Department of State, might
         have equal if not greater      need than the Department of De-
         fense for social and behavioral       science research,   but that
         other agencies had not sponsored such research in any signi-
         ficant   amount, and that the Defense Department had probably
         sponsored work that mightbetterhave         been sponsored by the
         other agencies.

         National---   Security    Council   interest
  I.
I.,”I
                 In 1969 the National      Security   Council staff   evidenced
         an interest     in the coordination       of social science research
         related    to national   security    policy.    An interagency    ad hoc
         committee was formed which was chaired by the Director,
         Bureau of Intelligence      and Research of the Department of
         State,    and which proposed means of accomplishing          more ef-
         fective    coordination.    We,were advised that the the ap-
         proach of the Committee was to focus on coordination              of
         social    research by contracts      and grants sponsored by the



                                              48
military  and foreign       affairs agencies through    the prepara-
tion of an overall       plan to establish   research   priorities   and
assign responsibilities.




                                  49
Conclusion     and agency comments

        In our draft report we proposed that the Secretary                      of
State establish        an organization         within     the Department re-
sponsible for coordinating               the Federal agency research re-
lated to foreign         policy.       The organization        wou'!d (1) adopt
annually an overall          plan of foreign         affairs    research devel-
oped with the advice and assistance                  of other agencies par-
ticipating      in foreign       affairs    research,       (2) assign areas of
research responsibility             to the participating         agencies and
review the programs developed by the agencies for conformance
to the assignments,          and (3) establish          a system of priorities
for the most urgently            needed research and require           the par-
ticipating      agencies to perform in accordance with the prior-
ities    established      to most effectively           use available     funds
and manpower.         The present functions           of the Foreign Area Re-
search Coordination          Group would also be transferred              to the
new organization         so that full responsibility             for coordinat-
ing foreign      affairs     research would be under ,2 single organi-
zation.

      The Defense Department did not agree and commented that
the control,   approval,     and assignment of priorities of mil-
itary  foreign  affairs    research should be excluded from State
Department responsibility.

       The State Department agreed that better          coordination of
Federal contract        research related   to foreign   policy was
needed.      They advised us that the adoption of an annual in-
terdepartmental       research plan, assignment of research re-
sponsibilities      to participating     agencies, and establishment
of priorities     for research were central       to the improved co-
ordination     mechanisms proposed by the interagency         ad hoc
committee in i:s report of August 14, 1970, which was being
considered     by the Nati.onal Security     Council Staff.

      The Department commented that the coordination              proposed
by the ad hoc committee was limited        to contract        and grant
research and excluded research by Federal employees because
nearly all such research related        to foreign      policy was sub-
ject to the statutory     coordination    authority      of the Director
of Central Intelligence     through the U.S. Intelligence            Board.
Cur surveys did not extend to the intelligence              agencies,   and
the distinction    between tntelligence      activities       and research


                                      50
was unclear;  however, it appears that research,    by Federal
employees, relating   to foreign   policy but not concerning
intelligence  matters   should also be coordinated.

         The Department also commented that,       in the coordina-
tion mechanism proposed by the ad hoc committee,             the empha-
sis was upon coordination        through an interagency      committee
rather     than through State Department control.        We agree that
coordination      is the prime objective     and that the Department
should not directly      control    research primarily   related    to
the missions of other agencies but also related            to foreign
affairs.       However, we were concerned that the ad hoc com-
mittee proposal did not provide the machinery to effectively
carry out the overall       plan it would develop and adopt.

Recent action

         In February 1971, subsequent to our receipt              of agency
comments, the Under Secretaries             Committee within      the National
Security     Council system was directed           to assume the respon-
sibility     for ensuring      interagency     coordination     of external
foreign     affairs   research.       The Committee responsibility          in-
cludes coordinating         the preparation      of an annual consolidated
foreign     affairs   research plan to be submitted           for approval
by the President       which will      establish     research goals and
priorities       and indicate     areas of agency responsibilities.

      A subcommittee     established      by the Chairman to assist
the Under Secretaries      Committee in the discharge       of this
responsibility     will  be chaired by the Director       of the De-
partment's     Bureau of Intelligence       and Research and will   in-
clude representatives      from Defense, National       Security  Coun-
cil staff,     and the foreign    affairs    agencies0

      We believe that the directive         assigning    responsibility
to the Under Secretaries          Committee for interagency      coordina-
tion of foreign    affairs      research and for an annual consoli-
dated plan for such research to be approved by the President
provides  the framework for more effective           coordination       of
research  in foreign     affairs.




                                     51
                                CHAPTER 5

          SCOPEOF STATE DEPARTMENTEXTERNALRESEARCH

       The Director      of the Bureau of Intelligence       and Research
stated at the time the Foreign Affairs            Research Council was
established       in 1965 that the Council was charged by the Sec-
retary    with determining       State Department needs for external
research and setting        Department policy with regard to such
research.       In discussions     with the Council staff     during our
review,    we were advised that no statement         of policy had been
prepared,     that such policy as existed was represented            in the
various    statements     of Department officials     at hearings and
other public statements          and documents over the past decade,
but that no attempt had been made by the Department to bring
these statements       together.      We believe that a comprehensive
statement     of the Department's      policy on external     research is
needed,

       The Advisory Committee on Government Programs in the
Behavioral   Sciences of the National   Academy of Sciences, in
discussing   the experience  in behavioral   science research
with the civilian    foreign affairs  agencies,   commented, as
follows:

      "Most serious,  perhaps,    is the low value placed on
      research as an instrument     of planning in the De-
      partment of State.    The extensive     system of polit-
      ical reporting  and intelligence     that operates in
      the Department has never been buttressed       by a
      strong research base -X-*7?.

     "The limited     role     of research within       the Depart-
     ment of State is        reflected      in the Department's
     failure    to provide       leadership    for government-wide
     research efforts        in international      affairs   and in
     supporting    a role      for research in other foreign
     affairs    agencies."

       The comments of the National    Academy of Sciences are
borne out by the Department's    records of obligations    for re-
search contracts.    The first  obligations   were in 196'2. The
amounts obligated   or planned and the number of research con-
tracts   involved, by years, were as follows:
                                                     Number of
          Fiscal          Amount obligated            research
           year              or planned              contracts

           1962          $ 87,967                        17
           1963            78,571                        30
           1964            80,728                        32
           1965            66,881                        16
           1966            69,190                        13
           1967           119,262                        10
           1968            47,340                        10
           1969            71,944                         8
           1970            70,000        (planned)        7
           1971           241,000        (planned)       14

      The above data does not reflect          the full     scope of the
Department's    use of research,      however,      The External    Re-
search Branch collects      and distributes       reports    on social
science research related      to foreign      policy produced through-
out the Government under research contracts,               as well as re-
ports produced by private       researchers,        Some of the obliga-
tions shown above represent        the Department's        share for re-
search projects    funded jointly      with the Arms Control        and
Disarmament Agency.      Also certain      projects     funded entirely
by that Agency are administered         by the Department.

       Senate Report 91-290, July 3, 1969, on the Defense Pro-
curement Authorization       Act, 1970, commented that the Defense
Department had been attempting       to phase down its study of
foreign   environments   and that certain    projects   of interest
to other agencies,     particularly    the Department of State,
should be taken over by those agencies.          The report   also
noted that the Department of Defense should transfer            $4 mil-
lion from fiscal     year 1970 funds for these projects       but that
future   funding of the projects     should be contained     in the
budget presentations     of the other agencies.

      The State Department informed us that in June 1970 the
Department of Defense agreed to allocate      to them $483,000
for research projects   on political-military    subjects  to be
undertaken  by the Department of State.

       The imbalance in fundi.ng of research in support of
foreign   policy  is shown by the 1970 survey of the Foreign


                                    53
I    .




    Area Research Coordination   Group.  The funding by the mili-
    tary and foreign affairs   agencies was estimated, as follows:


    Department of Defense                                            $6.2    million
    Agency for International   Development                            2.2    million
    Arms Control  and Disarmament Agency                                .2   million
    Peace Corps                                                         ,l   million
    United States Information   Agency                                  .7   million
    Department of State                                                 .4   million

    Of the $.4 million     for the Department of State, only
    $.07 million    was for external  research contracts.     Most of
    the remainder was for academic grants under the cultural         af-
    fairs  program which had no direct     relationship   to foreign
    policy  support.

            The State Department in-house research staff                 in the
    Bureau of Intelligence             and Research is concerned primarily
    with evaluation           and analysis     of foreign    service reports      and
    intelligence         information     and, according      to the 1971 budget
    justification,          has neither     the staff    nor the expertise      in
    many important          political,     economic, and sociological       func-
    tional      specialties        to undertake a significant       program of
    foreign      affairs     research..     Therefore,    it is apparent that
    the Department's           foreign   policy planning has had to rely,
    to a significant           extent,   on research support furnished          by
    other agencies.            Such support is not likely         to be directly
    in line with the needs of the Department and may not be
    available       to the same extent in subsequent years.

