<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:43350.wais]
THE ROLE OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS AND UNIVERSITIES
IN INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 15, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-114
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-350 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JO BONNER, Alabama
LAURA RICHARDSON, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
------
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
JERRY MCNERNEY, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
BARON P. HILL, Indiana BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JIM WILSON Subcommittee Staff Director
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Democratic Professional Staff Member
MELE WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member
BESS CAUGHRAN Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
July 15, 2008
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 8
Witnesses:
Dr. Alan I. Leshner, Chief Executive Officer, American
Association for the Advancement of Science; Executive
Publisher, SCIENCE
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Biography.................................................... 14
Dr. Michael T. Clegg, Foreign Secretary, National Academy of
Sciences, The National Academies
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Biography.................................................... 22
Dr. William A. Wulf, Member, Board of Directors, U.S. Civilian
Research and Development Foundation (CRDF)
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 25
Biography.................................................... 37
Dr. James A. Calvin, Interim Vice President for Research;
Professor of Statistics, Texas A&M University
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 41
Biography.................................................... 46
Discussion....................................................... 46
THE ROLE OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND UNIVERSITIES IN
INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Role of Non-governmental
Organizations and Universities
in International Science and
Technology Cooperation
tuesday, july 15, 2008
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
The purpose of the hearing is to examine the role of U.S. non-
governmental organizations and universities in international science
and technology cooperation, in particular relative to the role of the
Federal Government.
2. Witnesses:
<bullet> Dr. Alan Leshner, Chief Executive Officer, American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and
Executive Publisher of the journal Science.
<bullet> Dr. Michael Clegg, in his capacity as Foreign
Secretary, National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Clegg is also
Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences and of Ecology and
Evolutionary Biology at the University of California, Irvine.
<bullet> Dr. William Wulf, in his capacity as a Member of the
Board of Directors, Civilian Research and Development
Foundation (CRDF). Dr. Wulf is also AT&T Professor of Computer
Science at the University of Virginia and immediate Past
President of the National Academy of Engineering.
<bullet> Dr. James Calvin, Interim Vice President for
Research, Texas A&M University. Dr. Calvin is also a Professor
of Statistics at Texas A&M.
3. Overarching Questions:
<bullet> What are the roles of non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) and universities in fostering international science
cooperation relative to that of the Federal Government and to
each other? What unique strengths does each of the
organizations represented at the hearing bring to this effort?
What are their respective limitations? How do NGOs and
universities coordinate their efforts with the Federal
Government and with each other?
<bullet> How might the Federal Government take better
advantage of science and the U.S. scientific community in
pursuing its foreign policy goals and in helping to lead the
world toward global solutions for global challenges such as
water, climate, energy and infectious diseases?
4. Overview
On April 2, 2008, the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education held a hearing to examine the federal role in international
science and technology (S&T) cooperation.\1\ Witnesses were invited
from the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the National
Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of State (DOS), and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The research
agencies, such as NSF and NASA, support science for the sake of
science; that is, they support cooperative research activities that
enable U.S. scientists to work with the best scientists and access the
best research sites around the world, or that leverage foreign funds to
build world class research facilities. However, witnesses agreed that
while DOS is responsible for establishing U.S. diplomatic priorities,
the research agencies support cooperative S&T activities that may also
benefit U.S. diplomatic objectives. Furthermore, OSTP and the research
agencies provide intellectual support to DOS on S&T-related issues, and
DOS helps the research agencies negotiate formal international S&T
agreements. The purpose of the April 2 hearing was to learn about the
breadth of U.S. Government sponsored cooperative S&T activities and to
examine the extent to which these activities are coordinated or
prioritized across the government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://science.house.gov/publications/
hearings<INF>-</INF>markups<INF>-</INF>details.aspx?NewsID=2134
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this hearing is to examine the role of non-
governmental organizations in international S&T cooperation, and the
relationship between those organizations and the Federal Government.
NGOs and universities play critical roles in promoting and managing
U.S. participation in international S&T cooperation. Scientific
organizations such as the National Academies and the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) can mobilize U.S.
scientific leadership in a way that the U.S. Government generally
cannot, and they can engage in troubled countries where the government
has strained or no official diplomatic relations. The U.S. Civilian
Research and Development Foundation (CRDF) also has more flexibility
and credibility than official government representatives in certain
regions. Organizations such as the Institute for International
Education (IIE) and NAFSA: Association of International Educators
promote the open exchange of students and scholars across borders.
Universities not only welcome foreign students and scholars to their
campuses and send their own students and scholars abroad, they are
increasingly experimenting with satellite campuses in regions such as
the Middle East and in educating a more globally aware student body.
Finally, a number of private foundations fund certain science or
technology based initiatives, typically in agriculture and/or health,
including Gates, Sloan, Carnegie, and Rockefeller. One much smaller
foundation, the Lounsbery Foundation, provides seed funding to help
jump-start international cooperative S&T activities not related to
agriculture, health or other areas not supported by the big
foundations.
5. NGO Activities in International S&T Cooperation
The National Academies (comprised of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of
Medicine) have a long history of engagement in global S&T issues, run
primarily out of the Policy and Global Affairs Division. The National
Academies are represented at the 18-Member InterAcademy Council and the
98-Member InterAcademy Panel, both of which are global networks of
national and/or regional science academies that take on global S&T
challenges. The Council produces reports for policy-makers on global
issues, most recently on a sustainable energy future, whereas the Panel
is focused more on capacity building. The National Academies also work
on a bilateral basis--for example with China on biosecurity and with
Israel and the Palestinian Authority on water issues. They frequently
sponsor meetings and workshops to bring together scientists and
engineers from different countries but with common interests and
challenges. In general, the National Academies have unparalleled
credibility and a unique ability to regularly mobilize a global network
of scientists and our own scientific leadership in cooperative efforts
to address global concerns across the spectrum of S&T issues.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS),
publisher of Science magazine, also has global credibility and name
recognition, but does not have the same built-in network of comparable
organizations. The AAAS International Office, which has just a handful
of staff, supports three strategic goals: international scientific
cooperation; capacity-building and workforce enhancements (including
increased participation of women in science); and sustainable
development. The AAAS Center for Science, Technology and Security also
works on a global level to address non-proliferation and arms control.
AAAS does not produce reports directly for policy-makers, but it does
produce reports for the community that are often of interest to policy-
makers. AAAS also facilitates meetings of scientists from around the
world, sometimes in partnership with the National Academies. The theme
of the 2008 AAAS Annual Meeting was ``Science and Technology from a
Global Perspective'' and among the keynote speakers were the President
of the Republic of Rwanda and the Science Adviser to the Secretary of
State. As an organization they are making a concerted effort to engage
more U.S. scientists in international cooperation.
The U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation (CRDF) was
authorized by Congress in 1992 (P.L. 102-511) and established by NSF in
1995. CRDF receives support from several foundations and from the U.S.
Government--primarily an annual grant from DOS, but also lesser amounts
for specific programs from NSF, NIH, and DOD. While CRDF has many
different kinds of programs in cooperative science research, education
and training, including an industry partnership program, it is perhaps
best known for its role in helping to redirect weapons scientists in
the Former Soviet Union (FSU). CRDF, as an NGO without the constraints
of official government-to-government diplomacy and bureaucracy, became
very adept at enlisting FSU weapons scientists in cooperative civilian
research with U.S. scientists, and bypassing bureaucracy and corruption
on the FSU side to transfer to the scientists the funds necessary to
partner in this research. In 2004, CRDF began to expand its reach
beyond the FSU to developing countries and troubled regions throughout
the world as well as to broaden its expertise to the full range of
global S&T challenges.
The international programs and initiatives at Texas A&M University
are fairly representative of such programs at research universities
across the country. Texas A&M has formal research agreements with more
than 130 institutions in 45 countries and enrolls over 4,000
international students from 124 countries. Nationwide, 40.5 percent of
the 583,000 foreign students studying in the U.S. in 2006-07 were
enrolled in science and engineering programs.\2\ The university also
welcomes international faculty and scholars for limited term research
and education appointments and likewise sends some of its own faculty
to foreign universities. The Research and Science Education
Subcommittee explored the benefits of the open exchange of science and
engineering students and scholars in a February 2008 hearing.\3\ In
addition, Texas A&M maintains two overseas centers in Italy and in
Mexico City and is currently establishing a third one in Costa Rica.
Faculty and students have participated in more than 600 research and
development projects in over 80 countries. In 2003 the university
opened a branch campus in Doha, Qatar, offering four undergraduate
engineering degrees. It will soon be establishing research centers and
graduate programs at the Qatar campus. The Technology and Innovation
Subcommittee examined the specific issue of the internationalization of
U.S. universities as part of a July 2007 hearing on the globalization
of R&D.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange,''
Institute of International Education, 2007.
\3\ http://science.house.gov/publications/
hearings<INF>-</INF>markups<INF>-</INF>details.aspx?NewsID=2064
\4\ http://science.house.gov/publications/
hearings<INF>-</INF>markups<INF>-</INF>details.aspx?NewsID=1926
6. Questions for Witnesses
All four witnesses were asked to address in their testimony
questions similar to the ``overarching questions'' listed previously.
Chairman Baird. Good morning. Our hearing will come to
order. I want to thank all our witnesses, my dear friend, Dr.
Ehlers, and Members in the audience for being here. This is the
third hearing we are having in a series of meetings dealing
with the issue of international scientific collaboration and
what some have called scientific diplomacy, the idea that
scientific exchanges can go a long way towards not only
advancing science itself but advancing international
relationships. Both Dr. Ehlers and I are very passionate about
this, both of us trained as scientists, and having had the
privilege of meeting people from around the world who have been
impacted by collaborative exchanges, we place a high value on
this.
In the past, we have heard from government agencies, and
today we will hear from three non-governmental organizations
that engage in scientific diplomacy and from a university that
supports research and education partnerships, not just across
its southern borders but halfway across the world to a country
and culture radically different from our own, and we look
forward to hearing about that. As important as it is for the
U.S. Government to actively engage in science diplomacy, the
organizations we are having with us today represented here add
unique value to the effort. They are widely known and respected
throughout the world. They represent the best of U.S. science
and higher education, and they have the flexibility, the
connections, and the know-how to engage scientists and pursue
good science even in countries where government-to-government
relations are tense or limited and in countries with limited
S&T capacity of their own.
I had an interesting brief chat with Dr. Leshner earlier
about, for example, the challenge in some cultures of producing
non-significant results, if that is a failure of experience and
failure is not allowed, goodness gracious, how do you do
science if you cannot fail?
While I often emphasize the diplomatic benefits of
international science and technology cooperation, there are
also many compelling reasons for the U.S. public and private
sectors alike to make S&T cooperation a national priority.
Visit any of the high-tech enterprises in my district and I am
sure across the country and you will see they are indeed
international endeavors, and bringing people here, sending our
people internationally, is an often I think unseen benefit of
collaboration.
The major challenges faced by our nation are the major
challenges faced by the entire globe, and our country cannot
effectively pursue solutions on its own.
So, I look forward to hearing from this very distinguished
panel of witnesses about their efforts to promote international
science and cooperation as well as their recommendations for
how the Federal Government might strengthen its efforts through
more effective partnerships with U.S. scientific organizations
and research universities.
I will tell you a brief anecdote which others have heard
before, but I think it is so compelling that I will tell it
often here and it is in visiting Egypt a couple of years ago at
an international meeting and meeting a young woman with a head
scarf. Actually, not a young woman, she was probably in her
late 50's with a head scarf, kind of classic Arabic woman; and
when she was introduced to Howard Berman, he said he was from
southern California, a proud fist shot into the air and the
woman said, I am a mighty Trojan. She had gotten her doctorate
at USC, and she didn't just say I got my doctorate at USC, she
had become a mighty Trojan. And that kind of affection and
sincere warmth one doesn't take lightly. And it is through
scientific collaboration that much of that is achieved.
And so we look forward to our witnesses today, and with
that I recognize Dr. Ehlers for opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
Good morning. Welcome to this Research and Science Education
Subcommittee hearing on The Role of Non-governmental Organizations and
Universities in International Science and Technology Cooperation.
Three months ago this subcommittee heard testimony from a panel of
senior governmental officials representing some of the key federal
agencies and offices responsible for supporting and setting priorities
for U.S. participation in international science and technology
cooperation. In that hearing we learned a little about the breadth of
cooperative S&T activities supported by the U.S. Government. We learned
that research agencies are largely successful at pursuing international
partnerships to further science and the agencies' own domestic missions
and that the State Department actively pursues S&T agreements to
further its foreign policy goals. However, it seems to me there is room
for improved coordination and priority setting across agencies,
especially when it comes to leveraging the quality and reputation of
U.S. science to further diplomatic goals.
This morning we will hear from three non-governmental organizations
that actively engage in science diplomacy, and from a university that
supports research and education partnerships not just across its
southern borders but halfway across the world to a country and culture
radically different from our own. As important as it is for the U.S.
Government to actively engage in science diplomacy, the organizations
represented here add unique value to this effort. They are known and
respected throughout the world. They represent the best of U.S. science
and higher education. And they have the flexibility, the connections
and the know-how to engage scientists and pursue good science even in
countries where government-to-government relationships are tense or
limited and in countries with limited S&T capacity of their own.
While I often emphasize the diplomatic benefits of international
S&T cooperation, there are many compelling reasons for the U.S. public
and private sectors alike to make S&T cooperation a national priority.
The major challenges faced by our nation are the major challenges faced
by the entire globe, and the U.S. cannot effectively pursue solutions
on its own.
I look forward to hearing from this very distinguished panel of
witnesses about their efforts to promote international science and
technology cooperation as well as their recommendations for how the
Federal Government might strengthen its efforts through more effective
partnerships with U.S. scientific organizations and research
universities.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, my apologies
for being a bit late. We were trying to solve the Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac difficulties in the space of 15 minutes. It
would have been easier to solve Maxwell's equations.
Today's hearing gives us an opportunity to learn about
efforts by non-governmental organizations and universities in
science diplomacy around the world. The federal agencies have a
responsibility in this area, of course, as we learned in a
previous hearing, but many of the organizations before us today
are uniquely positioned to leverage their own strengths at
building relationships in science and technology cooperation
that transcend literal and figurative borders. Even in times of
governmental conflict, relationships built on trust and mutual
respect will outlast current frictions.
One of the advantages of being older is to remember, this
has all happened before; and I remember during the years of the
Iron Curtain, things of that sort, the two things that
contributed a great deal to the breaking down of the Iron
Curtain were exchanges of cultural activities, primarily
musical, but there were some other cultural activities, too,
and that broke the ice. But I think what really did make major
contributions is the interchange of scientists between the
Soviet Union and the West. Both parties, both the American
scientists and the Russian scientists, were very anxious to
work together. They did not regard this as a political
activity, but the net effect on the government of Russia I
think was to open the doors even wider because they could learn
from us and they did.
This committee knows that the United States will not remain
globally competitive in science and technology unless we are
able to work with international partners. Utilizing all avenues
to strengthen these relationships, public and private, official
and non-official, will be critical to our success as a nation.
Raising the profile of science and technology is a consistent
goal of this committee as well.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
both their successes and challenges. I certainly appreciate
your attendance at this hearing, and I am sure we will learn a
great deal from you in the experiences you have had; and I can
add those to the experiences that I have had working directly
in my laboratory with foreign scientists whom I still keep in
touch with.
Thank you for being here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Today's hearing is an opportunity to learn about efforts by non-
governmental organizations and universities in science diplomacy around
the world. The federal agencies have a responsibility in this area, as
we learned in a previous hearing, but many of the organizations before
us today are uniquely positioned to leverage their own strengths at
building relationships in science and technology cooperation that
transcend literal and figurative borders. Even in times of governmental
conflict, relationships built on trust and mutual respect will outlast
current frictions.
This committee knows that the U.S. will not remain globally
competitive in science and technology unless we are able to work with
international partners. Utilizing all avenues to strengthen these
relationships--public and private, official and non-official will be
critical to our success as a nation. Raising the profile of science and
technology is a consistent goal of this committee as well.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about both their
successes and challenges. Thank you for your attendance.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting another important hearing on
international science and technology.
As a Member of both the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, I am particularly
interested in the issues before us today. I was pleased to attend our
April hearing on the Federal Government's role in science diplomacy; I
look forward to learning more about the role of non-governmental
organizations and universities as coordinating entities of
international science and technology.
It is clear that we can build more positive relationships with
other countries through science. We also understand that the U.S. can
better affect U.S. national security and economic interests by helping
to build technological capacity in other countries. I am especially
interested in how NGOs and universities can help support the Federal
Government's efforts to improve relations abroad through science
diplomacy and hope that our witnesses today will spend some time on
that topic.
I would like to thank today's witnesses, Dr. Leshner, Dr. Clegg,
Dr. Wulf, and Dr. Calvin, for coming before the Committee. I look
forward to hearing their testimony.
Chairman Baird. At this time, I would like to introduce our
distinguished witnesses. First, Dr. Alan Leshner is the Chief
Executive Officer of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal,
Science. Dr. Leshner, I would like to say I received your
letter. I will be renewing my membership just next week. I
truly did. It was in my mailbox last night that my membership
to Science is about to expire, so it is on the way, the check
is in the mail.
Dr. Michael Clegg is the Foreign Secretary of the National
Academy of Sciences. Dr. Clegg is also the Donald Bren
Professor of Biological Sciences and of ecology and
evolutionary biology at the University of California at Irvine.
Dr. Bill Wulf is a Member of the Board of Directors of the U.S.
Civilian Research and Development Foundation. Dr. Wulf is also
AT&T professor of computer science at the University of
Virginia and the immediate past president of the National
Academy of Engineering. Dr. James Calvin is the Interim Vice
President for Research at Texas A&M University. Dr. Calvin is
also professor of statistics at Texas A&M.
As the witnesses all probably know from experience, our
spoken testimony is limited to five minutes, but after that, we
will have a nice positive exchange of ideas and questions, and
we will start then with Dr. Leshner. Dr. Leshner, thank you for
being here.
STATEMENT OF DR. ALAN I. LESHNER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE; EXECUTIVE
PUBLISHER, SCIENCE
Dr. Leshner. Thank you very much, Dr. Baird, Dr. Ehlers.
First of all, thank you both for your membership. We enjoy your
participation in our organization. I also wanted to take this
opportunity to thank you for holding this hearing and for
giving us an opportunity to speak about the critical role that
U.S. non-governmental organizations can play in international
science and technology cooperation.
Just to be clear, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science is the world's largest multi-
disciplinary scientific society, and in spite of our name, we
are in fact international in membership and character. About 20
percent of our members come from outside the United States.
Our international activities typically support two key
objectives. One is helping to build and knit together the
global science enterprise and secondly promoting what is called
science diplomacy. We at AAAS believe it is incumbent to our
mission to build international partnerships that assist other
nations as they are becoming integrated into the global science
enterprise. We also help developing nations establish the
requisite scientific infrastructure so that they may better
reap the benefits of science for their societies.
Science diplomacy has as its goal to utilize international
scientific collaboration to foster communication and
cooperation among the peoples of diverse nations and to promote
greater global peace, prosperity, and stability. I would like
to draw a somewhat subtle but I think important distinction
between science diplomacy as conducted by governments and
science diplomacy as often carried out by non-governmental
organizations.
Governments often use science and technology as a
diplomatic or foreign policy tool either to help foster another
country's development or to increase understanding of U.S.
values and ways of doing business. As used by non-governmental
organizations, however, science diplomacy typically has been
used to maintain communication and cooperation links among the
citizens of countries when their governmental relationships
might otherwise be strained or limited. Because we believe
science diplomacy to be particularly important at this point in
world history, I am very pleased to announce today that we at
AAAS are creating a new AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy. The
Center's over-arching goal is to use science and scientific
cooperation to promote international understanding and
prosperity. It will provide a forum for scientists, policy
analysis, and policy-makers to share information and explore
collaborative opportunities.
I also would like to take this occasion to offer some
suggestions about steps the government might take to better
position the United States in undertaking international science
activities.
First, we need to raise the profile of these issues, and I
am particularly pleased you are having this hearing. We need to
raise the profile of these issues to the government, to the
public, and to the scientific community itself. I do hope that
other Congressional committees, particularly those dealing with
foreign relations, will work jointly with you to continue the
discussion through, for example, additional focused hearings.
As just one example of a topic of a hearing might be to look at
the mechanisms the State Department could use to evaluate more
effectively the science and technology cooperation agreements
that the United States has with other countries, particularly
in terms of their follow-on activities and their long-term
impacts over time.
We also believe that there are steps that might improve the
effectiveness of the international programs of U.S.
governmental research agencies. One concern I have long had is
that some agencies are limited by statute in what they can do
because they are not allowed to pay the cost for foreign
participants. We believe this limitation can impede the ability
of the programs to achieve their over-arching goals.
In the realm of science diplomacy, I would encourage
Congress and the State Department to consider developing
funding mechanisms that could be used to catalyze the types of
international science cooperation that are consistent with and
reinforce U.S. foreign policy objectives.
