VOLUME 77

Number 3

ay Our nal of the September, 1987

WASHINGTON

ACADEMY ..SCIENCES

ISSN 0043-0439

Issued Quarterly

at Washington, D.C.

CONTENTS

Dedication:

Ee ey BRAM ee cence. gs LAR DOE. os.

Commentary:

EDWARD L. BRADY: International Cooperation in Science and Technology:

eG OVCMINNeME ACLIVANES © foe cis ce cis oe ise Sie edie ein ae ce eS ae'e 83

Articles:

JUSTIN L. BLOOM: Bilateral Cooperative Programs: A Case Study—The

United States and Japan

SviieliniiaMatveMalins elle) «/iejlle/iole)e) is; iets \s,-6.es(¢ hele pels) «fe, \0) 0) 6) .e\(s\ (6) is! eyes te! 6] 6) 6

EDWARD L. BRADY and DAVID EDGERLY: International Technical Co-

operation: A Case Study—The Treaty of the Meter and The International

Organization for Legal Metrology

H. STEFFEN PEISER: Technical Assistance to Developing Countries

ABRAHAM S. FRIEDMAN: International Cooperation in Science and Tech-

nology: The Role of the U.S. Government VS. Functions of the Embassy

Science Attaches

Biodata

Miu sian whie ine <elte ls ialieh's| eile) e) «l/s! /e).e) (¢)s\\e. \e)« w..e)\e (ene) oe 6)\0'.wi.e eee) e).e ©) (6) ©) ee) 0) aie (ee -p 1e

Mitte Miiw ws wim ia Teel els) slei.e| alls) e).e) 0, .«)s \8\\e. 0:0 \00).¢ ©) «) ©) 6\ie «| 6 © of 6) ee! oe; 8 8 6.0, @ ® ee os 6 aye

Washington Academy of Sciences

Founded in 1898

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

President

Ronald W. Manderscheid

President-Elect

James E. Spates

Secretary

Darlene V. Howard

Treasurer

R. Clifton Bailey

Past President

Simon W. Strauss

Vice President (Membership Affairs)

Guy S. Hammer, II

Vice President (Administrative Affairs)

Armand B. Weiss

Vice President (Junior Academy Affairs)

Marylin F. Krupsaw

Vice President (Affiliate Affairs)

Joann Langton

Academy Members of the

Executive Committee

M. Sue Bogner

Robert H. McCracken

Affiliate Members of the

Executive Committee

George Abraham

Jo-Anne A. Jackson

BOARD OF AFFILIATED

SOCIETY REPRESENTATIVES

All delegates of affiliated

Societies (see inside rear cover)

EDITORS

Irving Gray

Joseph Neale

Lisa J. Gray, Managing Editor

ACADEMY OFFICE

1101 N. Highland St.

Arlington, Va. 22201

Telephone: (703) 527-4800

The Journal

This journal, the official organ of the Wash-

ington Academy of Sciences, publishes histor-

ical articles, critical reviews, and scholarly sci-

entific articles; proceedings of meetings of the

Academy and its Executive Committee; and

other items of interest to Academy members.

The Journal appears four times a year (March,

June, September, and December)—the De-

cember issue contains a directory of the Acad-

emy membership.

Subscription Rates

Members, fellows, and life members in good

standing receive the Journal without charge.

Subscriptions are available on a calendar year

basis only, payable in advance. Payment must

be made in U.S. currency at the following rates:

WeSeand(Canadaseeee $19.00

ORION.) ts ocean 22.00

Single ‘Copy Price 22-25. 7.50

Back Issues

Obtainable from the Academy office (address

at bottom of opposite column): Proceedings:

Vols. 1-13 (1898-1910) Index: To Vols. 1-13

of the Proceedings and Vols. 1—40 of the Jour-

nal Journal: Back issues, volumes, and sets (Vols.

1-75 1911-1985) and all current issues.

Claims for Missing Numbers

Claims will not be allowed if received more than

60 days after date of mailing plus time normally

required for postal delivery and claim. No claims

will be allowed because of failure to notify the

Academy of a change in address.

Change of Address

Address changes should be sent promptly to

the Academy office. Such notification should

show both old and new addresses and zip num-

ber.

Published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year by the

Washington Academy of Sciences, 1101 N. Highland St., Arlington, Va. 22201. Second

class postage paid at Arlington, Va. and additional mailing offices.

Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences,

Volume 77, Number 3, Pages 81-82, September 1987

Edward Lewis Brady, who recently re-

tired from his position as associate direc-

tor for international affairs at the National

Bureau of Standards, died on September

20, 1987. This issue of the Journal is ded-

icated to his memory.

Born in Charleston, South Carolina, in

1919, his undergraduate education took

place at the University of California at

Los Angeles, where he received a BA and

MA in chemistry. From 1942, when he

joined one of the major laboratories of

81

the atomic bomb project at the University

of Chicago, until he came to NBS in 1963,

Brady was involved with nuclear energy

research and development. His war-time

service included work at Clinton Labo-

ratories in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the

forerunner of the present Oak Ridge Na-

tional Laboratory, where he was a mem-

ber of the group that designed and op-

erated the first large-scale hot laboratory

facilities.

During his graduate studies and re-

82 EDWARD L. BRADY

search at the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, he published with Martin

Deutsch, in 1947, the first measurements

of the angular correlations of successive

nuclear gamma radiations. This and a se-

ries of subsequent publications estab-

lished an important technique that is widely

used in nuclear and elementary particle

physics.

After receiving his PhD in 1948, he spent

10 years in various capacities with the

General Electric Company. While at GE’s

Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, he led

a research group working on coolant

chemistry and a group developing equip-

ment for in-pile tests of reactor materials.

From 1956 to 1958 he served as U.S.

Atomic Energy Commission Represen-

tative to the United Kingdom and later

was the senior scientific advisor of the U.S.

Mission to the International Atomic En-

ergy Agency in Vienna. He left Vienna

in 1961 to go to General Dynamics Cor-

poration in San Diego where he was re-

sponsible for various projects connected

with chemical and materials problems of

nuclear power plants.

In 1963 the National Bureau of Stan-

dards, acting on a recommendation of the

Federal Council for Science and Tech-

nology, established the National Standard

Reference Data System (NSRDS). The

system was set up to coordinate the data

compilation efforts of government and

private-sector groups and to provide crit-

ically evaluated data on the physical and

chemical properties of substances re-

quired by U.S. science and industry. Ed

Brady was recruited by NBS to head this

program. He set up the Office of Standard

Reference Data, organized support for

data centers at NBS, universities, and Na-

tional Laboratories, and started a publi-

cation program for reference data. His

interest in this program continued for the

rest of his career; at the time of his death

he was U.S. Delegate to CODATA, the

Committee on Data for Science and Tech-

nology of the International Council of Sci-

entific Unions.

In 1968 his responsibilities at NBS were

broadened to include all of the Bureau’s

programs which gather, analyze, publish,

and distribute scientific and technical in-

formation. Throughout his career at NBS,

he felt it was vital to get the technical

information of the Bureau to those who

needed it. In a statement before Congress

in 1971, he said, “Information is the key

to wise management of our future. Per-

haps the most important event of the next

decade will be the recognition of the true

value of information—the right informa-

tion, reliable, and relevant to our needs,

available in a useful form to all those who

need it.”

Ed Brady carried this philosophy with

him to his next position at NBS, when he

was named Associate Director for Inter-

national Affairs in 1978. With his breadth

of scientific knowledge, graciousness, and

congenial manner, he established official

links and made many friends in govern-

ment research centers around the world.

He was instrumental in drafting agree-

ments to guide the United States’ ex-

change of scientific and technical person-

nel with the Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics and the Peoples Republic of

China. He negotiated agreements for

technology cooperation with numerous

countries, developed policy for imple-

menting U.S. treaties in many areas of

science and technology, and established

mechanisms for exchanging technical

information among countries. For his

achievements, he was honored in 1980

with the Department of Commerce Silver

Medal Award for meritorious service.

In addition to being a respected sci-

entist, Edward Brady was a born diplomat

able to bring order out of chaotic situa-

tions with quiet logic and unbounded op-

timism. His friends in both the science

and diplomatic communities were legion

and his enemies nonexistent.

Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences,

Volume 77, Number 3, Pages 83-86, September 1987

Commentary

International Cooperation in

Science and Technology: U.S.

Government Activities

Edward L. Brady

Associate Director for International Affairs

National Bureau of Standards

I. Purpose of this series of articles

In all human intellectual activities, ad-

ditions to knowledge may originate in any

part of the world, in science and tech-

nology as well as in philosophy and art.

Thus, anyone who wishes to Keep up with

the latest developments in his own field

must be aware of progress in other coun-

tries. Also, those who wish to reduce their

own work-loads and speed progress by

sharing must consider how they can best

benefit through cooperation with col-

leagues in other countries. This is true for

the governmental scientific enterprise as

well as for the private sector. A full dis-

cussion of the role of the U.S. Govern-

ment in international scientific and tech-

nological cooperation would have to be

as broad as the whole range of Govern-

ment activities, a task obviously too large

for an issue of this publication. The edi-

tor, Prof. Irving Gray, decided that his

83

readers might be interested in a brief

overview and sampling to illustrate some

of the ways that U.S. Government agen-

cies help to promote Government objec-

tives through international cooperation.

This series of articles is the result of his

request to the author of this paper to or-

ganize a set of papers for this purpose.

The reader should not expect a compre-

hensive review of the range of Govern-

ment agency programs, but should expect

to see short expositions on a few selected

topics. The authors are senior scientists

who have devoted substantial fractions of

their professional careers to responsible

positions in international affairs. Through

their descriptions of the activities in which

they are experts, we hope to give an

impression of the scope, the importance,

and the mechanisms of U.S. Government

participation in international science and

technology.

84 EDWARD L. BRADY

II. Technical scope of international

cooperation

With the possible exception of some

areas of military science and technology,

international cooperation—and compe-

tition—is pervasive throughout most

Government agencies. This is true for all

those concerned with the physical sci-

ences, biological sciences, geosciences,

and their technological incarnations, at

least to the point at which commercial

sensitivities become apparent. Some-

times, of course, the commercial signifi-

cance is not apparent until after infor-

mation of commercial importance has been

transferred; this can lead to problems in

international commercial competition.

Even in pure science, competition for in-

tellectual priority can be very keen.