            The Department of Defense has planned to reduce its
    expenditures      for research     in foreign      countries    in 1970 and
    1971 for a number of reasons as discussed on pages 35 and
    36.     Defense Department officials           informed us that they an-
    ticipated     a reduction    in their    total     research program of
    about 400 research projects,          of which 220 were funded by
    about $8.8 million        of 1970 funds.         They advised us that other
    agencies had been informed of the projects                 which would not
    be supported by Defense and that the National                  Science Foun-
    dation was requesting        additional     funds to offset        the de-
    crease in basic research.
         The Department of State budget request for 1971 states
that the Department has substantial          and increasingly     impor-
tant research needs which cannot be met by the current              capa-
bilities     of the research staff     of the Bureau of Intelligence
and Research, but the request makes no mention of additional
research needed to offset        the Defense reduction     of research
in support of foreign      policy.     The Department requested and
obtained an additional       $225,000, of which $171,000 was al-
located to increase external        research projects.       This amount
seems rather modest in view of the reduction           in Defense fund-
ing of research and the Department of State's            apparently   sub-
stantial     reliance  on research by other agencies in past years.

CONCLUSION
-____I      AND AGENCYCOMMENTS
       __-____----___-
       As the agency principally   responsible    for United States
foreign   policy and relations,  it seems logical       that the
State Department should perform a significant          portion   of the
research needed to support intelligent       formulation      and imple-
mentation    of foreign policy.

        We proposed in our draft report    that the Secretary      of
State reconsider    the Department's   requirements     for foreign
affairs    research to support foreign    policy planning and
programming and establish     a program of research of a scope
commensurate with its responsibilities         in the field   of for-
eign affairs.

      The State Department expressed the view that it needed
a larger research program and stated that the $483,000 al-
located from Defense in June 1970 plus the $241,000 appropri-
ated to the Department for fiscal       year 1971 made a total   of
$724,000 for external'research,      compared to the $72,000 obli-
gated in fiscal     year 1970.   The Department views this in-
crease as the first      stage in a gradual,  phased build-up   of
the Department's     research program.    We believe that the ac-
tions taken and proposed should substantially        improve the
Department's    research support of its foreign     policy planning
and programming.

-.RECOIYIMENDATION
          --
     We recommend that,  to provide an effective     guide for the
expanded program, the Secretary     of State develop a comprehen-
sive statement  of the Department's    external research policy.

                                    55
                                     CHAPTER 6

                                 SCOPEOF REVIEW

           The principal      objectives     of our review were to obtain
    information,     identify     problems,    and make observations      relat-
    ing to the management of the foreign relations               consider-
    ations attendant       to the performance of Federally          funded re-
    search in or about foreign countries.               We reviewed the man-
    agement practices        of some of the principal        Federal agencies
    related     to such activities       with particular     emphasis on two
    objectives:

          1. The submission,   review, and slearance by the State
             Department of agency-proposed      research that may
             have a potential    for generation    of effects adverse
             to lJnited States foreign relations.

a
          2. The coordination  among agencies            in planning    re-
             search in foreign affairs.

           The review was limited        to research projects;         i.e.,  in-
    dividually     identified     work units or tasks in science that
    meet the National         Science Foundation's     definitions       of basic
    and applied research (see app. III)            involving     either signif-
    icant wor'k performance in a foreign           country or work in the
    United States concerning foreign governments, people, or
    areas.     Excluded from the review are:           (1) large or continu-
    ing research programs that can be coordinated                individually
    between agencies        and separately    considered by the Congress,
    (2) international        cooperative   science activities        in which
    the Federal Government participates,            and (3) international
    scholarships     and exchanges of persons or information.

           Our review was performed at agency           offices  in Washing-
    ton and at agency offices    and diplomatic          posts in seven
    foreign   countries.  Our reviews at some           of the agencies and
    posts were limited   in scope and did not           include work to meet
    all the review objectives.

           The foreign countries    we visited  were:   C&-many,  India,
    Italy,   Japan, Pakistan,    Sweden, and the IJnited Kingdom.
    The agency offices     in Washington were:


                                         56
Agency for International         Development
Department of Agriculture:
     Agricultural       Research Service,        International    Pro-
       grams
     Economic Research Service
Arms Control      and Disarmament Agency
Department of Defense:
     Department of Air Force, Office               of Aerospace Re-
        search
     Department of Navy, Office           of Naval Research
     Assistant      Secretary   of Defense (International          Se-
       curity     Affairs)
     Advanced Research Projects           Agency
Department of Health,         Education,    and Welfare:
     National     Institute    of Mental Health
Department of State:
     Bureau of Intelligence         and Research
     Bureau of International          Scientific       and Technologi-
        cal Affairs
National    Science Foundation




                                57
APPENDIXES




 59
                                                            APPENDIX    I


                        DEPARTMENT         OF   STATE




                                      October 7, 1970


Mr. oye v. stova1 a
Director,  International Division
United States General Accounting          Office
Washington, D.C. 20548

Dear Mr. Stovall:

The Secretary has asked me to reply to your letter of
August 7, 1970, which requested our comments on your
draft report dealing with the management of the foreign
relations  aspects of Federal foreign research.

We found the report as a whole a very useful piece of
work which will help us improve our performance in this
field,   We are especially gratified that the report
recognizes the need for a larger research program in the
Department of State.

 Our detailed cements (Tab A) explain our basis for not
'accepting some of the recommendations of the draft report.
 Essentially,  we want to emphasize coordination         of research
 rather than Department control,     and are proceeding with
 positive action in this regard.      In brief, we are: clarifying
 research review procedural guidelines for domestic agencies
 and our Foreign Service Posts; encouraging improved analysis
 by these Posts of the impact and scope of government-supported
 research abroad; assuring better coordination          in the Department
 between the bureaus concerned and with the field;          and seeking
 to establish  a new inter-agency mechanism to improve the
 coordination  of research policies     and priorities.       We also
 hope to increase substantially     the funds for Department-
 sponsored research in the immediate future as well as to
 enhance the Department's leadership role in foreign affairs
 research.

      At the same time, we consider that the most economical
and effective  way to manage the review function is through the
present system. The types of research involved,        the criteria
used in review, and the need for evaluation all differ        so
substantially  that we think a centralized    operation would not
be practical.   We already have the means in our Bureau of
Administration   to assure coordination   in the review process.


                                     61
APPENDIX I


     An aspect not emphasized in your report but worthy of special
note is the Government-wide review function performed for several
years by the Department in reviewing research projects involving
use of excess foreign currencies.     This function requires assessment
of the political  sensitivities   and priorities   of proposed research
as well as of the availability    of excess currencies,   and has the
full support and cooperation of the Office of Management and Budget.

      Our comments incorporate the views of the Administrator   of the
Agency for International    Development.  I understand that the views
of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency have already been
communicated to Mr. Staats.     Another copy of their statement is
attached at Tab B.

      Please let me or our GAO liaison officer, Charles Ellison,
know if there are any aspects of the report that you would like    to
discuss further.
                                  Sincerely   yours,




                 Deputy Assista




Attachments:
    As stated.




Comments cleared in draft:
   SC1 - Mr. Pardee
   AID - Mr. Butterfield
   %NR - Mr. Denney




                                      62
                                                                                     APPENDIX I


                             Department     of State Comments on
                Craft bAD Report:          Survey of the llanagement of the
              Foreign    Relations      Aspects of Federal Foreign Research



Review of Domestic        Agency Projects          (pages   18-20)     [See   GAO note.]

        The report recommends that the review procedures be revised
to provide.for      submission of projects      by agencies on a consistent
basis or, alternatively,        that the Department issue guidelines          to agencies
which are not required        to submit all projects     for formal review.
The concern here is that agency determinations             of potential     sensitivity,
and hence, in the case of the domestic agencies,             of the need to
submit projects      for review,, may not be consistent       with Department
Research Council reviews.          We see no need to revise the review
procedures     in this regard,     but \re agree that guidelines       might be
useful.

        The review procedures distinguish,              as the report notes, between
research supported by defense and foreign                  affairs     agencies and
that supported     by domestic agencies.              We think this distinction
is an important      one and should be maintained.                 The reason for the
distinction     is not merely to relieve            the Research Council staff
fro3 the revleb: af 2 !zrge fxmher of Drojects which have, with
few exceptions     little      potential     for political        sensitivity.          A
more important     motfvat'on       is the attempt to strike             a balance
between the potential          risk of research to our foreign                 relations     and
the smooth process of research management in the Federal government,
a process which cannot but be complicated                  by Department review.
 In the case of the defense and foreign                affairs     agencies,        we believe
 past experience      shows conclusively         the need for review.               In the case
 of the domestic agencies,          we believe the additional              paperwork and
 delays introduced        by Department review are simply not warranted                      LO
 the same degree.         Therefore      the procedures treat different                agencies
 differently.

       Given these difftrences,      it might be useful for the Research
Council to issue guidelines      to the domestic agencies which would
help them decide which projects         to submit for formal review.      Such
guidelines   could remind these agencies of their obligations         under
the review procedures      and perhaps clarify     what research constitutes
a potential    risk to foreign    relations.    Such guidelines  will be
prepared and sent to the domestic agencies.




GAO note:         Pages     19    and    20   in    final    report.




