Washington, January 23, 1961.

Dear Dr. Wiesner:

Within the over-all area of your responsibility as my Special Assistant for Science and Technology, I should appreciate your finding, developing, and presenting to me facts, evaluations, and recommendations respecting matters related to science and technology and the progress of scientific endeavor in the various agencies of Government, giving particular attention to trends and developments as they affect national security and welfare, to the relative progress of Soviet and U.S. science and technology, to scientific and technological cooperation with our allies, and to the encouragement and utilization of science in the free world.

It is my desire that you advise on scientific and technological matters in top-level policy deliberations, making yourself available to Cabinet members and other officers of Government holding policy responsibilities, when appropriate and practical, and working in close association with other members of the White House staff and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. You are authorized to attend the meetings of the National Security Council, the Cabinet, and the National Aeronautics and Space Council.

In carrying on these activities, you may retain the services of such staff and special consultants as you may require.

The foregoing is intended to serve as an aid to you in organizing your work and is not designed specifically to define your responsibilities. In carrying out your task, you will have full access to all plans, programs, and activities involving science and technology in the Government.

As my Special Assistant for Science and Technology, and thereby a member of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, I designate you as Chairman of the Council.

It is my hope that your work will be of great value in developing information for me and in giving a greater sense of direction to all who are concerned in our nation's scientific and technological efforts.

Sincerely,

John F. Kennedy

Washington, July 22, 1961.

SUBJECT
Population Problem

1. The Policy Planning Council's paper of June 16/2/ is an excellent presentation of the population problem, although it could use certain filling out at particular points. Nevertheless, I generally agree with the main lines of the presentation.

2. I am sure that the Policy Planning Council recognizes that the policy issue goes far beyond religious, political and social attitudes in the United States. It would be easy to be naive on this matter. Nor is it helpful to project population curves into "standing room only" on the earth a century or two hence. Both population growth and the development of resources have many variables. The territory of the United States was probably more overpopulated at the time of the landing of the first white man than it has been at any time since. But even today, if one thinks of the Paley Report,/3/ we would be overpopulated were we not able to suck into our productive system vast resources from other continents. I am also troubled by the question which arises if some nations take action in this field and others do not. A distortion of the make-up of the human race could occur which would not necessarily be in the interest of the American people.

3. My suggestions with respect to the recommendations are:

1. Approved, but requires some spelling out.

2. There should be an officer in IO who gives a good deal of attention to such matters as our backstop for the United Nations Population Commission.

3. Throwing a lot of money into research programs does not necessarily speed up the right answers. The National Academy of Sciences, with the financial support of the Rockefeller Foundation, has had for thirty years a committee for research on sex which has stimulated basic research on the physiology of reproduction. Similarly, the Population Council in New York is engaging in specific, basic and applied research directly related to population control. My impression is that the bottleneck is not money but ideas. These two organizations might be consulted by S/P to get their assessment of the research situation.

4. Agree.

5. I would not agree at this time. In a certain sense, the policy question does not arise because we have no satisfactory answers to provide these other countries. Private organizations which have been working in this field have encountered economic and sociological obstacles which are unlikely to be overcome until present and rather promising research comes up with more effective answers for the individual family. In some countries means are being adopted which would be contrary to our own public policy, such as abortion and sterilization. If foreign governments are interested (and a number of them are), it is relatively easy for them to get "information regarding human reproduction and population problems" without involving AID.

6. A good idea, but too simply stated. Again, there are private agencies which are working intensively with governments which show an interest in the problem.

7. It is easy to agree in principle but more difficult to agree about what would be the right and wise thing to say.

Let me conclude with the remark that this is not a problem for which the answers are merely inhibited by religious or political considerations. There are some real problems as to what the right answers are.

Dean Rusk/4/

Washington, March 16, 1962.

The President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC), as I know you are aware, has been involved frequently in various aspects of the interaction between foreign relations and science and technology, and has always been interested in the effectiveness with which technical factors are included in the formulation and execution of foreign policy.

You recently mentioned your concern regarding the scientific activities in the Department of State, and I told you of the study being conducted by our International Science Panel chaired by Dr. Bronk./2/ We have focussed in some detail on the representation of science and technology within the Department on policy matters and on the needs, as we see them, for increasing State Department guidance of the growing overseas scientific and technical programs of the Government as a whole.

During the course of this study, we have held discussions with many representatives of the Department, and have now transmitted informally, through Mr. Alexis Johnson, our conclusions and recommendations. I am very pleased at this time to forward to you for your consideration the formal report we have prepared.

I hope you will find this useful to you. We attach great importance to the manner in which science and technology are integrated into the work of the Department, and thus can be enabled to serve effectively our national and foreign policy objectives. I would be pleased to discuss this with you at your convenience.

JB Wiesner

Washington, February 27, 1962.

INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE PANEL

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

The relations between nations, and hence the formulation and execution of foreign policy, are today increasingly affected by scientific and technical considerations that in the past were only of peripheral interest to the statesman and diplomat. Many foreign policy issues require sophisticated technical analysis and understanding of the political implications of the technical facts before policy can be effectively determined or carried out. In some areas, the international operations of the Government or the private community in science and technology are now on a scale such that they have an important impact on our relations with others. And science and its technological fruits also offer opportunities for international initiatives that can contribute in significant ways to our national objectives.