And finally, I believe that any efforts to raise the
profile on effectiveness of international science requires
strong White House leadership, particularly through a
presidential science advisor with sufficient rank to work
across the entire government. The Office of Science and
Technology Policy must also have an associate director who has
a clear international mandate if this is going to work. As
science and technology are ever more embedded in every aspect
of modern life and in every major global policy issue, it is
essential that we determine ways and places where science and
technology cooperation might be better incorporated into
international relations, not only government to government but
critically civil society to civil society. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Leshner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan I. Leshner
Dr. Baird (Chairman), Dr. Ehlers (Ranking Member), Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the critical
role that U.S. non-governmental organizations play in cultivating,
promoting, and coordinating international science and technology
cooperation.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is
the world's largest multi-disciplinary scientific society and publisher
of the journal, Science. Although we were founded in the United States
and our name begins with the word ``American,'' that term belies the
inherent role that we play in the international arena. Approximately 20
percent of our members are from outside the United States. Moreover, 35
to 40 percent of the research articles we publish in Science have
authors located outside of the United States.
As the largest general scientific society in the world, our
membership allows us both to draw upon scientists from around the world
and to access scientists from a very wide range of fields, including
the natural, physical and social sciences, as well as engineering and
medical science. This depth and breadth of membership provides a
massive resource base for action.
AAAS also has an array of well established and recognized program
activities in science education, science policy, science communication,
and science and national security. This diversity allows us to engage
stakeholders from all regions and sectors required to promote and
sustain a robust dialogue with the global scientific community.
Over the years, AAAS has worked hard to broaden its efforts to
advance science internationally through a range of meetings and
education exchange activities. AAAS's portfolio of programs,
publications and members are critical to our efforts to build
coalitions among other science organizations, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and international governments for addressing a
wide range of science-society issues and for providing a framework for
our broader international efforts. As a AAAS Board of Directors'
resolution states, ``science is often a means to bridge the political
chasm that divides nations.'' It is a sentiment that is embodied in all
of AAAS's international interests and is echoed in our Mission ``to
advance science and serve society throughout the world.''
AAAS International Goals and Missions
While AAAS's international activities typically involve convening
special workshops or fostering educational exchanges, our projects can
best be characterized as supporting two key and mutually reinforcing
objectives:
<bullet> Helping to build and knit together the global science
enterprise
<bullet> Promoting what is called science diplomacy
Building a Global Science Enterprise
Science is by definition global in scope and application--it knows
no borders, is not constrained by geography, and no one country has a
monopoly on it. Advancements in astronomy, mathematics, biology and
medicine can find their roots in a rich history of scientific inquiry,
discovery, and the sharing of knowledge whether from Meso-America, the
Middle-East, or Europe.
That said, the United States has invested in a rich portfolio of
basic and applied research across a diverse spectrum of disciplines,
established a higher education system that is envied around the world,
and developed a robust scientific infrastructure. Because of these
investments, our national science and technology activities are at the
very forefront of the world's scientific enterprise. These investments
have also greatly benefited human health and well-being, increased
standards of living and economic growth, and helped build an informed
democratic society.
Because of our international character, we at AAAS believe it is
both our mission and a great opportunity to build international
partnerships that assist other nations as they begin to become
integrated into the global science enterprise. In support of our
objective ``to serve society,'' we help developing nations establish
the requisite scientific infrastructure in order that they too may
better reap the benefits of science as a basis for both their own
scientific advancement and their economic and social development.
Two recent examples of such international efforts include:
Women Leaders in Science and Engineering Conference. AAAS worked in
collaboration with the U.S. Department of State and the Government of
Kuwait to organize the Women's Leaders in Science and Engineering
Conference in Kuwait City in 2007. AAAS was able to assemble a
delegation of U.S. women scientists and engineers along with nearly 200
female scientists representing the 22 Arab countries. The conference
allowed international scientific peers to share experiences and lessons
learned in mentoring, scientific publishing and academic leadership.
Beyond building practical skills, the conference also provided a
critical opportunity for networking and building relationships for
potential collaborations in the future; not only between the U.S. and
Arab nations, but among the Arab nations present.
Research Integrity Workshop in China. Last September, AAAS conducted a
workshop in collaboration with senior members of the Chinese scientific
research and policy community on the subject of research integrity and
misconduct. The assembled U.S. delegation included journal editors,
former university presidents, and government officials. Chinese
delegates include presidents of their universities and leaders of
government agencies with responsibilities for science and technology.
Because integrity and trust are so critical to scientific research and
collaboration, this type of dialogue provided a valuable framework for
future partnerships and the further development of China's own
standards for the ethical conduct of scientific research.
Science Diplomacy
AAAS's second major objective is to act as a catalyst for what is
called ``science diplomacy.'' The over-arching goal of science
diplomacy is to use international scientific cooperation to foster
communication and cooperation among the peoples of diverse nations and
to promote greater global peace, prosperity and stability. Science
diplomacy is receiving more and more attention in both the scientific
and international relations community.
It might be useful here to draw a somewhat subtle distinction
between science diplomacy as conducted by governments and science
diplomacy as carried out by non-governmental organizations. As
emphasized in a recent Congressional Research Service Report to the
Congress,\1\ science and technology can be used very effectively by
government agencies as a diplomatic or foreign policy tool either to
help foster another country's development or to increase understanding
of U.S. values and ways of doing business. As used by non-governmental
organizations, science diplomacy has typically been used to maintain
communication and cooperation links among the citizens of countries
when their governmental relationships might otherwise be strained or
limited.\2\ In addition, non-governmental science diplomacy can help
build relationships among civil society entities to foster closer
people to people relationships whether governmental relationships are
good or strained. From my point of view, governments should be
interested and supportive of all of these forms of science diplomacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Stine, D.D., ``Science, Technology, and American diplomacy:
Background and Issues for Congress,'' Congressional Research Service,
May 22, 2008.
\2\ Lord K.M. and Turekian V.C., ``Time for a New Era of Science
Diplomacy,'' Science, February 9, 2007: Vol. 315 no. 5813, pp. 769-770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the most well known example of the success of science
diplomacy is the scientific exchanges that took place between the U.S.
and the former Soviet Union throughout the Cold War years. These
engagements not only helped advance fundamental scientific research,
but they also were critical for reinforcing trust between two nations
with tense official relationships. In fact in many instances, it
provided the only relationship between the two.
AAAS believes this use of scientific collaboration and
communication is essential both to the advancement of science and its
use for the benefit of our global society. For these reasons I am very
pleased to announce today the creation of a new AAAS Center for Science
Diplomacy.
The Center is to be guided by the overarching goal of using science
and scientific cooperation to promote international understanding and
prosperity. It approaches this goal by providing a forum for
scientists, policy analysts and policy-makers through which they can
share information and explore collaborative opportunities. We are
particularly interested in identifying opportunities for science
diplomacy to serve as a catalyst between societies where official
relations might be limited, and to strengthen existing partnerships in
science and technology.
The Center's initial activities will focus on:
<bullet> Analyzing current and past domestic and international
science diplomacy efforts and deriving lessons learned from
those that have succeeded;
<bullet> Characterizing the major barriers to successful
science diplomacy, such as educational and human resource
issues, funding problems, or other policy issues; and
<bullet> Leveraging existing and building new partnerships
with appropriate stakeholders in both the scientific and the
international affairs communities to develop new initiatives
and projects and expand ongoing successful ones.
Constraints on AAAS Programs
AAAS faces the same dilemmas that the U.S. Government faces: how
best to balance domestic versus international interests, and how best
to balance short-term versus long-term goals. International cooperation
takes time to develop and nurture, particularly if it requires
infrastructure development in one of the cooperating countries. The
impacts of science diplomacy also can take a long time to be realized,
since the scientific work must be done and trust must be nurtured over
time.
Both collaboration and diplomacy require clear time commitments,
and we are limited by the ability of our scientific members to take
time from their own research careers to share their expertise and build
the necessary relationships. We are fortunate at AAAS, because we can
draw upon a very large membership of notable scientists that have both
an eager interest in and the necessary experience of working
internationally. But that is not always enough. Many large scientific
organizations, not only those represented here today--CRDF, AAAS, and
the Academy--assist scientists in some capacity to participate in the
range of international activities that our organizations sponsor. By
collaborating and supporting one another, our organizations are able to
maximize the quality of international endeavors, while minimizing the
resources required.
Some Potential Government Activities
I will conclude by identifying some possible steps the government
might consider in order to better position the United States in
undertaking international science activities.
First, we need more efforts like this hearing to raise the profile
of these issues, to the government, to the public and to the scientific
community. I hope that other committees, particularly those dealing
with foreign relations, will work jointly with the Research and Science
Education Subcommittee to continue the discussion of the importance of
international scientific cooperation and science diplomacy as tools in
facilitating international peace, prosperity and security, and build
upon the efforts that you have already launched.
An example of a topic that could be explored in a joint hearing
might be mechanisms to assist the State Department in the development
of better strategies for evaluating science and technology cooperation
agreements. Too often the signing of these agreements seems to be an
end to the process rather than the start of a long-term, strategic
relationship.
Moreover, an analysis could be undertaken jointly by the scientific
community and the international relations community to provide guidance
for more strategic use of these agreements. This guidance could serve
not only to help foster international scientific collaborations and
overall relationship building, but also for addressing the many
societal challenges we face, such as sustainability, climate change,
health, etc.
I also believe there are steps that might improve the effectiveness
of the international programs of U.S. governmental research agencies.
One concern is that some agencies may be limited by statute in their
ability to use federal funds to support international activities
because they are not allowed to pay the costs for foreign participants.
Many agencies, of course, do participate in joint international
projects (e.g., the Space Station), but many still are unable to use
their budgets to help pay any of the costs for foreign participation.
Although we do agree with the view that U.S. taxpayer funds should be
used primarily to support American science, there are instances, such
as in international science development activities, where this
limitation impedes the ability of the programs to achieve their goals.
Specifically, many countries simply cannot afford to support their side
of the collaboration, and therefore the collaboration is doomed before
it has begun. It is worth noting that the European Commission 7th
Framework Program includes a new policy that allows non-European
institutions to apply for research funding.
In the realm of science diplomacy, I would encourage Congress and
the State Department to organize a workshop or roundtable of relevant
stakeholders from the scientific and international affairs communities
to look at ongoing efforts and analyze the possibility of establishing
new funding mechanisms to catalyze the types of international science
cooperation that are consistent with and reinforce the foreign policy
objectives of the United States.
Finally, I believe that any efforts to raise the profile and
effectiveness of international science require strong White House
leadership, mostly likely through a Presidential Science Advisor with
sufficient rank to work across the government, most likely the rank of
Assistant to the President. Furthermore, the Office of Science and
Technology Policy must also have an associate director who has a clear
international mandate and the ability to work with the State Department
and the National Security Council on issues of international science
cooperation.
As science and technology are ever-more imbedded in every aspect of
modern life and in every major global policy issue, it is essential
that all relevant parties--the Executive Branch, Congress, scientific
organizations and their members, international think tanks, foundation
leaders, and others, work together in a deliberative manner to
determine ways and places where science and technology cooperation
might be better incorporated into international relations, not only
government to government, but critically, civil society to civil
society.
APPENDIX A
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is
the world's largest general scientific society, and publisher of the
journal, Science (www.sciencemag.org). AAAS was founded in 1848, and
includes 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10
million individuals. Science has the largest paid circulation of any
peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated
total readership of one million. The non-profit AAAS (www.aaas.org) is
open to all and fulfills its mission to ``advance science and serve
society'' through initiatives in science education, science policy;
international programs; and an array of activities designed both to
increase public understanding and engage the public more with science.
APPENDIX B
Biography for Alan I. Leshner
Alan I. Leshner is Chief Executive Officer of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and Executive
Publisher of its journal, Science. From 1994 to 2001, Dr. Leshner was
Director of the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), and from 1988 to 1994 he was Deputy
Director and Acting Director of the National Institute of Mental
Health. Prior to that, he spent nine years at the National Science
Foundation, where he held a variety of senior positions, focusing on
basic research in the biological, behavioral and social sciences, on
science policy and on science education. Dr. Leshner began his career
at Bucknell University, where he was Professor of Psychology. His
research has focused on the biological bases of behavior, particularly
the role of hormones in the control of behavior. Dr. Leshner is an
elected member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of
Sciences, and an elected fellow of the AAAS, the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences, and the National Academy of Public Administration.
He has received numerous awards form both professional and lay groups
for his national leadership in science, mental illness and mental
health, substance abuse and addiction, and public engagement with
science. He received an A.B. degree in Psychology from Franklin and
Marshall College and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Physiological Psychology
from Rutgers University. He also has been awarded six Honorary Doctor
of Science degrees.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Leshner. We have been joined
by Mr. Bilbray from California. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray, for
being here.
Dr. Clegg.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL T. CLEGG, FOREIGN SECRETARY, NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Dr. Clegg. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss international science, technology, and
health cooperation. I use the abbreviation STH to refer to
science, technology, and health.
I am Michael Clegg, Foreign Secretary of the National
Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences is a
merit-based organization that elects outstanding scientists for
membership and includes the Nation's scientific leadership. The
U.S. Congress chartered the Academy in 1863 with the explicit
mission of providing STH advice to the U.S. Government when
asked.
Now, I would like to address your questions directly. Why
did the Academies promote international science cooperation?
Science is a global activity, was a global activity long
before the invention of the term globalization because the
advancement of sciences and the issues and challenges of STH
programs are predominantly global in nature. Science is
increasingly trans-border and global in its conception,
exploration, and application. It is thus in the vital interest
of the U.S. science community and more broadly U.S. society, to
maintain close linkages with science communities throughout the
world.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that our organization, together
with its sister academies, the National Academy of Engineering
in the Institute of Medicine, and Allied Science NGOs like the
AAAS and the major disciplinary science societies bring unique
strengths to international science cooperation.
Let me illustrate this point with three case studies.
Beginning early in the 1980s, the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences established a standing committee on international
security and arms control that worked with scientists in the
Soviet Union and later in Russia on issues of nuclear
stability, arms control, and non-proliferation. The initial
work was aimed at building mutual trust and respect, but
ultimately this effort matured into a dialogue that was central
to later arms reduction agreements. Current work with the
Russian Academy focuses on topics such as the international
nuclear fuel cycle, international nuclear security
environments, and beyond cooperation with Russia we convened
dialogues with India on Indo-U.S. cooperation in international
security issues and we convened a series of U.S.-China
engagements on security-related questions.
Let me now turn to a second example, that is, creating
bridges of cooperation in areas of conflict. We have an ongoing
program of cooperation with the Academies of the Middle East
whose effort included a project on water futures in the Jordan
Valley conducted jointly with the Israeli and Palestinian
Academies and with the Higher Council of Jordan that resulted
in a joint report entitled Water for the Future.
This work has now matured into a series of joint activities
that include projects on micro-nutrient deficiencies, water
resources, renewable energy, pollution, and land degradation
and science education. An organization has been created to
implement these programs provisionally named the Association of
Middle Eastern and U.S. National Academies of Sciences.
Why are the U.S. Academies seen as effective conveners of
activities in the Middle East? The principal answer is that the
U.S. scientific community is held in high esteem by all the
societies of this conflicted region of the world. This respect
for U.S. science institutions is based on widespread admiration
for American accomplishments in STH fields, and it opens doors
that might otherwise be closed.
The third example comes from Africa where five years ago we
initiated a program of institutional development funded by the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to build a capacity of
African Science Academies to provide independent evidence-based
advice to governments and countries with an emphasis on health
needs. The principal objectives of the initiative are to help
academies establish sound advisory processes and to foster and
sustain a relationship between the academy and its government.
What are the unique strengths of Academies? First, the high
esteem accorded U.S. science by the rest of the world.
International polling reveals that attitudes toward U.S.
science are more positive than towards any other aspect of U.S.
society. This attitude is especially pronounced in Islamic
countries.
Second, the Academies represent the leadership of U.S.
science and as such represent the human face of U.S. scientific
achievement. This enables engagement in cooperative work aimed
at shared goals in all regions of the world.
Another strength is that the Academies and other non-
governmental organizations such as the AAAS can mobilize the
U.S. scientific community on urgent issues. And third and
perhaps most importantly is the ethic of science. The Academies
represent a scientific approach to problem solving, achieving
national economic goals, and peaceful competition. A major
aspect of our international program is to strengthen education
and training and to empower science communities to be more
effective in engaging national policy-makers and the public,
thereby transmitting this problem-solving ethic to other
societies, especially in the developing world.
How might the Federal Government take better advantage of
science and the U.S. scientific community? The U.S. Federal
Government has great influence in the world owing to the scale
of the U.S. economy and owing to the widely admired egalitarian
ideals and aspirations of U.S. society. This provides
substantial leverage to achieve constructive solutions to
global problems. Unfortunately, the U.S. has not always made
full use of these assets.
The U.S. has allowed its investments in international STH
to decline. Take investments through USAID as an example. An
Academies report published in 2006 and undertaken at the
request of the USAID administrator found that STH competencies
in USAID have declined substantially. The report makes a series
of recommendations on how to rebalance the USAID competencies
in STH to increase the effectiveness of USAID programs. A very
positive step has been the creation of the Office of Science
and Technology Advisor for the Secretary of State and the
naming of that same individual as advisor to the administrator
of USAID.
In its May 2007 strategic plan, the Department of State and
USAID established an important set of realistic STH diplomatic
strategies. However, these must be seen against inadequate on
the part of the Department of State or inadequate and declining
on the part of USAID STH capabilities.
Many of the leaders of science in other parts of the world
have had significant experience in U.S. research intuitions as
students or as research visitors, echoing a point made by
Chairman Baird. Those with direct knowledge of our country and
its culture are frequently willing partners for further
engagement owing to positive feelings about their experiences
with U.S. science institutions specifically and U.S. society
generally. Regrettably, the cadre of international scientists
with direct knowledge of the U.S. is declining. The reasons are
many, but two are visa policies that inhibit applications to
U.S. institutions and dramatic erosion of broad-based U.S.
Government programs for international fellowships.
The Academies' report cited above found that there has been
a more than 10-fold decline in the number of USAID financed
graduate students from developing countries at U.S.
universities. The report makes the strong recommendation that
USAID revitalize its investments in human resources based on
historical experience. It is clear that a modest investment in
fellowships will bring large returns to future generations.
Now, I see I am running out of time, so let me just
summarize the last couple of points. Why is it that many
federal agencies, USAID, EPA, have science programs with
international dimensions, but they could benefit from more
explicit instructions and advice from the Congress on how to
implement those international responsibilities.
Let me just then conclude by saying that major
opportunities to capitalize on U.S. strengths are ignored. To
ensure a better future, we must make effective use of all of
our nation's assets. Modest investments in international
science diplomacy can leverage the enormous asset represented
by the U.S. STH communities.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Clegg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael T. Clegg
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss
international science, technology and health (STH) cooperation. I am
Michael Clegg, Foreign Secretary of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Sciences, together with the Academy of
Engineering and the Institute of Medicine, (collectively referred to as
``The Academies'') are non-governmental organizations whose members are
elected on the basis of STH leadership.
The U.S. Congress chartered the National Academy of Sciences in
1863 with the explicit mission of providing STH advice to the U.S.
Government when asked. Over the years, as the demand for advice
expanded and as the U.S. STH community grew in size and complexity, the
National Research Council (NRC) was established to administer the
advice function. Later the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and
the Institute of Medicine (IOM) were organized under the original
charter of the National Academy of Sciences. Today's organization
provides advice to government and the public on a wide variety of
issues ranging from climate change to bacterial threats, from energy
futures to emerging diseases, from food security to building effective
science education programs, from challenges of mega cities to the
control of weapons of mass destruction.
Why do the National Academies promote international science
cooperation?
The Academies are engaged with counterpart STH communities around
the world and have a long history of working with international
partners in addressing the STH based challenges facing the world. From
its inception in 1863, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has
elected outstanding scientists from outside the United States as
Foreign Associates, thus recognizing the important contributions of
foreign scientists to progress in all fields. In today's world, science
is increasingly trans-border and global in its conception, exploration,
and application. It is thus in the vital interest of the U.S. science
community, and more broadly of U.S. society, to maintain close linkages
with science communities throughout the world. Because our organization
includes the leadership of science from around the globe, we are
uniquely positioned to promote international science cooperation and to
facilitate the provision of scientific evidence to policy-makers on a
global basis. We are also uniquely positioned to use science as a means
of building bridges between societies in conflict and as a means of
facilitating international STH collaborations.
Science was a global activity long before the invention of the term
``globalization'' because the issues and challenges of STH programs are
predominantly global in nature. The Academies often include foreign
participants in our work, because access to foreign expertise is
increasingly relevant for all U.S.-based institutions. The inclusion of
global dimensions improves the quality, depth, and accuracy of our
studies and reports.
What are the specific goals of the Academies' international programs?
Based on our experience and capacity as an advisor to our own
government and society, three broad themes of the Academies'
international programs, have emerged: They are: (1) improving global
sustainability and health. (2) Enhancing national and international
security through increasing pathways of communication. And, (3)
enhancing human and institutional capital as a route to economic
development and equity. I will briefly describe several selected
activities to illustrate the Academies' international programs relevant
to these themes.