The authorities in every country that

aspires to have an industrial economy have

settled on a common set of research prior-

ities; they include advanced materials, es-

pecially ceramics; biotechnology; manu-

facturing engineering; semiconductor

technology; optical communications;

computer science and technology; and

perhaps a few others. In these areas the

boundary between basic science and com-

mercial significance becomes rather in-

distinct. In the United States, the decision

on where cooperation ends and commer-

cial competition begins has generally been

left to the judgment of local management.

Many proposals have been made for

cooperation in these priority fields—some

bilateral, some multilateral, and some pri-

vate sector. Indeed, international coop-

eration is characterized by a diversity of

partners, organizational arrangements,

funding arrangements, and motivations.

One purpose of this series of articles is to

illustrate this diversity.

Ill. Private sector vs public sector

Our intent at present is to focus on pub-

lic sector activities only—that is, activities

of U.S. Government agencies, with spe-

cial emphasis on activities of the National

Bureau of Standards, since most of the

authors have been associated with NBS

for many years. This is not intended to

imply that private sector activities are of

lesser importance; indeed, the opposite is

undoubtedly true. For basic science, co-

operation through universities and inter-

national nongovernmental organizations

is undoubtedly the most extensive and

most effective channel. For industrial

technology, cooperation through licen-

sing agreements, joint ventures, and es-

tablishment of subsidiaries is the normal

mechanism.

In some important areas of technology

in which Government laboratories have

major responsibilities, such as space, nu-

clear power, weather and climate, marine

sciences, and metrology, Government

agencies have lead roles. In many areas

of basic and applied sciences and tech-

nology, both the private sector and gov-

ernment are major figures. So keep in

mind that since U.S. Governmental ac-

tivities are emphasized in these reports,

the great bulk of international coopera-

tive programs probably is not addressed.

IV. Objectives of the United States

Government

Let us now examine the reasons why

the U.S. Government engages in inter-

national cooperative activities in science

and technology. That is, what foreign pol-

icy goals are served by such activities and

what do the technical agencies involved

receive for their efforts? The Government

and agency objectives are briefly de-

scribed below.

1. To share the work and the cost. This

objective is most conspicuous for “Big

Science’”’ projects: the Superconduct-

ing Supercollider, space stations, map-

ping the human genome, and the like.

But it is also important for sharing the

workload of making small incremental

contributions to large bodies of knowl-

edge.

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES 85

. To obtain information on transna-

tional phenomena. Such phenomena

include weather, air pollution (for ex-

ample, acid rain, a sensitive subject at

the moment), marine sciences, dis-

eases of humans and animals, and geo-

logical structures.

. To obtain access to products or obser-

vations not available in the United

States. Examples include access to an-

imal and vegetable gene banks, local

minerals, and geological structures,

and the opportunity for anthropolog-

ical studies of local populations.

. To ensure current awareness of world-

wide technical developments. New sci-

ence and new ideas can appear any-

where in the world. Constant diligence

is needed to ensure awareness of

something important, and cooperative

activities involving person-to-person

communication are the most effective

means of exchanging information.

. To promote U.S. technical positions

and practices. The promotion of U.S.

positions and practices is especially im-

portant in international measurement

and standards bodies to ensure com-

patibility. This minimizes obstacles to

trade and reduces disputes over quan-

tities and performances of products.

. To promote achievement of domestic

technical objectives. Accomplishment

of technical objectives can be aided

greatly by seeking research capabilities

found in other countries and agreeing

with them upon an equitable distri-

bution of research tasks. Long term

linkages between institutions can es-

pecially facilitate progress.

. To promote foreign policy objectives.

For many years, cooperative arrange-

ments in science and technology have

been used as a policy tool to initiate

or to warm up relations with another

country, or even sometimes to keep

open a doorway through which human

contact can be maintained. In other

circumstances, S and T cooperation can

promote trade with a newly industrial-

izing nation, or can serve U.S. aims of

aiding the economic and social devel-

opment of a low income country.

V. Mechanisms for cooperation

With the wide diversity of subjects and

objectives, it is not surprising to find a

wide diversity of organizational structures

employed for these international activi-

ties. U.S. Governmental agencies par-

ticipate in bilateral, multilateral, non-

governmental, and intergovernmental

arrangements. A few examples will illus-

trate this diversity.

The United States has signed bilateral

umbrella agreements with more than 20

other countries: for example, Korea,

China, Yugoslavia, Italy, Finland. Under

these umbrellas, various agencies have

signed separate agreements with counter-

part agencies in the other country. A

typical example is the Protocol for Co-

operation between the Department of

Commerce and the State Bureau of Me-

trology of the People’s Republic of China,

which is one of twenty-seven similar pro-

tocols. Another example is the U.S.-

Yugoslavia joint research program un-

der which several U.S. agencies cooperate

with counterpart organizations with fund-

ing jointly provided by the two govern-

ments.

Another common mechanism is partic-

ipation in programs of an international

intergovernmental agency, such as the In-

ternational Atomic Energy Agency, the

UN Environmental Program, the World

Health Organization, the International

Organization for Legal Metrology, and

the Treaty of the Meter. In these latter

two organizations, the National Bureau of

Standards represents the technical inter-

ests of the United States; these organiza-

tions will be described in more detail in

a later article in this series.

A third common organizational ar-

rangement is the nongovernmental in-

ternational organization, in which the

technical community of the nation is

represented by private sector organiza-

tions. Examples are the numerous In-

86 EDWARD L. BRADY

ternational Scientific Unions, in most of

which the United States is represented by

a “National Committee”’ under the aus-

pices of the National Academy of Sci-

ences. Other examples are the Interna-

tional Organization for Standardization

and the International Electrotechnical

Commission, the two principal organiza-

tions that develop international stan-

dards, in which the interests of the United

States are coordinated by the American

National Standards Institute.

VI. Summary

The purpose of the foregoing brief out-

line was to introduce the breadth and

complexity of the many types of inter-

national cooperative activities in which

Government scientists and institutions

participate. In the rest of this series of

articles special aspects of these programs

will be discussed and some illustrative ac-

tivities described in more detail. The next

article deals with the very extensive bi-

lateral program carried out with Japan,

written by a man who served for five years

as the American Science Counselor in the

embassy in Tokyo. The third article will

illustrate U.S. participation in intergov-

ernmental organizations by describing our

involvement in the Treaty of the Meter

and in the International Organization of

Legal Metrology, co-authored by me and

David E. Edgerly, who has managed U.S.

participation in OIML affairs for the past

eight years. The fourth article deals with

technical assistance to developing coun-

tries, written by a man who has special-

ized in helping developing countries im-

prove their technological infrastructures

for nearly twenty years. Finally, the role

of the American science attache program

will be discussed by a man who served as

the American Science Counselor in Mex-

ico City, Bonn, and Paris.

Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences,

Volume 77, Number 3, Pages 87-92, September 1987

Bilateral Cooperative Programs: A

Case Study—The United States

and Japan*

Justin L. Bloom

Technology International, Inc.

Potomac, Maryland

Introduction

One could deduce from reading the

newspapers these days that Japanese

competence in high technology either has

just emerged or has just been discovered.

In truth, relatively large numbers of

American scientists and engineers have

watched the growth of Japanese scientific

and technical skills for the past 40 years

and have cooperated and even partici-

pated in one part of Japan’s R&D effort

over this period: government-sponsored

programs for the public benefit. To these

Americans, Japan’s technical accomplish-

ments in the industrial and commercial

field come as no surprise. However, they

have been ineffective in communicating

their observations and findings to others

not involved. Stated another way, there

had been little interest in the U.S. in

*An earlier but more detailed report on this sub-

ject may be found in Scientific and Technological

Cooperation Among Industrialized Countries: The

Role of the United States, Mitchell B. Wallerstein,

Ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,

1984, pp. 84-110.

87

learning about the nature of or the proc-

ess for conducting R&D in Japan until

Japan’s economic prowess had grown to

the point of being what is now called a

threat. The reasons for this lack of inter-

est are well known to the U.S. technical

community and will not be repeated here.

Although it is very late, the surge of ac-

tivity presently devoted to the study of

Japanese research accomplishments and

the methods and facilities employed is a

healthy sign. In this sense, it is still worth-

while to examine Japan’s governmental

R&D program as seen through the eyes

of Americans who have been privy to it

through the U.S.-Japan bilateral political

relationship.

The History of Bilateral Cooperation

The end of World War II in the Pacific

also marked the beginning of a remark-

able era of technical cooperation between

the U.S. and Japan. Prior to the War there

had been countless exchanges of technical

information through commercial ventures

88 JUSTIN L. BLOOM

and through the contacts made by indi-

vidual scientists of both countries, but

there was little or no government partic-

ipation or involvement. Of course, all of

these relationships were broken during the

War and then had to be slowly regained

during the postwar reconstruction period.

At that point, however, a new force

emerged as a consequence of the gener-

ally benign attitude taken by the U.S.

_toward vanquished Japan, in that the

American occupying authorities actively

encouraged official scientific and techni-

cal interactions almost immediately.

Studies of Medical Effects of

Radiation and Other Beginnings

On October 12, 1945, a military com-

mission was created by President Tru-

man’s executive order to enable Ameri-

can and Japanese medical scientists to

work together to evaluate the devastating

biological effects of the atomic bombings

of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Their coop-

eration was exemplary, and a year later

a permanent civilian body, the Atomic

Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC), was

established. It functioned in Japan until

1974, when it was replaced by a binational

organization, the Radiation Effects Re-

search Foundation (RERF). This succes-

sion, while not free of political problems,

has performed outstanding research on the

biological effects of ionizing radiation in

an emotionally charged environment,

largely because the scientists involved were

free of rancor and recognized that the im-

portance of their work transcended the

strains left by the war.

From this beginning, many other pos-

itive events transpired. A scientist from

MIT, Dr. Harry Kelly, was appointed to

be the technical advisor to General

MacArthur’s staff; he proved to be only

partially successful in stopping the dis-

mantling of small cyclotrons found in Ja-

pan after the war, but he endeared him-

self to the Japanese for his efforts in

reestablishing academic and other forms

of technical relationships. He was to be

the first of a succession of scientists and

engineers who have served the U.S. Gov-

ernment as counselors or attachés in To-

kyo.