With this in mind, this Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee considered the way these relationships are at present represented in the foreign policy organs of the United States Government and what further steps may be desirable. In the discussion that follows, we have outlined in some detail the needs as we see them, and the responsibilities we believe should fall to a strengthened and expanded science office in the Department of State.

In 1950, an important study of the relation of science to international relations was carried out for the Secretary of State./3/ The study outlined the many interactions between science and the formation and execution of foreign policy, and presented the need for a better mechanism within the Department to reflect this relationship. As a result, a Science Adviser to the Department of State was named, and a series of Science Attaches were appointed at major overseas posts.

The new posts were allowed to lapse in the mid-50s until the shock and surprise of the launching of an artificial earth satellite by the Soviet Union, with its subsequent repercussions, indicated once again that better technical inputs into policy formulation and planning were required. Accordingly, the post of Science Adviser was filled again, this time reporting directly to the Secretary of State; the attache program was renewed at the same time.

Since 1958, the scope and involvement of the Science Adviser and his Attaches have steadily grown and broadened. But what is most striking to this Panel is the development since the original report of 1950 of a steadily more pervasive and significant relationship between science and foreign affairs, across a broad spectrum of activities and foreign policy concerns.

Probably the most noticeable, though not necessarily the most important, change has been the growing volume of international activities of scientists and engineers, and of international programs of a technical nature of the Federal Government:

--U.S. agencies now sponsor applied and fundamental research by foreign scientists in foreign countries amounting to more than $60 million per year;

--many of our domestic programs are carried out partly in an international environment: notably the space program, the oceanographic program, the Antarctic program, Atoms-for-Peace, and significant parts of others, such as research programs in the atmospheric sciences, medical sciences, agriculture, and geophysics;

--special international cooperative programs have arisen such as the IGY and cooperative space programs; many more are planned or proposed; for example, the Indian Ocean Oceanographic Expedition, an international hydrology program, the UN atmospheric sciences program, the US/Japanese scientific cooperation committee;

--almost all international organizations now have science programs of one kind or another while some organizations--for example, the IAEA--are largely technical in nature; the U.S. contributions to the technical portions of the budgets are now in the neighborhood of $25-30 million per year;

--many Federal agencies conduct special programs in the United States for the technical training of foreign nationals, especially the AEC, NASA, the Department of HEW, and the Department of State, while others devote substantial resources to the collection and dissemination of technical information abroad;

--many agencies have their own programs to foster the exchange of scientists, and several provide technical missions to assist technical operations in other countries;

--and, of course, the U.S. foreign aid program has a large technical and scientific component.

This is only a partial list, and one for which it is difficult to attach a meaningful dollar tag. Moreover, most of the activities listed are growing, some very rapidly. Clearly, direct scientific and technical activities overseas today command budgets on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, and programs with important international implications in their operation and of a highly technical nature, are many times that size. But that, too, is misleading for the activities that may be in many ways the most significant for foreign policy may, in fact, cost very little.

The scientific community itself has greatly expanded its own international activities, with a growing number of international associations, international conferences and travel and visits to all parts of the world. These international contacts are a necessary part of science today and are required for the health and vitality of American science. The Department of State has a direct role, and not always a passive one, in safeguarding and assisting the scientific community in its international activities.

It seems to us that these extensive and intensive scientific and technical relations among governments and scientists have made it necessary to think in terms of a "foreign policy for science", to help make these relations fruitful for U.S. international and domestic interests by providing guidance and assistance, by defining political objectives, and by monitoring programs and their international effects. This is not always being achieved today primarily, in our judgment, because there has not been sufficient recognition of the breadth of these activities, of the opportunities for U.S. objectives they provide, and of the obligations they demand.

There are other quite different aspects of this relationship between science and foreign policy as well. For example, we depend on American scientific and technical achievement more than ever before for the realization of foreign policy objectives. Obviously this is so for military strength. But more directly, the Atoms-for-Peace program, U.S. initiatives on outer space in the UN, the foreign aid program, international health programs, exchange programs with iron-curtain countries, information efforts to project a U.S. "image", and many others all rely on using the excellence of American science as a basis for international operations where the political objectives are dominant. The State Department has the obvious need to utilize these achievements effectively and properly, and to take advantage of the many additional opportunities as they arise.

There is, in addition to these "overt" relations between foreign policy and science, the much more subtle and difficult, but perhaps more significant, implicit technical content of many of the areas in which policy must be developed. Obviously, our basic relations with other nations are determined in part by the technical capabilities of our military weapons, and by the weapons now in the development or research stage. Our disarmament policy, and studies necessary to develop that policy, have large technical components. The same is true of foreign aid efforts in which the prospects for economic development of Pakistan may depend on understanding and ameliorating the waterlogging problem, or in which the creation of a viable economic base for a one-crop nation may depend on the ability to locate new mineral resources or to develop new crop strains for special environments. Similar comments may be made about other policy areas, many of which simply cannot be adequately considered without understanding the often very intimate relationship between the technical and political factors.

