part by other fields within the physical sciences; some problems clearly require the attention of engineers and social scientists.

The second matter I wish to discuss arises from the Department's search for scientific talent qualified to serve as policy officers in the Department and as scientific attachés abroad.

It is now widely appreciated that an adequate understanding of science and technological considerations is essential if the officers of the Department of State are to deal effectively with international policy questions which have their origin in or are heavily affected by such considerations. This is a conclusion that the Department had earlier come to with respect to a wide range of other considerations, especially in the economic field, that are now recognized as part of the fabric of international affairs.

The need for policy-oriented scientific and technical competence is not met by having a cluster of such talent in my office or scattered at a dozen and a half missions abroad. It must permeate the entire organization, for the interactions are occurring in almost every aspect of the Department's work and in every corner of the globe. In affect, in addition to the need for a staff of full-time scientific attachés abroad the Foreign Service could make good use of 50 or more officers who could bring a measure of professional competence to scientific subjects with international policy implications.

Thus, there is an urgent and growing need, utterly out of balance with the supply, for people who are well trained not only in basic scientific concepts and their applications, but also in their social, political, and economic implications. Until the present time, the few individuals who might claim to possess these attributes have had to work out a personal program of self-training. This is not sufficient. Carefully directed, systematic training programs need to be designed for scientists interested in the sociopolitical environment, and the nonscientists interested in science and technology.

On the latter, the Department has a number of steps underway to prepare its officers for work in this field.

Two months ago Secretary Rusk inaugurated a scientific and technological exchange program in cooperation with NASA, AEC, NSF, and the Department of Commerce. Under this plan, officers are being assigned to tours of duty with each other's agencies, to increase the understanding of the nonscientist for the implications of science and the understanding of the scientist for the implications of international relations within the context of the missions of the various agencies. Last month the third of an ongoing series of seminars on science, technology, and foreign affairs was conducted. On this occasion the participants were 20 handpicked, high-quality, middle-grade officers of the Department.

The Department is also now actively seeking individuals with scientific training as entrants into the career Foreign Service.

This year the Department also instituted a series of "Secretary's science briefings" as another step toward increasing the understanding within the Department of the important relationships between science, technology, and foreign affairs. The initial briefing in February of this year, attended by the Secretary, Under Secretaries, and other principal officers of the Department, was on the subject of desalination.

62-309-66- -3

Approximately a year ago the Department designated science officers at Foreign Service missions at which a scientific attaché was not located. This concept, which has worked very well in several posts, offers considerable promise for the future provided an adequate supply of qualified Foreign Service officers can be developed.

These efforts to equip the Department's officers with a capacity to deal usefully with the interaction of scientific and technological subject matter and foreign affairs are but a beginning and much more will have to be done. At the same time an increasing effort will have to be made to recruit scientific and engineering personnel with understanding and talent for working in the policy field. I can testify that such persons are exceedingly scarce. Their nonscientific skills are developed more by accident than by design.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Pollack, could you go into that a little bit further. The idea is an exceedingly good one. You will provide people at locations where scientific attachés are not presently assigned. What success have you had? How many people are you talking about? How does it look for the future, recognizing that they are scarce as you have just said?

Mr. POLLACK. I think it probably looks fairly well for the future but I think part of the remainder of the proposal I wish to make here would help to bring the condition I seek about 5 or 10 years earlier than might otherwise arise. We have established now with the exception I think of some 15 posts, the position of science officer. This is to say that in approximately 95 of our missions we either have a scientific attaché or a science officer. Obviously the degree of scientifically related activity will vary from post to post. The man who is so designated in Mexico spends better than 50 percent of his time on science and science-related activities. He happens to have been incidentally, a capable Foreign Service officer who originally received his training as an engineer, so he had some technical background to begin with. We look for such backgrounds whenever we can find it in men assigned to science officer duties.

Our man in Greece is spending a sizable proportion of his time, little bit less than half, on scientifically related activities and this is occurring now with increasing frequencies at posts where the work volume justifies it.