During the occupation the U.S. acted

quickly to help in restoring the Japanese

economic, political, and educational in-

frastructure. For example, the Corps of

Engineers and private organizations in the

U.S. enabled Japan’s railroad system to

be rebuilt in a remarkably short time—

an accomplishment that was still remem-

bered by the Japanese decades later. Sim-

ilar foundations were laid in helping the

Japanese convert their pre-war imperial

universities to a network of democrati-

cally organized national universities and

in setting up a modern public health sys-

tem. However, these activities took place

largely before a democratic government

replaced the American occupying forces.

Nuclear Energy

By 1958, Japan was well along the road

to economic recovery and trying to take

its place among the advanced nations of

the West. In that year, the U.S. entered

into a formal bilateral agreement with Ja-

pan covering cooperation in the peaceful

uses of nuclear energy—the first such

agreement with an individual country un-

der the Eisenhower Atoms for Peace pro-

gram. While safeguards against prolifer-

ation of nuclear weapons may have been

uppermost in the minds of the Washing-

ton authorities who executed the agree-

ment, the agreement enabled Japan to be-

gin what is now one of the world’s largest

and most effective nuclear power pro-

grams through the acquisition of Ameri-

can technology, materials, equipment, and

know-how. The U.S. reaped large finan-

cial benefits as a result, not only through

commercial sales but also through Japa-

nese participation in U.S. nuclear R&D

programs still in effect. It is not widely

known that the Japanese Government has

invested upwards of $150 million in these

programs, making it the largest foreign

contributor by far. Of course, the argu-

BILATERAL COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS 89

ment can be made that Japan has been

able to avoid making even larger expend-

itures internally by doing so, but it can

also be said that a number of U.S. nuclear

R&D projects would have been cancelled

if it had not been for the Japanese in-

volvement. Also, at least in this field, the

Japanese have not yet attempted to enter

foreign markets on a large scale with the

skills that they have developed. Some

other countries have not been so reticent.

Lastly, it must be recognized that the bi-

lateral nuclear program has survived a

number of attempts by the U.S. to impose

its non-proliferation policies on Japan that

would have severely constrained the lat-

ter’s attempts to reach equality in tech-

nology with the U.S. and other advanced

nations.

Basic Sciences

Another far-reaching bilateral agree-

ment recently celebrated its 25th anni-

versary. It is concerned with cooperation

in the basic sciences and is administered

by the National Science Foundation for

the U.S. side and for Japan by the Min-

istry of Education’s Japan Society for the

Promotion of Science. Through it, thou-

sands of academic scientists from the two

countries have participated in cooperative

research, joint seminars, and large-scale

conferences covering almost every field of

scientific endeavor. Japan is not known

for its scientific accomplishments, no

doubt in part due to difficulties in com-

munication with the rest of the world.

Through the bilateral science agreement,

Americans have been exposed to ongoing

Japanese scientific efforts in ways that

cannot be matched by reading the liter-

ature. The consequences have been most

favorable, according to the participants,

and NSF states that its agreement with

Japan is among its most important inter-

national agreements. The intensity of ef-

fort is such as to require maintaining an

NSF office in Tokyo—the only one NSF

has abroad serving a single country.

Natural Resources Development

In 1964, another bilateral agreement

was signed that was intended to provide

a vehicle for cooperation in applied re-

search as a counterpart to cooperation in

the basic sciences. It has the cumbersome

name of “United States-Japan Confer-

ence on the Development and Utilization

of Natural Resources” but is better known

by the abbreviation ““UJNR.” It is almost

unknown to the public and even to most

scientists and engineers, since it is admin-

istered and implemented almost entirely

by government personnel. The fields cov-

ered can be categorized roughly as falling

within the scope of marine engineering,

agricultural sciences, and disaster preven-

tion. Notwithstanding the fact that the

U.S. budgets no funds specifically for the

purposes of the UJNR agreement, it also

has been highly successful. NOAA is re-

sponsible for the marine activities and the

Department of Agriculture for the re-

maining subjects, but several other Fed-

eral technical agencies participate as well.

Seventeen panels meet annually or bien-

nially to exchange information and to make

site visits. Since Japan is among the most

advanced nations in the fields covered,

the U.S. has learned much from the in-

volved Japanese agencies. In a number of

cases, research facilities in Japan are unique

and have no analogues here.

Medical Sciences

In addition to the work carried out by

RERF and some biological work under

the cooperative sciences agreement, a

number of agreements are in effect cov-

ering a broad range of medical research.

The earliest of these was initiated in 1965

and was originally devoted to joint study

of diseases and medical problems en-

demic to Southeast Asia, such as cholera,

leprosy, tuberculosis, viral diseases, and

parasitic diseases. In later years, after

most of these diseases had yielded to

treatment, collaboration between the

American and Japanese doctors shifted to

90 JUSTIN L. BLOOM

studies of advanced medical disciplines

associated more generally with infectious

diseases. In 1974, a separate agreement

was signed to cover cancer research spe-

cifically. Both agreements are character-

ized by extraordinarily close interactions,

notwithstanding the fact that the U.S.

spends orders of magnitude more on

biomedical research than does Japan. One

factor leading to this intensity of coop-

eration is that most Japanese research

physicians have been educated abroad

(particularly in the U.S.) and they speak

fluent English. Other smaller and less in-

tensive agreements are devoted to vision

research, shellfish sanitation, and regu-

lation of food products, pharmaceuticals,

biologicals, and medical devices. The Na-

tional Institutes of Health (primarily the

National Institute of Allergy and Infec-

tious Diseases and the National Cancer

Institute) and the Food and Drug Admin-

istration are responsible for maintaining

the U.S. role in this aspect of the rela-

tionship.

Environmental Protection

Strong environmental movements

emerged at about the same time in the

U.S. and Japan. If anything, Japan’s en-

vironmental problems were worse than

those of the U.S.—aggravated by inat-

tention during the period when Japanese

industry was rushing to make itself pro-

ductive. By 1975 the two countries were

the most advanced among the large na-

tions in technology for controlling pollu-

tion and in instituting protective mea-

sures. In that year a bilateral agreement

was signed to enable exchanges of tech-

nical and regulatory information to occur.

Fourteen specific areas of cooperation

were identified and teams of specialists

were soon traveling in both directions

across the Pacific under the coordination

of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency and the Japanese Environment

Agency. Although the two national pro-

grams were much different in size, the

Japanese were able to offer certain tech-

nologies that were not available in the

U.S., particularly in sewage treatment,

solid waste management, and stationary

source pollution control. A very produc-

tive relationship was established and re-

mained in effect until 1981, when changes

in U.S. policy and political problems within

EPA caused a reduction in interest in bi-

lateral environmental affairs. Although

the agreement remains in effect, there no

longer appears to be the vitality and en-

thusiasm that was observed earlier.

Applications of Outer Space

Japan was late, compared to the rest of

the advanced world, in exploring the

practical use of outer space. It has no large-

scale missile program to provide booster

rockets, telemetry, launch sites, and other

necessary facilities and components

needed for a space program, and it has

therefore employed its now well-known

practice of introducing foreign technology

to short-cut the development process. The

first satellites placed in orbit by Japan were

for research purposes only and were de-

veloped under a small program conducted

under the sponsorship of the Ministry of

Education by the University of Tokyo. In

the late 1960s, a public corporation more

or less analagous in its functions to NASA

was created that was called the National

Space Development Agency (NASDA).

Funded by the Science and Technology

Agency, NASDA hired large Japanese in-

dustrial companies to perform develop-

ment work, and these companies in turn

entered into contracts with American aer-

Ospace companies to purchase hardware

and technology. These transfers were au-

thorized by a succession of diplomatic

notes exchanged between the two Gov-

ernments beginning in 1969. The U.S.

placed severe restrictions on Japan as to

how it might use the acquired technology;

on the other hand, Japan is the only coun-

try that has received such technology from

the U.S. and it has been able to establish

a capability in space at a much lower cost

than would have been necessitated by

purely indigenous development.

The Japanese space program is small

BILATERAL COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS 91

by U.S. standards but it has been highly

successful. Launch vehicles based on the

U.S. Thor Delta design (1969 vintage) have

never experienced a failure, although some

of the applications satellites failed to

achieve geostationary orbit or ceased to

operate after doing so. In 1981 Japan be-

gan to drift away from using American

assistance under governmental authori-

zation when the U.S. declined to provide

more advanced launch vehicle technology

such as inertial guidance systems and cry-

Ogenic propulsion. Today the Japanese

program has successfully deployed a larger

booster using cryogenics and has devel-

oped its own inertial guidance hardware.

However, close interactions with the U.S.

continue to exist in other ways. Japan is

developing a large payload for the Space

Shuttle that will test materials processing

in space and will for the first time be op-

erated by Japanese payload specialists.

Japanese participation in the proposed

Space Station is actively being solicited

by NASA, with the Japanese financial

contribution expected to be in excess of

one billion dollars.

In the private sector, at least two U.S.-

Japan joint ventures have been formed to

develop and launch large communications

satellites. They represent a retreat by Ja-

pan from its original intention of pursuing

this development alone.

Energy Research and Development

By the late 1970s, Japan’s prowess in

developing industrial technology had be-

come increasingly apparent, and for the

first time Japan took the initiative in pro-

posing a large-scale cooperative agree-

ment with the U.S., devoted to R&D on

alternative energy sources other than nu-

clear fission. This agreement was to re-

place a similar one signed in 1974 that had

been relatively ineffective, and it was to

be jointly funded. Japanese interests lay

in plasma fusion and photosynthesis. The

U.S. offered cooperation in developing

synthetic fuels from coal, high energy

physics, and other energy-related topics.

After lengthy and sometimes contentious

negotiations, a high-level agreement was

signed in 1979. The net effect of the con-

cord was that Japan markedly increased

its investment in U.S. energy R&D proj-

ects, while obtaining no return invest-

ment. Furthermore, the U.S. refused to

cooperate in first-line fusion projects, be-

lieving that it was ahead of Japan and not

wishing to potentially relinquish that lead.

The agreement was severely marred in

1981 when the tripartite (U.S.-Japan-

Germany) SRC II coal conversion project

was cancelled by the U.S. Except for coal

technology, cooperation under the agree-

ment has improved somewhat since 1981,

in recognition of the fact that Japan, mostly

by itself, has reached the world class in

fusion, high energy physics, solar and

geothermal energy, and energy conser-

vation technology. For example, Japan is

expected to be a major financial and tech-

nical partner in the Superconducting Su-

percollider particle accelerator.