A special case of the implicit technical content of foreign policy issues is the need to plan ahead in the development of policy to prepare for the changes being wrought by an exploding technological age. It is trite to say that the revolutions in communications, transportation, health, and a host of other fields have changed the relations among nations. How are the changes of tomorrow and of the day after going to alter further our international environment, and what should we be doing now to prepare for them? The issues can be as large as the effects of the development of simple, inexpensive means for any nation to produce atomic weapons, to the effect on a one-export nation of the development of an inexpensive synthetic substitute for its single export. The Department of State has the need to anticipate these developments, understand their likely effects, and lay the groundwork for the measures necessary to cope with them.

With this view of the inextricable and intense linking of science with foreign policy today, the Panel has come to the conclusion that it is time to plan for another step in the organization for science in the State Department. Working from outside the Department, we are obviously not familiar with the subtleties of Departmental organization and hence cannot recommend in detail a specific structure. However, we believe we can lay out the framework that is required based on our view of the needs and our knowledge of present organization and procedures.

It seems to us that it is necessary to have in one office in the Department the competence and the staff support to be aware of the breadth of activities and interests discussed above, and the responsibility, working with other desks in the Department and with other Federal agencies, to develop specific policy guidance. Where the issues are predominantly technical or scientific, we would expect the office to have primary responsibility; where the technical or scientific component is subsidiary, we would expect the office to play a secondary role, though it should be mandatory that they be consulted.

In effect, we are suggesting that the science office have staff responsibility in the formulation of general policy and primary or line responsibility for the formulation of policy in certain defined areas. The existing office of The Science Adviser has of course been performing well a good part of this function, but with existing staff support and lack of delineation of authority, many of the important tasks we see cannot now be fully discharged. The Office of the Special Assistant to the Secretary for Space and Atomic Energy has also been performing part of this role well for its specialized areas, and we would expect that the two offices would be combined into one. In fact, one of the tasks the Science Office should perform is to give more of the kind of guidance, support, and initiative in the technical areas of health, agriculture, geophysics, etc. that is now being provided in detail for space and atomic energy.

We recognize in this recommendation that along with line responsibility goes, inevitably, responsibility for a considerable amount of detailed work, e.g., negotiating or preparing complicated technical agreements or reviewing programs of international organizations in detail. Though this may be time-consuming and require a sizable staff, it is a necessary part of the policy process, without which "policy responsibility" would be an empty phrase.

An important phase of a Science Office's responsibility, as is the case now, is as a focus of relations between the State Department and other agencies of the Government and with the non-government scientific community on scientific matters. One of the advantages of a well-staffed office with clear responsibility will be to provide a single, authoritative voice in the Department able to give detailed guidance and support for the international scientific programs of Federal agencies. This relationship will always be a delicate one, for the State Department must not become a bottleneck to action, but at the same time must have clearly-formed policies and knowledge of foreign situations to be able to provide prompt decisions and adequate support when required. More positively, the State Department should be in the position more often than it has to date of proposing new international programs in science and technology to further U.S. foreign policy objectives, and of acting on those proposals generated by scientists throughout the country.

The relations with the private scientific community are of course of great importance; the creation of the present Office of the Science Adviser has proven to be very significant in helping to understand the effect of foreign policy decisions on science in the United States, and in providing a link for the ideas and concerns of the scientific community to be brought to the attention of the Department of State. As the international activities and interests of scientists grow, so too does the need to increase the contacts between them and the Department. The opportunities are great, for example, in more effectively tapping the scientific community to provide a manpower resource for our mushrooming overseas needs. The interest of the scientists is there, but we have not yet learned how to make effective use of it.

The Science Office can also provide, through ad hoc panels or consultants, more extensive technical advice to the Department on the specific technical-political issues it faces. This device has been relatively little used in the past and could be considerably expanded.

We would note as a final point that for an expanded science office to carry out its functions adequately, also implies a strengthened and enlarged Science Attache program in the field. Only in that way could the office obtain the detailed information about situations in other countries, and the necessary evaluations to enable wise formulation of policy.

An expanded science function in the Department will probably require some organizational changes, though the Panel does not feel competent to advise on the exact form within the Department. We believe the head of a science office should be designated a Principal Officer of the Department, with the rank of Assistant Secretary, but whether he should have the title of Assistant Secretary or Director of an Office of Scientific Affairs, or some other designation, must depend on other considerations. We would recommend that in time it would be advisable to establish the post by statute as a means of alerting Congress to the changing requirements of foreign policy.

To sum up the responsibilities we feel should be exercised by an office for science, we list below nine major categories of responsibility drawn from this discussion:

1. Development of a national foreign policy for science

Here we have reference to the need to define an effective role for science in the evolution and execution of foreign policy, to bring greater coherence and policy guidance into the myriad international scientific activities of Federal agencies--many of which are only superficially known in the Department now--to enlist the technical resources of Government more effectively and widely in the support of foreign policy objectives, to encourage private scientific activities when in the nation's interest, to be aware of deficiencies as well as excesses, and to represent in the Department the relatively new awareness that the international contacts of scientists have become one of the significant interfaces between this and other nations. The relationship between the private scientific community and the foreign policy organs of Government can be yet closer and more extensive than they are today, and offer opportunities as well as responsibilities to the Department which make it necessary to have a more thoroughly developed and understood foreign policy for science.