Improving global sustainability and health: The Academies have had a
long engagement with international partners on issues of sustainability
and health. One of the major global sustainability issues that demand
international S&T cooperation is that of water resources. Many parts of
the world, including parts of the United States, face uncertain water
futures and it is imperative to develop S&T based solutions for water
management issues. In this context, the NRC produced a comprehensive
report, together with the Mexican Academy of Sciences, on the issues
confronting the Mexico City water supply (Mexico City's Water Supply:
Improving the Outlook for Sustainability). We have conducted joint
workshops on ground water resources in the Yucatan, in the Middle East
and in North Africa and we have produced a multilingual information
resource on water and health.
A second issue that is particularly crucial at present is that of
energy sources and management. The Academies partnered with the Chinese
Academy of Sciences to produce a forward-looking report on energy
futures in 2000 (Cooperation in the Energy Futures of China and the
United States) and we have a continuing series of cooperative efforts
with the Chinese Academy focused on energy related issues.
Often the Academies work with partners in regions of conflict
thereby addressing an important scientific issue while also helping to
create bridges of cooperation. Thus, for example, we have an ongoing
program of cooperation with the academies of the Middle East. This
effort began with cooperation on regional health challenges. It also
included a project on water futures in the Jordan Valley, conducted
jointly with the Israeli and Palestinian academies and the Higher
Council of Jordan that resulted in the joint report entitled Water for
the Future: The West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel, and Jordan. This work
has now matured into a series of joint activities that include projects
on micro-nutrient deficiencies, water resources, renewable energy,
pollution and land degradation and science education. An organization
has been created to implement these programs provisionally named the
``Association of Middle Eastern and U.S. National Academies of
Sciences.'' Our Academies also host a meeting for young and mid-career
scientists from Jordan, Israel, Palestine and the United States aimed
at sharing research knowledge and framing joint solutions to common
problems.
Why are the U.S. Academies seen as effective conveners of
activities in the Middle East? The principle answer is that the U.S.
scientific community is held in high esteem by all the societies of
this conflicted region of the world. This respect for U.S. science
institutions is based on a widespread admiration for American
accomplishments in STH fields and it opens doors that might otherwise
be closed.
Enhancing national and international security through increasing
pathways of communication: Beginning in the early 1980s, the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences established a standing committee on
International Security and Arms Control (CISAC) that worked with
scientists in the Soviet Union and later in Russia on issues of nuclear
stability, arms control and non-proliferation. The initial work was
aimed at building mutual trust and respect, but ultimately this effort
matured into a dialogue that was central to later arms reduction
agreements. Current work with the Russian Academy focuses on topics
such as international nuclear fuel cycle approaches, and the
international nuclear security environment. Beyond cooperation with
Russia, we convene dialogues in India on Indo-U.S. cooperation in
international security issues. We have a series of U.S.-China
engagements, one of the few sustained bilateral channels of non-
governmental communication on international and regional security
issues, with an important set of Chinese scientists, nuclear weapons
experts, and policy analysts. We participate in international fora
aimed at enhancing biosecurity, both with the international community
and in a bilateral context with the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Enhancing human and institutional capital as a route to economic
development and equity: Over the past 15 years a global network of
science academies has emerged and become an important venue for
coordination among science academies around the world. The network,
known as the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), has
provided a means to coordinate communications and actions with many
partners simultaneously. The IAP has established programs on water
futures, science education, biosecurity, natural hazards and disasters,
and digital access to scientific information. Associations of
Engineering and Medical Academies are also active, and cooperation
among networks has been established. A second organization, called the
InterAcademy Council (IAC) undertakes detailed studies on major global
issues. An IAC report released on October 2007 analyzed the global
energy transition, earlier reports address the problem of food security
in Africa and the importance of women as an under utilized human
resource in science. These reports are intended for high-level policy-
makers and their dissemination and implementation is being accomplished
on a regional basis by networks of academies in Africa, the Americas
and Asia. Our Academy played a crucial role in the creation of these
networks.
Five years ago we initiated a program of institutional development,
funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to build the capacity
of African science academies to provide independent, evidence-based
advice to their governments and countries, with an emphasis on health
needs. The principal objectives of the initiative are to help the
academies establish sound advisory processes and to foster and sustain
a relationship between the academy and its government and nation such
that the academy is regarded as a trusted source of excellent
scientific advice.
The initiative supports a variety of activities at the national
level. We work intensively with the science academies of Nigeria, South
Africa, and Uganda and assist these academies in hiring and training
staff, developing infrastructure, and developing and testing different
models for policy advice. In addition, we are providing more modest
strategic planning grants to the African Academy of Sciences and to the
academies of Senegal, Ghana, Kenya and Cameroon, and helping the
African Academies to work together.
Partner academies have experimented with convening activities--
forums, symposia, and workshops--to gather stakeholders from
government, academia, industry, and non-governmental organizations for
examination, illumination, and discussion of scientific and policy
issues. A few examples of outputs from this work are:
<bullet> An influential consensus report of the Academy of
Sciences of South Africa entitled ``HIV/AIDS, TB and Nutrition:
Scientific Inquiry into the Nutritional influences on Human
Immunity with Special Reference to HIV Infection and Active TB
in South Africa'' was released in August 2007. This report
addresses a widespread controversy over the Nation's AIDS
policies, which have for many years emphasized the importance
of good nutrition in the fight against poverty, a study
committee of 15 multi-disciplinary experts found that neither
food nor food supplements, although important for many other
reasons, are alternatives to drug therapy in treating those
afflicted with HIV/AIDS.
<bullet> A Forum on Evidence-based Policy-making in Nigeria.
<bullet> The Uganda National Academy of Sciences has
established a Forum on Health and Nutrition and has recently
released its first major consensus report on ``Approaches to
Assessing and Managing Malaria Vector Resistance to
Insecticides.''
<bullet> The Uganda National Academy of Sciences also recently
hosted a workshop ``Promoting Biosafety and Biosecurity within
the Life Sciences.''
<bullet> A workshop report of the Academy of Sciences of South
Africa on water research and management was released in 2007.
Complementary to these activities at the national level, we convene
annual conferences, joint learning sessions, and training activities--
for networking and shared learning on evidence-based policy advice. The
most recent annual conference, Water and Health in Africa, was held in
Dakar, Senegal. Government officials from 12 African countries
participated in the conference. The exchanges and experience from the
conference discussions resulted in the drafting and signing of the
Declaration of Dakar: a document that espouses the use of scientific
evidence in policy-making through a process facilitated by science
academies.
In the area of human resource development our Academy is an active
participant in the IAP global program to improve the quality of science
education. During the past year, these efforts have included an IAP
sponsored meeting in London on the professional development of science
teachers, work with the U.S.-Mexico Foundation for Science (FUMEC) on
the fourth biennial international conference on science education--
``Science and Well-Being . . . From Amazement to Citizenship''--held in
Monterrey, Mexico, in November 2007, a leadership development
conference in Nairobi, Kenya, for teacher leaders from 10 African
countries and work on the development of an evaluation framework for
use in countries committed to improving science education.
What are the unique strengths of the Academies in fostering
international science cooperation?
A unique strength of the National Academies in fostering
international scientific cooperation is the high esteem accorded U.S.
science by the rest of the world. International polling reveals that
attitudes towards U.S. science are more positive than towards any other
aspect of U.S. society. This attitude is especially pronounced in
Islamic countries. As noted elsewhere in this testimony, the Academies
represent the leadership of U.S. science and as such represent the
human face of U.S. scientific achievement. This enables engagement and
cooperative work aimed at shared goals in all regions of the world. A
second strength is that The Academies, and other non-governmental
science organizations such as the AAAS, can mobilize the U.S.
scientific community on urgent issues.
Academies represent a scientific approach to problem-solving,
achieving national economic goals, and peaceful competition. A major
aspect of our international program is to strengthen education and
training, and to empower science communities to be more effective in
engaging national policy-makers and the public, thereby transmitting
this problem-solving ethic to other societies, especially in the
developing world.
What are the limitations of the Academies in fostering international
science cooperation?
The Academies do not make policy, but rather provide evidence,
analysis and policy options based on our best understanding of science.
This means that in most regards, the Academies occupy the role of
advisors and not implementers. A second limitation is financial. Most
of our international activities are financed by philanthropic
foundations or from our own limited endowment pool. The financial base
for international work is not adequate to the meet the many urgent
needs and opportunities for constructive engagement.
How do you coordinate your efforts with the Federal Government and with
those other organizations?
One important component of our interaction with the Federal
Government is our direct advisory reports to the State Department and
USAID on the role of STH in foreign policy and development assistance.
In our own engagement with other countries, we operate within U.S. laws
and regulations, which involves communication with the Federal
Government when required. But more importantly, the Federal Government
is very aware that a successful American engagement with the world must
involve many private sector and non-governmental players, and we
receive much encouragement from the government in our international
activities. One important program of U.S. Embassies abroad is to
sponsor extended visits to the U.S. for key (often young) leaders from
host countries, including many with interests in STH, and we meet
regularly with these foreign visitors. Many U.S. agencies, notably the
Fogarty International Center at NIH, and the NSF, but also DOE, EPA,
and others, have active programs for, and interests in, international
cooperation, and we have valuable interaction with them. With the
support of the NSF, The National Academies provide U.S. participation
in the International Council for Science (ICSU), many international
disciplinary unions, and IIASA.
Also, our interest in international STH cooperation and in capacity
building around the world is similar to that of many non-governmental
organizations in the U.S., notably the AAAS. Since these organizations
also are led by outstanding American scientists, in many cases
individuals involved in their leadership are current or past leaders of
The National Academies, and cooperation is natural.
How might the Federal Government, either as a whole or specific to one
or more agencies, take better advantage of science
and the U.S. scientific community in pursuing its
foreign policy goals and in helping to lead the
world toward global solutions for global challenges
such as water, climate, energy and infectious
diseases?
The U.S. Federal Government has great influence in the world owing
to the scale of the U.S. economy, and owing to the widely admired
egalitarian ideals and aspirations of U.S. society. This provides
substantial leverage to achieve constructive solutions to global
problems. Unfortunately, the U.S. has not always made full use of these
assets. Moreover, the U.S. has allowed its investments in international
STH to decline. Take investments through the U.S. AID as an example. An
Academies report published in 2006, and under taken at the request of
the U.S. AID Administrator, entitled ``The Fundamental Role of Science
and Technology in International Development: An Imperative for the U.S.
Agency for International Development'' found that STH competencies in
USAID have declined substantially. The report made a series of
recommendations on how to rebalance the USAID competencies in STH to
increase the effectiveness of USAID programs.
The creation of the office of Science and Technology Advisor (STAS)
for the Secretary of State is an important step forward, as is the
recent appointment of the same individual as Science and Technology
Advisor to the USAID Administrator. In its May 2007 strategic plan, the
Department of State and USAID established an important set of realistic
STH diplomatic strategies, however, these must be seen against
inadequate (DOS) or inadequate and declining (USAID) STH capabilities.
As noted in a recent Congressional Research Service report (``Science,
Technology, and American Diplomacy: Background and Issues for
Congress''), implementation of these diplomatic strategies will require
new investments in governmental capabilities, but implementation can
also be accelerated by the effective use of non-governmental science
organizations.
An important opportunity derives from the fact that many of the
leaders of science in other parts of the world have had a significant
experience with U.S. research institutions as students or as research
visitors. To cite one example, 40 percent of the faculty at Sharif
University, Iran's premier science and technology institution, received
training in the U.S. During a recent visit to Sharif University, the
desire for an expanded engagement with all areas of U.S. science was
repeatedly emphasized to the U.S. visiting delegation. This illustrates
an experience that is reiterated in all parts of the world--many with
direct knowledge of our country and its culture are willing partners
for further engagement, owing to positive feelings about their
experiences with U.S. science institutions specifically and with U.S.
society generally.
Regrettably the cadre of international scientists with direct
knowledge of the U.S. is declining, because broad based U.S. Government
programs for international fellowships have eroded greatly over the
past two decades. The Academies report cited above found that there has
been a ten-fold decline in the number of USAID-financed graduate
students from developing countries at U.S. universities. The report
makes the strong recommendation that USAID revitalize its investments
in human resources, by bringing its fellowship programs back to the
scale of the 1980s. Based on historical experience, it is clear that a
modest investment in fellowships will bring large returns in future
generations.
Current visa policies are a further obstacle to scientific
exchange. It is important to find an appropriate balance between
legitimate national security concerns and other dimensions of our
national interest. To quote from the recent CRS report cited above,
``As other countries increase their investment in higher education and
R&D, the top science and engineering research and facilities may not be
in the United States,'' thus broader engagement is clearly in our
national economic self interest. Moreover, other aspects of our
national security depend on U.S. international STH engagement, for
example in responding to global emerging infectious diseases challenges
such as HIV or SARS or avian flu.
The National Science Board (NSB) recently issued a report
(International Science and Engineering Partnerships: A Priority for
U.S. Foreign Policy and Our Nation's Innovation Enterprise) that
touches many of the themes listed above, including that the U.S. should
create a coherent and integrated international science and engineering
strategy, balance U.S. foreign and R&D policy, and promote intellectual
exchange. These themes emphasizing the critical role of STH in U.S.
diplomacy are being reiterated in many fora including these hearings.
It seems clear that the time is ripe to make fuller use of U.S. STH
assets in achieving national foreign policy goals.
Many of the dozens of federal agencies have core goals to which
carefully chosen international cooperation could provide very valuable
contributions, and these opportunities are becoming more important as
scientific strength is more widely distributed, as economies globalize,
and as challenges (related, for example, to aging populations, to
water, to global health, to energy and climate change) are increasing
understood to have commonalities and/or to require common action. But
in general, federal agencies perceive that the option to support
international activities is not very clear in their congressional
guidance and mandate. Thus, it would be very useful for federal
agencies to have congressional guidance that allows them to support and
engage in high-value, innovative opportunities for international
cooperation.
The points developed above do not speak directly to the question of
addressing ``global challenges such as water, climate, energy and
infectious diseases,'' but rather address structural impediments to a
more effective utilization of U.S. STH assets to achieve national
goals. We believe that structural reforms must be the fundamental first
step. Once these are accomplished, it will be relatively
straightforward to focus U.S. STH strengths, both through direct
governmental programs and through the effective use of non-governmental
science organizations, on global challenges of sustainability. As noted
earlier in this testimony, much is already being done through the
global network of academies (IAP) or with important bilateral partners
(e.g., China, the Middle East) to focus on sustainability issues, but
these efforts are modest compared to the scale of the problems that the
world faces.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to address any questions the Subcommittee might have.
Biography for Michael T. Clegg
Michael T. Clegg received his B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in
agricultural genetics and genetics respectively at the University of
California, Davis. In 1972, he joined the faculty of Brown University
moving from there to the University of Georgia in 1976. In 1984, he
assumed the position of professor of genetics at the University of
California, Riverside. He also served as Dean of the College of Natural
and Agricultural Sciences from 1994 to 2000 and he is Founding Director
of the Genomics Institute at the University of California, Riverside.
In July 2004, he joined the faculty of UC-Irvine as the Donald Bren
Professor of Biological Sciences.
Clegg's research specialty is population genetics and molecular
evolution. His early work in population genetics focused on the
dynamical behavior of linked systems of genes in plant and Drosophila
populations. During this period, he also contributed to the theoretical
study of multi-locus systems employing computer simulations together
with the analysis of mathematical models. Later he helped pioneer the
comparative analysis of cholorplast DNA variation as a tool for the
reconstruction of plant phylogenies. His current work is concerned with
the molecular evolution of genes in the flavonoid biosynthetic pathway,
the use of coalescent models to study crop plant domestication and the
application of molecular markers to avocado improvement.
Clegg was elected to membership in the National Academy of Sciences
in 1990 and he was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences in 1992. He was elected Foreign Secretary of the National
Academy of Sciences in 2002 and reelected in 2006. He is an Associate
Fellow of TWAS (Academy of Sciences of the Developing World) and a
corresponding member of both the Academia Nacional de Ciencias Exactas
Fisicas y Naturales and the Academia Nacional de Agronomia y
Veterinaria of Argentina. He has also served as President of the
American Genetic Association (1987); President of the International
Society for Molecular Biology & Evolution (2002); and Chair of the
Section on Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (2003).
Chairman Baird. Dr. Wulf.
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM A. WULF, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
U.S. CIVILIAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION (CRDF)
Dr. Wulf. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Civilian Research
and Development Foundation, a.k.a. CRDF. I am fairly new to the
board of CRDF, having just joined in February. I was quickly
recruited to become Chairman of the Audit Committee, and so I
have immersed myself in the organizational, financial, and
programmatic activities of the organization, an organization I
must say whose mission I believe very deeply in. Nevertheless,
let me introduce Cathy Campbell behind me here who is the CEO
of CRDF and who will bail me out if I get in over my head
during the Q&A.
It is especially appropriate for CRDF to be testifying here
today since it was the brainchild of the former Chairman of
this committee, the late George Brown. Chairman Brown was an
articulate advocate for international science and engineering
research collaboration, and he understood the value that that
collaboration had as a tool to advance U.S. foreign policy and
national security.
In the early '90s when the Soviet Union was disintegrating,
and engineers and scientists in the former Soviet Union's
weapons laboratories were not being paid, there was a deep
concern that those scientists and engineers would offer their
services to governments that do not have the best interest of
the United States at heart. Chairman Brown's first charge to
CRDF was to fund these scientists and engineers to convert
themselves to civilian research. I am glad to report that that
particular mission has mostly been accomplished. Chairman
Brown's truly clever scheme not only kept the weapons designers
at home but helped enhance their civilian research capacity in
contributing to the increased stability and prosperity of
Russia and other members of the former Soviet Union.
The success of the original CRDF mission underscored
Chairman Brown's broader vision and what a lot of us believe
deeply, namely that science and engineering can be a powerful
tool for fostering better international relations, but there is
much, much more to do.
International collaboration of science and engineering is a
two-fer. Number one, it solves important human problems and
thus contributes directly to security, prosperity, and health.
But number two, it also creates those personal relationships
and trust that engender peace. Based on that philosophy and our
experience in Russia, the mission of CRDF is the promotion of
peace and prosperity through international science and
engineering collaboration.
Scientists and engineers I believe are an extremely
valuable but underutilized resource for U.S. foreign policy. As
Mike just mentioned, according to numerous polls, the single-
most admired aspect of the West among Muslims is our technology
prowess. We can and we should exploit that admiration.
CRDF is a unique organization. It is an independent
501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation, but it was created by the
U.S. Congress to advance U.S. foreign affairs and national
security. We think of CRDF as a ``do-tank,'' as opposed to a
``think-tank.'' We are implementers of things. We implement
good ideas to encourage collaboration between U.S. and foreign
scientists and engineers. Our unique specialty is to quickly
and efficiently implement international science and technology
collaborations based on merit and implement it with
transparency, flexibility, and accountability.
The success of the original charge from Chairman Brown also
underscored that just giving out research grants wasn't enough.
There is a whole infrastructure that supports research and
increases the probability of collaboration opportunities for
U.S. scientists. That infrastructure includes things like peer
review for merit-based awards, the ability to write proposals,
grant administration, logistics for joint research, and on and
on. Those are all things that we take for granted in the U.S.
research system but in fact are not present in many foreign
systems.
So CRDF had to create that infrastructure, and so now
CRDF's activities fall into about 20 programs, certainly
support for research collaborations. This fall we will be
announcing a competition for research on climate change. We
also carry out nonproliferation activities, sort of the
original mission from Chairman Brown. For example, we have
recently managed to change what was a bioweapons laboratory in
Siberia into one that is monitoring for avian flu.
New program support, for example, logistical support for
joint research between ourselves and the Russians in the
Arctic. We do training on things like bioethics, on how to do
peer review, on research management, and grant administration.
We have a number of activities related to institution
building. For example, in most parts of the world, basic
research is not done in universities as it is in the United
States. We happen to believe that supporting basic research in
universities is both good for the research and good for the
universities, and so we have undertaken activities,
particularly in Russia, to encourage that activity. We, as
CRDF, did that at 20 universities. The Russians were so
enamored and appreciative of that, they have done it by
themselves in 15 additional ones. We are also focused on
innovation and knowledge transfer. We have a program called
Next Steps. We have created technology transfer offices in a
number of universities.
As an independent, non-profit, non-governmental
organization, CRDF has capabilities that complement those of
government agencies such as NSF. For example, CRDF can move
quickly and flexibly to respond to opportunities that arise. It
can fund foreign research scientists and engineers to
collaborate with their U.S. counterparts. It can seek and
negotiate cost-sharing programs with foreign governments and
multi-nationals. It offers potential overseas partners a U.S.
entity that is not part of the U.S. Government, a property that
is especially important in those countries that are suspicious
of the intent of the U.S. Government.
Examples of all of these are given in the written version
of my testimony, but as just one example CRDF has secured $43
million in cost sharing from foreign governments on 675
projects in 10 different countries.
Recognizing the value of these complementary capabilities,
CRDF has been tasked by a number of U.S. Government agencies
including the Department of State, NSF, DOD, the Department of
Energy, and the National Institutes of Health. Again, examples
of the kinds of tasks we do for them are in my written
testimony, but for example, the Department of State has been
our principal funder of original work in Russia and the former
Soviet Union. CRDF also stays in close touch with other NGOs
such as those here today, but especially the National Academy
of Sciences and the AAAS. We each have unique strengths to
contribute, so by working together, we maximize the quality of
our international activities.
In summary, I would emphasize four points in my testimony.