An ‘“‘Umbrella’’ Science and

Technology Agreement

On the heels of concluding the energy

R&D agreement, President Carter pro-

posed to the late Prime Minister Ohira

that their two nations enter into a more

comprehensive scientific relationship that

would act as an “umbrella” for the many

other agreements already in effect. Once

again it was designed by the U’S. to ex-

tract more funding from Japan for U.S.

R&D projects. The Japanese reluctantly

acceded to the pressure and a new agree-

ment was signed by the heads of state in

May 1980—the only one to be given such

high-level attention. However, it has not

been a successful arrangement in terms of

the original U.S. objective, and it is bur-

dened by a cumbersome management

structure that has inhibited more altruistic

intentions. Upon conclusion of the initial

five-year term in 1985, the agreement was

renewed for two years and is now once

again receiving attention at high levels in

Washington and Tokyo as its termination

approaches. In light of the tensions due

to trade friction that now exist between

92 JUSTIN L.

the two countries, the future of the Sci-

ence and Technology Agreement is in

doubt.

Another Recent and Novel

Cooperative Arrangement

Space does not permit describing the

very large number of smaller-scale agree-

ments that have been executed by indi-

vidual agencies of the two Governments.

In fact, a catalog of them probably does

not exist. However, to demonstrate the

breadth of such undertakings, one that is

quite unusual is described here.

In 1983 the National Bureau of Stan-

dards entered into an agreement for ex-

changing technical information in the field

of telecommunications with the Nippon

Telegraph and Telephone Public Corpo-

ration (NTT). NTT at the time was not a

Japanese Government agency in the for-

mal definition, since it operated out of

revenues obtained from its services and

was not staffed by civil servants. Its lab-

oratories are among the largest in the world

and are devoted exclusively to telecom-

munications and allied technology. NBS,

on the other hand, is a Government agency

as an arm of the Department of Com-

merce, and its research in the field of te-

lecommunications is a small part of its

total effort. It must be borne in mind also

that this field is the subject of consider-

able trade friction between the two coun-

tries. Nevertheless, the exchange of in-

formation between two organizations that

do not appear to fit well together has been

excellent and is moving in the direction

of exchanges of personnel. The mismatch

in structure has been increased by the re-

cent privatization of NTT. Now NBS has

an agreement with a private corporation

in Japan that is a world leader!

A Concluding Analysis

Forty years of intensive and extensive

technical cooperation, largely unsung and

BLOOM

therefore unknown to the American pub-

lic, have taken place between the U.S.

and Japanese Governments. Although at

first these programs were politically mo-

tivated and designed to help Japan to re-

cover from the devastation of war, they

emerged later as a means for exchanges

of advanced technical information ap-

proaching equilibrium in two-way flow.

Japan has recognized the intellectual debt

it owed to the U.S. for the assistance re-

ceived by giving the U.S. a special place

in its international technical relations and

by investing heavily in U.S. Government

R&D programs. Another indirect benefit

of the cooperation has been the accultur-

ation process that has taken place: many

American scientists and engineers have

become familiar with Japan and the Jap-

anese people as a consequence and gen-

erally have liked what they have seen and

heard. However, this has been insuffi-

cient to markedly influence or overcome

the clouds of suspicion in the U.S. about

Japanese motives in acquiring technology

and becoming what some believe is now

the leading economic power of the world.

The relationship with Japan has been

unique. Taking all factors into account

such as population size, degree of edu-

cation, political acceptability and stabil-

ity, and quality of the technical establish-

ment, it is doubtful that any other country

will be treated similarly by the U.S. It also

appears to be true that the U.S. is more

comfortable with a relationship in which

the U.S. dominates the scene and offers

largesse freely and in great amounts. When

another country approaches the compe-

tence of the U.S., fears of competition

may arise to force a drawing away from

what is perceived to be an unwelcome .

threat.

The true test of the endurance of the

U.S.-Japan scientific relationship is still

to be made. Plans for expanding technical

cooperation on a wholesome basis exist

in Washington, but it remains to be seen

whether they will be acceptable politically

in the current environment of trade fric-

tion.

Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences,

Volume 77, Number 3, Pages 93-96, September 1987

Intergovernmental Technical

Cooperation: A Case Study

The Treaty of the Meter and The

International Organization for

Legal Metrology

Edward L. Brady

Associate Director for International Affairs

David E. Edgerly

Acting Director, Office of Research and Technology Applications,

National Bureau of Standards

I. Introduction

The first article in this series pointed

out that many different types of organ-

ization structure exist for international co-

operation, each determined partly by pre-

viously existing organizations and partly

by the objectives that the sponsors wish

to accomplish. The second article related

the case history of a major bilateral re-

lationship—that between the United

States and Japan. In this article we illus-

trate U.S. participation in intergovern-

mental organizations, using the Treaty of

the Meter and the International Organ-

ization for Legal Metrology, two small but

significant agencies, as examples.

93

II. Treaty of the Meter

The Treaty of the Meter, one of the

oldest intergovernmental conventions still

in effect, entered into force in 1875, with

the United States as one of the original

adherents. The need for an internation-

ally accepted measurement system had

become apparent during the preceding

decades as trade expanded and buyers and

sellers around the world found increasing

problems in communicating quantita-

tively with each other. The French Gov-

ernment, which had invented the metric

system, took the lead in organizing the

International Commission on the Meter,

which drafted a treaty intended to ensure

94 EDWARD L. BRADY AND DAVID E. EDGERLY

that the metric system would become a

true international system, in which any na-

tion that wished could have its say in help-

ing to define the ways the world would

measure any physical quantity. The sys-

tem defined and refined by this commu-

nity of scholars, now known as the Jnter-

national System of Units, or SI, has been

extraordinarily successful; it has been

adopted as the official system of measur-

ing units by every nation in the world,

with the exception of the United States

and Brunei.

At the present time, 47 countries are

adherents to the Treaty of the Meter; this

includes all the more industrialized coun-

tries plus a few others that are not major

factors in science, technology, or inter-

national trade.

The Treaty of the Meter establishes

three components to carry out its mission.

The International Bureau of Weights and

Measures (BIPM), located in a park in

Sevres, France, is the laboratory arm and

also includes the secretariat that handles

all documentation and manages meetings.

The International Committee for Weights

and Measures (CIPM), consisting of 18

metrologists each from a different coun-

try, sets policy and makes many of

the operating decisions of the organiza-

tion. Finally, the General Conference on

Weights and Measures is the formal in-

tergovernmental conference that sets the

budget and ratifies the recommendations

submitted by the CIPM.

For an organization the size of BIPM,

only 59 persons, it covers a surprisingly

broad range of technical subjects. The

program includes research on measure-

ment of mass, length, time, temperature,

optical quantities, electrical quantities,

ionizing radiation, gravity, and other

physical quantities. Excellent contribu-

tions are made in these areas, which gen-

erally are dominated by the work of the

major national metrology laboratories in

the United States, Germany, UK, Soviet

Union, Canada, and Australia.

The members of CIPM are usually the

top officials of the national metrology

organizations of their home countries, but

this is not always the case. The current

U.S. member is Ernest Ambler, the Di-

rector of the National Bureau of Stan-

dards. However, the members serve in a

personal capacity as a technical expert,

not as an official representative of their

government. To plan the detailed tech-

nical activities, the CIPM has established

8 Consultative Committees in areas such

as electricity, ionizing radiation, etc., each

chaired by a member of the CIPM. The

National Bureau of Standards partici-

pates in all of these committees.

Each country pays a share of the budget,

ranging from a minimum of approxi-

mately 0.5% to a maximum of approxi-

mately 10%. The United States, Ger-

many, Japan, and the Soviet Union each

pay the maximum amount, which by tra-

dition guarantees each a seat on the CIPM,

the policy-setting body. Other member

nations share the remaining 14 seats.

The principal duties of the CGPM are

to fix a budget for the following quad-

riennium and to approve the technical

recommendations of the CIPM. For ex-

ample, at the most recent General Con-

ference, held in Paris in 1983, the major

technical action was to approve a new def-

inition of the meter, the unit of length on

which the definitions of all American cus-

tomary units are based. For those inter-

ested, the meter is now defined as the

distance traveled by light in a vacuum in

the fraction 1/299 792 458 of a second.

During the past 112 years as the re-

quirements of science and technology have

rapidly become more demanding, the

agencies of the Treaty of the Meter have

steadily improved the version of the met-

ric system of measurement with which

they started. The current International

System of Units is a triumph of ingenuity

and perseverance.

III. International Organization of

Legal Metrology

The International Organization of Le-

gal Metrology (OIML) was established by

INTERGOVERNMENTAL TECHNICAL COOPERATION 95

Convention in 1955. Its principal objec-

tive is to develop model regulations and

methods of test which define acceptable

levels of performance for measuring in-

struments, or for the conduct of specific

measurements. There are currently 50 na-

tions who are full members of OIML and

another 27 nations that are corresponding

members. Generally speaking, govern-

ments regulate the accuracy and suitabil-

ity of measuring instruments used in the

buying and selling of goods and services,

in monitoring environmental pollution, in

diagnosing and treating illness, and in

monitoring workplace and general public

safety. OIML activities are mainly aimed

at getting governments to agree on unt-

form measurement requirements and to

use such requirements, when appropri-

ate, as the basis of national regulations.

This facilitates free trade and helps to

focus international attention on the im-

portance of accurate and reliable meas-

urement in support of technological

development.

Organizationally, OIML consists of the

International Bureau of Legal Metrology

(BIML) and the International Committee

of Legal Metrology (CIML). The BIML

includes a small permanent staff head-

quartered in Paris, France, who are re-

sponsible for managing and coordinating

the activities of the Organization. The

CIML is a 50 member committee con-

sisting of one representative appointed by

each member government. It meets every

18 months and oversees the OIML tech-

nical working program consisting of some

200 committees and subcommittees de-

veloping model requirements in a wide

variety of measurement areas. It is im-

portant to point out that BIML has no

research laboratories and that all of the

technical work of OIML is carried out by

technical experts from various member

nations who serve on the 200 committees

and subcommittees developing technical

recommendations.

The OIML budget, which is principally

used to support the BIML activity, is

derived from annual contributions from

member nations. The level of contribu-

tion is based upon a country’s popula-

tion. The United States, for example, con-

tributes about nine percent of the total

OIML budget. Every fouryearsan Interna-

tional Conference of Legal Metrology is

called to set policy for the Organization,

adopt the output of the various technical

committees, and establish a quadrennial

budget.