2. Specific programs for international cooperation

This Government has a general policy that international cooperative programs carried out properly can contribute significantly to the nation's objectives. To bring these about, the Government must usually take the lead, but each proposal takes extensive thought and preparation, scientific planning, intragovernment arrangements, tactical planning, international discussions and negotiations, and finally monitoring and guidance during the operations. Relatively few such programs have emerged because of the time and effort each takes. But many additional proposals and ideas exist that require an interested and well-staffed office in the State Department to reach fruition.

3. UN and Other International Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations

Almost all of the UN Specialized Agencies have scientific or technical programs of one kind or another; some in fact such as WHO and WMO are largely technical in nature. The science office should provide major inputs into the determination of U.S. policy towards all of these technical programs, and is the logical point at which to tie in the private scientific community and the technical resources of the other agencies of government.

4. Scientific Exchange and Fellowship Programs

These areas of State Department interest necessarily involve the private scientific and academic community very heavily, and require a knowledgeable, and accepted, point of contact in the Department to work between the non-Governmental community and the Department. Only with an effective relationship can the programs serve U.S. policy well; it is instructive to note the reduction in difficulties and misunderstandings during the last few years since the appointment of the Science Adviser. These programs are sure to be increased in the future, and good advice and initiative on the scientific side will be crucial.

5. Foreign Aid

The foreign aid program will require particularly intensive effort in the future to increase the quality and quantity of its scientific programs, to ensure the technical quality of its work, and to embark on a meaningful research program. This cannot be the job of the State Department's science officer; the AID must have its own scientific and technical personnel. But the science officer in State may in fact be of invaluable assistance in helping AID mount its own efforts (particularly needed now) in utilizing the Science Attaches in those countries receiving U.S. assistance to help the USOMs, and, most important, in integrating the overseas science efforts of other Federal agencies to assist in the development objectives.

6. Scientific Image of the United States

As with the foreign aid program, the Information Agency requires greater scientific input in their activities. They, too, need their own scientific personnel, but the ability to call on a well-staffed office also within the State Department for help overseas, for contacts with the scientific community, for advice about U.S. Government activities, and for independent evaluation of their activities, would be of great use.

7. Anticipated Technical Developments

The science officer of State, through his general familiarity and contacts with the technical communities, is the most logical one to become aware of the trends of technical development and their implications for international relations and foreign policy. We can imagine a representative of the office meeting with the Policy Planning Staff regularly, but, in addition, what is needed is an awareness in affected areas of the Department of developments likely to be of importance in their countries or regions.

8. Monitoring and information through Science Attaches

To carry out all of these functions adequately and to monitor and guide government programs will require better information on the situation in each country, and more day-to-day contact with overseas U.S. activities. The Science Attache program must provide much of this, and to do so it will have to be strengthened. In bringing this about, we should not overlook the reservoir of scientific talent from other U.S. agencies that could be available for this purpose to the benefit of both the State Department and the agencies. In addition, agency personnel already stationed abroad could be used to assist the State Department in this function. We would also note that a strengthened Attache program would require additional funds for travel, and particularly for regular meetings in Washington.

9. Representation in General Policy Formulation

Perhaps the single most important of all the functions a science officer can perform we have left for the last of those we will list here. We have done this because we believe that the usefulness of the man in the science post to the Secretary and to the Department on the formulation of general foreign policy matters depends much more on the man and his relation to the Secretary than on his title or size of office.

We are referring under this heading to the part such a science officer would or could play in discussions on political-military policy matters in, let us say, the implications of new weapons or of a domestic shelter program, and to his potential role in discussions of nuclear test cut-off or atmospheric testing, or to his role in disarmament policy. Obviously, the individual's own background and interest, his relationship with the Secretary, and his usefulness in such discussions will determine in large part the extent of his participation. But it is also worth noting that with the many other responsibilities we see for this post, unless there is adequate staff it would not be possible for the incumbent to maintain the contact and knowledge necessary to be useful in this role.

We have presented our concept, as seen from outside the Department, of a strengthened and expanded science section of the Department of State, and have suggested that the science officer be designated a Principal Officer of the Department as a recognition of his extensive responsibilities in policy formulation and execution. Such an office to perform well the functions we have outlined would, we believe, have additional staff requirements in Washington and in the field; some of the staff, both at home and overseas, should, in our view, be provided from other Federal agencies for the advantage of both the Department of State and those agencies.

It is our judgment that this proposal is a logical recognition of the changing character of international relations, and of the need for organizational changes within the Department to keep up to those changes.

Washington, May 16, 1962.