                                               63
APPENDIX I

               There already exists,    however, an additional     safeguard.    As.
       the report correctly      points out, domestic agencies are required        to
       supply the Research Council with summary information            on research
       proposals which they do not submit for formal clearance,             and submit
       them for clearance by the Council if requested.            Moreover in the case
       of domestic agency proposals involving       foreign    travel or contact with
       foreign     nationals, the procedures require that:

              . . ..the agencies will insure that the Ambassador is .
             informed through State channels sufficiently       in advance
             of the arrival     of contractor  personnel in a country so
             that he may transmit      timely advice to Wasnington.

             The submission of sumnary information      and notification     of our
        ambassadors
       -__-_ ------.- abroad
                        .    have-worked well.:




                                 [See GAOnote.]




     GAO note:     Comments deleted       refer   to material      which   was
                   omitted  from the      final   report.




                                        64
                                                                                   APPENDIX I




                                      [See GAO note 1.1




fisical-b---P and Natural   Science    Resear&(pages       22-28)   [See    GAO note      2.1

       The report      asserts (7) that the requirements   for submission   of
proposals have       been variously   interpreted  by the Agencies sponsoring
such research;        (2) that not all such research proposals have been
submitted    for    review; and (3) that the diplomatic    posts had not
performed    the    reviews in accordance with the guidelines     from Washington.

       We agree that the requirements          for submission of proposals         have
been variously        interpreted   by the agencies sponsoring         such research.
When Circular      A$rgrsm 9481 dated July 18, 7968,"Clearance               and Coordination..."
was concurred in by the various agencies,               we anticipated     that the agencies
would follow the guide'ines          set u;, by that Airgram for clearing          thejr
foreign    research with the Department of State.                The Bureau of Inter-
national     Scientific      and Technological    Affairs   will insure that the
guidelines      are reviewed and reissued.         Moreover the International
Committee of the Federal Council on Science and Technology will be
requested     to follow through to assure compliance by the agencies.



 GAOnotes:
   1. Comments deleted  refer to material   which was omitted
       from the final report.
    2. Pages 23 through 28 in final report.




                                                  65
        The GAO report       notes     that   some of the overseas        missions      failed
to eskab1fc.h      and cublish       internal     procedures      for coordindting        post
clearances      of research       proposals.       The correction      of this     situation
will    be taken     up with    the individual        posts  and the appropriate
geographic      bureaus    in the Department.

         Since     the GAO review        was -initiated,                the Department    af
Agriculture          has injtiated       the clearance                 of their   Pb-480  foreign
research       proposals       tvith the Department                  of State.     The Department
of AJriculture's           foreign     research       grant            program  is almost     totally
contained        in the excess       currency       area.

        kre acknowledge        that    coordination        Rrocedures      between     the Department's
e,3urcau of Intelliocnce            and Research      and Bureau        of International        Scientific
and Technological         dhffairs      need to be clarified            and strengthened.
Discussions       between      the two bureaus        will      be scheduled       Co establish
auequate     gufdeiines        to insure       that this      is d,,ne.


State ___._,_
          ricprtnertt
                ___-_--      -!?;:'1a~ement
                                -..- -           of     the
                                                 .------.-     Review-.-_-_-_.-
                                                                           FurctFon
                                                                                --       (pages      B-31)       [See     GAO note.

         The report         notes     that    review  responsibility           is divided       in the
Department         between       the Bureau of Intelligence               and Research        and the
nrrreau     of International              Scientific    and Jechnological           Affairs,       as well
as the diplomatic              posts,      and reconncnds       that manaqement           of the review
:,rcccss      be centralized            in a single     organization         in the Department.
A11 research           proposals        would be submitted           to the central        organization,
thereby       eliminating          post reviews.

             We concur      in the need for clarification                        of coordination             procedures
FJeb:;een the t:,co h!r;:aus                  which share         in the review           process     and we agree
Cat          the dip?omatic          posts       must be better          related        '10 the process.
Kc do not agree,               however,          that    the situation           requires        a single       review
ili’iht?t?f5!ll.       I!le potential            for political          sensitivity           is less      in the
pi1ys Bcal and nattiral                science        area than in the social                   and behavioral
S~iwtCCS.            Tile criteria            cr factors        used by the Zepartment                of State
 ic,r rwi~!wing            ~cwarch          proizosals       for political           sensitivity         in these
 kwrb arcas        dI'C. Jiffercnt            and should        remain     so.       The present        division
*,f p>yfe,J        res; ,onsibility            he!lreen     the EIJreau of lnterndtional                     Scientific
snd 7cChnoloc;l,... ;r-al        ;,ffairs        and the Bureau          of Intelligence             and Research
$5 <!-be t:rc~I: f,ra,:tica!              although       the arrangement             can oe made even more
effoi:~ivc         by clarifying              present      coordination          ilrocedures       between        the




                                                              66
                                                                                  APPENDIX I

two bureaus and with the'diplonatic    posts,   How the management of the
Bepartment's  review function   can be improved wi 11 be considered by
the two bureaus concerned.

        In addition,   the     Bureau of In%ernational.Scientific            and Technological
Affairs    is considering       proposing to the technical         agencies that an
annual review of all         foreign    physical   and natural     science research
be made. This would          include those proposals       supported      by both dollar
and excess currencies.           This proposal will not only allow the Department
to make some general         assessments of possible       political      sensitivity,
but will also provide          an opportunity    to encourag-      research which
might also contribute          to our broader international          objectives.

Exp-ansion   of State    Department      Review {pages 31-34)         [See   GAO note      1.3

        We agree that domestic grantees in the physical            sciences also
should be aware of possible        political   sensitivity      when research is
performed abroad.,        We do not agree, nowever, that such research should
be subject     to Department of State approval.           The few cases where
political     sensitivity    would be invoi;led would not warrant the additional
workload nor the adverse domestic real.tion           to the direct     involvement
of the Department of State,

      The Bureau of International          Scientific       and Technological     Affairs
plans to request 211 a;".-afon-ioc* -4 to !ncorporate,        Sn their grant and contract
procedures,   appropriate     instructions      outlining      the possible     sensitivity
to resetixh   or related     activities     conducted abroad.         b'? believe that
the granting    agency should be responsible            for monitoring      such matters.
We do agree that it might be useful if the Department of State were
to issue appropriate      guidelines     to the technical         agencies on projects
or areas which might have political            sensitivity.        The Department would
also be willing    to review proposed grants whenever considered                  necessary
by the granting    agency.

                                                          [See   GAO note       2.1
Review of In-House
--             ----~ ResearGages               35-37)

      We do not disagree with the report's         observation      that research
in foreign   countries   by Federal employees (so-called          in-house research)
can be at least as sensitive      as research conducted by government
contractors.    k'e cannot concur, however, in the recommendation                that
the Research Council review proposed research abroad by Federal
employees or clear for publication       unclassified      reports     resulting
from such research.

      First,    there is very little research undertaken    by Federal employees
abroad.      What research there is comes under the control    of the 4merican
Ambassador in the country where the research is being performed.

GAOnotes:
    1.   Pages   29 to       31 in    final    report.
    2. Pages 21 to 22 in final                 report.




                                                 67
t'A=PENDIX        i



        Under t!le terms of Exccutiwe Order Flo. 10893, Chiefs of Mission have
        "'affirmative  responsibility   for the coordination     and supervision
        over the carrying    out by agencies of their functions       in the respective
        countries."    This authority   kas reaffirmed     in the President's    letter            '
        to ambassadors of December 9, 19%.          Embassy review provides more
        knowledgeable   and expeditious    control   of local research by Federal
        employees than could Research Council review.




                                         [See   GAO note     1.1




                In the physical   or life science area, there are a number of federally-
        supported     research installations   abroad.   The establishment   of such
        installations      have been cleared with the Department and with the
        appropriate      overseas mission.   Their programs and activities     are
        reviewed periodically      and whenever any sensitivity     to such activities
        develop.

               We believe that such Federal laboratories      are sufficiently
        sensitive    to foreign   poiiticai reaction to their activities       that ti;ey
        do take great pains to insure that the Department of State is kept
        informed.     The absence of any adverse foreign     reactions    to the
        operation    of such installations   would make it appear that present
        procedures     are adequate.


        Impact         of Defense-Sponsored
                           -I_        .---      Research   (pages 43-44)   [See   GAO note   2.1

              The report recommends that diplomatic             posts be required    to study
        the impact of military         sponsorship     of research abroad, in order that
        they can make judgments on the desirable              scope of such research.
        We can see value in occasional           studies of the impact of US Government-
        supported     research in foreign      countries9     but we would not limit    such
        consideration      to military    sponsorship.       Research supported by civilian
        agencies also can have a substantial             impact on United States relations
        with foreign      countries.

               A few diplomatic     posts in addition      to Stockholm have in fact
        made overall    assessments      of this impact -- in general centering        on,
        but not necessarily      limited     to, Defense-sponsored     research.   For
        example iie\~ Delhi in Karch 1969 and Bangkok in June 1970 made such
        assessments.      In addition,     insofar   es social science contract     research
        is concerned,    embassies dre usually zsked for comnents on the potentiai
        sensitivity   of proposed activity         in their countries,     and such comments
        GAO notes:
          1. Comments          deleted    refer to material           which   was omitted
                      from the final   report.
             2.       Pages 32 and 39 in final    report.
                                                                                APPENDIX I


aree sorPe%imes explicitly,  based in part on an assessment of the overall
impact of existing   U.S. Government researct- activities in the country.