We have just determined that we will put a full-time man, though not as an attaché since the level of the activity doesn't currently call for it, in Yugoslavia, where the position will be a science officer. We don't know yet whether we will be able to find the man we are seeking for the post within the Service. We may have to look outside.

I was once the Director of Personnel for the Department of State. I tell people half in joking, but I think literally I am not too far from the truth, that I now spend more time on personnel than I did when I was responsible for the Department's personnel program. I am a little bit hopeful that the efforts we have made, to spread the fact that we are interested in scientific talent capable of working in the foreign policy field, is beginning to produce results, and people are showing up in our office who have been referred to us by others who are aware of our search. We have had the assistance of many of the agencies in town in this search, including the National Science Foundation.

Very recently I interviewed a man who had graduated as an engineer and then taken to a law school and done so well that he is now serv

ing as a law clerk to one of the senior justices here in Washington. He has come to a conclusion that what he is seeking out of life is not to be found in a law practice or in the engineering profession, but rather in working with the Government in some capacity that will permit him to use both of those skills. We think we have the answer for that kind of a person. He is exactly the kind of a person that we are interested in.

Dean Price up at Harvard has a standing invitation which I remind him of from time to time, to call to my attention any promising graduates of his graduate seminar because people, scientific or otherwise, that would take that course are properly motivated for the kind of work that the Department is concerned with.

We have one such graduate with us in our office.

Now, our feeling as I go on to say in my statement, is that the recognition by the universities of the need for developing this kind of renaissance talent has only been recently recognized. It is only within the past 5 years or so that our institutions of higher learning have established programs in "science and society" or "science and public policy" which would provide an educational base for preparation of scientists for work on policy questions.

The most celebrated of these is Dean Price's graduate seminar at Harvard. Courses of study in this area are also now available at the Case Institute, MIT, Purdue University, the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Princeton, Columbia, and possibly several other universities.

Again, the surface has been barely scratched. I suggest that consideration be given to the possibility that the National Science Foundation provide encouragement and leadership which will result in the large-scale development of undergraduate and graduate programs for the training of scientists and engineers for work in policy fields. This objective would be facilitated if it were made clear that such activity is encompassed in the words "education in the sciences," which is embodied in this legislation in several places.

This effort would help to create a new body of knowledge now lacking in this field, which lies neither within the discipline of the natural or the social sciences, but which is being born as a union of the two.

A truly interdisciplinary effort should be encouraged, in which the scientist and his nonscientist colleagues work together to combine the resources of science and technology and those of domestic and foreign policy.

In summary, the Department of State believes that the changes contemplated by the revised language in H.R. 13696 will provide a substantial increase in the ability of the U.S. Government to make effective use of its scientific and technological capabilities in support of international policies and objectives. In this general connection, moving ahead on the two areas of activity discussed above would in the Department's opinion represent constructive steps to be taken at this time.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Pollack, you have made an excellent statement and it includes ideas about which we are all concerned and for which we seek solution.

I wonder if you might give us the benefit of your experience. As you look to the future of people of this type, how could their oppor

tunity with the State Department grow so that they would not find themselves limited? What would be the career potential?

Mr. POLLACK. I have to deal with this, I think, in two parts. I think as I look forward to the requirement of the State Department for policy-oriented scientific talent-I will use that as a shorthand way of describing the kind of person we are interested in-we will have a continuing need for two categories of personnel. One will be the man who has decided, as apparently has this young engineerlawyer, that he wishes to pursue neither a career as an engineer nor as a lawyer, either one of which I am sure he could do with great success, but wishes to pursue a career in international affairs which will make use of both of those talents. This officer can look forward within the State Department, within the Foreign Service, to a career of steady progression that would, I think, provide him with fairly heavy opportunity to make use of that combination of talents. Such an officer with the abilities that he appears to have, should be a promising candidate 15 or 20 years hence for high executive responsibilities.

Twenty years from now, I can think of no place in the world where we have an Embassy that would not benefit by having as a chief of mission someone with a solid technical or scientific background.