Dear Dr. Seaborg:

As an initial step in a planned program to strengthen the Department of State's ability to deal with matters related to international scientific affairs, it is our intention to announce near the end of this week abolishment of the Office of the Special Assistant for Atomic Energy and Outer Space, and the transfer of its functions and responsibilities relating to peaceful uses of atomic energy and outer space to the Office of the Science Adviser. State's responsibilities relating to military aspects of work in these fields will be assigned to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Politico-Military Affairs.

Working relationships between the Department of State and the Atomic Energy Commission have been excellent. Your cooperation, and that of members of your staff, has contributed immeasurably to the resolution of important problems of international significance in which we have a mutual interest.

I am confident the organizational changes we are making will not impair in any way the effectiveness of planning and action on matters affecting foreign policy as it relates to the work of your agency. Consolidation of related responsibilities here should reduce points of contact and clearance and result in moving forward with greater facility and expedition.

Officers to whom these responsibilities are being assigned will be in touch with appropriate officials of your agency as matters arise requiring consultation or joint action. However, I thought it only proper that you should know in advance of our plans since they will have a bearing on our inter-agency relationships.

Sincerely,

U. Alexis Johnson/2/

Washington, September 4, 1962.

SUBJECT
Director of International Scientific Affairs--Approval Requested

To establish the position of Director of International Scientific Affairs; to abolish the Office of the Science Adviser; and to establish the Office of International Scientific Affairs in the Department of State.

The attached circular/2/ describes arrangements for a strengthened role for science in the Department. It provides for active participation by the Director of International Scientific Affairs in foreign policy development and application, integration of science and technology into the work of the Department at all levels, and for the Department's foreign affairs leadership and guidance on matters relating to the growing overseas scientific and technical programs of the Government as a whole.

A first step in reorganization of the Department's activities in science and technology was taken May 16, 1962, when the Office of the Special Assistant for Atomic Energy and Outer Space (S/AE) was abolished and its functions concerned with non-military uses were transferred to the Office of the Science Adviser (S/SA). The proposed staff of the new office will be 32, one less than the original combined strength or S/AE and S/SA before merger.

The functions and organizational arrangements are consistent with the conclusions and recommendations of the President's Science Advisory Committee (Bronk) report, on "Science and Technology in the Department of State," dated February 27, 1962. They are also in harmony with Part I of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962 which establishes the Office of Science and Technology as a new element within the Executive Office of the President./3/

Paragraph 4 of the circular has been included to make clear the intention that the new office will serve all bureaus and offices on scientific matters in the same manner that the Office of the Legal Adviser serves the entire Department on legal work. Thus, there should be no valid basis for appointment of scientists to other bureaus or offices.

The press release announcing the appointment of Dr. Ragnar Rollefson as the Director of International Scientific Affairs will be timed for simultaneous issuance with this circular on the day Dr. Rollefson is sworn in, about September 14.

It is recommended that you approve the attached circular.

Washington, October 31, 1962.

SUBJECT
Criteria for Science Attache Positions

In making a determination as to whether a position for a Science Attache should be established and where it should be located depends on a number of factors. Each factor is weighed against the impact it will make on the foreign policy of the United States, the furthering of U.S. policy objectives, and the improvement it would make in the relations between the U.S. and a particular country, region or continent.

The factors which are examined include:

1. The unique opportunity which such a position would provide for analyzing the political implications of scientific developments;

2. The number of possibilities which such an avenue of communication would offer in establishing relationships with a particular foreign scientific community;

3. The possible ways these associations can be used to further this Government's foreign policy objectives;

4. Psychological and social influences which can be caused through the application of American technology;

5. Opportunities to expand scientific exchanges and associations as a means to improving the understanding of U.S. foreign policy;

6. The need for coordination of U.S. scientific efforts overseas, i.e., places where there are a large number of U.S. agencies engaged in scientific programs;

7. The need for providing technical advice and guidance to the Ambassador and Embassy staffs in those areas or countries where science and technology plays a significant role in foreign policy;

8 The requirement for establishing a regional Scientific Attache position in less developed areas for the purpose of initiating early communication with foreign governments as they make their initial ventures into the field of science and technology.

The decision to have more than one Attache at a post is based on two factors, (a) regional responsibility, and (b) workload. An example of regional responsibilities would be the Attache Office in Stockholm which also covers scientific developments in Finland, Norway and Denmark. An example of where workload requires more than one officer would be in those countries where science and technology is quite sophisticated, where scientific relationships are extensive and where the need for technical advice is closely related to daily foreign policy operations. This would include such places as Germany, France, England, Italy and Japan.

The procedures which are followed in establishing an Attache position generally follow this pattern. After ISA has considered all of the factors, has discussed the matter in detail with other interested U.S. agencies, has gathered and analyzed supporting data from scientific reports and programs or private studies, a recommendation is prepared and forwarded to the regional bureau concerned. After collaboration with the regional bureau, a recommendation is submitted to the Embassy in the field for their comments. After all comments are received and final approval obtained, a request for funds for establishing such a position is submitted in collaboration with the regional bureau to the Office of Budget.

AP

Washington, April 17, 1963.