        New Defense Department guidelines              for overseas research and
the MansfieTd Amendment limiting               DOD research to projects        having a
direcl     relationship       to a military     mission should help reduce the
impact of Defense-related             research abroad.        The overseas posts are
sufficiently        alert to possible        problems in this area so that it is
believed      present local review and controls             are adequate to avoid
embarrassing        situations.       The reduction      in Defense Department
expenditures        for research in foreign         countries    has in fact served to
reduce sensitivity.             Further studies of military        sponsorship     of
research abroad would not appear warranted                  at this time.


Need for     Improved   Coordination     (pages 45-56)      [See   GAO note.]

        We agree that better     coordination     of Federal contract       research
related    to foreign     policy is needed and we are pleased that the GAO
report recognizes        what the Oepartment has done already toward this end.
The pioneering      work of the Foreign Area Research Coordination              Group
under Department leadership         has made possible consideration           of the
more effective       procedures  proposed in the report.           These procedures    --
adoption     of an annual interdepartmental         research plan, assignment
of research responsibilities         to participating        aqencies,   and establishment
of priorities      for research -- are in fact central            to the improved
coordination     mechanism proposed by the interagency,             ?d hoc committee,
chaired by the Department's         Director    of Intelli.gence      and Research,
in its report      of August 14, 1970.. The report is now being considered
 bn %he NSC staff.

        Vhe improved coordination          envisaged by the ad hoc committee is
limited    to contract     and grant research,       however, and does not extend
%o wha% the report calls "all research of Federal agencies directly
related    to foreign     policy."      The reason for this is simply that the
excluded research is in-house research,              and nearly all in-house
research related       to foreign      policy is subject to the statutory
coordination     authority      of the Director     of Central In%lligence,    which
is exercised     through the U.S. Intelligence           Board on which the Cepartment
of State is represented           by the Director     of Intelligence  and Research.

       Phere is another feature         of the improved coordination    mechanism
proposed by the ad hoc committee which differs            substantially   from
%he model suggested by the report.             That is the emphasis upon
coordination       through an interagency      committee, rather than control
by the State Cepartment.            We consider that Department contrme
foreign    affairs-related       study programs of other agencies would no% be
wise or practical,         for the following    reasons:

 GAO note:        Pages    41 to       51 in   final   report.




                                               69
APPENDIX     I



              (I)  As the GAO report observes,        "Most agencies'         foreign
     research activities       are an integral      part of their       tota'l research
     program, supplementing        larger domestic research functions,                and
     each agency has its own procedures for setting                priorities..."         etc.
     The primary goal of an agency's research program must be the support
     of that agency‘s mission.           The Department,      through its chairmanship
     of an interagency      coordination     group, can lead in the cooperative
     development     of Government-wide      foreign    affairs    research goals and
     priorities     and in the cooperative       assignment of responsibijities
     to agencies buti it cannot, as recommended by the report,                     "require
     participating      agencies to perform..."

             (2) Wefe the Department to control          the research of other
     agencies,     then should not the Department also defend before
     Congress that portiun        of other agencies'     research budgets devoted to
     foreign    affairs   studies and, in fact,      administer    such research itself?
     We doubt that the several Congressional            Committees involved would welcome
     such action.       We believe they would feel,        as the Department does,
     that coordination       is more appropriate     than control    because other agencies
     have legi timate reasons to study topics related            to foreign    policy as
     part of their      overall   research programs and they are in the best
     position    to determine     their own research needs.

              We agree Qf course that, if agencies must continue             to run their
     own research pr:;r.;nz,          it :s
                                          ' desirable    to harmonize ir,;of;r     as
     possible     their    necessarily     divergent  research goals in the interest
     of asstiring      thaL the most urgent needs are met.            The rree exchange
     facilitated       by an interagency committee should make such harmonization
     possible,      and,at the same time,continue          the diversity   of approaches
     and methods which enrich policy making.


     Expansion    of State    Department     Research Program (pages 56-63)           rSee   GA0 note*1

             We agree that the Department needs a larger research program,
      "of a scope comnensurate with its responsibilities         in the field      of
     foreign    affairs,"    and we welcome the CiAOreconnendation     in favor
     of such a program.        The Department has requested add,tional       funds
     from Congress for contract       research and has reached agreement with
     the Department       of Defense (since the report was written)      for an
     allocation      of DOD research funds to State.

             In June 1970 the Department of Defense agreed to allocate             to
     the State Department $483,003 for research projects             on political-
     military    subjects    to be undertaken   by State.      Should the full Department
     budget request for $171,000 (in addition          to the base of S70,DOO) in
     additional     contract   funds be approved,    State will have $724,023
     for contract     research this year.     Last year we spent $72,000.          It
     is true that three quarters        of a million   dollars    is modest in terms

     GAO note:         Pages 52 to 55 in final               report.




                                                  70
                                                                             APPENDIX     I


of what the Defense    Department has spent on foreign            affairs-type
research in pAst years;        Nevertheless      this increase is seen as the
first   stage in a gradual,    phased build-up       of the Department's       research
program in which maximum relevance         to foreign     policy making and good
management will be stressed.        Qualified     personnel     as well as additional
funds will be required      in the future     if the program is to have both
the quality   the Department desires and the scope the GAO recommends.

       The Department's     interest    in and conanitment to research cannot
be assessed solely in light          of its contract     research budget.     Outside
studies   can complnment,      challenge    and enrich -- but cannot take the
place of the professional-in-house           analysis    done within    the Department,
notably   in the Bureau of Intelligence          and Research.      The fast breaking,
highly sensitive     nature of foreign       affairs   today often requires      that
the research expert be on tap, fully            primed and already plugged in
to the policy process.         Thus the Department has long maintained           a
wigorous in-house      research bureau, whose FY-1971 requested            budget,
which includes    support of external        research,     is $6,105,500.




                                             71
                                 COPY
                                                         QCT 1 1970

NEMORANDUM

TO:         State/INR   - Mr, Cline

FRQM:       ACDA/DD - Philip    J.    Farley

SUB.JECT: ACDA Comments on GAO Draft           Survey   on Management
          of Foreign Research

       ACDA has reviewed the draft     report,   "Survey of the
Management of the Foreign Relations        Aspects of Federal
Foreign Research,"    circulated    by the General Accounting
Office   on August 7, 1970.      Our comments thereon are sub-
mitted to you for coordination       and transmission    to the
GAO in accordance with the latterIs        request.

      We believe it would be desirable,         as the report re-
commends, to expand State Department review and -.-----    clearance
of Gov.ernment-sponsored     foreign  affairs     research to em-
brace not only social science research projects            but also
physical   and natural   science research projects.         We would
have no objection     to lodging within     a single organization
the review functions     now being performed by the Research
Council,   the Bureau of International        Scientific   and
Technological   Affairs,    and overseas posts.

      ACr>A also favors the recommendation that the President
assign to the Secretary         of State authority    and responsibi-
lity  for coordination
           -.-- .- _._--_____ of foreign affairs   research.

      We feel we cannot endorse, however, the GAO suggestions
for giving the proposed organization        within  the State
Department ---control
                ._--    over this research beyond the control
implied in the revi~ew and clearance process discussed above.
As we understand these proposals,        the Department would have
the authority     and responsibility   to:   (1) adopt an overall




                                     12
                                                                     APPENDIX I


                                        -2-


plan of foreign   affairs   research;            (2) assign areas of research
responsibility  to the participating                agencies;    and (3) estab-
lish a system of priorities      with           which participating     agencies
would have to comply.

         Lodging s,uch control     with the Department of State
could conflict       with the statutory      functions    and responsi-
bilities      of individual     agencies.   ACDA is charged by law
and executive       order with primary responsibility          within
the US Government for arms control             and disarmament,      includ-
ing research thereon,          and the control     proposals would ap-
pear to run contrary         to this legislative       and executive     intent.
One of the principal         purposes of the Arms Control and Disar-
mament Act (22 USC 2551 et seq.) establishing               the Agency was
to centralize       in one place the authority         and expertise     with-
in the Government for arms control             and disarmament matters.
This responsibility         was further   defined in E.O. 11044,

       Apart from the foregoing  reservations    concerning
control,    ACDA finds the GAO suggestions    generally   accept-
able.

                                 /s/     Philip     3. Farley

                                       Philip     J. Farley

cc:   GAO

clearances:      EX
                 GC
                 IR
                 ST
                 WRC




ACDA/E:RWNary;AKhristopher;RHBWade:yrj                   - g/28/70


                                          73
APPENDIX       II

                           DIRECTOR   OF DEFENSE            RESEARCH          AND ENGlNEERlNG
                                              WASHINGTON.         B    C   20301




                                                                                           12 OCT 1970



 Mr.     Oye V. Stovall
 Director
 U. S. General     Accounting             Office
 Washington,    D. C. 20548



 Dear   Mr.     Stovall:

 In response     to your   request   of August      7, 1970 to the Secretary     of Defense
 I am forwarding       Department     of Defense       comments    on the report    “Survey
 of the Management        of the Foreign     Relations     Aspects   of Federal    Research.                          ‘I

 DOD has      reviewed    the     draft     report          and       supports     some    but   not   all   of the
 positions     taken   by the     GAO.