Number one, science and engineering diplomacy can be a powerful
tool for communication with influential citizens of countries
that have limited or strained relations with the United States.
Second, scientists and engineers share a set of values that
transcend culture. Those shared values facilitate developing
the trust that is essential to achieving U.S. foreign policy
and national security objectives. Third, science and
engineering NGOs such as those here today provide complementary
capabilities to those of the U.S. Government to further
effectiveness of science and engineering diplomacy. Finally,
CRDF's special contribution is as a ``do-tank,'' that is, an
implementer of science and engineering diplomacy activities and
programs. We do whatever it takes to make those programs
effective. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wulf follows:]
Prepared Statement of William A. Wulf
Introduction
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the role of
non-governmental organizations and universities in international
science and technology collaboration. I commend the leadership of this
committee for developing these hearings to highlight the importance of
engaging some of our most valued resources in the United States, our
scientists and engineers, to help lead the world toward global
solutions for global challenges to build peace and prosperity for all.
The United States--government, non-governmental organizations and
universities--must do more to engage our scientists and engineers in
international collaboration.
I have had the privilege of testifying before this committee on a
number of occasions, including when I served as President of the
National Academy of Engineering. It is a great pleasure to return today
as a member of the Board of the Directors of the U.S. Civilian Research
& Development Foundation (CRDF) and to share with you the experience
that CRDF has accumulated over twelve years. During that time, CRDF has
developed a world-class reputation as an effective and efficient
implementer of global science and technology collaborations and a solid
partner with the U.S. Government, private sector, and foreign
governments and institutions. CRDF's programs have had direct benefits
to American science objectives, but also to U.S. foreign policy, public
diplomacy, national security, and competitiveness.
It is highly fitting that CRDF is testifying before the House
Science Committee. It was this committee, under the leadership of your
former Chairman the late Congressman George Brown, that spawned the
creation of CRDF in 1992. As you know, Chairman Brown was an ardent and
articulate advocate of developing innovative efforts to build science
and technology collaboration between the U.S. and other countries. He
understood the benefits to the U.S. scientific community of high-
quality international collaborations in the basic and applied sciences.
He understood the value of international science and technology
cooperation as an important tool to advance U.S. foreign policy and
national security, specifically at that time with the countries of the
former Soviet Union (FSU). Finally, he felt strongly about the role of
NGOs in helping to build these partnerships, thus the establishment of
CRDF. It is for this reason that CRDF gives an eponymous annual award
for international science achievement--the George Brown Award for
International Scientific Cooperation.
CRDF: HISTORY, MISSION, AND PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
CRDF is a unique organization in that it is an independent, non-
governmental organization created by the U.S. Congress to help advance
U.S. science, foreign affairs and national security priorities. Based
in Arlington, Va., with three support offices abroad, CRDF has grown to
include a global staff of over 130 people working with more than 20
countries. Incorporated as a not-for-profit organization in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, CRDF is governed by an independent Board of
Directors whose fourteen members represent a cross section of American
science, foreign policy, nonproliferation, academic and business
communities. CRDF also routinely seeks advice from a group of
preeminent experts, including a Nobel laureate in chemistry, who serve
on CRDF's Advisory Council. CRDF's staff contributes experience in
science, international affairs, program and project management,
finance, grant administration, nonproliferation and policy-making. Many
of our staff have lived, studied or worked overseas. The scientific
backgrounds of many of our foreign staff and their experience working
in the science establishments of their own countries provide invaluable
capabilities and credibility for successful implementation of CRDF's
program activities.
CRDF's unique specialty is its ability to quickly and effectively
implement international science and technology partnerships selected on
scientific merit and mutual benefit, and executed with transparency,
flexibility, and accountability. It partners and works closely with
scientists and policy-makers in the U.S. Government, other NGOs,
universities, foundations, and U.S. companies, as well as with key
foreign governments and partners, successfully supporting international
collaborative projects valued at over $350 million. These projects
include more than 3,000 grants that CRDF has made under its own
programs, and over 1,200 separate projects that CRDF has administered
on behalf of U.S. Government agencies, universities and businesses
supporting research and development projects overseas.
For its own programs, CRDF is extremely effective at leveraging the
funds it receives with contributions from other sources, and has
secured $43 million in cost-sharing, primarily from foreign government
agencies, for 675 projects in ten countries. For example, under its
Basic Research in Higher Education (BRHE) program in Russia, CRDF has
obtained cost-sharing from Russian sources, including the Russian
Federation Ministry of Education and Science, regional and local
sources, and universities. These sources contributed 50 percent of the
initial core grants, and then have increased their share, such that
they now provide 70 percent of all program costs and by 2010, they will
have assumed 100 percent of the program costs.
CRDF also works hard to advance the goal of science for diplomacy
working in partnership with top scientific societies such as our
colleagues here--AAAS and the NAS--as well as with other organizations
to focus on how best to help policy-makers better understand the unique
resources of the U.S. scientific community in fostering and advancing
U.S. foreign and national security priorities. Finally, given our
success working with the countries of the former Soviet Union, CRDF has
expanded its geographic focus across Eurasia, and into the Middle East,
North Africa, and Asia. The model and methods developed with this
experience can be successfully applied to many situations.
History
Sixteen years ago, Science Committee Chairman Brown, on the Floor
of the House of Representatives, introduced the ``AmeRus Foundation for
Research and Development Act'' and explained that this bill would
``establish an independent, endowed foundation which will identify and
fund cooperative research and development ventures between engineers
and scientists working in industry, academia, and defense in the United
States and the former Soviet Union.'' In October 1992, Congress passed
the FREEDOM Support Act of 1992. Section 511 of that bill authorized
the creation of the foundation. Three years later, the U.S. Civilian
Research & Development Foundation was established, with initial funding
from the Department of Defense through the Nunn-Lugar program and the
National Science Foundation, to advance U.S. policy and security
interests through international science collaboration.
Congressman Brown's support for CRDF was bold. It came at a time of
significant geopolitical change overseas and an economic downturn at
home. The break-up of the Soviet empire, and the consequent need to
secure the weapons of mass destruction and ensure economic stability in
the successor states, dominated the U.S. foreign policy agenda.
Congressman Brown recognized an historic opportunity for the United
States to foster economic stability through support of science and
technology cooperation. He argued that the scientists and engineers in
the newly independent states would ``. . . play a key role in
determining whether the transition to an open and market-driven society
will succeed . . .''
Arguing for support of foreign scientists and engineers during a
period of economic downturn in the United States was not easy.
Congressman Brown acknowledged the competing demands for budgetary
resources and argued that the only ``rationale approach'' for this new
foundation would be based on ``mutual cooperation, collaboration and
benefit.'' The underlying model involved partnerships between
scientists and engineers in the former Soviet Union and scientists and
engineers in the United States. In other words, scientists and
engineers from the United States would be directly involved in the
cooperation and stand to benefit from the research, which would be
selected based on merit and mutual benefit. The challenges and vision
Congressman Brown articulated in 1992 in the former Soviet Union are as
relevant today. They also are transportable to other countries and
regions facing significant challenges that would benefit from more
proactive international scientific engagement programs and initiatives.
CRDF Mission
Today, CRDF remains rooted in the basic principles and approaches
outlined by the Science Committee sixteen years ago. CRDF has taken its
successful track record in the FSU to implement its mission in other
countries and regions globally. The CRDF mission is to:
<bullet> Provide cooperative research and development (R&D)
opportunities that enable scientists and engineers to address
critical security, economic, education and other societal needs
worldwide.
<bullet> Advance peace and prosperity by funding civilian
research and development projects that contribute to global
nonproliferation objectives.
<bullet> Promote the application of science and technology to
economic growth through international partnerships and training
that foster invention, innovation, entrepreneurship and the
commercialization of technology.
<bullet> Strengthen university research and education in
science and engineering.
Program Components and Accomplishments
CRDF realizes its mission by designing and implementing a range of
program activities that jointly meet donor requirements and respond to
the needs in each country. CRDF currently is administering over twenty
programs that address each of the four mission areas, as follows:
Research Collaborations
CRDF supports and funds high-quality collaborative research and
development projects in the natural sciences. Research projects
involving U.S. scientists and foreign counterparts are selected through
merit-based competitions. CRDF has provided nearly 1,500 grants in
support of collaborative research projects valued at more than $78
million and involving approximately 8,000 scientists in 15 countries.
Targeted research competitions have also been designed to address
specific areas of priority to funders, including general biomedical
research, HIV/AIDS research, anti-terrorism research, and this coming
year, global climate change.
CRDF's flagship research collaboration program is the Cooperative
Grants Program (CGP). This program provides up to two years of support
for joint U.S. and foreign research teams in all areas of basic and
applied research in the natural sciences. Such collaborations
strengthen the quality of foreign research to collaborate more
effectively with U.S. and international partners, provide opportunities
for junior researchers and female scientists, support the redirection
of former weapons scientists to civilian research, and establish the
background of knowledge and technology on which successful industry and
business partnerships with U.S. institutions may be built.
Historically, cooperative research grants have averaged about $60,000
each but amounts can vary by the research program and the local context
in which the awards are made. Grants to the foreign teams typically
include individual financial support; equipment, supplies and travel
support; and institutional support to the grantee institution; U.S.
team expenses are generally confined to travel, supplies, and graduate
student stipends.
Such cooperative research grants are extremely valuable in
addressing global challenges that can benefit greatly from S&T
solutions. One example, focused on disaster mitigation and earthquake
hazard, is a CRDF grant to the Institute of Vulcanology and Seismology
in Kamchatka, Russia, and Pennsylvania State University. This team
improved the scientific understanding of the generation, transport, and
deposition of dangerous explosive volcanic gravity flows of hot ash-gas
mixtures. Using numeric modeling to simulate directed blast clouds of
volcanic eruptions and validating the computer results against field
and lab data has resulted in findings that are invaluable for volcanic
hazard assessment worldwide.
Another successful CRDF grant, focused on biodiversity and
agriculture, involves the Ketshkoveli Institute of Botany in Tbilisi,
Georgia, and the Missouri Botanical Garden who jointly established the
first Caucasus Regional Seed Bank in Tbilisi. The seed bank is a living
reservoir of biodiversity in the Southern Caucasus, one of the United
Nation's designated world biodiversity hot spots. The seed bank
includes many wild varieties of crops originally domesticated in the
Caucasus, and examples of plants used as folk remedies, which are
candidates for clinical study and use as effective medicines. Some
species have already been successfully reintroduced into the wild. CRDF
has literally dozens of such cases where joint research has yielded
important findings, led to improved partnerships, or opened new areas
for investigation.
Nonproliferation and Security
Since its inception, CRDF has worked to transition former weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) scientists to civilian research. CRDF has
been able to engage former weapons researchers in productive civilian
R&D, converting former related facilities to civilian use, and
upgrading security at civilian facilities to prevent their misuse.
Given CRDF's expertise and credibility in helping to transition former
weapon researchers, the Department of State and Department of Defense
continue to request CRDF's help in implementing a variety of threat
reduction programs. Most are focused on biological weapons research and
conversion of scientists and their associated facilities to civilian
applications.
For example, CRDF formed a collaborative project with Vector, a
former biological defense research facility in Siberia. Highly trained
American and Russian virologists collaborated to establish this
critical effort to monitor migratory birds as they flew over
Novosibirsk, in Siberia. American scientists now famous for their work
on avian influenza provided the reagents to Vector that allowed the
typing within 24 hours of the H5N1 outbreak. Today, the World Health
Organization (WHO) is tapping into the capacity that CRDF built at
Vector and specialists are considering this a model disease
surveillance program for emerging threats.
This Russian flu surveillance project is an example of the type of
contribution CRDF is offering to the U.S. State Department. A recent
focus has been support for the State Department's Biosecurity
Engagement Program (BEP), which reduces the risk of biological threats
by collaborating with partner governments to develop biosafety and
pathogen security standards that are consistent with national and
international guidelines, norms and requirements. What is more, CRDF
has demonstrated our ability to rapidly respond in difficult
environments and transition scientists into meaningful civilian
alternatives.
CRDF also recently completed a contract with the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency (DTRA), where CRDF managed three Cooperative
Biological Research (CBR) projects that engaged scientists from
Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in research that resulted in 19 abstracts
presented at international conferences and two articles in peer-
reviewed journals. The projects helped to build institutional research
capacity; improve biosafety and biosecurity, and increase knowledge of
local pathogens. Here is another example of how engagement of this kind
brings these people and organizations into the broader international
community with strong linkages to U.S. policy and practice.
Innovation and the Transition to Knowledge Economies
CRDF has supported a suite of programs to link foreign researchers
and entrepreneurs with prospective U.S. industry partners or investors.
CRDF introduced a pioneering industrial R&D collaborative program that
matched CRDF's funding of $11 million with $13 million in funding from
U.S. partner companies, such as 3M and General Electric. CRDF's ``Next
Steps to Market'' program resulted in four new companies and six
commercial partnerships with commercial sales throughout Eurasia and
the United States.
As an example, a small U.S. small business based in California,
SciClone Pharmaceuticals, working on compounds that address
tuberculosis (TB), received funding from CRDF to work with Verta, a St.
Petersburg, Russia-based institute. Verta's researchers had an
alternative TB treatment compound that could be taken orally--a more
globally viable delivery method. Notably, this collaboration provided
the two dozen former biological-weapons scientists employed by Verta
with an opportunity to transition their weapons expertise. The
partnership has brought the world closer to a new TB treatment much
more quickly than either SciClone or Verta could have done alone, while
helping to advance U.S. small business.
More recently, CRDF organized Eurasian Innovation and Investment
Fora in Cleveland, Ohio and Fairfax, Virginia, to bring together
promising Eurasian high technology entrepreneurs with potential U.S.
partners in fields such as alternative energy and information
technology. One of the participants in the Northern Virginia Forum was
a Russian technology company, Gravitonus, which subsequently
established a presence in the U.S. for its cutting-edge technology that
helps persons with disabilities to use personal computers effectively.
Company president and founder Dr. Alex Kosik, a spinal cord surgeon in
Russia, wanted to persuade potential American investors to help him
produce the Alternative Computer Control System (ACCS)--a special
assistance device that is placed in a person's mouth and controlled by
the tongue and biting action. Through partnership with CRDF and the
Mason Enterprise Center at George Mason University, Gravitonus is now
able to set up volume production, distribution, sales and marketing
operations and customer support services in the United States. ``CRDF
has given us a great opportunity,'' says Kosik. ``We feel that our R&D
efforts are noticed. We see that CRDF cares. And it really helps us and
inspires us to move forward.'' Such commercial bridge building
accelerates the adoption of beneficial technologies in the U.S.,
creates employment, and ultimately, may contribute to export sales from
the U.S. as such products are developed and perfected.
Building New S&T Institutions
CRDF provides institutional support for scientific research
centers, universities and grant-making organizations in order to
promote scientific research and to nurture capacity overseas to
allocate R&D resources on the basis of merit review. CRDF has
established and funded fifty such institutions in nine countries
throughout Eurasia, stretching from the Black Sea to the Sea of Okhotsk
on the Pacific Rim. Four of these organizations--in Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova--help their respective nations gain
experience in allocating scarce R&D resources based on merit-based
competitions. Modeled on the U.S. National Science Foundation, these
grant-making organizations help to build the necessary capacity for
long-term development of science and for international collaboration.
They also promote democratic values such as open competition through a
transparent process employing the principle of merit review.
CRDF has also provided major state-of-the-art equipment and
training to 21 competitively selected institutes across eight countries
in Eurasia (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia,
Ukraine, and Uzbekistan). These shared-use centers are utilized by
nonprofit research and education institutions as well as the industrial
research communities within the regions where the equipment is located.
CRDF committed $6.5 million towards equipment and supplementary grants.
Eurasian governments and local institutions have provided additional
support of roughly $1 million to this program.
Advancing Research Capacity in Higher Education
With funding from the U.S. private sector and Russia, CRDF
developed a unique partnership with Russia to introduce a new model for
integrating research and education in Russian universities. Since 1998,
the Basic Research and Higher Education (BRHE) program has established
20 Research and Education Centers at Russian universities to strengthen
the university research infrastructure, develop new curriculum, engage
students in research early in their careers, improve external linkages
and foster the commercialization of technology. In 2005, the Russian
Ministry of Education and Science validated the BRHE model when it
independently established 15 new centers patterned after the BRHE
program. In 2008, independent evaluators called BRHE ``the Right
Program, at the Right Time and with the Right Process.'' This model has
recently been duplicated in five other countries, each of which has
contributed substantial cost-share funding to their joint programs with
CRDF.
Specialized Programs
Over the years CRDF has designed and implemented numerous
specialized and general training programs to address a wide range of
global needs, including training in bioethics, peer review and
scientific proposal writing, English language for scientists, research
management, and grant administration. CRDF has also employed
information and communications technologies to facilitate these
programs. For example, in August 2007 CRDF conducted training for the
seven original participating institutions of the Iraqi Virtual Science
Library. CRDF serves as the Secretariat for this program, which allows
Iraqi academic faculty and students to access current scientific
literature. Following the training, the number of registered users grew
by more than 200 new users per month and continues to expand.
Program Support Services
CRDF places a high priority on accountability and transparency in
implementing and managing its grants. CRDF has a dedicated department
that focuses solely on the effective administration of all aspects of
award management. The department oversees CRDF's network of
international banking agreements, in-country support contractors, and
international travel agencies and equipment vendors. The department
also oversees all compliance and legal issues associated with project
implementation from export controls to bioethics to taxation to
intellectual property. Extensive payment distribution systems provide
for the efficient and transparent disbursement of project funds and
equipment to grantees from $100 payments to individual students working
on projects to multi-million dollar equipment purchases. In addition,
the department oversees CRDF's project audit functions and conducts
regular site visits and audits to ensure the highest level of assurance
that resources are directed to their intended recipients and
effectively utilized for the intended result.
The systems developed for the management of CRDF's international
grants have proven very effective and, as a result, CRDF utilizes these
mechanisms to support almost 200 U.S. Government, university, for-
profit company and NGO organizations in the financial and
administrative management of their own international projects and
activities. A list of customers under GAP Services is attached at
Appendix A.
ROLE OF CRDF AS AN NGO AND COORDINATION WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
The Congressional sponsors of CRDF believed strongly in the
potential contribution of a non-governmental mission to international
science and technology cooperation. They cited the successful
precedents of the three non-governmental foundations that the United
States and Israel established in the mid-1970: the Binational
Industrial Research and Development (BIRD) Foundation; the Binational
Agricultural Research and Development (BARD) Foundation; and the
Binational Science Foundation (BSF). They were aware of previous
efforts in the late 1970s to develop a major NGO to advance global
scientific collaboration to advance development that was never
realized. Finally they understood that there are times when an
independent NGO--working in partnership with the U.S. Government--can
help implement programs more effectively. Over the years as CRDF's
reputation has grown, it has received more calls for help from the U.S.
Government. Its strengths--as well as its limitations--as an NGO are
listed below:
Strengths as an NGO
As an NGO, CRDF has been able to operate quickly and flexibly in
responding to emerging opportunities. For example, just a month after
the events of 9/11, CRDF launched an initiative to engage U.S. and
Eurasian scientists in collaborative research to reduce the effects of
terrorist acts on civilian populations. CRDF supported a series of 11
workshops where hundreds of scientists gathered to focus on research to
detect, protect, and treat in the case of a terrorist event. Some $1.5
million was committed to follow on grants to these teams of scientists,
with funding from several U.S. government agencies.
In 2004, while the U.S. Government was developing plans for science
initiatives with Iraq, CRDF organized an orientation visit to
Washington, DC, for a group of six Iraqi scientists. CRDF introduced
them to scientists in U.S. Government agencies, local universities and
businesses. Many of those scientists have subsequently participated in
research projects with U.S. counterparts.
As an NGO, CRDF can seek and negotiate cost-shared programs with
foreign counterparts. As mentioned earlier, CRDF has secured $43
million, primarily from foreign government agencies, for 675 projects
in ten countries. These cost-shares expand the scope and impact of CRDF
programs in-country and set the stage to transition from cost-sharing
to exclusive host-country funding.
CRDF is able to leverage resources of multiple organizations as
well. For example, CRDF's Cooperative Grants Program leverages funding
from the State Department, National Science Foundation and National
Institutes of Health, to support collaborative research projects
between U.S. scientists and their counterparts in Eurasia. CRDF's
premier university initiative, the Basic Research and Higher Education
Program, leverages funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Russian Ministry
of Education and Science and regional governments in Russia to support
twenty Research and Education Centers at Russian universities.
Another strength of CRDF is its ability to quickly engage
specialized expertise for program design and implementation. CRDF has
developed a network of more than 40,000 scientists and engineers who
conduct merit review of proposals submitted to CRDF; participate in
review panels or site visit teams; advise CRDF on program design and
implementation; and provide specialized expertise. CRDF works closely
with key U.S. science and engineering organizations and societies to
ensure that we tap the best expertise for existing or new programs. We
have also partnered with the Arab Science and Technology Foundation in
the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on workshops and other programs to
promote science collaboration between U.S. and Arab scientists. CRDF
has formed partnerships with the King Abdullah University of Science
and Technology (KAUST) and the Qatar National Research Foundation
(QNRF) to provide CRDF's expertise in implementing science and
technology cooperative programs, building organizational capacity in
information technology, database administration, peer review and grant
administration support.