TO
The Secretary of State
The Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of the Interior
The Secretary of Commerce
The Secretary of Agriculture
The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
The Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission
The Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The Director, National Science Foundation
The Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
The Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology

SUBJECT
Large-Scale Scientific or Technological Experiments with Possible Adverse Environmental Effects

I have approved the following policy guides governing the conduct of large-scale scientific or technological experiments that might have significant or protracted effects on the physical or biological environment. Experiments which by their nature could result in domestic or foreign allegations that they might have such effects will be included in this category even though the sponsoring agency feels confident that such allegations would in fact prove to be unfounded.

1. The head of any agency that proposes to undertake a large-scale scientific or technological experiment that might have significant or protracted effects on the physical or biological environment will call such proposals to the attention of the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. Notification of such experiments will be given sufficiently in advance that they may be modified, postponed, or cancelled, if such action is judged necessary in the national interest.

2. In support of proposals for such experiments, the sponsoring agency will prepare for the Special Assistant for Science and Technology a detailed evaluation of the importance of the particular experiment and the possible direct or indirect effects that might be associated with it.

3. The Special Assistant for Science and Technology will review the proposals and supporting materials presented by the sponsoring agency in order to assure that the need for the experiment has been properly weighed against possible adverse environmental effects.

4. On the basis of this review, the Special Assistant for Science and Technology will recommend to me what action should be taken on the proposed experiment. If the Special Assistant judges that inadequate information is available on which to make a judgment, he may request that additional studies be undertaken by the sponsoring agency or he may undertake an independent study of the problem.

5. Any experiment that may involve significant or protracted adverse effects will not be conducted without my prior approval.

6. In the case of experiments (such as atmospheric nuclear tests) that have major national security implications, the head of the sponsoring agency will notify the Special Assistant for National Security Affairs as well as the Special Assistant for Science and Technology and will supply both with an evaluation of the importance of the particular experiment and the possible direct or indirect effects that might be associated with it. The Special Assistant for National Security Affairs will determine on an individual case basis the procedure to be followed in reviewing these experiments in order to assure that the need for the experiment has been properly weighed against possible adverse environmental effects.

7. To the extent that it is consistent with national security and subsequent to approval, there should be early and widespread dissemination of public information explaining experiments of this type.

8. While the final decision to conduct such experiments must continue to reside with the government, the National Academy of Sciences and where appropriate international scientific bodies or intergovernmental organizations may be consulted in the case of those experiments that might have adverse environmental effects beyond the U.S. Recommendation on the advisability of this course of action will be made by the Special Assistant for Science and Technology in consultation with the sponsoring agency and the State Department.

John F. Kennedy

Washington, August 20, 1963.

SUBJECT
Progress Report on International Programs in Atmospheric Science

In the President's address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 25, 1961, he stated that we would "propose cooperative efforts between all nations in weather prediction and eventually in weather control."/2/

As a follow-up of this statement, the United States Delegation to the General Assembly submitted a draft resolution which was adopted unanimously in December 1961 stressing the world-wide benefits to be derived from international cooperation in weather research and analysis./3/

At the next General Assembly, the United States Delegation submitted another draft resolution which was adopted unanimously in December 1962 calling upon Member States to strengthen weather forecasting services and to encourage their scientific communities to cooperate in the expansion of atmospheric science research. In addition, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) was urged to develop in greater detail its plans for an expanded program to strengthen meteorological services and research, placing particular emphasis on the use of meteorological satellites and on the expansion of training and educational opportunities in these fields./4/

Two groups were established in the United States in 1962 to prepare recommendations in this field: one by the National Academy of Sciences and the other by the Department of State.

The National Academy of Sciences appointed an ad hoc Committee on International Programs in Atmospheric Sciences and Hydrology which prepared the outline of an international program in the atmospheric sciences (and later in hydrology). Its recommendations reflected the views of scientists in the United States and was of great assistance to the federal government in the preparation of its program.

An Interagency Group on International Programs in Atmospheric Sciences was established by the Department of State in August 1962 consisting of representatives of the Departments of Commerce, Defense and State, the Office of Science and Technology, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation, with J. Herbert Hollomon, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Science and Technology, as Chairman. This Group completed its report in March 1963./5/

Follow-up action was taken by the United States Delegation at the Fourth Congress of the WMO in Geneva in April 1963 and by an accelerated national program consistent with the action taken at the WMO Congress.

In response to United States initiative, the WMO Congress initiated a comprehensive study looking toward the improvement of the world-wide weather system, including an analysis of national requirements and advances in technology. An Advisory Committee was established to consist of twelve highly qualified scientists and experts, a Planning Unit was set up in the WMO Secretariat and increased funds were voted to assist in the proposed world-wide weather system study.

With the assurances of a substantial participation in the proposed weather study by the international community, steps are now being taken by various United States agencies to enable them to contribute to this program, as recommended by the Interagency Group, including the following action:

a. United States Weather Bureau

The United States Weather Bureau has requested a supplemental appropriation for FY 1964 of $700,000 for a systems analysis of the global weather system. This study will include an analysis of the role which satellites can play in meeting global observation and communication requirements of the system. The Weather Bureau is considering additional research and development activities costing $400,000 in FY 1965.

b. National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation is planning to support, in FY 1964, research planning conferences costing $200,000 and an international manpower survey costing $50,000. The NSF is considering, for FY 1965, a university program with other countries costing $950,000 and the translation and distribution to less developed areas of technical literature costing $200,000.

c. Agency for International Development

Discussions will be undertaken with the Agency for International Development concerning the possibility of sponsoring a conference of high-level representatives of South American weather services to consider regional climatological problems and to outline a plan for a regional climatological center and network.