The other kind of person that we will need on a continuing basis is the highly trained scientist who doesn't want to surrender science as his field and he will have developed capabilities to work effectively in science policy areas through one device or another the way some of the men we are now employing in this capacity have been able to do. He will want to come with the Department of State for 2 years, possibly 3. He will then want to return to his academic environment or research institution. Ten years later he may be ready to take a sabbatical and once again want to serve with us abroad. Several of our earlier scientific attachés have expressed interest in another tour of duty. This man doesn't look to the Department of State for a career advancement. He looks to the Department of State for an opportunity to serve in an important field where he feels he can make an effective contribution. He will move in and out-the Reserve officer concept. The trend that I see coming ahead of us doesn't lead me at this point and time to worry about an oversupply of talent in this field. It is a reverse concern that haunts me at this stage. I might point out, that by no means is the Department of State the only agency in this Government, and by no means is it only going to be the Government that will be able to make use of policy-oriented scientific talent.

I think industry is going to be seeking this kind of person. I think our universities and many other agencies in town will have occasion to employ this kind of talent as well.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. I might just add that we can use a few of them in Congress.

Mr. DADDARIO. By appointment?

Mr. BROWN. No; by election, I hope.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Pollack, thank you ever so much. We appreciate your being here, and you have been very helpful to us.

This committee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock at the same place.

(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned until 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 20, 1966.)

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO HERMAN S. POLLACK, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Question 1. Dr. Haworth and Dr. Walker have suggested that section 3(a) (2) of the bill be amended to allow the Secretary of State to request that NSF support activities designed to strengthen science education abroad such as by supporting programs in modified course content or curriculum development. Do you see a current or projected need for this authority? If so, please explain.

Answer. The Department of State does see a need for authority residing in NSF whereby it could, when so requested by the Secretary of State, support activities designed to strengthen science education abroad.

AID is ordinarily able to provide support for such programs, when it is in the interests of the United States to do so in countries which are receiving AID support. However, it is likely that there may be instances in the overall U.S. interest to provide such support to such non-AID countries that are still in the process of economic development. At present there is no U.S. capability to provide such support. Alternatively, it may prove to be desirable to cooperate with advanced countries in curriculum development for application in the developing world.

Question 2. We would appreciate an expanded discussion of the effect of the proposed new section 3(a) (2) on the relation between the Agency for International Development and the Foundation? In particular, to what extent would the new language permit the Foundation to independently budget and carry out activities which it presently undertakes almost as a contractor for AID? Also, to what extent would the new proposed language enable the Foundation and the State Department to explore the feasibility and, perhaps, to demonstrate the practicability of internationally “financed and operated laboratories for basic research?

Answer. We do not believe that the authority granted under revised section 3(a)(2) will fundamentally change the relationship between the Foundation and AID.

The Department endorses the wording and purpose of the proposed revision of section 3(a)(2), as stated in Dr. Haworth's letter of April 18, 1966, to the committee concerning the authority of the National Science Foundation to engage in international activities at the request of the Secretary of State. The interpretation of this revised section, as agreed upon among the National Science Foundation, the Department of State, and the Bureau of the Budget, was forwarded to you in the letter from Mr. MacArthur to Chairman Miller on May 12, 1966, the pertinent sections of which read as follows:

"We have discussed with the National Science Foundation the wording and purpose of the proposed revision of section 3(a) (2) as stated in Dr. Haworth's letter of April 18, 1966, to the committee concerning the authority of the National Science Foundation to engage in international activities at the request of the Secretary of State. We understand from our discussions with the representatives of the National Science Foundation that the proposed revision of section 3(a) (2) authorizes the National Science Foundation to engage in international scientific activities for reasons other than whether the activities promote and strengthen science or science education in the United States. The Department of State is gratified that the amendment will authorize international scientific activities which may be justified from the standpoint of the U.S. national interest, broadly conceived, that is, the activities further our foreign policy objectives, even if they do not primarily promote science and scientific education in the United States. We also understand from our discussion with representatives of the National Science Foundation that any limitations in section 13(a) of the National Science Foundation Act would not constrain the interpretation of section 3(a) (2), as revised, but instead the National Science Foundation authority under section 13(a) can also be exercised with respect to international scientific activities without regard to whether the activity involved promotes and strengthens science or science education in the United States, if the activity may be justified from the