It should    be made      clear     that there      are two general          categories       of DOD
 sponsored     foreign     research:         First,     that foreign      area    research       carried
out by U. S. investigators              and primarily         in the U. S., with occasional
travel    to or temporary         location       in foreign     areas;     and second,        that research
in the physical        and natural       sciences      conducted       overseas       by foreign       per-
formers.       Because      the draft       report     does not distinguish           between     these     two
categories)      it is confusing         and overemphasizes             the responsibilities            of the
Department       of State in foreign           research.

DOD supports          the concept        that foreign     research     should     be reviewed       for
political     impact,      particularly          by the U. S. Embassy         in-country,        and that
coordination        of foreign       area     research    in the social     and behavioral         sciences
is necessary         to determine          political   impact    and for ensuring         knowledge      of
other     agencies’      programs.

DOD does not agree         with concepts              in the draft       report     regarding     other   than
political  review     by the Department                 of State,      or est.ablishing       a body within
the Department       of State that could               impose     it, Q needs     and priorities       on other
Government       agencies.




                                                        74
                                                                                   APPENDIX       II

The above     views   are covered       in greater        detail   in the   enclosure     to this
letter.   It is hoped    that you will give full           consideration       to these    comments
in the preparation      of your   final    report.

                                             Sincerely,




Enclosure

cc:
Mr.   Knutson     - Rm 3E 1030
OSD Audit      Reports    (Mr.    Poole) -
  Room     3B 860 (2 cys)
OASD(I&L)RA         - Rm 3D 814 (2 cys)
OASA(FM)OM&DS            - Rm 2E 665
NavComp       NCD-3    - Rm 5B 728
AF Comp       AFAAC     - Rm 5D 256
OASD (ISA)       (Mr.   Aughavin)      -
  Room    4B 687
DIA - Rm 3E 258




                                             75
APPENDIX II

                                                           GAO          DRAFT           REPORT

                     SURVEY               OF TIIE            MANAGEMENT                       OF THE              FOREIGN
                RELATIONS                 ASPECTS             OF FEDERAL                      FOREIGN              RESEARCH




     I.         GAO      FINDINGS               AND        CONCLUSIONS

                A.      1.       FINDING             AND         CONCLUSION                   1 (Digest)

                      “As the agency             principally            responsible          for United      States
     foreign        relations,        the State Department                     has a responsibility             to assure
     itself     that Federally-sponsored                       foreign         research        does not adversely
     affect      United       States     foreign        relations.            To accomplish           this objective
     the Department               reviews        certain        agency        proposals         for social      science
     research          by Federal          contractors             and grantees            and proposals         for re-
      search      to be performed                by foreign           scientists        and institutions         to
     determine           if their      performance             could have an impact                 in foreign        coun-
     tries     detrimental           to United         States’        interests,         and to suggest        how such
     impact        can b& avoided.               The reviews,               however,          do not cover        foreign
     research          by Federal          employees            or research            in the physical         and natural
      sciences         by domestic           contractors             and grantees           which    also have a
     potential        for political          sensitivity.          ”

                       2.        --DOD     COMMENT-.

                       DOD       agrees           that     the    need        for    review       for     political           impacts           of

     foreign          research            is necessary,                  as is coordination                    of foreign           related

     research,               if for      no other          reason         than      to enable           each      agency           to make

     rational         choices            in the      use     of its       resources.             All      proposed             social         and

     behavioral              science        projects             with     foreign        implications               are      submitted               for

     approval           and      coordination              with         Department            of State          prior       to final          pro-

     curement            action.           Contrary              to the       Report,         research            contracts             and     grants

     with       domestic           contractors              and grantees                and    “inhouse”                projects        by     Federal




                                                                         76
                                                                                                                             APPENDIX II


employees              that      contain       significant          foreign           effort       are    carefully         reviewetl

when       the    overseas             participation          is not             already        authorized            by existing

government-to-government                               agreements.

       B.         1.          FINDING          AND     CONCLUSION                        2 (Digest)

              “With      respect       to the Department’s                review       of proposals        for
social    science       research         contracts       and grants          GAO found          that the State
Department          procedures          required      certain        agencies        to submit       for review
only those proposals               for research          which       might     be politically         sensitive,
but the procedures              provided       the agencies           no guidelines          on which       to make
such determinations.                  GAO believes            that as a result           the State Department
did not review          certain       research       activity       which      was potentially          politically
sensitive      and may have risked                 adverse        foreign      reaction.       ”

                  2.          DOD      COMMENT

                  DOD         policy        is to submit          all     proposed             social     and     behavioral

sciences           research            projects        with       foreign           implications              to the    Department

of State         for    approval            and   coordination.                    The       DOD is in agreement                    with

the    need       to have           State     Department                review        these        projects       and     will

continue          to coordinate                such    efforts.

        c.        1.          FINDING          AND     CONCLUSION                          3 (Digest)

              With respect     to State Department          Review     of proposals     for
research       to be performed       by foreign   scientists       and institutions     GAO
found     (1) that the requirements         for submission         of proposals     have been
variously       interpreted    by the agencies     sponsoring         such research,        (a) that
not all such research          proposals     have been submitted           for review,      and (3)




                                                                        77
      APPENDIX II



           that the diplomatic                               posts we               surveyed           had not performed                             the         reviews             in
           accordance     with                        the      guldelines               from          Washington.

                                2.           DOD            COMMENT

                                DOD is most                        aware            of the      need         to coordinate                  such           contracts

           and      grants            with        the        U. S. Embassy                      in the          country         of origin-of                     proposals.

           All      research                projects               with        foreign           scientists             and     institutions                     have        con-

           sistently            been          submitted                   to the          diplomatic             posts        in the         respective

           countries                 for     clearance                 prior          to final         procurement                   action;              except          for


1          those         cooperative                    R&D           projects              covered            by formal             government-to-

           government                      agreements.                       DOD          supports            foreign         investigations                       only         if
ii

Q         the       local       embassy                 does          not         raise      an objection.                    For      example,                    the      head


..H        of the        Army              Research                offices            in Japan            and     Brazil            serve          on the           Embassy

I.        Science             Committee                      and      meet           on the         order        of once            a month               with      their

           counterparts.                         The         Report            states        that      their       survey            “did          not      identify            any
I
          contract             or grant                to a foreign                   performer                which       adversely                 affected               U. S.

          foreign             relaeions               because               the      research               proposal          was      not          cleared              by the

          diplomatic                  post,       ”         This      statement                is made            in conjunction                     with          the      state-

          ment         that      diplomatic                    posts           reviewed              could       only      show         receipt              of 78% of

          proposals                  accepted               by Federal                    agency       oversea             offices           for         further          review.

          The       possibility                  exists,            of course,                that      no record              was          kept         after

          diplomatic                  approval.                    In any           case,       the     GAO        statement                 is indicative                    of

          the      low      political             profile             of contracts                  and       grants        in physical                   and natural

          sciences             and         the     fact        that         review          procedures                  do exist.             To delay




                                                                                             78
                                                                                                                             APPENDIX II


transmittal               of proposals           to diplomatic             posts         until      after     administrative

approval           would        impose          a time      delay,        would         provide          a less     accurate

picture         of science           activity         in-country,           and       would        be impractical               in some

countries.

          D.       1.       FINDING             AND       CONCLUSION                  4 (Digest)

             “GAO       concluded       that responsibility          for the review           function
which     is presently        divided     between     the diplomatic          posts     and two bureaus
in Washington          should      be assigned      to a single       central      organization           to
improve      its effectiveness           by assuring        that the reviews          would      be made
under     a central      control      on a consistent         basis.      The central         organization
would     have responsibility            for review      of the post’s        clearance         activity       and
for ascertaining          that the agencies          submitting        research       proposals          clearly
understood       and complied           with the Department’s              requirements.            ”

                   2.       DOD        COMMENT

                   As     elaborated            in the     Report,         a single            central       organization               to

provide          policy       guidance           and to control            the        review        of foreign        research

efforts         appears         appropriate.               However,              we     see      no useful         purpose         in

delaying           forwarding            proposals           to embassies,                 plus      the    fact    that     the    review

load       is   spread        over       a number           of embassies,                 nor      do we      see    the     need        for

two       transmittals            of the        same       documents,             i. e.,         to Department               of State,

then       to embassies.                 This      data     could     better           be provided            in summary

form        from         embassies          to Department                 of State.