As an NGO with on-the-ground support offices in Russia, Ukraine,
Kazakhstan, and soon in Azerbaijan, CRDF has the staff expertise and
resources to offer flexible solutions to meet customer needs. For
example, our Russian office staff has provided support to the National
Science Foundation's Arctic programs division in the implementation of
their programs with the Russian Federation, working with Russian
government agencies and research institutes to coordinate work in the
Arctic region. Through our GAP program, CRDF has assisted over 200
organizations who work in the FSU to implement more than 1,200 projects
by providing flexible and accountable project management services.
As an NGO, CRDF offers potential partners overseas a U.S.
counterpart that is not part of the U.S. Government. Because CRDF is a
non-governmental, non-profit organization, it is often seen as a
neutral partner in developing program initiatives between the US and
its foreign counterparts. CRDF has been able to fulfill this role while
maintaining U.S. policy objectives. Moreover, CRDF can invest the time
and resources needed to build the relationships and trust that are so
necessary to engaging foreign scientific communities in new programs of
cooperation with the United States.
As an NGO, CRDF's mission is broad. This breadth enables CRDF to
offer a wide range of program implementation strategies for multiple
customers. As of July 1, 2008, CRDF is implementing over 20 programs
for more than thirteen sponsors and customers. In addition, our GAP
program currently is implementing 350 projects for over 100 customers.
Other organizations, including U.S. Government agencies and non-
governmental entities, are supporting activities related to one or more
of CRDF mission objectives. However, CRDF is unique in its combination
of mission objectives and capability to implement across a wide range
of issues and countries.
Limitations as an NGO
While CRDF has achieved remarkable success in its twelve years of
operation, its forward progress is constrained by the absence of multi-
year funding. CRDF was originally envisaged as an endowed foundation
that would operate similar to the foundations that the U.S. established
with Israel. That endowment did not materialize, and hence, CRDF must
constantly seek new funding for all of its program activities and to
maintain its core staff capabilities. In almost all cases, that funding
is secured on an annual basis, which limits the ability of CRDF to
develop long-term program strategies with partners overseas. CRDF also
needs to retain some flexibility in designing its programs as needs on
the ground can evolve over time and out-pace the ability of
governmental agencies to respond in a timely way.
Coordination with the USG
CRDF coordinates its work closely with the United States
Government, which has been the primary source of funds for CRDF program
activities. For example, in 2007 federal expenditures accounted for
over $18 million, out of almost $25 million, in CRDF activities. The
federal expenditures include funds from the Departments of State,
Defense, and Energy, the National Science Foundation and the National
Institutes of Health. Overall, the largest single source of funds has
been the State Department's FREEDOM Support Act funds, which have
declined from a high of $15 million in 2002 to $5.7 million in fiscal
year 2007, with further reductions expected in fiscal year 2008.
As CRDF's primary funder, the Department of State continues to
request CRDF help in implementing its programs. CRDF works closely with
a number of the Department's geographic and functional bureaus to
advance international science collaborations on behalf of the
Department. However, the significant decrease in FSA funding has
significantly impacted the type of programming and impact that CRDF can
exert. The decline in FSA funding reduces CRDF's ability to respond
quickly to new opportunities in priority countries and to take
advantage of cost-sharing offers from foreign partners. CRDF has
annually been included in the House and Senate foreign operations
appropriations report, and in recent years the Congress has urged the
Department of State to expand funding for CRDF from other accounts
beyond the FSA.
CRDF works with a number of other U.S. Government agencies, helping
them advance their global research interests. For example, with funding
from NSF supplemented by other agencies, CRDF has supported over 1,000
collaborative research projects between U.S. scientists and
counterparts in Eurasia and Eastern Europe. The projects cover multiple
disciplines, such as biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, math,
IT, and geology and are selected based on merit review. Additionally,
on behalf of NSF, CRDF manages a small number of bilateral programs
primarily in Russia and Eurasia which include Arctic area research,
fellowship and exchange programs, and support for international
conferences in various scientific disciplines. NSF-funded CRDF programs
have benefited from annual cost-sharing from the governments of Russia
and Ukraine.
With funding from NIH, CRDF has engaged scientists around world in
cooperative research projects with U.S. partners to investigate high-
priority topics in global health, including: disease prevention,
treatment, and surveillance; innovative cancer diagnostic methods; and
new approaches to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and hepatitis C. In
particular, CRDF manages several international programs in public
health, primarily in infectious disease prevention and monitoring,
centers of excellence for public health education, and in research on
HIV/AIDS. CRDF's support for HIV/AIDS research entered a new phase in
2008 with the HIV/AIDS Research Public Health Centers of Excellence
program. This program, jointly funded by the Russian Ministry of
Education and Science, funds two U.S.-Russian interdisciplinary
consortia to apply international best practices to HIV/AIDS research in
Russia. The centers are focusing on pressing research needs in Russia,
TB co-infection and behavioral factors in HIV transmission, and
providing a model for future interdisciplinary public health research
centers in HIV and other global health threats, such as tuberculosis,
heart disease, and substance abuse.
For the Department of Energy, CRDF has provided logistical and
financial support for a number of engagement programs between DOE and
its international counterparts, primarily in Russia. Finally, for DOD
through the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), CRDF has managed
science engagement programs with a number of institutes in Eurasian
countries that have had biological weapons capabilities or histories,
supervising their transition to civilian applications, research, and
commercialization.
CRDF routinely submits proposals for work to U.S. Government
agencies and if selected, operate under a federal grant or contract.
CRDF complies with all applicable rules and regulations as a grantee/
contractor and reports regularly to the sponsoring agency on the
progress of the work. CRDF maintains regular contact with the policy-
making community and Congress to keep them updated on the progress of
CRDF work and new opportunities that may be of interest to government
sponsors.
THE FUTURE: HOW CAN THE USG WORK WITH NGOS AND THE U.S. SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY TO PURSUE FOREIGN POLICY GOALS AND GLOBAL
CHALLENGES?
The Time is Right
Never has CRDF's vision, ``international peace and prosperity
through international science collaboration,'' been more relevant than
it is today. The U.S. science and technology enterprise is the best in
the world. U.S. leadership in science and technology is recognized
globally. According to the Gallup World Poll conducted over six years
and which covers 40 majority Muslim countries and 90 percent of the
global Muslim population, the single most admired aspect of the West
among Muslims around the world is technology. When asked what the West
can do to improve relations with the Muslim world, the most frequent
response after the resounding call for the West to respect Islam, is
for the Western nations to help Muslim countries with capacity building
and technology transfer.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Statement by Dalia Mogahed, Senior Analyst at Gallup and
Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies; author of
the book ``Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think''
(Gallup Press, March 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
American scientists and engineers represent an incredibly valuable,
but underutilized, resource in U.S. foreign policy. With adequate
support and incentives, U.S. scientists and engineers can reach out to
societies around the world and apply ``smart power'' through
international science and technology cooperation. Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates and others have argued for more effective use of U.S.
``smart power'' to invest ``in the global good--providing services and
policies that people and governments want but cannot attain in the
absence of American leadership.'' \2\ We need to engage our leaders to
utilize our scientists and engineers to reach out to counterparts
around the world and engage in long-term science and technology
projects that find collaborative solutions to common problems in
health, environment, energy and agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),
``Implementing Smart Power: Setting an Agenda for National Security
Reform,'' a statement by Richard L. Armitage, President, Armitage
International, and Dr. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Distinguished Service
Professor, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 24, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's most vexing problems are global in nature and are not
limited to the geographic boundaries of any one country. So, too, the
capability to solve technical problems resides around the world. The
best approach to solving global problems is to involve global teams of
scientists and engineers. By contributing to the solution of these
problems, the U.S. engenders gratitude and trust. By collaborating in
their solution, the U.S. builds capacity and hence leverages our
efforts. Scientists and engineers tend to share values that transcend
cultures, thus facilitating more rapid trust relations. This is very
important as a diplomatic tool--to reach out to global partners in ways
that diplomats cannot. In many developing countries, the technical
leadership is tied into the political leadership more so than in
developed countries. This too can be an important avenue to encourage
sound political decision-making.
The U.S. Government's Role
The U.S. Government must significantly expand its support for
international science and technology cooperation. It should begin by
articulating a clear policy statement endorsing international
cooperation as a key component of U.S. foreign policy and assistance,
national and economic security, and a priority for U.S. research and
development agencies. The White House should increase attention to
international science and technology cooperation and reestablish a
high-level, interagency committee to coordinate U.S. Government
efforts.
The U.S. Government should promote an environment that is conducive
to international science and technology by routinely reviewing policies
and procedures that affect the implementation of international science
and technology cooperation. The appropriate U.S. Government agencies
should work to reduce barriers to cooperation, such as the difficulty
of obtaining visas.
The U.S. Government should increase the resources allocated to
international science collaboration. For example, international program
offices at federal R&D agencies should be allocated additional
resources to explore and expand international cooperation. Seed funding
should be made available for ``start-up'' activities under the
intergovernmental science and technology agreements that the U.S. signs
with foreign counterparts. These agreements are often signed with great
fanfare but do not live up to expectations, particularly for our
foreign counterparts, because there generally is no funding to pursue
concrete activities. U.S. foreign assistance programs should increase
their attention to science and technology for capacity building
overseas.
The U.S. Government should increase its partnerships with non-
governmental organizations to initiate and implement international
science and technology cooperation. NGOs offer the speed, flexibility
and responsiveness needed to pursue new opportunities and to execute
constantly evolving policy and programmatic priorities of U.S.
Government agencies. NGOs have the ability to get ``on-the-ground''
quickly and develop the relationships and trust needed to initiate new
partnerships, often in difficult circumstances. At the same time, NGOs
are able to work with transparency, openness and accountability
overseas, and to foster the same in our partners.
Catalyzing a New Global Initiative
Most importantly, the U.S. Government should launch a strategic,
new global initiative to catalyze, broker, amplify and scale up science
and technology cooperation for the benefit of the United States and its
partners around the world. This new initiative should be a global
public-private partnership with the U.S. taking the lead in challenging
other governments and private donors to match the U.S. contribution.
Patterned after other public-private partnerships, such as the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, this new global science
initiative would engage scientists internationally to encourage
critical scientific and technical advances that address global
challenges including infectious disease, food security, energy
alternatives and vanishing ecosystems; to reach young scientists and
support a robust research and educational infrastructure; and to build
mutually beneficial economic partnerships. It would facilitate greatly
expanded international science and technology cooperation as well as
enhance institutional capacity in the developing world. Nations with a
strong, stable science and technology base are better participants in
the global economy, develop indigenous solutions to national problems,
and contribute to ongoing international collaborative efforts.
CRDF as a Global Partner for the Future
With over a decade of strong support from both public and private
donors, CRDF has developed a potent and unique capability to implement
international science and technology cooperation. CRDF's many successes
validate the vision that the leadership of this Science Committee
articulated in 1992. CRDF has demonstrated that Congressman Brown was
right when he argued for the creation of a non-governmental
organization to help achieve U.S. foreign and national security policy
objectives through international science and technology cooperation
that benefits both the United States and its partners overseas.
The global environment in which CRDF operates has changed
dramatically since CRDF began in 1992. New opportunities to collaborate
in science and technology are emerging rapidly as countries focus
attention on building knowledge-based societies. The demand for
science-based solutions to complex global challenges in health, energy,
agriculture, economic well-being and security is high. Meeting such
challenges requires international science and technology collaboration
that brings together the best minds and innovative approaches to find
mutually beneficial solutions. It is in the U.S. interest to encourage
such collaboration. CRDF also sees many opportunities to continue its
record of success in other regions where science cooperation can make a
positive contribution to U.S. policy, especially in the Middle East and
in South Asia.
CRDF will continue to work in partnership with the U.S. Government,
foreign partners and other NGOs to develop international science and
technology cooperation that builds on CRDF proven models and addresses
high priority opportunities or needs. For example, through its higher
education and research initiative, CRDF will work to establish and
integrate scientific research more effectively into university programs
overseas and to develop opportunities to engage foreign students and
young researchers--the next generation of scientists--into productive,
long-lasting collaborations with the U.S. partners.
CRDF will continue to develop program initiatives to engage
scientists and engineers in the Middle East and other Muslim countries
in collaborations that generate new knowledge, apply research to
address priority needs in health, agriculture, water and energy; and
build capacity for education, research and economic development through
science and technology. A high priority will be collaborative research
programs that encourage U.S. scientists to identify and partner with
foreign scientists on mutually beneficial, competitively selected
projects. Together, these joint research teams can address common
problems while developing long-lasting relationships of trust and
collaboration.
CRDF will continue to work with new science and technology
institutions overseas to develop mechanisms and procedures that promote
merit-based selection of projects and opportunities for collaboration
with U.S. scientists. Building on its successful experience managing
the Iraqi Virtual Science Library, CRDF will work with others to help
bring this type of digital library resource to other countries. A
number of countries have expressed a desire for CRDF's assistance to
partner with them on creating and maintaining access to scientific
literature, research databases, and other similar tools. These
activities stimulate collaborative research, allow access by scientists
to a wider community of scholars, and ultimately contribute to a more
open flow of information. CRDF sees a major opportunity for positive
public diplomacy in stimulating and funding such programs to broaden
access to scientific knowledge and norms as practiced in the U.S.
research community.
CRDF will continue to pursue collaborative approaches to address
global energy issues. This fall, CRDF will begin a new initiative in
climate change research. With cost-shares from CRDF's international
partners, CRDF will support international teams researching ways to
measure and reduce the impacts of this global problem from a variety of
scientific disciplines, including biology, chemistry, physics, geology,
and engineering. This builds upon CRDF's track record of supporting
international collaborative projects that have studied solar energy,
improved the potential and marketability of fuel cells, and explored
sustainable energy. U.S. industry partners on these projects have
included Shell, ConocoPhillips and GE. As an example, CRDF supported
researchers from Armenia and the California Department of Water
Resources to evaluate the energy capacity and wood yield potential of
fast-growing poplar trees as a promising source of power and as a
remedy for some of Armenia's heavily deforested regions.
CRDF's work in addressing energy-related issues was noted by the
Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Senator Pete Domenici, in his remarks regarding CRDF's ten year
anniversary: ``The Civilian Research & Development Foundation has
amassed a very solid record of helping the U.S. Government achieve its
foreign and national security policy agendas. By using science
collaborations to advance peace and sustainable prosperity, we can best
address the complex energy challenges that we face globally by uniting
the talents of all the world's brightest minds. CRDF is uniquely
positioned to help enable these international collaborations that will
benefit all of us in the energy field and elsewhere.''
In conclusion, CRDF's unique expertise and track record have been
tested with great success in the countries of the former Soviet Union.
They are now being expanded slowly into other countries and regions.
CRDF is working hard to help make the case for expanded partnerships to
advance science for diplomacy and security. In partnership with AAAS,
the NAS, Brookings, and others, CRDF is working hard to help raise
awareness regarding science for diplomacy. We commend this committee
for taking the lead here on Capitol Hill and we look forward to working
with you and our partners here and in the government to make this dream
that George Brown had a global reality.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Biography for William A. Wulf
Education:
B.S.--Engineering Physics, University of Illinois, 1961
M.S.--Electrical Engineering, University of Illinois, 1963
Ph.D.--Computer Science, University of Virginia, 1968
Descriptive Biography:
Dr. Wulf is a University Professor and the AT&T Professor of
Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Virginia. Among
his activities at the University were a complete revision of the
undergraduate Computer Science curriculum, research on computer
architecture and computer security, and an effort to assist humanities
scholars exploit information technology.
Dr. Wulf was on leave from the University from mid 1996 to mid 2007
to serve as President of the National Academy of Engineering. Together
with the National Academy of Sciences, the NAE operates under a
congressional charter and presidential executive orders that call on it
to provide advice to the government on issues of science and
engineering.
In 1988-90 Dr. Wulf was on leave from the University to be
Assistant Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) where he
headed the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and
Engineering (CISE). CISE was responsible for computer science and
engineering research as well as for operating the National
Supercomputer Centers and NSFNET (the precursor to today's Internet).
While at NSF, Dr. Wulf was deeply involved in the development of the
High Performance Computing and Communication Initiative and in the
formative discussions of the National Information Infrastructure.
Prior to joining Virginia, Dr. Wulf founded Tartan Laboratories, a
software company, and served as its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer. Before returning to academe, Dr. Wulf grew the company to
about a hundred employees. Tartan developed and marketed optimizing
compilers, notably for Ada. Tartan was sold to Texas Instruments in
1995.
The technical basis for Tartan was research by Dr. Wulf while he
was a Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie-Mellon University,
where he was Acting Head of the Department from 1978-1979. At Carnegie-
Mellon Dr. Wulf's research spanned programming systems and computer
architecture; specific research activities included: the design and
implementation of a systems-implementation language (Bliss),
architectural design of the DEC PDP-11, the design and construction of
a 16 processor multiprocessor and its operating system, a new approach
to computer security, and development of a technology for the
construction of high quality optimizing compilers. Dr. Wulf also
actively participated in the development of Ada, the common DOD
programming language for embedded computer applications.
While at Carnegie-Mellon and Tartan, Dr. Wulf was active in the
``high tech'' community in Pittsburgh. He helped found the Pittsburgh
High Technology Council and served as Vice President and Director from
its creation. He also helped found the CEO Network, the CEO Venture
Fund, and served as an advisor to the Western Pennsylvania Advanced
Technology Center. In 1983 he was awarded the Enterprise ``Man of the
Year'' Award for these and other activities.
Consulting:
Stellar Computer, Pyramid Computer, Prime Computer, Westinghouse
Research and Development, United Nations Development Program, IBM,
Digital Equipment Corporation, Intel Corporation, Intermetrics Inc.,
North Electric Company, Cii Honeywell-Bull, Computer Networks Inc.,
NCR, Univac, and others.
Administrative Experience:
President, National Academy of Engineering, 1996-2007.
Assistant Director, National Science Foundation, 1988-90.
Chairman & CEO, Tartan Laboratories Incorporated, 1981-1987.
Acting Head, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon
University, 1978-1979.
Selected Professional Activities:
Member, National Academy of Engineering
Member, American Philosophical Society
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Foreign Fellow, Australian Academy of Science, Technology and
Engineering
Foreign Member, Russian Academy of Sciences
Foreign Member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering
Foreign Member, Engineering Academy of Japan
Honorary Member, Academy of Technical Sciences of Romania
Corresponding Member, Royal Spanish Academy of Engineering
Member, Academy Bibliotheca Alexandrina (Library of Alexandria)
Foreign Corresponding Member, National Academy of Engineering of
Venezuela
D. Sc. (Hon.) Carnegie Mellon University
D. Sc. (Hon) U. Connecticut
D. Engr. (Hon) Colorado School of Mines
D. Engr. (Hon) Polytechnic University
D. Engr. (Hon) Missouri University of Science and Technology
Distinguished Service Medal, U. Pennsylvania
Kenneth Andrew Roe Award, ASEE
Ralph Coats Roe Award, ASME
Distinguished Career in Science Award, Washington Academy of Sciences
Associate Editor, Acta Informatica
Reviewing Editor, Science, 1992-96
Chairman, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National
Research Council, 1991-6
Member, Council of the ACM, 1991-98
Director, Computing Research Association, 1988-92
Member, Board of Visitors, Software Engineering Institute, 1987-93
Editorial Board, Addison-Wesley/SEI Series on Software Engineering
Member, Air Force Science Advisory Board, 1989-91
Director, Baker Engineers (a public Engineering firm), 1984-97
Director, Charles Starke Draper Laboratory, 1998-2006
Director, National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, 1997-
2007
Director, Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology, 1999-(Chair
beginning 7/1/08)
Trustee, Library of Alexandria (Egypt), 2001-2007
Member, Eta Kappa Nu (EE Honary Society)
Member, NSF Engineering Advisory Committee, 2007-present
Member, Purdue School of Engineering Advisory Board, 2007-present
Vice-Chair, Olin College President's Advisory Committee, 2007-present
Director, Civilian Research and Development Foundation, 2008-present
Director, MASDR Institute (Abu Dhabi), 2007-present
Professional Society Memberships:
Association for Computing Machinery, ACM (Fellow)
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, IEEE (Fellow)
American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS (Fellow)
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Sigma-Xi
Association for Women in Science (Fellow)
International Engineering Council (Fellow)
Patents:
U.S. Patent No. 4,819,155 ``Apparatus for Reading and Writing From
Memory Streams of Data While Concurrently Executing a Plurality
of Data Processing Operations''
U.S. Patent No. 6,154,826 ``Method and Device for Maximizing Memory
System Bandwidth by Accessing Data in an Dynamically Determined
Order''
Selected Publications:
Books
Wulf, W.A., Levin, R., and Harbison, S.P., ``Hydra/C.mmp: An
Experimental Computer System.'' McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.,
1980.
Wulf, W.A., Shaw, M., Hilfinger, P.M., and Flon, L., ``Fundamental
Structures of Computer Science.'' Addison-Wesley, 1980.
Wulf, W.A., Johnson, R., Weinstock, C., Hobbs, S., and Geschke, C.,
``The Design of an Optimizing Compiler.'' American Elsevier
Publishing Company, Inc., New York, 1975.