We intend to continue to press ahead with cooperative programs with other countries to achieve an improved world-wide weather system. The success of our meteorological satellites is contributing significantly to the possibilities in this field, but world-wide cooperation of other countries continues to be indispensable to an effective global weather system. We are pleased with the excellent cooperation we are receiving under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization; this is a small organization in personnel and financing, but its prestige is high with weather services throughout the world and its impact is accordingly highly significant.

CA-3094

Washington, September 18, 1963.

SUBJECT
Duties and Responsibilities of Science Officers

This airgram supersedes the Department's Instruction CW-4414, November 22, 1961, subject: "Duties and Responsibilities of Science Officers"./2/

Science Officers, with the diplomatic title of Attache, are assigned to diplomatic posts at which science and technology are playing or will play a significant role. Science Officers are integral parts of the Ambassador's Staff at such posts. They provide advice of the Chief of Mission and to other officers on scientific and technical matters, participate in the reporting program of the Embassy, and assist in the representational and negotiating activities of the Embassy. A Science Officer is normally accredited to a single post but often has regional responsibilities for performing the functions listed below in nearby countries where there is no similar science representative.

The Scientific Attache reports to the Chief and Deputy Chief of Mission. Although his detailed functions will necessarily vary from post to post, depending upon the local situation, they will in general fall into the three categories of advising, reporting, and representing, under the direction of the Chief of Mission.

1. Serves as adviser to the Chief of Mission and Staff on scientific and technical matters.

2. Coordinates for the Chief of Mission U.S. scientific programs and activities in the areas of assignment, and in providing advice and recommendations to the Department of State and other government agencies with respect to such programs and activities.

3. Assists the Chief of Mission in assuring that scientists from the U.S. in his area of assignment are cognizant of the foreign policy implications of their scientific and technical activities.

4. Maintains liaison with visiting U.S. officials who are on scientific missions abroad. Arranges appropriate visits and briefings.

5. To the extent feasible, provides advice and assistance to representatives of scientific non-governmental organizations in the U.S.

1. Evaluates and reports significant developments and trends in science within his area of assignment especially those affecting U.S. interests, relationships or policies.

2. Reports such other scientific and technical information which would be of value to the U.S. scientific community and as may be requested from time to time by the Department of State.

1. Represents the Chief of Mission, the Department of State or other agencies of the government, at scientific meetings, conferences, ceremonies, and similar activities. Ordinarily this is within the area of assignment.

2. Promotes the exchange of scientific information between the U.S. scientific community and the scientific community of the area of assignment.

3. Advises and informs scientific groups and organizations in the area of assignment of the scientific policies and programs of U.S. governmental and non-governmental organizations.

Depending on available funds and workload requirements at the principal post of assignment, the Scientific Attache will also cover scientific developments in certain nearby countries. Such countries to be covered will be agreed upon between the Embassy, the Geographic Bureau and the Office of International Scientific Affairs.

Regional responsibilities will include the functions listed above and will be carried out by periodic trips to such countries and by maintaining liaison and working relationships with a designated officer at such posts on scientific and technological matters. These designated officers, in submitting their scientific and technological reports to the Department of State, will also send information copies to the Scientific Attache.

Within the Department of State, the Office of International Scientific Affairs, whose functions are outlined in Foreign Affairs Manual Circular #84 dated September 14, 1962,/3/ is the focal point for providing support and guidance to the Scientific Attaches. In carrying out this responsibility the Office of International Scientific Affairs works in cooperation and collaboration with the appropriate geographic bureaus and offices in the Department, as well as with other government agencies concerned with scientific matters. The Office of International Scientific Affairs also maintains contact with leading non-governmental scientific organizations.

Rusk

Washington, November 8, 1963.

SUBJECT
Meeting between SCI and NSF, November 8, 1963

PARTICIPANTS

NSF:
Dr. John T. Wilson
OST--Mr. Irwin Tobin
Dr. Arthur Roe

State:
Dr. R. Rollefson
Dr. Edwin M. J. Kretzmann
Dr. Eugene G. Kovach
Col. Wm. R. Sturges, Jr.
Mr. August Velletri
Mr. Arthur E. Pardee, Jr.