          E.       1.       FINDING             AND       CONCLUSION                  5 (Digest)

            “GAO     found    that State Department               reviews       proposals    for foreign
research      in the social      sciences        by United      States    contractors      and grantees,
but is not informed         of similar         proposals      in the physical         and natural
sciences     even though       the research          involves      travel   in foreign     countries
and dealing      with foreign       nationals.          GAO concluded          that research       in




                                                                     79
APPENDIX II


    foreign     countries       in the physical       and natural        sciences      can also be
    politically      sensitive,      particularly        if sponsored        by a military       agency
    and that the State Department                 should      review    and approve        proposals      for
    foreign     research        by domestic       contractors        and grantees        in all sciences.                                            ‘I

                        2.         DOD        COMMENTS

                        Contrary              to the     GAO       finding,        the       Army,         Navy          and Air      Force

    require          that         foreign       travel      by contractors                    and    grantees            be reviewed           and

    that      theater             clearance        be obtained,               which          requires       embassy             notification

    of purpose                of visit.         Also      see      comments              under          FINDING           AND       CON-

    CLUSION                  1.

              F.        1.         FINDING          AND         CONCLUSION
                                                                 -                            6 (Digest)

                  “In addition       GAO concluded          that the State Department           should
    review     proposed       “in-house”         research      of Federal      agencies   in foreign
    countries       because      GAO believes          that research      activities    by Federal
    employees         in a foreign       country     can be equally       as sensitive     as the same
    activities      by employees          of contractors        and grantees.

                        2.         DOD        COMMENTS’

                        DOD        has      attempted          to exercise            every          precaution            in sensitivity

    review         of “in-house”                 research           projects.                Overseas           travel      clearances

    are      requested              in accordance               with     Service             Regulations           for     overseas

    travel         by Federal               employees           engaged         in “in-house”                   research           overseas.




                                                            [See       GAO note.         ]




    GAO note:                Deleted          comments rerate      to matters                       which we presented
                             in the         draft   report   but which have                         been revised   or
                             omitted          from the final     report.




                                                                          80
                                                                                                                                        APPENDIX II



          G.’      1.        FINDING                AND      CONCLUSION                    7 (Digest)

                   “GAO     found     that Department           of Defense       sponsorship       of foreign
research            had caused        politically       embarrassing        incidents      in several
foreign          countries       and concluded          that the State Department             should    attempt
to avoid          similar      incidents         in the future     by studying      the foreign      impact     of
military           sponsorship         of research        and taking     steps to reduce         the risk     of
adverse           effect   where       appropriate.        I’

                   2.        DOD          COMMENT

                   This          was      covered          in the      Report          under        the       subheading                “Defense

Department                 Sponsorship                of Foreign              Research”.                  The     information                  cited

by the          Report           from      the      1962      President’s              Science            Advisory            Committee

expresses                normal           concern          over       any     program            between             nations.             The

remainder                of the         section       includes          assumptions                 rather           than       data,         ignores

the    national            security           aspects          of such          research,               and     overlooks               the    good

will      generated               in responsible                  elements            of society.

                   During           the     first     half        of 1968       the     governments                  of Norway                and

Sweden           both       undertook               a review          of our         support        of research                 in-country

in response                to charges               set     forth     by leftist          opposition              groups          apparently

looking          for      an issue          to embarrass                    those      governments.                    Both        governments

concluded                since      the     work          supported           covered           basic         research,            the        results

were        openly          available,              and the         support           carried       no special               conditions,

that      our      program              would        be allowed              to continue.               These          studies           by two

separate               governments,                  one a U. S.             ally,      one a true              neutral,          show          the

true       position          of our         research              program.              Because            certain          opposition




                                                                        81
     APPENDIX II



           groups           label         this     program                  something               else,        for      their        own        advantage,

          does        not     make           it so.

                              The         Report              mentioned               that      politically              embarrassing                     situations

          arose            in three          countries                over           a ten     year         period            from      DOD        support            of

          research.                  As      stated            above,          such          incidents           occur,              at the       discretion               of

          the     instigator,                 primarily                for      in-country               impact.               The      GAO        took        the        most

          drastic            example,               Japan,            as its           example           in the          report,           and      constructs

          its     argument                around              two     incompletely                    reported            incidents.

                              The         first         incident            is Army             support           of an International                        semi-

          conductor             physics                 conference               held         in Kyoto,              Japan           in September,                   1966.

          The       support            provided                was        done        at the        request             of Dr.         Kaya,         former

          President             of the            Japanese                Science            Council          and the             University              of Tokyo

          and       was      primarily                  for     the       support            and travel                of American                 keynote

          speakers.                  This         action            was      fully      coordinated                    with       U. S.       Embassy,               Japan,

          followed            precedent                  of previous                  U. S. support                  of conferences,                    and was                 in

          consonance                 with         the     Kennedy-Ikeda                        and Johnson-Sata                        agreements                    on

          science.

                              The         Army            support            was       warmly            applauded                by participants                    at the

a         conference                 during             a dinner             as was          the      support            provided               by Japanese

          industry.                 In further                describing               the     course            of events,               the     Report         states

ii        that      this      support             became              the      subject             of an “expose                  by one of Japan’s

          leading           newspapers                    in May             1967.           The      “expose”                was      made        at the




                                                                                        82
                                                                                                                                                   APPENDIXII

beginning               of a highly               charged           period              of Japanese-American                                 relations

in an effort                to embarrass                 the        Japanese                Government                     and       was      part          of a

period          of often          violent           student,              nationalistic;                    and        leftist       anti-American

agitation.                 It does          not     appear          that         any      form           of prior           review           can       prevent

misrepresentation                           after      the        fact.          The        Japanese               Ministry                of Education

undertook                 a review           of grants              from          all      sources             and       established                 new      rules

only      for       national           universities,                  as the             national           universities                    are      part      of

the      Japanese              government.                    In the          absence                  of individual               government-to-

government                  agreements,                  grants            to the           national            universities                  by any          agency

of another                government                 would          have         to be,          in effect,               outright           gifts.

                     The       ‘political           climate           in Japan              at the          time         of Mr.            Hersh’s            book

“Chemical                  and     Biological               Warfare”                in 1969              had      grown           even       more           violent

and      extreme.                 This        book,          though          presenting                   information                 that        is not       true,

was       eagerly             seized          upon     by those               elements                  in Japan            interested                in embar-

rassing             the     government.                     For       example,                the         Report           makes            no mention

that      the       medical            students          at Keio             University                   struck           in our           support,

though          negative            demonstrations                         are          reported            in some              detail.




                                                               [See        GAO note.               ]




GAO note            :      Deleted            comments relate      to matters                                  which       we presented
                           in the           draft   report   6ut which have                                    been       revised   or
                           omitted            from the final     report.




                                                                                   83
APPENDIXII




                                            [See   GAO note.]




       II.   GAO    RECOMMENDATION                 AND    SUGGESTIONS

             A.    1.      RECOMMENDATION                OR SUGGESTION          1 (Digest)


       GAO note:        Deleted     comments relate      to matters   which    we presented
                        in the    draft  report    but which have     been    revised   or
                        omitted     from the final     report.




                                                   84
                                                                                                          APPENDIX II


             IsConsider     revising    the procedures                 for submission        of foreign.
affairs    research      to afford    a means    whereby               determinations        for submission
of research       proposals      by the agencies      can            be made       on a consistent       basis.       ”

                  2.      DOD     POSITION

                  Concur.
                             ,
         B.       1.      RECOMMENDATION
                         ---                              OR    SUGGESTION                2 (Digest)

               “Assign     a single      central     organization        responsibility        for (a)
review       of Government-sponsored                 research       in foreign       areas   and affairs,
(b) review        the diplomatic        posts    performance          of the research         project
clearance        function     with a view toward            improving       that operation,         and (c)
taking      steps to clearly        establish     the Department’s              requirements        for agency
submission          of proposals       for contracts         and grants       for research        by foreign
 scientists      and institutions.        I’ [See GAO note 1.1

                  2.       DOD
                         ------   POSITION

                  Concur.         See comments          under     FINDING           AND       CONCLUSION          4

above.

         c.       1.      RECOMMENDATION
                          _.____._ I___-_-.^-              OR SUGGESTION
                                                         .-_----_.--.--_LI_--             3 (Digest)




                                                [See   GAO note    2.1




 GAO notes:
   1. Parts              (b) and (c)   which were presented              in   the     draft      report    have
      been             deleted  from   the final  report.

    2.        Deleted    comments      relate  to reromnendation which we presented        in
              the draft     report    but which has been revised    in our final    report,
              and therefore        are not applicable.
APPENDIX II


              D.         1.          RECOMMENDATION                           OR SUGGESTION                          4 (Digest)

                 “Amend      the procedures         for review       of foreign                                         affairs   research
    to require      that when proposed          research     in the social                                           and behavioral
    sciences      by Federal       employees      involves     performance                                             in a foreign      country,
    the proposal        must be submitted         to the Foreign        Affairs                                         Research      Council
    for review       and approval.       ”   [See GAO note.]

                      2.              DOD
                                     -----     POSITION

                         Concur.               DOD      policy       currently           requires            submission             of all

    social         and        behavioral             science         research            with     foreign           involvement             for

    Department                 of     State       information           coordination.