Though OIML was established in 1955,

the United States did not become a mem-

ber until 1972. At that time, the Senate

Foreign Relations Committee held hear-

ings at which industry testified that the

lack of U.S. participation had resulted in

international requirements for measuring

instruments that were creating obstacles

to trade. As a result, the U.S. became a

member and responsibility for day-to-day

technical participation is assigned to the

Department of Commerce, and through

it the National Bureau of Standards. The

State Department is responsible for over-

all participation and for the annual U.S.

contribution to OIML.

United States presence in OIML is

geared to strong technical level partici-

pation in the 200 technical committees and

subcommittees. Of priority concern to the

U.S. is the development of positions which

satisfy our interest as regards:

a. the identification of opportunities for

U.S. measurement practices to be em-

bodied in OIML International Rec-

ommendations;

b. the prevention of impediments to U.S.

trade that can result from restrictive

technical or administrative require-

ments in International Recommenda-

tions;

c. the development of International Rec-

ommendations which accommodate the

reality of a decentralized system of le-

gal metrology as found in the U.S.; and

d. the development of sound manage-

ment and administrative policies which

will ensure that OIML operates as a

viable international organization and

that it effectively coordinates its aims

96 EDWARD L. BRADY AND DAVID E. EDGERLY

and objectives with those of other in-

ternational organizations having sim-

ilar objectives.

The U.S. currently is the secretariat for

some 29 of the 200 technical committees

and subcommittees within the OIML

working program. For the most part, the

decision to assume responsibility for di-

recting the work of a committee is based

upon interest in promoting U.S. meas-

urement practice and in enhancing indus-

try’s ability to compete worldwide. For

example, the U.S. recently completed

work on an OIML Recommendation on

electronic weighing instruments which sets

approval requirements for government

acceptance of all types of commercial

scales. The U.S. scale industry had a very

active involvement in the Recommenda-

tion. A similar effort is underway in the

field of environmental pollution where a

large U.S. national working group in-

volving government and industry is de-

veloping draft OIML Recommendations

for monitoring instrumentation. This work

is important not only because it will assist

U.S. industry, but also because of the

pressing need worldwide to have accurate

and reliable instrumentation for monitor-

ing the environment.

The work undertaken by OIML has fol-

lowed a fairly predictable course over the

years. Initially, member governments

were interested in coming to agreement

on legal requirements for instruments used

mainly in the commercial marketplace. For

example, weighing devices and fluid me-

tering systems were among the first ge-

neric devices studied. Between 1955 and

1970, the bulk of the OIML Recommen-

dations issued were in traditional weights

and measures fields (mass, length, vol-

ume). Since 1970, the working program

of OIML has expanded considerably, re-

flecting the interest of member govern-

ments to come to agreement on require-

ments for instruments in non-traditional

legal metrology areas like health, safety,

and environmental pollution. Since 1980,

priority has been given to the develop-

ment of requirements for electronic

equipped measuring instruments and to a

greater involvement in the development

of test methods which government offi-

cials can use to determine that measuring

instruments comply with established re-

quirements.

United States participation in the OIML

has to date proven to be very beneficial.

The opportunity to meet and interact on

a frequent basis with legal metrology of-

ficials from other national laboratories has

been very useful in resolving common

measurement problems. Secondly, the

U.S. instrumentation industry has been

given the opportunity to actively partici-

pate with NBS in developing positions on

OIML matters and in serving on Ameri-

can delegations to OIML meetings. As a

result, industry is better informed of re-

quirements for trading with other nations

and has taken advantage of these oppor-

tunities in marketing its products and

know-how in OIML member countries.

Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences,

Volume 77, Number 3, Pages 97-102, September 1987

Technical Assistance to

Developmg Countries

H. Steffen Peiser

National Bureau of Standards (Retired)

To turn from the narrow microcosm of

my Own experience in working on assis-

tance projects for rapidly developing na-

tions to the macrocosm of United States

policy is a hazardous leap. Yet, I must try

that jump, as is implied by my acceptance

of the invitation to contribute to this jour-

nal number. My viewpoints, by no means

all novel, may have some merit even when

applied more widely than within my ac-

customed horizons.

In absolute and relative terms, the

United States has placed unprecedented

effort and resources into assistance to

other nations. A good part of this support

flowed from private sources, much from

religious, cultural, and sporting groups as

well as from recent immigrants. Much more

assistance has been channeled from the

Federal Government through the Agency

for International Development (AID) and

predecessor agencies. This aid is approx-

imately matched by support from inter-

national organizations, mostly affiliated

to the United Nations (UN), and they also

typically depend on a major share of funds

from the United States. Recognized also

should be the American private sector

companies who, in pursuit of self interest,

have taken remarkable risks in effective

assistance to developing economies. Last,

but certainly not the least in significance,

has been the American military establish-

ment in helping the process of develop-

ment. To all these endeavors Congress

has been vocally supportive and clearly

understanding of the issues despite bud-

getary restrictions and concerns of greater

perceived interest to voters.

Appreciation abroad is typically re-

stricted to a minority of officials who will

recall a few development projects. Mem-

ories are short. There are exceptions, of

course, especially where religious mis-

sions are active over long time periods.

When Congress or companies impose

conditions upon given aid, it is quite often

resented by the recipient country’s public

opinion. I myself have had the privilege

abroad to represent projects that were

generally popular, but in off-duty mo-

ments, I often saw a need strongly to de-

fend American foreign assistance policies

and, more generally, the American ways

which I, an immigrant myself, selectively

enjoy (I here use American in the narrow

sense, meaning the United States).

The American public generally is not

much more enlightened about foreign as-

sistance programs, and opinions are often

critical. Indeed, it may well be true that

the balance between security and eco-

nomic aid needs some adjustment in a

world in which military alliances may be

98 H. STEFFEN PEISER

of decreasing interest to the superpowers,

while trade agreements are likely to be of

increasing benefit to the United States.

Remember the Marshall Plan! With bil-

lions of American dollars, war-torn Eu-

rope redeveloped its industrial might. The

United States provided little more than

the money and significant management

skills. Western Europe was able to find

enough remaining of its technical infra-

structure and modernize much of its man-

ufacturing industries by drawing on do-

mestic know-how and expertise; as well

as by purchasing latest American equip-

ment.

After years of less uniformly spectac-

ular results from aid to the less developed

countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin

America, there may still be people here

who believe that historic successes can be

achieved there with but money and man-

agement skills. The lesson we should have

learned is that successes in disadvantaged

countries come only if technical know-how

is contributed from highly industrialized

countries. Effective aid equally depends

on cooperation with the scientific elite that

typically exists in recipient nations. Un-

derestimate of the locally available sci-

entific expertise in its ability to turn to

applied projects is a pitfall for planners

and advisers from highly industrialized

countries. Some experts from the West

might be lured into this error by local con-

ditions. In Thailand, the cause may be the

widely accustomed personal modesty, in

Pakistan it may be the aloofness of many

scholars, in the Sudan the administrative

lines could present an initial obstacle to

cooperation with the indigenous scientific

establishment.

Technical collaboration between donor

and recipient nations is necessary for suc-

cess; it certainly was effective in bringing

about the “green revolution” and, to give

two somewhat smaller-scale examples, it

kindled a state-of-the-art instrument in-

dustry in Israel and opened the way for

the Volkswagen manufacture in Brazil.

The case of Brazilian development gives

an opportunity to discuss AID’s general

policy to have projects initiated by local

field offices in consultation with govern-

ments. In matters of science and tech-

nology, however, governments and indig-

enous industries frequently do not foresee

clearly the specific needs and opportuni-

ties. In the absence of local technical ad-

visory services such as in America are pro-

vided by the U.S. National Academies of

Science and Engineering, and the Na-

tional Research Council, AID has been

wise to offer technical studies coordinated

from Washington, with a view to giving

advice in the field. For implementation

projects, AID and the World Bank rarely

press technical viewpoints beyond the lo-

cal governments’ inclinations. In Brazil,

however, AID asked the National Bureau

of Standards to support the laboratory of

the State of Sao Paulo, the Instituto de

Pesquisas Tecnologicas, because it was the

best in staff and facilities. This action was

very successful although the Brazilian

government initially would have pre-

ferred AID support to be concentrated in

federal laboratories. At this time, Brazil

again is expressing some displeasure over

American advice this time on environ-

mental concerns arising from World Bank

projects. Experts believe the advice is very

sound and in Brazil’s own interest.

In general, it seems to me that assis-

tance projects in agriculture and life sci-

ences have fared better than those for

manufacturing industry. Good industrial

projects typically depend on infrastruc-

ture for which it is difficult to obtain fund-

ing because its importance for develop-

ment is not well understood, even in this

country. Infrastructure projects do not di-

rectly result in a saleable product. Part of

the economic benefits depends on avoid-

ance of losses which are not clearly rec-

ognized in budgets. Furthermore, infra-

structure projects are comparatively

inexpensive. The assistance agencies are

not well structured to deal with small

projects, even those with potentially big

leverage. When you present such ideas,

you are apt to be advised to seek recog-

nition as a sub-project of another existing

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 99

and related project. However, such es-

tablished projects generally have existing

set plans into which the new idea does not

fit perfectly.

While on consulting assignments for

AID, the World Bank, and other UN

agencies, and even before my retirement

while I was still representing NBS, I often

felt a technical loneliness among the staff

of assistance agencies. They seem strongly

based in economics, finance, politics, and

management, as indeed they must be.

However, virtually all their programs and

projects also hinge on technical judg-

ments; they need, but generally do not

have, in-house science and technology

competence that can see and advise on

the technical potential of the numerous

opportunities existing in every country.

Consultants cannot serve that purpose ef-

fectively. Even when their reports are

openly endorsed, the technical focus and

necessary pre-conditions are easily and

unwittingly lost in the subsequent imple-

mentation. |

Lest I be misunderstood, I should em-

phasize that consultants are also needed.