Journal and Conference Publications
Bell, C. Gordon, Cady, R., McFarland, H., Delagi, B., O'Laughlin, J.,
Noonan, R., and Wulf, W.A., ``A New Architecture for Mini-
Computers--The DEC PDP-11,'' AFIPS Conference Proceedings,
AFIPS, pp 657-675, 1970.
Wulf, W.A., Habermann, A.N., and Russell, D., ``Bliss: A Language for
Systems Programming,'' Communications of the Association of
Computing Machinery, December 1972.
Wulf, W.A., and Bell, C.G., ``C.mmp: A Multi-Mini Processor,''
Proceedings of the FJCC, November 1972.
Wulf, W.A., et. al., ``Hydra--The Kernel of a Multiprocessor Operating
System,'' Communications of the ACM, June 1974.
Wulf, W.A., London, R., and Shaw, M., ``Abstraction and Verification in
Alphard: Introduction to Language and Methodology,'' IEEE
Transactions on Software Engineering, December 1976.
Wulf, W. Knight, J., and Prey J., ``Undergraduate Computer Science
Education: A New Curriculum Philosophy And Overview,'' ACMCSE
conference, Mar. 94.
Grimshaw, A., and Wulf, W., ``The Legion Vision of a Worldwide Virtual
Computer,'' Communications of the ACM, Jan. 1997, Vol. 40, No.
1.
McKee, Sally, Wulf, Wm. A., et. al., ``Smarter Memory: Improving
Bandwidth for Streamed References,'' IEEE Computer, Vol. 31,
No. 7, July 1998.
Chenxi Wang, William Wulf, ``A Distributed Key Generation Technique for
Public Key Infrastructures,'' Netnomics, Vol. 2 (2000), pp.
265-278. Baltzer Science Publishers. The Netherlands.
Chairman Baird. Thank you. Dr. Calvin.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES A. CALVIN, INTERIM VICE PRESIDENT FOR
RESEARCH; PROFESSOR OF STATISTICS, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
Dr. Calvin. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and
Members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to be able to
represent Texas A&M University and testify about the role of
non-governmental organizations and universities.
Texas A&M has a long history of supporting the three-fold
mission of research, teaching, and public service and
globalization of research and education is a natural extension
of this traditional mission. Through globalization, Texas A&M
has been able to produce graduates that are better prepared to
compete within the global marketplace, recruit top-level
faculty, and leverage local and national research support while
at the same time further developing a positive international
reputation.
To support these numerous international exchanges at Texas
A&M, we have over 130 active international Memoranda of
Understanding and are currently in the process of formalizing
nearly 30 additional MOAs. Of note is our branch campus in
Doha, Qatar, where we offer four undergraduate engineering
degrees with graduate programs soon to be established. This
campus is supported by the Qatar Foundation, and so no taxpayer
or tuition money is used to support this effort. Significantly,
the curriculum requirements are the same as in College Station.
Thus, undergraduate students must complete six hours in
American history and six hours in political science in order to
graduate.
The workplace and the scientific landscape have become
increasingly global. No country can maintain a monopoly on
scientific discoveries or on a trained work force. Thus, it is
incumbent upon universities such as Texas A&M to engage this
global environment so that we can lead instead of follow.
Employers of our graduates tell us that they want employees
with global perspective. Providing international experiences to
over 46,000 students is difficult if we limit ourselves to only
sending students to foreign locations. Having more than 4,000
international students on our main campus allows Texas A&M a
significant opportunity to create global experiences for a
broad set of our students within the College Station
environment.
A unique example of this involves the current president of
Panama and a former student of Texas A&M. As a result of the
Panamanian President's experience, he has promoted increased
student and faculty exchanges with Texas A&M as a mechanism to
help increase competitiveness of Panamanian universities.
Scientific discoveries come from all over the globe. In
many cases, these efforts are most effective if they involve
global collaboration. Although we have relationships around the
world, we have chosen to focus particular emphasis on three
regions, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America. Here are
some selected examples of such partnerships and their benefits.
We have an agreement with Mexico's National Council of Science
and Technology, or CONACYT, which is their equivalent of our
National Science Foundation, that was formally established in
2002. Texas A&M and CONACYT have invested over $2.2 million in
93 new collaborative research teams involving investigators
from both Texas A&M and Mexico. In fact, the partnerships are
only funded if they are equally supported by both Texas A&M and
Mexican researchers, and they cover topics of interest to both
Mexico and the United States, from Cross-Border Land and Water-
Use Changes to Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease to Electric
Energy by Alternative Renewable Resources.
Texas A&M, the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation,
and the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with
Foreign Countries have hosted three China-U.S. Relations
Conferences that have helped expand academic and business
opportunities and strengthen one of our most important global
relationships. Through this conference, Texas A&M is helping to
promote continued dialogue, at all levels, and encourage the
development of strong partnerships in areas of joint interest.
Our campus in Qatar provides us with a remarkable
opportunity to provide help in producing an increased
engineering workforce in the Middle East while simultaneously
providing research opportunities to work on problems of global
interest. During this past year, Texas A&M University Qatar
faculty received grants from the Qatar National Research
Foundation for approximately $12 million to pursue research
topics in engineering, the physical sciences, and mathematics,
all on topics that are of equal interest to Texas and the
United States.
Our new Institute for Applied Mathematics and Computational
Science is a partnership with the King Abdullah University of
Science and Technology, or KAUST, located in Saudi Arabia.
Through this $20 million effort funded by KAUST, Texas A&M
faculty will be working on problems that are of fundamental
importance while simultaneously helping to establish a new
higher education institution built on the western educational
model. The institute is part of a global research alliance that
currently includes only three other centers located at
Stanford, Cornell, and Oxford.
Finally, Norman E. Borlaug, winner of the Nobel Peace
Prize, Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional
Gold Medal, is a Distinguished Professor of International
Agriculture at Texas A&M. The Borlaug Institute is assisting
other nations to combat world hunger through technical
innovation, training of agricultural scientists and workers,
and intellectual leadership. There are currently 15 Texas A&M
personnel serving throughout Iraq working in cooperation with
USAID, USDA, and DOD.
In addition to what was said previously, there are three
areas of interest that I think are quite significant in the way
that universities can support the efforts of Texas A&M and all
universities.
The first, as has been mentioned before, is the visa
process. While national security issues are clearly a high
priority, efforts to enhance appropriate international
intellectual changes still need to be encouraged. An important
way the Federal Government can provide unique support is
through the development of new programs that effectively
provide joint funding for international collaboration. Many
partnerships can be initiated through a number of local
capabilities, but to move the successful ones to the next level
of progress, we really need funding that is able to provide
resources as was previously mentioned to partnerships
regardless of their location.
This includes support for American students wishing to
study abroad as well as the international research efforts that
I have discussed. And if these resources can be made available,
the funds for the international research efforts should be
committed for the long-term so investigators can make the
commitment required to make important advances in these new
programs and so that our international collaborators know that
they can depend upon our participation as they develop and
commit their share to such a funding model.
And finally, we believe it is important that as we begin
these new initiatives, scientific peer review is a driving
force behind the allocation of resources. It is through the
competitive processes that we have developed as a country that
the best science can be performed and given into the most
effective hands.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Calvin follows:]
Prepared Statement of James A. Calvin
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is James Calvin, and I am the Interim Vice
President for Research at Texas A&M University. Good morning and thank
you for including me in this prestigious list of speakers. I am honored
to be representing universities in testifying about the role of non-
governmental organizations and universities in international science
and technology cooperation.
Background
As one of the select few universities with the land-, sea- and
space-grant designations, Texas A&M has a long history of supporting
the three-fold mission of research, teaching, and public service at a
research intensive university. The globalization and diversification of
research and education is a natural extension of this traditional
mission and is in fact one of the University's key imperatives outlined
in Vision 2020, the University's effort to attain consensus top-ten
status among public universities by the year 2020. Through its
globalization and diversification efforts, Texas A&M is able to provide
a more well-rounded education for our students, ensure that our faculty
have the ability to engage in collaborative research with the leading
researchers throughout the world, and promote Texas A&M as a research
hub that encourages the best and the brightest from around the world to
pursue their education within the United States. The result of these
efforts is that Texas A&M has been able to produce graduates that are
better prepared to compete within the global marketplace, recruit top-
level faculty members, and leverage local and national research support
through international partnerships as well as further developing a
positive international reputation.
Demographics
Texas A&M has a student population of 46,542 (37,357 undergraduate
and 9,185 graduate students) studying in over 250 degree programs in 10
colleges. Among these students, we have 4,025 international students
from 124 countries. While a great number of these students come from
Mexico, China, Taiwan, South Korea, and India, we also have students
from Bhutan, Croatia, Eritrea, Macao, Yemen, and Togo.
During this academic year, Texas A&M hosted 577 foreign faculty
scholars, representing 74 countries. Many of the faculty come to Texas
A&M as a result of the relationships established through formal
Memoranda of Agreement (MOA), while others visit our campus as a result
of personal relationships with Texas A&M faculty established through
usual scientific exchanges. Today, we have 132 active MOAs with
universities and research institutions in 45 countries. We are also
currently in the process of formalizing nearly 30 additional MOAs.
Texas A&M operates a branch campus in Doha, Qatar offering four
undergraduate engineering degrees in Chemical, Electrical, Mechanical
and Petroleum Engineering. In addition, research and graduate programs
will soon be established at the Qatar campus. This campus is supported
by private funding, as the Qatar Foundation underwrites our efforts in
Doha. No taxpayer or tuition money is used to support this effort. When
offering a degree from Texas A&M, either in College Station or in Doha,
the curriculum requirements are the same. Thus, undergraduate students
must complete six hours in American history and six hours in political
science.
We also maintain two overseas centers in Italy and in Mexico City
and are currently establishing a third center in Costa Rica. The
University is also a part of the network of 27 federally funded
national centers for International Business Education and Research,
maintains an Office for Latin American Programs and an Institute for
Pacific Asia and has received funding from the European Commission to
establish one of the 10 European Union Centers of Excellence in the
United States.
Although Texas A&M has research and educational relationships all
over the world as well as the physical presences in Mexico, Italy,
Qatar and Costa Rica, we have chosen to focus particular emphasis on
three regions: the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America.
Role and benefit to Texas A&M of participating in international
research and education cooperation
The workplace and the scientific landscape have become increasingly
global. No country can maintain a monopoly on scientific discoveries or
on a trained work force. Thus, it is incumbent upon universities such
as Texas A&M to engage this global environment so that we can lead
instead of follow. The value of globalization can be seen in all three
components of our mission-research, teaching and public service.
Because of Texas A&M's commitment to diversity and globalization and
its varied international initiatives, we have better prepared students,
globally competitive research programs, and a long history of giving
back to the world community. Our graduates are better prepared, more
rigorously trained and have a broader perspective upon which to draw as
they enter the marketplace. Our research efforts have a broader impact
and the resources that can be used for research are leveraged. The area
where impact is arguably the greatest, but the least mentioned, is
within the realm of public service. By working on problems of bilateral
or multi-lateral interest, we can help to develop solutions to
practical problems that can provide immediate impact and provide an
avenue for economic development. All of this allows Texas A&M to
provide increased capabilities and value to the state and the Nation,
while simultaneously helping to develop strong partnerships with our
key regions of collaboration.
Our various study abroad programs and opportunities as well as our
efforts at our international campuses and centers in Qatar, Mexico,
Italy and our emerging campus in Costa Rica play vital roles in helping
our students prepare for life after graduation. However, providing
international experiences to 46,000-plus students is an inconceivable
mission if we limit ourselves to only sending students to foreign
locations. Having more than 4,000 international students on our main
campus allows Texas A&M a significant opportunity to create global
experiences for a broad set of our students and provides experience
possibilities that do not require students to be able to afford the
additional cost of a student abroad opportunity. For example, the
Muller International Host Program (MIHP) was started by some students
out of the Academy for Future International Leaders who started by
taking international students home for holidays. The purpose of MIHP is
to provide international students the opportunity to interact with a
local family from the United States. This allows students to gain a
better understanding of U.S. cultures and values. MIHP also provides
international students with an informal atmosphere in which they can
ask questions about U.S. customs, culture, and society. By
acknowledging that international students are a welcome part of the
Texas A&M community, MIHP deepens the relationship between
international students and the Texas A&M community. MIHP also increases
international students' knowledge of U.S. social institutions, promotes
a better understanding of issues facing the international community,
and provides international students a reference for casual U.S. dining.
In exchange, the international students also have a chance to discuss
their own cultures and social customs and bring the international
experience home to their host families. Most importantly, MIHP lowers
cultural barriers.
These invaluable educational experiences prepare our domestic
students for jobs with multinational companies and the ability to
perform under a wide variety of environments and with a diverse
workforce and potentially diverse clientele. With a welcoming and
nurturing global campus, the international student population, in turn,
learns the merits and perspectives of the U.S. educational system and
allows Texas A&M to cultivate relationships with individuals who become
influential leaders back in their home countries. The current President
of Panama is a former student of Texas A&M. As a result of Panamanian
President Martin Torrijos Espino's experiences at Texas A&M, he has
promoted formal student and faculty exchanges with Texas A&M as a
mechanism to help increase the competitiveness of Panamanian
universities.
Many areas of national need, for example the STEM fields of
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, have a shortage of
students. While it is imperative that we increase the number of U.S.
students pursuing training in these areas, international students also
provide a resource that can help drive the University's research agenda
and provide trained graduates to meet the needs of U.S. employers. It
is important to recognize that in addition to providing needed
expertise to employers, international students often become
entrepreneurs that add to the vitality of the U.S. economy and provide
employment for many U.S. citizens.
Scientific discoveries are coming from all over the globe. In
addition, many scientific challenges, such as effective alternative
energy supplies and new breakthroughs in the life sciences require
multi-disciplinary teams. In many cases, these efforts are most
effective if the collaborations involve global partnerships. These
partnerships can also leverage the resources of a Texas A&M faculty
member as the global partner brings resources to the collaboration. The
benefits of these partnerships will be both scientific and economic.
Oversight of the relationships that are established is an important
aspect of any multi-institutional partnership. When educational
experiences of our students are involved, these mechanisms require
additional effort. Each MOA that is signed must go through a rigorous
review process that ensures multiple institutional officials review the
agreement. At Texas A&M this is monitored at the highest levels. In the
case of our branch campuses, we maintain on-sight staff that is charged
with the oversight of the student experiences. In the case of the Qatar
campus, we maintain a full academic administrative structure to ensure
that the experiences students receive replicate the ones that they
would receive if they were on the main campus.
Existing research and science education programs
As was mentioned earlier, we maintain a large number of
international relationships that span a wide variety of disciplines and
levels of engagement, from person-to-person relationships to major
institutional commitments to international consortia. A long-standing
example of our effective partnerships is the bilateral agreement we
have with Mexico's National Council of Science and Technology
(CONACYT). Through this partnership formally established in 2001, Texas
A&M and CONACYT have invested over $2.2 million in collaborative
research teams involving investigators from both Texas A&M and Mexico.
The 93 projects funded so far through this program have established new
collaborations, provided support for numerous students (from both
Mexico and Texas A&M) and provided the seed funding needed to initiate
collaborations that could not have been established without this
support. The topics of the research are quite varied and of major
interest to both Mexico and the United States, from Cross-Border Land
and Water-Use Changes to Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease among
Mexicans and Mexican Americans to Electric Energy by Alternative
Renewable Resources. Another example of the benefits of this program is
the team of researchers who are working a multi-year bovine
tuberculosis project. This funding not only allowed the research team
from Texas A&M and from Mexico to look for a solution to a serious
health problem that affects both animal and human populations along the
U.S.-Mexico border, but also enabled graduate students to work along
side the counterpart investigators in a meaningful way. As can be seen,
this partnership is leading to not only scientific advances, but the
potential for the outcomes to provide stimulus to the economic
development of the Texas-Mexico border.
Our campus in Education City in Doha, Qatar provides us with a
remarkable opportunity to help provide an increased capacity to develop
an engineering workforce in the Middle East while simultaneously
providing research opportunities to work on problems of interest to
Texas, as well. An important aspect of the efforts in Education City is
that this is a co-educational environment that promotes men and women
learning and working in the same environment. During this past year,
faculty at Texas A&M-Qatar received grants from the Qatar National
Research Foundation (QNRF) for approximately $12 million to pursue
research in topics in engineering, the physical sciences, and
mathematics. In addition, our engagement in Education City has led to
separate research opportunities for our Colleges of Education and Human
Development and Liberal Arts.
The College of Education and Human Development was invited to
collaborate with the University of Qatar to set standards for their
teacher training programs. Qatari graduates from this joint program
will be competent, motivated teachers prepared to train students to
achieve at the highest international standards.
In addition to traditional international research partnerships,
Texas A&M is also involved with three examples of novel cooperative
relationships. Texas A&M University, the George Bush School of
Government and Public Service, the George Bush Presidential Library
Foundation, and the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with
Foreign Countries have hosted three China-U.S. Relations Conferences
that have helped expand academic and business opportunities and
strengthen one of the most important global relationships. As has been
noted by President George H.W. Bush, China is our most important
bilateral relationship. Through this conference, Texas A&M is helping
to promote continued dialogue, at all levels, and encourage the
development of strong partnerships in areas of joint interest. On the
scientific side, this biennial conference series brings together
scientists from the United States, primarily Texas A&M and China, to
identify ways to work on problems facing both countries. A recent
example of a successful collaboration is the project comparing the
Yangtze and Mississippi River basins related to global climate
variability and coastal ecosystem change.
Additionally, Texas A&M has received a significant grant from the
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to help strengthen the ability of
future military officers in language and cultural competency. The
grant, part of the 2008 Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) Language
and Culture Project, is sponsored by the National Security Education
Program, on behalf of the Defense Language Office, and will be used to
create on-campus as well as overseas programs to enable students in the
Corps of Cadets to gain greater exposure to the Chinese and Arabic-
speaking worlds, as well as to create courses and other programs to
improve language skills.
A second novel partnership is our new Institute for Applied
Mathematics and Computational Science (IAMCS), which is a partnership
with the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in
Saudi Arabia. Through this $20 million effort funded by KAUST, faculty
at Texas A&M and its partner institutions will be working on problems
that are of global importance while simultaneously, like Qatar, helping
to establish a new higher education institution built on the western
educational model. IAMCS is part of a global research alliance that
includes only three other centers at Cornell University, Stanford
University, and Oxford University. The research resulting from IAMCS
will be open to peer review and published in the highest quality
journals. We will develop new results that both advance the disciplines
within mathematical and computational sciences, but also work on
recurring annual themes, such as Earth science and material science to
help solve problems that will impact multinational audiences.
Finally, Norman E. Borlaug, winner of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize,
the 1977 Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the 2006 Congressional Gold
Medal, is a Distinguished Professor in International Agriculture at
Texas A&M. As the largest center for agriculture and life sciences in
the world, Texas A&M Agriculture is--by virtue of mission and vision--
uniquely poised for a new era of global leadership. Texas A&M's Borlaug
Institute is assisting other nations to combat world hunger through
technical innovation, training of agricultural scientists and workers,
and intellectual leadership.
Current projects related to Iraq and Afghanistan include a $4
million USAID project for range management in Afghanistan, the $6
million USDA IAER program to improve agricultural extension in Iraq,
and a $10 million USAID subcontract on the Inma Agribusiness program to
build agribusiness in Iraq. The Institute's work began in Iraq in 2003
with crop technology demonstrations and extension support under the
USAID Agricultural Reconstruction and Development for Iraq (ARDI)
project based in Baghdad and Erbil. The Institute has had long-term
agricultural specialists in Iraq from 2003 until the present.
Resulting from previous and current experience in Iraq, Texas A&M
personnel are acquainted with Iraqi universities, government agencies,
industries, businesses, infrastructure, leaders, natural resources and
agricultural production technologies. There are currently 15 Texas A&M
personnel serving throughout Iraq working in cooperation with USAID,
USDA, and DOD. We are engaged in private sector economic development,
collaboration with educational institutions, and providing science-
based solutions for the rehabilitation of the Iraqi agricultural
sector.
Federal interaction and support
While the visa process is the most obvious example of interaction
between Texas A&M and the Federal Government, we also actively engage
federal sponsors and the peer reviewed mechanism to obtain funding to
support our initiatives. In many cases, these funds are then leveraged
by private or international sources. In the case of the China-U.S.
Relations Conferences, we have actively involved cabinet level
officials or their representatives to provide keynote addresses.
In looking at the broad perspective of global collaboration, one
way the Federal Government can provide unique support is through the
development of new programs that effectively provide funding for
international collaboration. At this time, collaborations can be
initiated through a variety of mechanisms, such as our partnership with
CONACYT, but long-term funding for the most promising collaborations is
extremely difficult to obtain. In most cases, such success involves
each collaborator searching for funding independently in their home
countries and hoping that both can find funds during the same funding
cycle. Given the current rigorous competition for existing research
funding, it appears that new resources would be required for such a
program so that existing high priority initiatives are not impacted.
If resources can be made available, we feel that the funds should
be committed for the long-term so that investigators can make the
commitment required to make important advances in these new programs
and so that our international collaborators know that they can depend
upon our participation as they develop and commit their share of such a
funding model.