             E.          1.          RECOMMENDATION
                                     --._______                               OR     SUGGESTION
                                                                                       -.-__-______                  5 (Digest)

                “Require        the diplomatic      posts     to prepare       studies     of the impact
    of military     sponsorship         of research      in each country          where     there       is a
    significant    amount        of such research        activity,       and weight     the value         of
    such research          against    the risk of adverse           effects  it may have to reach
    a judgment      regarding       the desirable      scope       of such research          activity.”      [See
    GAO note.]
                2.     DOD POSITION
                       ----

                      Concur                 in part.       Implementation                  of any          such      judgments,             if

    required,                 should          be in collaboration                 with      the     defense          agencies           concerned.

    It is     clear           that      support         of any       research            by any       U.S.         agency         can     draw

    adverse           criticism                in the     local      press,        if that        be the       interest           of the

    publisher.                  In addition,             there     is the        distinct         danger           that   these         reviews

    concern;ng                 the     possible          adverse        effects          of military-supported                          research



    GAO note:                 Recommendation               deleted        from       fPna1        report.
                                                                                                                              APPENDIX II


in a country               may     eliminate          all    overseas            research             in the     particular

country.            The       result      would       be isolation             of U. S.         scientific         interests

from         the   scientific          community             in that         country.

        E.         1.       RECOMMENDATION                            OR      SUGGESTION                   6 (Digest)

              “With      regard     to the coordination        of Federal     research       in foreign
affairs    . , . the Secretary           of State . . . establish     an organization          to
coordinate       and control         all research      of Federal    agencies      directly       related
for foreign       policy      . . . The organization        should    be required        to:

                              (1) Adopt      an annual    overall                 plan of foreign                 affairs       research
 developed              with the advice         and assistance                    of other agencies                   participating
in foreign              affairs    research.

                  (2) Assign      areas   of research                                   responsibilities                 to partici-
pating   agencies    and review       the programs                                the      agencies            develop      for
conformance       to their   assignments.

                    -(3) Establish     a system      of priorities      for the most        urgently
needed     research       and require    the participating         agencies      to perform        in
accordance        with the priorities      established        in order     to effectively      use
available     funds     and manpower.”         [See GAO note.]

                   2.       DOD        POSITION

                   Nonconcur.              The       control,         approval            and the          assignment           of

priorities              of military        foreign          affairs        research            should        be excluded             from

the    State       Department             area       of responsibility.

        G.         1.       RECOMMENDATION                            OR      SUGGESTION                   7 (Digest)

             “The     present      functions      of the Foreign      Area   Research
Coordination       Group       should       also be transferred       to the new organization
so that full responsibility               for coordination      of foreign   affairs  research
is under     a single      organizational         head. ‘I [See GAO note. 1

                   2.       DOD        POSITION

                   Nonconcur.              Reference             comment               under     FINDING             AND



 GAO note:                Recommendation             deleted          from     final        report.




                                                                      87
       APPENDIX ITI


      Foreign affairsresearch     concerns research programs and
            studies in the social and behavioral    sciences dealing
            with international  relations  or with foreign   areas and
            peoples, whether conducted in the United States or
            abroad, and whether performed by contractors     or grantees
            of Government agencies or by Federal employees. 1

_I
!
     FIELDS
     -----  OF SCIENCE

     Social sciences are directed
     -__--.__---__                        toward an understanding      of the
            behavior of social    institutions     and groups and of in-
            dividuals  as members of a group.        These include such
            sci.ences as cultural    anthropology,    archeology,    economics,
            history,  political   science, psychological       science,   so-
            ciology,  and economic and Focial geography.

     Behavioral
     ___-    -.- .-- sciences
                     .-~ - -.._- can be used in the broad sense to in-
           elude all the major disciplines             that deal with group
           and individual        behavior--anthropology,        economics, his-
           tory,    political     science, psychology,        and sociology--
           and those aspects of other disciplines,               such as geogra-
          phy, psychiatry,         and linguistics,       that have behavioral
          dimensions.

     P&sical     sciences
                      - ._--- are concerned with the understanding
        _^-- __.__-___-                                              of the
           material      universe   and its phenomena; they comprise the
           disciplines       of astronomy,  chemistry, and physics.

     Natural
     ---- ._---. sciences
                  -----.---   have been grouped to include the remaining
             fields      as defined by the National Science Foundation.

                Life        sciences
                                   -_ are the biological,       medical,    and agricul-
                            tural. sciences.

                Es-yirrrmental
                            -_...--_--..sciences
                                          I---I_     are concerned with the gross
                        nonbiological           properties     of the areas of the solar
                        system which directly              or indirectly   affect   manss
                        survival       and welfare;        they comprise the disciplines
                       of atmospheric            sciences,     earth sciences,    and
                       oceanography.
     .I___ .-I-._- .-.. -._.. _
     1
      Defined            by GAO for    the purposes   of this     report.
                                                      APPENDIX III


Mathematical
---.         sciences employ logical    reasoning with the
     aid of symbols and are concerned with the develop-
     ment of methods of operation    employing such symbols.

Engineering   sciences are concerned         with studies directed
      toward developing    engineering       principles    or to-
      ward making specific      scientific      principles   usable
      in engineering   practice.

Other     sciences is the category provided for reporting
        research which cannot be readily   classified  under
        one of the above-named fields.




                               91
APPENDIX iV


            Description    of Foreign Affairs Research
                    Programs of Federal Agencies (See GAO note.)




                                      base~f on consideration       of the in>-
                                      port.uxe  and respectrve priOrrtie3 of
                                      various arms cnntrol        issues to be
                                      faced by the Agency and the extent
                                      to uhrch e\;tcrnal rrsearch can assist
                                      in their resolution.      In FY 1970
                                       ACDA    supported    five applied    re-
                                      search projects; three involved       re-
                                      search overseas.

                                       BIQcpastmcnt of Defense

                                       DOD contract and grant programs for
                                       foreign area wcr;~l science research
                                       and studies arc designed IO encourage
                                       rex*arch       in relevant        arcas and to
                                       ;tssist dct iGnmaking               and pclicy-
                                       mahing ftinctions by providing               mis-
                                       sron- :rnd policy Oriented studres. De-
                                       f~.rtsc ptngr;un\         include rcscarch in
                                       c1111ural bind WCI.II         ch:tnge including
                                       cro\\-cnltnral         re5carCh; a cultural
                                       infor matron         ,rn:tly\is    center;    and
                                       l~nllttc,~l-military       and \trategic stud-
                                       ies. In FY 1970 I)oD supported 76
                                       project+, of which 70 involved work
                                       abroad.

                                       F)epartment of Health,
                                       lF:ducation, und Welfare

                                      1lEW’s     research  programs     include
                                      ~ttidics of toreign rdncation  systems;
                                      foreign ;trcas and langttages; effects
                                      of drugs on age and behavior; nutri-
                                      !ion of children; rccarch on etiology,
                                      diagnosis. treatment, preventinn,      and
                                      control Of mental illness; promotion
                                      of mental healll-r: and social welfare.
                                      In FY 70 HEW supported 190 proj-
                                      ects in these areas, of which 59 in-
                                      volved tcsearch overseas.

                                      Dcpartankent of I.ahor
                                      FY I970 m:uked the 8th year of the
                                      re\carch prograt~~ developed and ad-
                                      mrntstered by lb< otlicc of Manpower
                                      Pldmini~tratron,  under title I of the




GAO note:     Data f,r,om survey Foreign     Affairs             Research             Co-
              ordjnation   Group.
                                                                                  APPENDIX IV