Science and technology are highly spe-

cialized and ever-changing. Assistance

agencies cannot possibly have experts cur-

rent in every field. From the consultants’

viewpoint, too, the relevant experience is

often educative, stimulating, and hu-

manly rewarding. In my own experience,

I have found work with the assistance

agencies pleasant and rewarding. Even my

technical loneliness was often unexpec-

tedly relieved by, for instance, a former

professor of electrical engineering in a

management role at the World Bank. A

former technical staff member of the Ar-

mour Foundation (now the Illinois Insti-

tute of Technology Research Institute) was

attached to AID in Vietnam at a time

when the American endeavor was not

yet completely lost. He, with support from

NBS, established a Vietnam Standards

Institute that gave effective services to

fledgling industry. I am convinced that

some industrial activity might have con-

tributed to the population’s conviction that

there existed a future worth a courageous

self defense. AID’s support for the Insti-

tute was too small and also too late. It

played a negligible part in the last-ditch

defense of Saigon. We have learned from

the escaped director and a British con-

sultant to the North Vietnam government

that the Institute survives.

In the evaluation of past projects, there

also seems to be a scarcity of technical

inputs. Coupled with a commonly en-

countered lack of institutional memory

which is a consequence of staffing poli-

cies, this situation makes it difficult to

learn from mistakes and to enlarge suc-

cesses. Colleagues of mine and I have

written rather extensively, for example,

on the output from the small share of non-

convertible PL 480 funds from the sale of

agricultural products to deprived coun-

tries. These had to be in excess of the

needs of State Department and were al-

located to NBS in competition with other

U.S. agencies. Such funds were allowed

to be used in Yugoslavia, Israel, India,

Pakistan, Egypt, and Tunis. At NBS, we

tried to evaluate the contributions these

programs made both at NBS and abroad,

but I have received not one comment from

any American outside NBS on the value

of the output of these projects. They

probably had no influence on allocations

of agricultural products to relief in sub-

sequent years.

Evaluations are particularly apt in so-

called AID graduate countries which have

progressed in development to a level at

which they do not need direct assistance

from that source. These are, of course,

likely strong future trading partners.

Surely we should understand how their

successes were achieved, and American

policy might look at these countries for

potential economic leadership among re-

gional allies. Iran was such an AID grad-

uate country when NBS Director Lewis

Branscomb took a small team of Govern-

ment scientists to explore the past and to

propose policies to preserve future col-

laborations. Iranian officials at that time

were still overwhelmingly friendly to the

100 H. STEFFEN PEISER

United States. They cooperated warmly

with the visiting team. However, they ap-

peared, on more than one occasion, em-

barrassed by Branscomb’s first question:

‘What do you recall of AID projects that

had a positive impact?”’ After some hes-

itation, One response was: ‘American

chicken production.” The most satisfying

response, however, was: ““The American

approach to solving problems.”’

In many recipient countries, for ex-

ample Korea, memories of AID projects

are more positive, but Americans should

not expect too much in the way of historic

knowledge and appreciation. Credit for

successful development projects is pref-

erentially awarded to the home team.

For planning new projects, donor in-

stitutions also tend not to accurately ana-

lyze the past, but they frequently follow

some catch phrase that comes into vogue.

Let me quote a few examples of major

policy directions that for some time were

applied:

(1) “Import substitution creates home in-

dustries;”’

(2) “Stem the population explosion;”’

(3) ‘Small is beautiful;’’ and

(4) ‘‘Help the poorest in the poorest

countries.”’

All these are based on some good ideas,

but they all also have severe limitations.

Some troubles that come with import

substitution have been well recognized.

Protection by import duties is soon fol-

lowed by inferior quality of products that

quickly become strongly disfavored by

captive domestic consumers. These prod-

ucts then do not have a chance to compete

abroad. Equador, for example, in the 70’s

found that this sequence of events was

impossible to prevent by conscientiously

enforced regulations for quality.

However, the policy of import substi-

tution is not always wrong; and the op-

posite policy is not always right, which is

to make just a very few products with

selectively chosen available raw materials

or in a specific field for which the nation

has optimal resources. These products may

sell in international trade to economic ad-

vantage. Still one must guard against the

problem of scale addressed by the catch

phrase: “Small is beautiful.” In fact, small

rarely is economical. Thus small cannot

afford to be “‘good.”’

NBS technical assistance has been spe-

cially hampered by the “poorest in the

poor” directive. The nations that can best

benefit by NBS assistance are those at the

intermediate income level; that is, those

whose economies are growing rapidly and

whose technological infrastructures need

strengthening in order to promote further

development.

Above all, I would like to see all Amer-

ican assistance given based on the prin-

cipal criterion of U.S. self-interest. Con-

gress and the American public see such

self-interest quite clearly in military as-

sistance, but economic and commercial

benefit to the United States in other aid

projects is not so clear. I believe that dis-

cussion of U.S. self-interest would not at

all alienate our partners in the rapidly de-

veloping world.

Let us next look at assistance from the

angle of newly industrializing nations.

They see the United States as an indus-

trial, military, political, commercial, and

cultural giant. Moral leadership may also

be attributed to individual Americans. The

huge success of the country is linked to

material wealth and that in turn is re-

garded as the product of science and tech-

nology at their highest contemporary level.

These nations want a doorway into these

lofty realms and are frustrated that sci-

ence and technology does not occupy a

high place in American diplomacy.

The typical representative from newly

emerging countries does not expect to see

a completely new home-based technology

invented there and applied there in prac-

tice; but he feels sure that the inventive-

ness of the technical elite in his country

could be encouraged to be as effective as

rivals from other countries in developing

individual products that could fit into big-

ger systems as well as by inventing pat-

entable refinements of existing systems.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 101

It is here that in discussions the U.S.

self-interest should be introduced. As-

sistance in the form of technology transfer

could then be offered where mutual in-

terest is recognized. One of three basic

modes for technology transfer could be

employed:

Mode 1. Carefully selected and qual-

ified representatives of the assisted na-

tion would read, study, and otherwise

acquire openly available, generally

published, scientific knowledge. They

would bring that information home to

apply in their own innovative projects

aiming at domestic and international

markets with novel products and ser-

vices, as well as for establishing new

centers of excellence in their own coun-

tries.

American universities and some U.S.

research centers have proved superb

sources for that kind of long-term

training. Historic evaluation of the ef-

fect of Americans’ studies in Europe

during the late 19th and early 20th cen-

turies could have pointed the way for

assistance agencies to choose that kind

of assistance almost before any other.

That choice would have been rein-

forced by an analysis of Japanese and

Korean experience in later years.

Hundreds of thousands of foreign stu-

dents are now supported by many

American organizations and universi-

ties. However, many assistance agen-

cies of the UN and AID prefer to fund

studies of only a few weeks or months.

Such assignments may well be effective

in administrative and even economic

studies if carefully anticipated by

guided reading and language studies

before arriving in the United States.

However, for engineers and scientists

minimum periods of two to three years

are required for effective education.

Mode 2. Assistance would be through

licensing and joint ventures, generally

involving partial or progressively more

complete manufacture in the devel-

oping country, maintenance services,

etc., all under cooperative agreements

in which know-how is shared and con-

fidentialities are honored. The assisted

country not only benefits directly but

the people involved gain skills and abil-

ities. In the course of time, self-reliant

initiatives may then lead to related

products, processes, and services for

which the assisted country organiza-

tion could itself become a successful

licensor.

In America and indeed in most

Western countries, governments do not

own the great majority of the rights to

industrial know-how. American and

multi-national companies have long

known how to use this mode to their

own, at least temporary, advantage.

AID has explained to governments of

rapidly developing countries how use-

ful it can be to provide the atmosphere

and regulations that make it attractive

to high-technology companies to estab-

lish such cooperations. UN agencies

have tended to cloud the issue by call-

ing for philosophical and philanthropic

goals, particularly emphasizing the

viewpoints and demands of the less de-

veloped countries.

Mode 3. Here I really reveal my per-

sonal strong bias. In this mode, assis-

tance would be given in standards and

measurement science. For standards

not only include the documents which

manufacturers use for their products

and processes, but also the specifica-

tions on which rest commerce and trade.

They are the link to legal justice, public

safety, and environmental concerns. If

we in America hope for developing

countries to be our predominant trad-

ing partners of the future, let us pre-

pare to help them so that they can par-

ticipate with us to develop a mutually

agreeable relationship by reliably test-

ing for compliance to standards. The

word standards also refers to the ob-

jects by which measurements are made.

Based on such standards is the univer-

sal science called metrology, which

102 H. STEFFEN PEISER

serves virtually all other sciences and

technology. Accurate measure is the

key to satisfactory retail markets, as

well as to the design and construction

of the most awesome nuclear power

station and to the elucidation of pro-

tein structure and function.

The world rightfully praises Japan for

accepting and fully implementing a con-

sultant’s thesis on quality control. Me-

trology is the obvious extension of that

thesis into high technology. Time was

when quality would be appraised by look,

or sound, or feel. Increasingly, quality of

products can only be measured by accu-

rate quantitative assessment of specific

properties. And that is metrology. More

and more industrializing countries rec-

ognize the need for a national measure-

ment system. Korea, in the past ten years,

has demonstrated the effectiveness of this

strategy. China, under both of that coun-

try’s regimes, is now following that course

with impressive vigor.

Modern life, manufacture, and product

testing depend on measurements by so-

phisticated instruments. The manufac-

turer of instruments must not only show

the user how to maintain calibration by

metrology, but how these instruments give

reliable results by metrology. As long as

American instrument industry remains

competitive for use by emerging coun-

tries, it is in American interests that rel-

evant metrological comprehension is

found in the customer nation.

Standards and metrology have further

attractions as topics for assistance proj-

ects. Metrology by definition is mostly

non-proprietary. Competitiveness in me-

trology consists in showing exactly why

and how good you are for all to see. Me-

trology to be useful must be credible; to

be credible, it must be open. In the United

States, NBS has followed that policy with

success and distinction. This policy has

also enabled the NBS staff to contribute

effectively in many development assist-

ance projects. Many current and former

NBS staff members feel conversely that

these projects have added meaningful re-

ward to their career.

It is easy for me to sum up my hopes

for U.S. policy for assistance to rapidly

developing nations: more academic level

education to a technical elite group; more

industrial agreements with strong mu-

tuality of benefits; and standards and

metrology raised to a topic for special at-

tention. After all programs have been im-

plemented, I favor careful technical eval-

uation with a special feature of listening

to the impressions of the partners that

should have been assisted. American as-

sistance for development in other coun-

tries has in our age created and should

continue to erect some of the finest his-

toric monuments both concrete and ab-

Stract.

Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences,

Volume 77, Number 3, Pages 103-107, September 1987

International Cooperation in

Science and Technology: The Role

and Functions of Embassy

Science Attaches

Abraham §S. Friedman

The first American scientist to repre-

sent his country abroad was, in addition

to being an outstanding man of science,

also a diplomat, negotiator, commercial

representative, cultural emissary and man-

about-town. Benjamin Franklin, the newly

independent American States’ first Min-

ister to France (December 1776-1785),

was respected by the French as a scientist

and his scientific papers and correspon-

dence, which had been translated and

published in France in 1773, were as widely

read in France as in this country at the

time. He was a member of the Royal

Academy of Sciences of Paris, the Royal

Societies of London and Gottingen, and

the Philosophical Societies of Edinburgh,

Rotterdam and Philadelphia. As noted in

a June 1976 Congressional Research Ser-

vice Report on Science, Technology, and

American Diplomacy in the Age of In-

terdependence, “Under the influence of

men like Franklin and Jefferson, science

and technology were closely interrelated

with American diplomacy in the early years

of the Republic, [but subsequently] in-

teraction of diplomats . . . with science

and technology appears to have dimin-

ished.”’

103

The significance of science and tech-

nology in international relations became

apparent during World War II. Scientific

Missions were established in the embas-

sies of the Allies in order to enhance co-

operation in joint technological research

and development. Thus, the U.K. Sci-

entific Mission in Washington carried out

liason with the United States on the atomic

bomb program and the U.S. Science Mis-

sion in London cooperated with U.K. sci-

entists working on radar.

Today’s Science Attaches have more

varied responsibilities. The Science At-

taches of many countries, especially those

serving in the United States and other in-

dustrialized countries, are primarily en-

gaged in gathering science and technology

information and reporting on develop-

ments in science and technology of the

host country. Important as that function

is, it is not, however, the major mission

of our Science Attaches (although there

is currently much pressure being put on

the State Department to make it so).

The Science Attache or Counselor of

an Embassy for Scientific and Technolog-

ical Affairs is primarily responsible for

identifying and interpreting the impact of

104 ABRAHAM 5S.

scientific and technological developments

on policy matters of concern to the Em-

bassy and the Department of State and

recommending appropriate actions. He

generally reports to the Ambassador

through the Deputy Chief of Mission

(DCM) and is required specifically to:

(a) Advise the Ambassador, DCM and

Embassy officers on a broad range of

scientific, technological, environmen-

tal and ocean matters which are of

potential significant importance to

U.S. foreign policy objectives.

Provide policy analyses and recom-

mendations to the Embassy, the State

Department and U.S. technical agen-

cies, including means to enhance U.S.

access to host country science and

technology, and to stimulate bilateral

and/or multilateral cooperative pro-

grams of mutual interest.

(c) Based on a current comprehensive

understanding of State Department

and U.S. technical agency program

requirements and objectives, repre-

sent and interpret U.S. government

policies and programs to appropriate

host country officials.

(d) Provide timely analyses and reports

on scientific, technical and environ-

mental policies, programs and objec-

tives of the host country which have

the potential to affect U.S. interests.

(e) Support and advise the Department

of State and U.S. technical agencies

on bilateral and other programs and

activities with the host country, par-

ticipate in the negotiation of agree-

ments of interest to U.S. technical

agencies, and represent them at tech-

nical meetings.

(b

—

Different countries define the mission

and duties of their science representatives

in accordance with their differing national

interests and priorities. The Canadians,

in a foreign policy report of 1970, stated

that “‘the impact of science and technol-

ogy on international affairs is becoming

increasingly significant and varied as new

advances are made [and that it therefore]

will be important for Canada to be as-

FRIEDMAN

sured access to scientific developments

abroad and to participate in international

cooperation in scientific undertakings.”

Their primary interest is access to tech-

nological information.

A French report on science policy (pub-

lished in Science et Vie, February 1979)

noted that “the objective is to establish

scientific cooperation on three levels: in

the United States, as always, to stimulate

French research and researchers; in all of

Western Europe from Norway to Gibral-

tar and from Iceland to Austria, to attain

in Europe that critical scientific mass nec-

essary to balance American power; fi-

nally, the rest of the world should be han-

dled on a case by case basis.” The French

report further notes that France has the

greatest number of Science Counselors

and Attaches in the world: in 40 coun-

tries! The United States has Science

Counselors or Attaches in our Embassies

in 22 countries plus an additional 3 ac-

credited to International organizations

(IAEA, EC, and OECD). Furthermore,

while most of our science offices abroad

are staffed by a single person (in our Paris

Embassy we have an Assistant Science

Attache in addition to the Science Coun-

selor) the French have, in their Washing-

ton Embassy, a Science Counselor plus

six Science Attaches—each an expert in

a particular scientific or engineering dis-

cipline (geology, space science, nuclear

physics, biotechnology, etc.) They also

have Science Attaches serving in a num-

ber of their Consulates, particularly those

in the high-tech areas of the United States,

such as in Boston, New York, Chicago,

Houston and San Francisco. In addition,

about twenty young scientists (cooper-

ants) are working for the French Science

Missions in lieu of military service. It is

thus apparent that the rationale and ob-

jectives of the French Science Attache

program are very different from ours. The

aforementioned French report noted that

the Science Attaches’ reports make it

“possible to compare results obtained

abroad with those obtained in France in

the same areas, to orient French labora-

tories toward promising sectors of re-

THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF EMBASSY SCIENCE ATTACHES 105

search or towards sectors which lag be-

hind.”

The development of the atomic bomb

made it more apparent than ever that sci-

entific and technological progress had im-

portant international policy implications

and that the Department of State had a

significant role to play. In the fall of 1949,

Lloyd Berkner was appointed as a Special

Consultant to the Secretary of State to

advise him on the formulation and imple-

mentation of the State Department role

in international science policy. Berkner

headed a State Department Steering

Committee on International Science Pol-

icy and the Berkner Committee Report,

issued in 1950, was the first comprehen-

sive assessment of the significance of sci-

ence and technology in U.S. foreign pol-

icy and diplomacy. An office of Science

Advisor was created in the State Depart-

ment and several Science Attaches were

assigned overseas. However, Science had

a very low priority in the State Depart-

ment of the early ’50’s and by 1956, the

Office of Science Advisor consisted of a

Foreign Service Officer and two secre-

taries. It took Sputnik (October 1957) to

remind the Administration of the impor-

tant international implications of science

and technology. The position of Science

Advisor to the Department of State was

reestablished and Wallace Brode, Asso-

ciate Director of the National Bureau of

Standards and President of the American

Association for the Advancement of Sci-

ence, was named to the post. The func-

tions of the Science Attaches were, how-

ever, not very clearly defined and many

of them were retired professors who

served more as cultural attaches for the

sciences than as scientist-diplomats.

A number of studies and reports sub-

sequent to the Berkner Report followed

in an effort to better understand and de-

fine the State Departments role in sci-

ence, technology and diplomacy. Among

the more important of these studies were

the report of the Science and Foreign Af-

fairs Panel of the President’s Science Ad-

visory Committee (1962), several reports

by Frank Huddle on Science, Technology,

and American Diplomacy for the House

Subcommittee on International Security

and Scientific Affairs (1970, 1976), and T.

Keith Glennan’s Report to Deputy Sec-

retary of State Charles Robinson on Tech-

nology and Foreign Affairs (December

1976).

The 1979 Foreign Relations Authori-

zation Act, P.L. 95-426, required that the

President, pursuant to Title V of the Act,

submit to the Congress an annual Mes-

sage and Report on Science, Technology

and American Diplomacy. The substan-

tive report on the international activities

of the U.S. Government is prepared by

the Department of State in cooperation

with other relevant agencies. Under Title

V of the Act, the State Department has

been assigned primary responsibility for

the coordination and oversight of all ma-

jor science and technology agreements and

activities between the United States and

other countries and international organ-

izations; the Department of State man-

ages the international science and tech-

nology activities of the U.S. Government

as a fundamental aspect of foreign rela-

tions. Within the Department of State,

the Bureau of Oceans and International

Environmental and Scientific Affairs

(OES) is the responsible office and it is

that bureau which backstops the Science

Attaches abroad.

In the 1950’s and early *60’s there was

little effective backstopping support for

the Science Attache program. It wasn’t

until the creation of the Office of Inter-

national Scientific and Technological Af-

fairs (SCI) in 1965 under the directorship

of Herman Pollack, replacing the Office

of the Science Advisor, that an efficient

program for backstopping the Science At-

taches came into effect. Even then, the

staff of SCI was quite small (32, including

secretaries, in 1967) to handle the 22 Sci-

ence Attaches and deputies assigned

abroad. By 1975 the staff of SCI had grown

to 98. That year, the SCI Office became,

by Act of Congress, the Bureau of Oceans

and International Environmental and Sci-

entific Affairs and the first Assistant Sec-

retary of State appointed to head the OES

106 ABRAHAM 5S.

Bureau was Dixy Lee Ray. Today, OES

has 142 full time employees, several part

time employees and a few people detailed

from other agencies. As a result of recent

budget cuts, however, the staffing of OES

is being drastically reduced in FY 1988.

As of the beginning of this year there were

25 Science Counselors or Attaches, a few

assistant Science Attaches, and 5 At-

taches representing other U.S. Govern-

ment Agencies (e.g.—DOE, NASA,

NOAA). Some of the Science Attaches

are accredited to several countries in a

region. An important innovation intro-

duced several years ago was the require-

ment that every embassy without a Sci-

ence Attache assign an officer to report

on science activity in the host country.

These science reporting officers are gen-

erally junior officers whose principal du-

ties are in other areas of the Mission and

who generally have no science back-

ground.

The recruitment and qualifications of

our Science Attaches has been the subject

of much discussion since the inception of

the Science Attache program. Should the

Science Attaches be experienced scien-

tists or engineers with some exposure to

or understanding of diplomacy? Or should

the Attache be a foreign service diplomat

with some scientific training?