It would seem natural that prioritization of research programs
would be necessary to ensure sufficient resources to make an impact. A
broad dialogue will be important in determining what these priorities
are and ensuring that both scientific preeminence and economic impact
will have a role in determining the topics that are chosen. It is
important, however, that the scientific peer review process drive the
allocation of the resources once the priorities are established to
ensure credibility within the scientific community and the best
possible science.
I thank the Committee for the important work they do for U.S.
scientific research, and specifically, their interest in this important
topic.
Biography for James A. Calvin
James A. Calvin earned his doctorate and Master's of Science
degrees in statistics from Colorado State University in 1985 and 1980,
respectively. Dr. Calvin received his Bachelor of Science degree in
computer science and mathematics from the University of Oregon in 1976.
Upon earning his doctorate, he held the rank of Assistant Professor in
the Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science at the University of
Iowa from 1985 to 1991 and held a secondary appointment in the Division
of Biostatistics from 1988 to 1991.
Dr. Calvin Joined the Texas A&M University faculty in 1991. From
1998 to 2004, he was Professor and Head of the Department of Statistics
with secondary appointments in veterinary anatomy and public health,
epidemiology and biostatistics, and toxicology. In 2001, he became an
Associate Vice President for Research and was appointed as the
Executive Associate Vice President for Research in 2004. He has served
as Interim Vice President for Research since September 2007.
Dr. Calvin's research interests include linear models, multi-
variate variance components, biostatistics, measurement error, spatial
models, and statistical process control. He is the principal
investigator for the Texas A&M Institute for Applied Mathematics and
Computational Science. The new institute, funded by King Abdullah
University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia, will engage
mathematicians, statisticians and computer scientists on problems that
span the Earth sciences, materials science and the bio-sciences.
Applications include reservoir modeling, thermo-acoustic and photo-
acoustic imaging related to disease diagnosis, gene expression modeling
and complex data, including seismic and genomic information.
Dr. Calvin has served on several editorial boards, including
Biometrics, where he served as Executive Editor, the Journal of the
American Statistical Association, Communications in Statistics and the
ASA-SIAM Series on Statistics and Applied Probability. Dr. Calvin is a
fellow of the American Statistical Association and an elected member of
the International Statistical Institute. He has directed seven
successful graduate students and authored numerous publications.
Discussion
Chairman Baird. Thank you all for outstanding testimony. We
much appreciate it.
We will now begin the questions, and I will recognize
myself for five minutes, and we will follow with Dr. Ehlers. We
have been joined by Dr. McNerney from California. Dr. McNerney,
thank you for joining us and for your service on this
committee.
I want to begin by addressing what we heard from a number
of you, the issue of visas. This committee has had a hearing on
this, and the good news that we are told that the visas are
improving. The bad news is there is still a lot of challenge
both in terms of the reality of whether they are being
processed quickly enough and also the perceptual realities
internationally about the difficulties people face. We have had
both hearings publicly here but also private meetings with a
number of people from various Homeland Security and related
departments, and we are continuing to work on that. The point
is well-taken, and we are working on that.
Also, I want to begin also by congratulating you, Dr.
Leshner, on the Center for Science Diplomacy. And we are
honored that you would announce that here and perhaps you have
announced it elsewhere, but it is----
Dr. Leshner. No, today is the day.
Chairman Baird. Is that right?
Dr. Leshner. This is the moment.
Chairman Baird. It is perfect. Great minds think alike I
guess, and I can't think of a better organization to do that.
We will look forward to good things from the Center, and any
way we can assist in that, we will be happy to and to celebrate
your accomplishments.
Now, you also mentioned, Dr. Leshner, the importance of the
Foreign Relations Committee. Howard Berman is quite interested
in this issue. We have had a number of conversations with him
and his staff. They have been sitting in on meetings, and our
hope is really to kind of set the table here through this
series of hearings we have been having and then work in very
close concert with Chairman Berman and also with Nita Lowey.
They both appreciate the value of this and have some great
staff working on this issue, and we are eager to work with them
on that.
I want to ask a few questions if I may. This issue
repeatedly mentioned in your testimony about the restrictions
on U.S. funds to go to foreign researchers, a couple questions
emerge. One, we have the Fulbright Program, predominantly to
bring folks here, but do we need something like that where we
would fund foreign researchers in their home countries with
U.S. dollars? You don't necessarily want to dilute the NSF
monies, but how would we do it? If you could devise a program,
what would it look like? And we will hear from all the
witnesses.
Dr. Leshner. Perhaps I will start. I would say that from my
own perspective, the only conditions under which I would
support research in a foreign country without an American
collaborator is if in fact it was something we really needed to
know and we were confident it was something that was not going
to happen in the United States.
Chairman Baird. Let us assume we have a U.S. collaborator.
Dr. Leshner. Right. So when we have a U.S. collaborator,
often, particularly in developing countries, the foreign
collaborator can't afford to provide the resources for their
part of their research. If we're serious about fostering
collaboration and if we have a serious motivation towards
helping in infrastructure development in other countries,
particularly in the developing world, then I think we have an
obligation to provide at least minimal support. The big issue,
however, in the diplomacy aspect of this is to make sure that
these are not just one-shot, one-year investments. If we are
serious about building infrastructure, we have to be willing to
sustain it and maintain it at least for a while over time.
Chairman Baird. Very good point.
Dr. Clegg. I agree with Alan's points, but let me add that
in my capacity with the National Academy of Sciences, I travel
around the world very frequently and meet with the leadership
of science of most of the countries of the world, and it is
remarkable the number who have had experiences in the United
States. Most of them speak English, they know our culture much
better than we know theirs, they are very good interpreters of
our society in their own environments, they are our friends.
Typically they desire to collaborate with us. This is a huge
investment that began after World War II and continued up until
the late '80's but after that has declined substantially. These
assets will not be there. This generation is passing from the
scene. We will not have the kinds of contacts and people who
are familiar with our scientific institutions and our society
more broadly in the leadership of science internationally in
the future.
So I would urge that one important step is to begin to re-
establish the support for international graduate studies from
developing countries, not from the developed countries but from
developing countries where we can continue to benefit from this
personal exchange.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Wulf.
Dr. Wulf. Several points I would like to make. First of
all, the issue of funding foreign scientists to do research in
their own countries is what CRDF does, funded by NSF, the State
Department, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, and
NIH. The original goal was to fund foreign scientists. This is
something that an NGO can do. It is not so easy for the Federal
Government to do.
Second, I would like to amplify just a little bit on your
comment about visas in two dimensions. First of all, I think
all of us sitting at this table travel a good deal overseas,
and a common reaction that I get from my colleagues overseas is
``what are you doing?'' We are shooting ourselves in the foot,
although I know that the average time it takes for a student
visa to clear has gone from several months down to less than
two weeks. That is not the story that plays on the front page
of the newspapers overseas. It is the rare but newsworthy case
where it takes six months or we deny a visa to a renowned
scientist.
There is a second problem, and that is the problem of
``deemed exports.'' I had the privilege of serving on the
Department of Commerce Committee to look at the question of
deemed exports, but unless something changes, we could wind up
in a situation in which no foreign student is allowed to do any
research at a university in the United States. It is a very
serious problem. Our Committee submitted its report to the
Secretary of Commerce back in late December or early January. I
think they have been working on it. But there may be
legislative action that is required as well, and so I would
urge you to think about that.
And finally, I would like to just reiterate some of what
Mike said about the goodwill that we have engendered overseas
because of the foreign students who have been here. Mike and I
were both in Iran in October, and it is just hard to explain
how much the faculty at places like Sharif University, which is
sort of their MIT, like Americans, understand our values,
admire our values, and are some of the best ambassadors that we
have in the entire world. So this is gold.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Calvin?
Dr. Calvin. I think many of the points have already been
mentioned, so I don't want to duplicate them, but two things I
think are important to recognize is one, not all countries we
want to engage in national partnerships are the same. And so a
model that may work well in many developing countries isn't
necessarily the right model to engage China, for example. And
so I think we need to come up with a broader perspective on the
issue of how we approach the problem.
Second, I think it is important from a scientific
standpoint that we need to have a model so that the money goes
where it goes where it needs to go to get the science done. And
if that is in on relocation or the other, it shouldn't be the
issue. Is the science getting done and is the effective
partnership in place to make that science work appropriately.
And if we pay attention about quotas on one side or the other,
we eventually find that there is inefficiencies in the system
that doesn't allow us to get as much bang for our buck as we
would like.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Calvin, I will close with one comment,
and then recognize Dr. Ehlers, and that is that Dr. Clegg, you
mentioned and others mentioned the importance of Mid-East
applications of scientific diplomacy. One of the things I would
hope we would also do, I think it is absolutely correct that
our technological and scientific prowess is admired by Middle
Eastern nations. I would hope we could also look at science
diplomacy as leading to our recognition of the scientific
history and contributions of Middle Eastern nations. One need
only look at some of the early astrolabes created by Islamic
scientists to realize that we owe a profound debt, algebra,
zero, a few other things----
Dr. Calvin. Right. Absolutely.
Chairman Baird.--to them, and we need to accentuate that
awareness within our own culture I think as well.
With that, I recognize Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Bilbray. First I want to clarify that they hijacked
that from India and from the Far East, too, so it was
transmission of knowledge, not necessarily the discovery of it.
Mr. Ehlers. That was not me, by the way.
Chairman Baird. The Chair recognizes Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. It just struck me when you said they
gave us zero. They gave us zero and we give them nothing, and
we think it is a fair exchange.
Thank you very much for your testimony. It has been very,
very enlightening to me. I spent a year in Germany many years
ago as a post-doctorate fellow supported by NATO, and I thought
that was a marvelous program, especially to have some of our
military money funneled into a good program like that. But also
later on my research advisor, Bill Nuremberg--some of you know
him, brilliant physicist, lots of energy, but also a good
diplomat--he was appointed by the Department of State as the
representative to NATO on the science level. And we did those
things much more often back then.
I think we certainly have to return to that and we have to
correct the visa problem, but I am very impressed, Bill, with
the program you outlined and I didn't know much about it and I
am pleased to hear about what you are doing. It is a very good
way to do it.
One thing we did at Berkeley when I was on the faculty
there, we took some students from Turkey and had them in our
laps for a few years, and then one of our faculty members, one
of my colleagues, spent some time in Turkey; and it was a
marvelous experience because it made us realize how difficult
it is to do research in a foreign country. And when my
colleague was over there, almost every day I would get a
telephone call, can you send me three O rings of such-and-such
a size. It really was that bad. And we don't appreciate that
enough, and I think having their students come here and letting
our students and professors go there is really good in helping
break the logjam in that. Some of the horror stories that I
have heard from foreign scientists I have worked with, one
ordered a marvelous new piece of equipment--this was many years
ago, before bubble wrap and all those sort of things. It was
packaged in a box with not foam insulation but micro light
insulation and paper. The customs official just sliced that
open, filled the scientific equipment with all these little
particles. It took them six months to clean it out. It is just
endless problems to be dealt with.
I am just very pleased with what you said and the progress
I see. I think we ought to work very hard at breaking down some
of these barriers, and the first time I encountered it when I
got here, I was asked to write this brief, little booklet on
science policy. And one of the goals--I think I developed it
with the assistance of the National Academy--was to get a
scientist back in the State Department. Why that ever stopped,
I don't know. But the difficulty of getting it restarted just
amazed me. It seemed to me a self-evident thing. Fortunately it
is under way now.
We have so much work to do in so many areas on this topic,
and I am just glad you are there doing it. I don't really have
questions, I just wanted to say I am very pleased with what you
are doing, and keep it up. If there are things that we can do
to help, please let us know. The visa question, Dr. Baird has
done a great job on addressing that, but we know there are a
lot of other issues we should be addressing. I would like to
see a lot more exchange programs, not just the current
situation where some students come here if they get the money
and we send some people there, but an organized program with
constant exchange, as we used to do with the Soviet Union.
I think I have time left, but I will set a standard for
everyone, be the first one to close before the bell goes off.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Dr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do want
to thank you for pulling this together. It is a very important
subject. And you know, as important as it is for the
development of science and technology, it is also as you
mentioned critical for just understanding international issues.
I think science is the tool we can use to open up these
barriers. And so I really encourage you and you colleagues to
continue.
I have a couple of questions. First of all, how interested
do you see multinational corporations being in developing an
infrastructure for international scientific cooperation and
collaboration?
Dr. Wulf. CRDF has experienced substantial financial
support from multinational corporations, both for research
projects and also for education.
Mr. McNerney. Are there particular sectors that you think
are more interested in----
Dr. Wulf. The energy sector has been very interested. The
high-tech sector, it is an embarrassment that we are now a net
importer of high-tech products. But yes.
Dr. Clegg. I will just echo what Bill says. There is great
interest because of the perception that markets are largely
going to go abroad and not to the United States. And so
American high-tech industries have a strong interest in
developing relationships abroad. But their interests are
largely driven by their business models and a need to deliver
to their stockholders. But they aren't as interested I think in
the long-term issues that we have tried to portray in our
presentations.
Mr. McNerney. Do you think that the standards of ethics and
integrity are an important issue for scientific development in
countries that have different cultures than us, I guess is a
way to say that?
Dr. Leshner. Sure, and more and more we are seeing evidence
that as the global scientific enterprise becomes more unified,
more integrated, we are seeing more and more efforts among
countries to have those kinds of discussions very candidly. We
have participated in an array of them, including with China who
has invested tremendously, a tremendous amount of effort in
trying to develop their own set of standards and regulations
and have them being in keeping with the rest of the world. But
it is an effort that has begun and needs to continue. I am sure
that the Academies and the InterAcademy Panel have worked on
these issues as well.
Dr. Clegg. Let me just pick upon what Alan has said and
also to relate it back to a comment that Bill made. As Bill
mentioned, we have a program of workshops with Iran which are
conducted on an annual basis. One of the first workshops that
the Iranians wanted to have was on scientific ethics. But I
would like to also return in the context of ethics to a broader
point which is that science does operate within an ethical
framework because you cannot do science without paying
attention to the material evidence, and science has to be
repeatable so it has to be honest. So there is an ethical basis
to science which adds we believe to the temper of society, and
therefore helping expand science and technology capabilities in
other parts of the work also expands an ethical basis which is
an important dimension of science.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I am not sure who to ask this
question or who to direct this question to. What do you think
the limiting factors are in promoting global scientific
cooperation and collaboration? What are the ultimate limiting
factors? Is it political, is it economic, is it cultural, or is
it something else that I haven't mentioned?
Dr. Calvin. My experience is that--and of course, this is
coming from a single institution--but there is no limitation in
scientists' interest or willingness as long as the research is
available for public peer review processes to find new partners
and engage in new collaborations. What is limiting is
mechanisms to provide introductions to those individuals and
then the model so that if you can instigate a new partnership,
you can actually follow through on your relationship. As it
stands right now, if I have a colleague in another country, we
have to go to separate funding mechanisms under separate
funding cycles and hoping that we can make a case for something
that is of interest to two, non-coordinated bodies to be able
to push forward from an initial process. So it is this
coordination of communication, and then a model that approves
the partnership.
Mr. McNerney. What you see is a bureaucracy, the
bureaucratic hassle is one of the biggest factors, then?
Dr. Calvin. I guess if you want to put it that way. You
know, resources always become an issue at some point.
Mr. McNerney. Of course.
Dr. Calvin. But faculty members at our institution are
aware of what is going on worldwide, and if they have a
collaborator that is anywhere in the world, they know how to
get a hold of them and they have the international conferences
to make the introductions. What they don't have is the
mechanism to take the next step.
Dr. Leshner. One of the things if I might just mention is
that the European Commission opened its Framework Seven
petition to people outside of the European Union, and we met
with the Argentine Science Minister last week who very proudly
pointed out the extent of Argentina's participation in
Framework Seven. Well, that is not only a form of science
diplomacy but it is certainly a mechanism that makes it a whole
lot easier to develop international cooperation. And it is part
of the reason why I am obsessed with the notion that we need to
rethink the way in which we structure our own funding for
international science diplomacy.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Dr. Wulf. I can't not say that resources are also a
limiting factor, which you didn't mention. I have been really
impressed by the fact that CRDF's average grant to support
foreign scientists and collaboration between foreign scientists
and U.S. scientists is $60,000 over two years. Eighty percent
of that money goes to foreign scientists, 20 percent to the
United States. That is a tiny, tiny little bit of money and yet
we have no problem finding U.S. scientists who want to
participate. They do it because they think it is important,
because they think it is a contribution that they can make to
the world. You know, that is not the limitation, money is.
Mr. McNerney. Speaking of limitations, I think I have run
over my time a little bit, Mr. Chairman, so I yield back.
Chairman Baird. Fortunately, Mr. Ehlers had pre-yielded
time. It is a time back that Mr. McNerney drew upon.
Mr. Ehlers. I may reclaim that.
Chairman Baird. Mr. Bilbray.
Mr. Bilbray. Yes, Dr. Calvin, if you want to be frustrated
by uncoordinated efforts, you should try to work with the
Senate. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I wasn't going to mention
anything about the visa, but it really is a very important
issue and I hope that today we can sort of understand that the
Science Committee ought to be an advocate. But understand that
the obstructionism that is caused at the visa process is not
the problem. It is a symptom of a problem. Now, we all have
heard back and forth the 9-11 terrorists were visa overstays,
and we assume that the concept of checking like visa status
whenever you let somebody into an educational institution is
not the business of educationalized institutions, but then
again, you have the 9-11 terrorist take a class in aviation and
use it, and that is one of the problems. So I just hope that
this Chairman or this committee becomes the perfect spokesman
for the fact that our problem is that we are trying to do it
all at the border. You know, we are trying to restrict those
who come into our country, and what happens is the bureaucrat
who is making these calls has a feeling that once I say okay,
there is nothing to back me up afterwards. Forty percent of the
people illegally in this country are visa overstays, and to a
lot of people, their argument is the way you eliminate 40
percent of the problem is just don't allow any visas, and I
don't think any of us wants to do that.
But I think that if we want to open up and make the system
more rational, we have got to understand we got to stop taking
the political easy route of saying, let us do it all at the
border, let us just not issue visas or let us tighten up the
visa process. Rather than having a back-up system so that the
agent who was given the visa can be assured that, look,
somebody might slip through, they might overstay, but at least
I know then that somebody is checking that they can't get a
driver's license, they can't open a bank account, they can't
get a job; and then I feel you are going to see the visa system
much more. But historically, we have not been brave enough to
address that. I mean, this week I think we are going to have a
vote on e-verification. Very simple system, name and number
matches. But even that people don't want to take the political
heat for, so it ends up being easier politically to put it all
on the visa system. And I think that as a child of an immigrant
and watching my cousins trying to get into this country, that
is one thing that we have got to open up. But if we want it
opened up, then we have got to be willing to take the heat at
having a backup system and that means doing these checks, to
assure the visa application handler, you are not the only
barrier between the American people and somebody who may come
into the country or overstay.
But getting back to one of the things I am interested in is
the use of water. I think one of the things we are missing is
that water is going to be the most destabilizing element in the
world in the future, more than oil, and especially from the
Jordan to India from the Kurdistan down to the sub-Sahara. And
the Muslim world is one of the biggest crisis. I am very
encouraged with your work of getting Israel and Jordan working
together because no one in the world has done more at
conservation and application of water than Israel. Negative
desert research with high salinity, that really could have a
great diplomatic advantage of moving science but also getting
two parts of that world working together, and if somebody who
has worked since I was 25 years old working with Mexico on
environmental economic issues, that is how you build
relationships, is working at joint problems together. And can
you elaborate on how you got Jordan and Israel working
together?
Dr. Clegg. Well, actually, it was Jordan, Israel, and
Palestine, and we initially approached the parties to work on
it on a scientific project of high importance, as a bridge-
building mechanism to create understanding between the
scientists in that conflicted region of the world. The initial
focus was actually on health, but during the process the issue
of water in the Jordan Valley which is a very contentious and
difficult political issue came to the fore as one of the
primary issues. So a committee of scientists representing all
three entities, including also the United States, was put
together under our sponsorship. We provided the money for the
work and so forth, and that led to a book-length report that I
cited in my written testimony called Water for the Future. This
effort is slow. This kind of work is not easy because it means
building trust and relationships among people where there is
very little trust to begin with. That, however, has matured
into a number of efforts on our part to work together with
those three parties, including something called the frontiers
of science for young and mid-career scientists of the Middle
East which we have hosted twice now, once in Istanbul and most
recently in Spain. This brings young and mid-career scientists
together for symposia on five quite distinct areas of science,
to build relationships and understanding.
We also just had a meeting in January in Jordan on the Dead
Sea with Palestine, Israel, and Jordan to focus on other areas
of science that we can work on. Among them are micro-nutrient
deficiencies which is a serious health problem in the Middle
East, land degredation and pollution, water resources,
education. But that takes resources, and virtually all of the
support for these kinds of activities has come from private
sources, either philanthropic sources or from our own
institutional endowments. So what we can do is fairly limited.
So this allows me to come back to this question of
resources. You cannot do things without adequate resources, no
matter how good your intentions are. Resources are important.
The other key thing is that science can be an essential
component of soft diplomacy and can help solve problems in all
parts of the world. I would like to just say one word about our
part of the world. Our activities also include Latin America.