Dr. Rollefson opened the meeting by saying that we wished to discuss four general items which were: (1) NSF support for OECD science activities; (2) NSF's support of the U.S.-Japan Committee on Scientific Cooperation; (3) publication and distribution of International Science Notes and International Science Reports; and (4) NSF science representation overseas./2/

Dr. Wilson spoke to the first question by saying that his recollection was that the Department of State had sent a letter to the Foundation for continuing support of OECD during FY-1962. He did not recall any formal requests for this continued support since that date. His recollection also was that NSF, in replying to the Tyler letter from State, did limit NSF's support to FY-1962. The general recollection by State representatives was that they did not recall this limitation. Dr. Wilson believed that some formal arrangements were needed to clarify this relationship. Dr. Wilson said that in 1962 when the ICA support was withdrawn from OECD science activities in Paris, NSF proceeded to station personnel in Paris to continue these activities. He related that the Bureau of the Budget had raised with NSF the question as to why the support of such activities required the presence of representatives in Paris since such support prior to 1962 was accomplished without such representation. In the light of NSF's budget situation for FY-1964, Dr. Wilson's position was that NSF had no alternative but to withdraw the representation in Paris.

Dr. Rollefson stated that we had considered this possibility and that as soon as Dr. Walske had more experience in Paris that we would like to raise the possibility of his assuming this responsibility with the assistance of Dr. Scott's replacement. This discussion led to the question of which agency should provide leadership on the question of OECD science. Dr. Wilson said that NSF was quite willing to listen to any legitimate requests for support which were within NSF's competence and mission. However, a number of matters such as "fouling of ships' hulls" did not fit this category. In the course of time, other agencies of government should be responsible for providing U.S. support for such matters. Dr. Rollefson suggested that the International Committee of the Federal Council might be used for channeling these responsibilities to the appropriate agency. Mr. Tobin from the White House agreed that the Committee might be a useful channel or umbrella but that it should not be considered as the only channel for carrying forward this responsibility. Leadership with responsibility should be designated outside and above the International Committee. He felt that back-stopping could change in light of each matter being considered. Col. Sturges suggested SCI be designated as leader in this matter. There was general agreement that this could be done.

Under the general question of providing funds for OECD science support, Dr. Kovach believed that the present arrangement on U.S. support often had gaps in obtaining adequate coverage. Dr. Wilson did not see where this was a problem. He believed that so long as it pertained to the work of OECD that OECD should certainly pay for it. Dr. Kovach pointed out that this had certain limitations. He said that often additional or special studies were required which did not fit this arrangement. Consequently it is often difficult to find an agency to pay for these projects. Mr. Tobin felt that the present funding structure for OECD in the Department was quite adequate and that it only required asking for sufficient funds to cover these matters. Mr. Pardee pointed out that the obtaining of agreement to request additional funds was often difficult to accomplish. There was general agreement that the present funding system was haphazard.

On the general question of the U.S.-Japan Committee, the general discussion was opened on the question of the Advisory Panels in that the present ones were being dissolved and new Panels would be appointed by the Foundation to serve for one year. Dr. Wilson brought up the fact that the Foundation was recommending to SCI that Panel Chairmen also be designated as members of the Joint Committee, and that a letter would be coming from the Foundation on this. Dr. Rollefson pointed out that this arrangement would have certain disadvantages. The various vested interests would be represented on the Committee which might cause a certain lack of flexibility in either expanding or contracting certain of the programs. Since we propose to limit the Committee to eight (8) members, if we appointed all of the Panel Chairmen there would not be room for any other members. If only certain Panel Chairmen were appointed, this would cause difficulties with those Panel Chairmen who were not appointed. It was certainly agreed that this arrangement might improve the coordination between the Panels and the work of the Committee. Dr. Wilson said that this was only a recommendation of the Foundation and they were not pushing for it.

The Foundation's further position on the subject of Panels was that this management approach was an awkward and top-heavy arrangement and they would like to look to the day when the Panels could be dissolved. It was decided that this possibility should be discussed informally with Dr. Kaneshige through Harry Kelly. Dr. Roe said he would call Dr. Kelly to this effect.

On the third question dealing with the International Science Notes, Dr. Wilson said that they really believed that the publication of such notes, since the information came basically from State Department sources, should be published by SCI. Dr. Kretzmann disagreed saying that it was not the business of the State Department to be informing U.S. scientists about such matters. Dr. Wilson disagreed with this position saying that if you follow this rationale, the Foundation should also be publishing information sent into the Department of Agriculture by Agriculture Attaches. He reiterated that this should be done by SCI. Mr. Pardee said that he would have difficulty arguing with Dr. Wilson's position since he had been using the statement with the Bureau of the Budget that our Attaches were the sole source of such information and that it did not flow back into this country by any other source. Dr. Kretzmann suggested that this matter be raised with State's Bureau of Public Affairs as to whether this could be done by the Department of State. Mr. Pardee agreed to do this.

On the last question about NSF representation overseas, Mr. Pardee said that it basically referred to the situation that existed in Tokyo on the policy position taken by Dr. Oetjen. Col. Sturges went on to explain some of the internal difficulties in Tokyo in terms of philosophy of NSF representative as to his responsibility, viz-a-viz, those of the Scientific Attache but it was obvious in recent months that the situation had been much improved. Dr. Wilson said that as far as the Foundation was concerned, there is no question as to supremacy of the Scientific Attache in terms of representing U.S. science abroad. As a matter of fact, he said he at one time prepared a paper on the subject. Because of the shortness of time, it was agreed that the question would be put off to be examined in more detail at a later meeting.