Manpower     Development     and Train-          Smithsonian     Institution
ing Act, to guide and help perfect
programs for better use of U.S. man-             Grants dre awarded to 11 S. umversi-
power resources. During the past 4               lies and IIIUWLIIII!,   for rcycarch in the
years this research has been supple-             anthropologIca        sciences, prlncipJly
mented by programs of studies under              archaeology,      to be conducted     in an)
the Economic     Opportunity    Act and          one of 11 excess currency countries.
the Social Security Act. Three ap-               In FY 1970. 29 projects were sup-
plied research     projects   concerned          ported. all b,lGc research.
with   the international      manpower
area received support in FY 1970,                Department      of State
two of which involved research con-              Office of Exrrrnai Research. Research
ducted outside the United States.                programs      deal ulth the conduct of
                                                 L.S. farelgn       iclations. Six applied
National Aeronautics      and                    rcszirch    \tudlcs ;ind three research
Space Administration                             cunfercnccs      wcrc xupportcd    In FY
                                                  1070. ‘Itio of the studie\ involved
NASA as a techmcal agency is not                 rc\carch    overseas
primarily    involved  in foreign      area
rcsuarch. Efforts are limited        to in-      Brlrr~tru of F’drcc~nttond und Cultural
kestrgations which focus on such na-             .4fjrr11~ Ljndcr the I 1’ 1970 Inter-
tional concerns as the ramifications             ndtional    kxchangc         Program,   grants
of national space programs and the               v.erc awarded lo 22 rrsealch scholars
foreign    policy opportunities     gener-       ,tnd a\\istancc         wa5 given to seven
ated by space-developed       technology.        centcrb     for       research     and study
In FY 1970 two such projects were                ;ihroad    I hcsc progr,ms         were rn the
supported,     both of which consisted           basic Jwxrch           category. hfany U.S.
of applied research; one was con-                students, tc;lchers, and university Icc-
ducted in the United States, the other           t urers   colltlucted         rcsealch   u hi I e
in Peru.                                         abroad on grant\, htlr thl\ research
                                                 I\ not rllcluded        since it \+a> not the
                                                 primary purpose ot their grants.
National Endowment
for the Humanities
                                                 t1.S. Irtformnlion      Agency
The Endowment             makes grants in        Rcsc:rrch projects are conducted              to
51rpport of re\e,lrch        projects across     find ~r,~ys to leach and inform for-
the whole range of- humanistic           stud-   eign populations,         dcterminc       their
ies. In all cases support is made in             attitudes on key Intern;ltlonal         issues.
response to the initiatives           of inde-   and describe        their communication
pendent scholars, and projects sup-              habits and media preferences.               Re-
ported represent         the interests and       search programs tire ;11\0 undert&on
scholarly concerns of the humanistic             10 cl\;inilnc    patterns of inilucnce        in
community--not          of an Endowment          forcjgn socktie> dnd to evaluute the
rc\earch “program”          :15 \uch. In FY      &cctivenc\s       ut USIA producls         dnci
 1970, IhO grants were made In the               programs        All LO~II ;icted I-CW~I ch
social anJ behavioral         sclrnces relat-    pro+6        are conducted      our\lde     the
ing to foreign ;Irt'ilS    and international     lJn~kd Statch. USIA           supported      -iS
aHairs, 12 I of them involved research           \UCil prolects in FY 1970.
outsIde the United States by either
American      or foreign        scholars. Al-
though grants are not made to non-
nationals, occasional        assistance on a
project ‘is received from scholars of
other countries.

National   Science Foundation
Supports scientific research in all 30-
cial science disciplines, but not policy
evaluation.    In FY 1970 NSF bup-
ported     146 projects.     1 I3 of which
were conducted       orltalde the United
States.




                                          93
APPENDIX V



                                                   FEDEW             AGENm    OBLIW\TIONS         FOR SOCIAL      AND

                                                 BEHAVIORAL            RESEARCH INVOLVING              FOREIGN   AREAS

                                                                     AND INTEP.NATIOKiU         AFFAIRS

                                                                     FISCAL YWR       1970     (note     a)

                                                                                                                            #.tsxmt of estinaced
                                                                                                                                  obli~etions
                                                                                                                  -COO0                  omitted)

    DEPARl?iENT OF DEXENSE:
        w                                                                                                        $2,527
        N-Y                                                                                                          726
        Air Force                                                                                                    659
        Advanced    Research     Projects         Agency                                                             801
        InteMatioMl        Security       Affairs                                                                 1.MO                       S 6,213

    DEPARfPiENT         OF HULTH.        EDL'CATION, MD WELFARE:
        Office          of Education                                                                               1,660
        Health          Services      and Mental     Health Administration                                         1,059
        Social          and Rehabilitation         Service                                                            322
        National           Institutes      of Health                                                              202                          3.243

    IWXONAL      SCIENCE FOWDATION:
        Division.     of Social Sciences                                                                                                       4.497

    AGENCY FOR IhYXRNATIONAL                 DEVELOPMENT:
        Central  Research                                                                                                                      2,216
        Fiqionel  Bureaus                                                                                                                      <b)
    SHITHSOt+IAN INSTITUIION:
         Office  of Intematicmel                 Activities                                                                                    1,256

    NATIONAL ENWVI?EM FOR THE -'TIES:
         Mvision  of Fellowship    and Stipends                                                                       827
               ,I   w Reseerch  and Pubiications                                                                      5%                       1.383

    A%j      CONTROL ASi DISARMAMENT AGENCY:
            Social, Econoeic  and Behavioral Sciences                                                                                               195

    PEACECORPS                                                                                                                                        75

    UNITED STATES INFORHATION   AGENCY:
         Office of Research  and Assessments                                                                         503
         USIS Posts                                                                                               156

    DEPARMENT OF STATE:
        Office      of External     Research                                                                          125
        Bureau of Educational           end Cultural     Affairs:
               American    Research     Scholars                                                                     116
               Assistance     to Centers      for Research      and Study                    Abroad               180                               421

    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTIJX:
        Economic    Research     Service                                                                              195
        Agriculture     Research      Service                                                                     3                                 373

    DEPAR'mENT          OF LABOR:
        Office          of Planpower     Administration                                                                                               52

    NATIONAL          AERONAUTICS      AND SPACE ADnINISTRATION                                                                                     200

                         TDtal                                                                                                              $20.783

    %ata       from     survey   made      by Foreign         Ares     Research    Coordination          Croup   (FAR).
    b
        AID followed       the practice         of determining      that activities    which "ere more then 50% "Develop-
        ment" would not be lisied               as research    projects,    although   they included   research  elements.
        Under this     criterion,       none      of the research      and development    activities of the regional       tureeus
        qualified    for inclusion         by     AID in the funding      sumvey.

    cubes      not     include   585,700       ln excess         foreign     currencies.




                                                                             94
                                                                                                         APPENDIX VI



                           ESTIMATED FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS                      FOR RESEARCH

                                 'I8 FOREIGN PERFORMERS BY AGENCY

                                             FISCAL YEAR 1971                 (note    a)




                                                               Amount  of estimated     obligations
                                                                          Special   foreign              Dollar
            Federal     agency                                   Total    currency    program       obligations

                                                                                (000    omitted)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE:
    Agricultural   Research Service            $ 5,363
    Forest Service                                   628        3 5,991                 $    5,99          $ -
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE:
    Environmental     Science
      Services     Administration                    441
    National    Bureau of Standards                  401                a42                     787                   55

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE:
    Department  of the Army                         873
    Department  of the Navy                         175
    Department  of the Air-Force                 1,500
    Defense Agencies                             1,827            4,375                                      4,375

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION,
  ANDHELFARE:
    Environmental         Health  Services           316
    Health    Services       and Mental
      Health    Administration                  15,467
    National      Institutes     of Health      16,742
    Social    and Rehabilitation
      Service                                     5,740          38,265                     31,341            4,924

DEPARIMENT OF TRANSPORTATION                                            200                                      200

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
  DEVELOPMENT                                                           398                                          398

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION                                                538                         30               508

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
  ADMINISTk4TION                                                        334                                          334

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION                                             207                     100                  107

          Total                                                 $51,150                                    $12,901
                                                                                                             -__

aData   from   survey    made by National      Science         Foundation.




                                                          95
APPENDIX VII


         PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF GOVERNMENTAGENCIES

        RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATION OF ACTIVITIES

                    DISCUSSED TN THIS REPORT


                                                Tenure of office
                                                From            To
                                                                 -
                        DEPARTMENTOF' STATE

SECRETARY:
   William P. Rogers                     Jan.      1969    Present

DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INTELLIGENCE
  AND RESEARCH:
    Ray S. Cline                         Oct.      1969    Present
    Thomas L. Hughes                     Apr.      1963    Aug. 1969

DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INTERNA-
  TIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOG-
   ICAL AFFAIRS:
     Herman Pollack                July            1967    Present


             AGENCY
             --     FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

ADMINISTRATOR:
    John A. Hannah                       Mar.      1969    Present


                      DEPARTMENT
                      __I-     OF DEFENSE

SECRETARYOF DEFENSE:
   Melvin R. Laird                       Jan.      1969    Present

ASSISTANT SECRETARYOF DEFENSE
  (International    Security Affairs):
     G. Warren Nutter                    Feb.      1969    Present

DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCHAND
  ENGINEERING:
    Dr. John S. Foster, Jr.              Oct.      1965    Present

                                  96
                                                              APPENDIX VII


                                                   Tenure    of office
                                                   From               To
                                                                       -
                           DEPARTMENTOF DEFENSE (continued)

DIRECTOR, ADVANCEDRESEARCHPROJ-
  ECTS AGENCY:
    Eberhardt Rechtin                       Nov 0     1967      Present


                          DEPARTMENTOF THE ARMY

SECRETARYOF THE ARMY:
   Stanley R. Resor                         July      1965      Present

CHIEF OF RESEARCHAND DEVELOPMENT:
    Lt. Gen. A., W. Betts         Apr.                1966      Present


                          DEPARTMENTOF THE NAVY

SECRETARYOF THE NAVY:
   John H. Chafee                           Jan.      1969      Present

CHIEF OF NAVAL RESEARCH, OFFICE
  OF NAVAL RESEARCH:
    Rear Adm. C. 0. Holmquist               June      1970      Present
    Rear Adm. T. B. Owen                    June      1967      June 1970


                         DEPARTMENTOF THE AIR FORCE

SECRETARYOF THE AIR FORCE:
   Robert C. Seamans, Jr,                   Jan.      1969      Present

COMMANDER,OFFICE OF AEROSPACE
  RESEARCH:
    Brig. Gen. Harvey W. Eddy               Aug.      1969      Present
    Brig. Gen. Leo A. Kiley                 Jan.      1968      July    1969




U.S. GAO Wash..   D.C.

                                     97