You cited Mexico. We did a joint study on water and the water
issues facing the basin of the Valley of Mexico in Mexico City,
together with the Mexican Academy of Sciences which has been
influential in that country. We do continued water work in
Mexico.
I just came from Central America on Sunday night. It is a
disappointment to see that our national engagement and soft
diplomacy in Central America is very little----
Mr. Bilbray. Doctor, I totally agree with you. We have
totally ignored Central America. We spent more time in
Argentina than we do in Costa Rica or El Salvador.
Dr. Clegg. The northern Europeans make bigger investment in
science and technology diplomacy in Central America than does
the United States despite the fact that this is a vital region,
of vital interest to us. I will stop talking.
Mr. Bilbray. Well, I will talk about that later.
Chairman Baird. We will begin the second round of comments
and questions. Dr. Calvin, you were building kind of a line of
thought earlier it seemed like and at the critical juncture
paused and talked about, okay, so you have got U.S.
researchers, foreign researchers, and I think you used the word
there is a lack of a mechanism or some word like that. What
would a mechanism look like? How would it be administered? What
would you do if you want to promote scientific diplomacy,
international collaboration? What would it look like?
Dr. Calvin. Well, I think again, as I said before, it would
depend somewhat on which area of the globe I was trying to
promote this effort. I think if you take for example in China
where we have had our three China-U.S. summits, what we have
come out of this is we have a lot of debate and a lot of
discussion, and we bring scientists together. Everybody is
excited, and then after three conferences, we are still at the
same stage because no one can find a good model to really move
the projects to that next stage of discovery.
And so I think in the case of China, there is quite a
reason to believe that we could work with the Chinese
government to establish a jointly funded research capability
that would allow for investigators to apply to an agency that
would be financed by both countries potentially. I don't
believe that we would want to make an argument that we would
want to change the dedication of the existing resources at the
National Science Foundation, for example, because they are
woefully under funded from my perspective as they sit right
now, and asking more and giving them less isn't a way to do
anything better.
Beyond that, I don't have an effective mechanism because I
am sure that the political aspects associated with getting
anything through the channels of dialogue are far beyond my
experiences and I couldn't advocate in an area where I have so
little expertise.
Chairman Baird. The things I found intriguing was, you
know, we have looked at some of the S&T agreements that our
State Department has established. I think you said 130 MOAs? I
think that is more than our government officially has with
other countries--I don't mean that as a critical comment, more
just it is--entity may have more international agreements than
the Federal Government, and the administration of these
things--they are a relatively small staff, tasked with creating
these agreements, but the follow-up then becomes a problem.
I will share an anecdote with you, and I want to pursue
this issue of funding and how we get around it or detail with
it. My wife, who does international development work, was in an
African country and they were talking about the relative small
number of people some developing countries have who are
expertise. In this particular African country, they had three
water sanitation experts, one of whom died of AIDS and the two
others were killed in a car wreck coming back from his funeral.
And that was it. You know, in our country you just post an ad
and you would get 50 applications and you would replace them.
That was the entire country's water sanitation unit. This issue
of capacity building is really critical, and one of the
interesting questions I have is Dr. Wulf, you are an agent in
the organization. It seems to be able to get money to foreign
researchers, and yet, other U.S. Government entities seem not
to be able to do that. Is this a desirable mechanism, are there
better alternatives?
One of my questions is does it make sense for example for
State or USAID to have a fund that while we don't dilute the
NSF funds as Dr. Calvin I think I agree entirely with what he
is saying, but nevertheless, an NSF-funded researcher could
say, okay, I want to collaborate with Dr. So-and-SO in foreign
country ``X.'' Here is where we will go and everybody knows
this is where we go. So I throw that question out.
Dr. Wulf. My understanding is that there might be legal
restrictions on NSF providing money to foreign researchers. I
don't quite understand how this works, but they seem to be able
to fund CRDF for programs that involve foreign researchers
collaborating with U.S. partners. Actually, I think there are
some advantages other than legal sleight of hand going on here.
Because for example, CRDF can negotiate with foreign
governments for cost-sharing arrangements. That is something
that NSF or I think any federal agency may not be able to do as
quickly. And we have been fairly successful at that. The
foreign governments clearly recognize the advantage of these
collaborations and have demonstrated that with $43 million of
cost sharing.
Chairman Baird. Let me follow up with just a question on
this. You know, USAID, I think I actually support it, has made
a real effort to brand. I mean, they have actually gone over
the top a little bit. I think if you give toothpicks, you would
have to find a gift to the American people on this toothpick.
But nevertheless, the idea that in some way when we spend U.S.
dollars internationally on an AID project, people get the sense
that, yeah, this is U.S. dollars is a good thing for us. Our
generosity should be recognized, I think. How does that
translate into the work CRDF does?
Dr. Wulf. I think foreign nationals recognize CRDF is a
U.S. entity, just not the U.S. Government. And that again is
somewhat of an advantage in places where the intentions of the
U.S. Government are not necessarily trusted.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Leshner, you looked like you wanted to
comment.
Dr. Leshner. Yeah, I was just going to reiterate the last
comment that Dr. Wulf made which is that often it is important
to go through a third party or a non-governmental organization
so that the sort of the neutrality of the motivation is clear.
Was that English what I just said? It was an attempt at
English. And I think because science carries this sort of aura
around it, it is often important to make clear that the act of
science diplomacy, either collaboration or for more general
relationship building, is going on outside of a formal
governmental framework.
Dr. Clegg. With respect to Africa, I would like to say a
couple of things. The first is the U.S. philanthropic community
has created a large footprint in Africa. The Gates Foundation
does support direct research in Africa. It is a very large and
very significant player, as you know. There is also the
Partnership for Higher Education in Africa which is funded by
six of the major American philanthropic foundations. So the
philanthropic community is a very important player in the
creation of soft diplomacy for the United States, even though
it is not part of the government. It is possible to leverage
some of those activities, and it would be useful for the
government to think through how it might leverage and take
advantage of the good work being done by American institutions
in other contexts.
Another point is that we, together with the science
academies of the whole world, have created a global
organizations. One of the messages of that global organization
has tried to get across to all of the national members is that
investments in human resources in science and technology
capabilities within individual countries is an absolute
necessity if they expect to participate in the economies of the
21st century, and that is a local responsibility. We cannot
assume that responsibility, but we can work hard to try and get
that message across and also to facilitate their movement in
that direction through incentives.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Ehlers is recognized for 9-1/2 minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. At least. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, a
couple of points. Getting to the question of our government
supporting other scientists in other countries or doing other
things, I had an experience with my family. My son is a
geophysicist. I never realized before he even became that how
much they travel. At the moment he is in Bolivia doing some
very esoteric experiments in rather dangerous territory, and he
has also done research in British Columbia, about 300 miles
from the nearest person. He had a commitment from a colleague
in Germany to do some research together. The colleague obtained
funds from the German government to do it if the U.S. would
provide the money. My son submitted a grant proposal, could not
get any money from the Federal Government to match a project
with the German. That seems a bit strange to me. And of course,
my personal ethics didn't allow me to intervene on his behalf,
but I thought that was symptomatic of the real problem here.
The issue of resources, Dr. Clegg, you went into that a
number of times, the resources in other countries. Are you
talking about money or a lot of other resources because I gave
you the example of my friend who was needing three O rings and
things like that in a relatively advanced country. I think that
is a major problem judging from the foreign scientists I have
worked with. Just getting equipment, and I am not talking about
getting money from the government to order equipment from the
U.S., but I am talking about the mundane equipment that one
needs every day in the laboratory. Have you encountered that as
a major----
Dr. Clegg. Oh, absolutely, particularly in travels in the
developing world, in Latin America, in parts of Africa where
the ability to put together a functional laboratory is
inhibited by the lack of access and also the lack of
maintenance for high-quality scientific equipment. That is a
very big issue.
Typically when we say resources, we are talking money one
way or the other. It is a nice way of saying money. But there
are other resources which are absolutely crucial. One is access
to the world's scientific literature. You cannot be as you very
well know of an effective practicing scientist without access
to the contemporary development of knowledge in a field. And
the transforming technology of our era is electronic
communication. It is now possible to access knowledge almost
from anywhere in the world. There are just two barriers. One
barrier is infrastructure, whether the scientists in a
particular country have the infrastructure to get on the web
and access the scientific literature, and the other is
intellectual property issues associated with publishers like my
friends. Being able to access the scientific literature, there
are places where the U.S. Government could be of direct help.
Creating digital scientific libraries where resources again
were provided to buy site licenses that would allow people in
poor countries to access the scientific literature. And we have
worked together on programs in limited areas in that context.
One is Pakistan where we found that we could purchase bundled
site licenses at a huge discount. So it is possible to do those
sorts of things.
Mr. Ehlers. Alan?
Dr. Leshner. There is a large consortium called HINARI that
provides free access to the world's scientific literature.
There are a very large number of countries in the developing
world that most major journals participate in. The point I
wanted to add is the other, and it may be resources but it may
not only be resources, is scientific careers, that is, that it
has to be clear that there is a career path in a developing
country, that it is not just going to be a momentary
opportunity or you won't be able to recruit the best and
brightest into careers. Many countries now are working very
hard and investing very hard to bring the scientists who train
in the United States back home by providing career
opportunities, and it is very effective. China, of course, is
the best example of that at the moment. But other countries are
doing this as well.
Mr. Ehlers. You know, I am reminded of a cliche. Forgive
me. Churchill was supposed to have made the comment that
America always does the right thing after they have done all
the other things first. It seems to me that we are at a state
where we should think seriously about doing this as a national
effort in a coordinated way instead of having all of the
different organizations doing this. And there are tremendous
opportunities there. I wouldn't dare to put this in the State
Department because they don't seem to understand the problem
and the urgency. Are we going to give the charge to the
National Science Foundation to do it? Not without increasing
their budgets substantially. But we really have to think
seriously about developing mechanisms rather than depending on
the private sector or the National Academy, the universities,
or whatever. There is immense international relations work to
be done here, and the Federal Government is just not doing it.
It is depending on you folks to do it, and that is not the most
efficient way to get it done. So I hope we can pursue this idea
together in some way.
Dr. Wulf. Can I reinforce that? Just in my travels around
the world in the last 10 years, I feel we are at a moment in
time, where this kind of activity could have an enormous
impact, positive impact, on U.S. foreign policy and U.S. hopes
for democratizing the rest of the world. We have just got an
opportunity, and it is very frustrating that we are limited in
being able to take advantage of that opportunity.
Mr. Ehlers. That is very true, and you know, these things
happen in a haphazard way. I had a constituent come to me a
couple of years ago. They had a great idea for a new water
filter. It is made out of concrete with sand in it, et cetera,
and he had backing of the Rotary Club. He wanted to know what I
could do for him through the government. I said, not much. But
I did put him in touch with a friend who works regularly in
Africa as part of our religious denomination, and then there is
another friend of mine who operates a plastic extrusion plant
so he replaced the concrete with plastic. He is producing these
things at very low cost. Easy to ship to Africa. We are saving
an incredible number of lives just with a simple, local project
which results in purified water on a per-family or per-
community basis. It is amazing, just a few people getting
together. That is without the benefit of the Government, and
maybe it is best that we don't have the government involved in
it. It would increase the cost and the difficulty. But
nevertheless, we are missing--as a nation we are missing all
these opportunities.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. Thank you. The
points you raise is really the purpose of these hearings. The
whole series of hearings is to try to understand how, from many
perspectives, what is being done and then see what we can do in
an improved way until this is part of that. I agree, I want to
raise the profile and that is indeed why we are having this
meeting.
We have now been joined by Mr. Carnahan--we mentioned
earlier their role, Russ, was discussed the importance of the
Foreign Relations Committee. Russ plays a central role because
he has a joint assignment to both this committee and the
Foreign Relations. So welcome, Mr. Carnahan. Do you have any
questions for our witnesses? Recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you and I apologize for being late
today. I got tied up on something else, but wanted to make a
special point to be here.
I guess I wanted to first start with kind of a broad
question, and we may have covered some of this but as we know,
the Department of State is chiefly responsible for our
diplomatic relations and engagement; and I guess I would want a
description from you of what their--how they are using the role
of science and diplomacy now in ways that you think is working.
What do you think is working best about that? And then also,
what do you think is some of the obvious things that they are
missing in terms of how it can be better integrated, in what
they do.
Dr. Leshner. A couple of examples immediately come to mind.
One is in a partnership with the Department of State led by
Paula Dobrianski. We organized a meeting on women in science
and engineering and the Muslim world, and that was an extremely
effective example of science diplomacy at its best where 200
women from I believe 30-some countries participated in that
meeting. Recently our Chief International Officer, Vaughan
Turekian, just came back from a meeting in Uruguay to start
talking about some of the collaborations that an organization
like AAAS might be able to help facilitate. So there are
examples.
I think the issue that did come up earlier is an important
one and that is the way in which these activities are initiated
and maintained is critically important. And often to have a
non-governmental organization as a clear partner and help lend
neutrality, whatever the word is, clear motivation to it so
that it is not just implementing a particular political agenda
but also has scientific motivation as well.
Dr. Clegg. I will just add a tiny bit. From actually in my
written testimony was a comment on the May 2007 strategic plan
that the Department of State had developed on setting
international goals for their science, technology, and health
diplomacy. We think those are a very good set of goals. I think
our major concern is whether they have the resources and
capabilities to implement them. So being able to reach out to
other organizations, like those represented at this table, as
partners in implementing those goals may be helpful.
The only other comment is that often the science technology
capabilities at the embassy level in U.S. missions abroad is
fairly limited, and that is a disadvantage. It is again a
resource-driven question, but it is a disadvantage to U.S.
diplomacy because it makes it more difficult for us to
understand and interpret it, S&T strengths and developments in
the countries that we are engaged with.
Dr. Wulf. I would second the last comment that Mike made.
Over the last several decades, the number of science attaches
in foreign embassies has dramatically dropped. The emphasis in
most of the State Department now is on political and economic
issues. It is a positive thing that there now is a science
advisor to the Secretary of State. We have a particularly good
person, Nina Fedoroff, in that position now. But as currently
structured and to some extent as currently culturally oriented,
the State Department is not particularly good at implementing
the kinds of things that we have been talking about this
morning. That is why they use us and I think appropriately so.
Dr. Calvin. I think the only thing I need to add on this is
when I talk about the science and diplomacy, the first
observation that comes to mind is always that the scientific
timetable for success and the political timetable for interest
often don't match. And it is a major commitment for people to
reshift their careers to certain areas of emphasis and they are
very hesitant to do so, given some past experiences in the
high-energy physics arena, for example, to make these leaps of
faith that they can't believe that their crew would be able to
be supported once they make that transition.
Mr. Carnahan. Good point. I appreciate all of those. One
thing in particular I wanted to mention that I was on a recent
delegation trip that included a stop in India where they had
announced a very large expansion of the Fulbright Program
there, and it was done in a unique way, really opening it up to
public and private funding in a way that dramatically expands
what they are doing there.
And so it was a neat, kind of local initiative what they
are doing right there, organized through the embassy there.
That might be a good model to look at growing those kind of
programs in other parts of the world. Thank you very much.
Chairman Baird. Mr. Bilbray.
Mr. Bilbray. Yes, Mr. Chairman. One of the things I think
we were talking about is the challenges out there, and somebody
will bring it up. I think, Mr. Chairman, one of the--while we
face the challenges, we need to sort of look at great
opportunities. I think that we use the term worldwide web and
don't think about how deep it really does run. I mean,
everybody is astonished they can go to Kuwait and get on the
Internet. Mr. Chairman, I think any of us that have spent time
in the third world, when you go back into the villages in some
of the poorest neighborhoods, some grandmother has figured out
to pick up two or three old computers and the number one source
of communication between countries now, in third world
countries, are not telephones, not mail, it is the Internet. So
I think this issue of the accessibility of third-world nations
having the accessibility to the world information is something
that really is a great opportunity if we can figure out how to
tear those barriers down. And it has just astonished me as I
travel in the third world when I get back there. If I need to
communicate with my staff, I don't make phone calls, I get on
the Internet and just figure out how to pay, you know, 15-
whatever to a little old lady just so I can spend 15 minutes to
communicate. Just let my staff know that they still have a job.
Building on that, let me just sort of go a whole different
way. Dr. Calvin, we were looking at the comment on Central
America. I mean, how many Americans realize that we are 400
miles further away from San Diego where we sit now, Mr.
Chairman, than where we are from Central America, that it is
right in our backyard. And I would just say this to somebody on
the Foreign Relations Committee--maybe the Science Committee
and Foreign Relations Committee really need to get together and
say the poor stepchild is Central America. We talk about South
America, we talk about Mexico, but Central America is just
literally a diplomatic black hole for us in so many ways. And
Dr. Calvin, you have talked about Latin America. Is there any
specific items that you can point out? Panama is a good example
but you know, we are talking about some of the poorest people
right in our back yards. It is going to have an effect on our
grandchildren's future than any other. What are we doing in
Central America?
Dr. Calvin. I guess I will take a sort of the securest
route to get to your answer. Our relationship with Mexico has
been very effective for a couple of reasons, clearly on the
proximity between Texas and Mexico is certainly an advantage.
But also because of the Border Governor's Initiatives and other
activities that are taking place, there is a recognition that
these scientific changes can also produce economic development
benefits that can help the stability of the relationship
between Texas and Mexico, but Mexico has a size advantage. And
when you take the relationship we have with Mexico and you talk
to people--has come to visit us from Panama because they want
to put a duplicate relationship together that CONACYT developed
in Mexico, and the difficulty is the size of the capacity that
exists in Panama or these other countries. It is very difficult
to duplicate because Texas A&M University and 40 universities
in Mexico. We have Texas A&M University and maybe over two or
three universities in Panama, and many of them, their
researchers are not really trained to be globally competitive
in research and so their interests are in upgrading the
capacity to be able to become partners with global environment
in the competitive research arena.
So we are trying to figure out how to partner with distinct
political groups in a global area because each of them doesn't
really have enough capacity to work as effectively individually
as Mexico.
Mr. Bilbray. Well, that is why like last month we met
with--the southern parts of Mexico have not gained from any of
the exchanges. They are economic cul-de-sacs. But Central
America, which was once a united country, still has its
immigration policy as the United States of Central America. We
need to address those comprehensively to get them used to
working together, but I would be interested in the experience
you had in Central America and your observations and the
challenges there because we have got a whole lot of scientific
research. I am overseeing Scripps Institute looking at Central
America for the development of biofuels, and the infrastructure
is traditionally not there but the attitude toward the United
States is so positive right now, I worry about us looking to,
and no offense, Mr. Chairman, looking to Africa and Asia while
we overlook our neighbors. And if you could address that?
Dr. Clegg. Well, I think you are making a very, very
important point. Much of Central America is extremely poor,
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua. Costa Rica is a bit better, and
the question is why does Costa Rica stand out, and the reason
is that they have invested a lot more in education and tried to
build an economy focused on the comparative advantages that
Costa Rica has, particularly in the environmental context. But
in Nicaragua for example, 50 percent of the population is
illiterate. I have had experiences in Guatemala, El Salvador,
and Nicaragua in my duties representing the Academy. One of the
things that is going to be key for them to move forward in
their own development is to make more investments in education.
But those to some extent are local responsibilities. There are
things that we can help with by providing incentives, but there
are not things we can do for them.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Wulf. Can I just add something here? This is about
Venezuela which is not quite Central America but almost. I had
a fascinating experience in January. I was privileged to be
inducted into the National Academy of Sciences in Venezuela. I
went down there with some trepidation given the bellicose tone
of exchanges between our two governments, and what I found was
exactly what we are talking about in this hearing, namely the
ability of scientists and engineers, because of their shared
values, because of their frequent training in the United States
to communicate. I think we have an enormous opportunity to turn
the situation around with Venezuela and the opening is through
scientists and engineers. I think this is globally true, but it
was just such a forceful, personal experience.
Mr. Bilbray. Well, historically in Latin America, Academia
as a whole has not been politically threatened, and so the
political structure has allowed academia to do trans-border
communication that traditionally they would not allow any other
institution to do. So we do have the opportunity if they are
willing to allow academia and scientists to cooperate and work
without direct supervision by government, where other
institutions would not be allowed to do it.
Dr. Wulf. And this is a perfect example of where using NGOs
doesn't introduce the complication of government-to-government
interaction.
Dr. Clegg. Just to follow up, I just returned from a
meeting of the network of Academies of Science in this
hemisphere which was held in Central America this weekend. We
have a very effective organization that could do much, much
more in that network of science academies; and it tries to
address three questions. One is the problem of education in the
hemisphere, the second is water resource issues in the
hemisphere. So we have the means to do much more. We have built
the relationships. We also command respect among our peers in
that part of the world because we have tried to work together
with them. But what we are able to do at the moment is limited
once again by our resource capabilities.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray. I think your points
are well-taken about relative neglect of our own hemisphere. I
know well, having flown to Guatemala once and I get off the
airplane, I thought I would be back home in Vancouver,
Washington, yet I am already in Guatemala. We forget that.
I thank the witnesses for not only your outstanding and
insightful testimony, both verbal and written today, but your
many years of service, each and every one of you. The record of
this committee will remain open for additional statements from
Members and for answers to any follow-up questions. We thank
the witnesses, the audience and the Members of the Committee,
and with that, the hearing stands adjourned. Thank you very
much.
[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]