In the past, most of the Science At-

taches were scientists or engineers and

FRIEDMAN

came from outside the State Depart-

ment—most frequently from other U.S.

government agencies such as the AEC,

NBS, etc. The AEC was, in fact, the ma-

jor supplier of State Department Science

Attaches. This was primarily because (a)

the Atomic Energy Commission had a

large number of scientists with experience

in international cooperation and an un-

derstanding and appreciation of the for-

eign policy implications of atomic energy,

and (b) the AEC, more than most USG

technical agencies, had a long and con-

tinuing history of cooperation with the

State Department in the negotiation of

bilateral agreements for nuclear cooper-

ation and in supporting such international

agencies as the IAEA, Euratom, the

OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency and the

Interamerican Nuclear Energy Commis-

sion of the OAS. Thus, at one time or

another, scientists from the AEC served

as Science Attaches or Counselors in Bonn,

Brussels, London, Madrid, Ottawa, Paris,

Stockholm, Vienna, Brasilia, Buenos

Aires, Mexico, Seoul, and Tokyo.

Today more and more of the Science

Attaches are State Department foreign

service officers and many of them have

only had little or no science training.

Whether it is easier in a reasonable period

of time to teach a scientist the art of di-

plomacy or to teach science to a diplomat

is a question I leave to others.

Listed below are the Science Counselors and Attaches as of the beginning of the 1988 fiscal year:

POST INCUMBENT ThE

Europe

Ankara John MacGaffin Counselor

Belgrade Thomas Vrebalovich Attache

Bonn Edward Malloy Counselor

Brussels (EC) Patricia Haigh S & T Officer

Budapest Thos. Schlenker Attache

London James Devine Counselor

Madrid Ishmael Lara Attache

Moscow John Ward Counselor

Paris Allen Sessoms Counselor

Paris (OECD) Robert Carr Counselor

Rome Gerald Whitman Counselor

Vienna (IAEA) Carlton Stoiber Counselor

Warsaw Gary Waxmonsky Attache

THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF EMBASSY SCIENCE ATTACHES

Science Counselors and Attaches continued

107

Ottawa

Mexico City

Brasilia

Buenos Aires

New Delhi

Tel Aviv

Cairo

Beijing

Seoul

Tokyo

Jakarta

North and South America

Francis Kinnelly

Roy Simpkins

James Chamberlin

Robert Morris

Middle East and Africa

Ahmed Meer

Anthony Rock

Francis Cunningham

Asia and Pacific

Pierre Perrolle

Jerome Bosken

Richard Getzinger

Jeff Lutz

Counselor

Counselor

Counselor

Attache

Counselor

Attache

Counselor

Counselor

Attache

Counselor

Attache

Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences,

Volume 77, Number 3, Page 108, September 1987

BIODATA

Justin L. Bloom is president of Tech-

nology International, Inc., of Potomac,

Maryland, a small consulting organization

specializing in foreign scientific and tech-

nical information and international tech-

nology transfer. Mr. Bloom’s career has

spanned 39 years, following his gradua-

tion from the California Institute of Tech-

nology. He has worked as an engineer and

manager in the development of petro-

chemicals, nuclear materials, and radio-

isotope applications. During 24 years of

service with the U.S. Government, he was

technical assistant to individual Commis-

sioners and to the Chairman of the U.S.

Atomic Energy Commission. In subse-

quent service with the Department of

State, he was Counselor for Scientific and

Technological Affairs at the American

Embassies in Tokyo and London. He re-

tired from the Foreign Service in 1983 with

the rank of Minister-counselor.

Mr. David Edgerly is currently the

United States representative to the Inter-

national Organization of Legal Metrology

(OIML), and a Vice President of the In-

ternational Committee of Legal Metrol-

ogy. He has extensive experience in the

fields of legal metrology and standardiza-

tion and has worked closely with Amer-

ican industry in structuring U.S. technical

level participation in over 100 OIML

technical committees and working groups

developing international requirements for

scientific and measuring instrumentation.

Dr. Abraham Friedman is a retired

Senior Foreign Service Officer who has

served as Counselor for Scientific and

Technological Affairs in Mexico City,

Bonn and Paris. He also worked at the

National Bureau of Standards and for the

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission where

he served in the American Embassy in

Paris as the AEC European Scientific

Representative and later was AEC Di-

rector of International Affairs.

H. Steffen Peiser, born in Germany in

1917, entered Cambridge University in

1936 and had a varied career about equally

divided between:

1. Academic research—Cambridge and

London Universities, England

X-ray crystallography.

2. Industrial research—Imperial Chemi-

cal Industries and Hadfields Steel

Chemical and metallurgical crystallog-

raphy.

3. Public sector research—U.S. National

Bureau of Standards

Crystal chemistry and metrology.

4. U.S. National Bureau of Standards—

International relations.

DELEGATES TO THE WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,

REPRESENTING THE LOCAL AFFILIATED SOCIETIES

RMS OP Meal SOCIC ty Ola WaSHIDBLOM yc cei) cre ei See cit wcll bees wie nd a tisis aerate iene vars Barbara F. Howell

Paco polocical Society Of Washington 26st ce sees ck cee ete eben eee ans Edward J. Lehman

PM RIC A SOCIC(Y) Ol WV aSHINGCOMs: ccc in ce iaie sucks = nicl = isvgieio Gere ot icie Hope eiard ec aiein wit ialees Austin B. Williams

MeLAMIc aS OCICLY Of WASHINGTON)... 2.) jo Wargo «sss so Slee Sere ce ede e es sakes sowie Jo-Anne A. Jackson

PPO CIC ALE SOCICLY: Ol, NVASIIM OOD) 5.5 ecened- 1 s0cie aielelel ai aie alin ers) = sheuele Goarolais o's se sie Ges Manya B. Stoetzel

EMR COCTAPINCSOCICUY. ce lest 5 c)s kara apse eeln i ia weve sje serae thane’ reeln nla Sialalalwicits Gilbert Grosvenor

Pee EAE SOCICLY OL WV ASDITIOLOMNG 82 PS mia ct eyecisie sieved ed myeen cee auseayaislee aay @i nels ewes James V. O’Connor

ierneasociety of the: District of Columbia: 2. 2666s ee eile cies eeleins ogee Charles E. Townsend

reeset ABEL S(OFIC ALL SOCICLY gees re oe nee Pome re ia Glew eee aitectuienens evlniey pee GAH aie ae ake aoa w tace Paul H. Oehser

MEME IESUICICCYOloWWASMINGTOMNG © = er erie cjom Hee sic, eiianersnie inlalegle jen ee tialaniertars a a Conrad B. Link

ibe meat American boresters, Washington SEctlom «66.5.2 ec ote eee cee cee eee len Mark Rey

SEEN ONES OCICCY/ Oli MOIMECTS is c0secesee ciate Ms a taisie a) cco tus adnate ites eaebeaBas aitiptia gin ee oe George Abraham

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Washington Section................. George Abraham

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Washington Section......................-05- Michael Chi

Pasmneivolocical society of Washington): . 0. fo 2. ect ee ee bie ee ee ee oe Robert S. Isenstein

Pentetican society for Microbiology, Washington: Branch... 2.2.0... 2. case. eee eee ew ee ces Vacant

Society of American Military Engineers, Washington Post....................... Charles A. Burroughs

Euchican Society of Civil Engineers, National Capital Section........-..6./..3..4..5e02 00: Carl Gaum

Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, DC Section ...................... Cyrus R. Creveling

Pacmean society tor Metals, Washington Chapter... 2... 00/06. cee cect te cease net James R. Ward

American Association of Dental Research, Washington Section......................05- Eloise Ullman

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, National Capital Section............... Paul Keller

omecanevicteorological Society, DC Chapter .. 2.2.5.0... ese eet eee owes A. James Wagner

Pee ROOCICtYZOlm WASMINOCON ci pcyns ne hid Se «ve icliGhe ben gyee eee gee eis to Mere ute Albert B. DeMilo

measical society of America, Washington Chapter.............-..-....¢. nee eens Richard K. Cook

PmaciMcaneNucicar Society, Washington Section... ... 2... 2c. css. cease tee beet eee ue aaenee Paul Theiss

mesic or Hood Technologists, Washington Section ....:-...-..-22.0++-s3eeees-: Melvin R. Johnston

american Ceramic Society, Baltimore-Washington Section...:....................- Joseph H. Simmons

PRP riee HCMC AE SOCIC LV Fai ak trian ialeyacncdeoeie seh ovessicc, Shas elaine ai cual ale eis Bucs ebro ate Os Alayne A. Adams

Serer OMe AISLOny Ol SCIENCE CMU eos co enc Pole oe 6 Bees Hehe nia ea cpa & Haves Hed ical agi Albert Gluckman

American Association of Physics Teachers, Chesapeake Section ...................... Peggy A. Dixon

wipiteal society of America, National Capital Section: ..2..:s.....-2.2-¢256..5-65 William R. Graver

American Society of Plant Physiologists, Washington Area Section............... Walter Shropshire, Jr.

Washington Operations Research/Management Science Council .....................- Doug Samuelson

Piha nt Society, of America, Washington Section’... . 6...» 266. wee selec cece tp eee cece Carl Zeller

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical

aGEeetroOleum, Eneinecrs, Washington Section. «2... .2...2..¢2se- sees oe ence en- Ronald Munson

Meret e@ apital ASthOMOMOCNS 0% 6 Greet 63 wore ae wie © acd os vneldinww fered Sin dieieie.s Robert H. McCracken

Mathematics Association of America, MD-DC-VA Section................000e ee eeee Alfred B. Willcox

PP MBITSELIUIEC HO Le CO ICIMISIS: Soret rey s/s creer) Ase ol avetoicatia cs castele cy Eveveus ivshe syeteve sa ainieroks Miloslav Rechcigl, Jr.

PP ESVCUOIOPICAlV ASSOCIATION ee a, chien sabe Sse loos olde ere sg Seslinls alatalan ots Sinha big fone srenincele Bert T. King

SeASHMAPLONML Ainl tml ClmCals GROUP och ike men aes Ys ecco <a)e Athi whe ni pa lesaie/s. alstnye Sioyainuss Robert F. Brady

mimerican Phytopathological Society, Potomac Division..............--..--+---c++-- Roger H. Lawson

Society for General Systems Research, Metropolitan Washington Chapter ..... Ronald W. Manderscheid

Rai eMACLOrs SOCIety, POLOMACCNADLer jase: a2 2 oc ce ee Sieire ee cpio icie edeie'e se Oa tele Stanley Deutsch

PME AMR ISHCTICS: SOCIELY. LOtOmac)@NApten:. 2)... .)s 006s nos een ee ols Peis en shee tse we Robert J. Sousa

ESociaionmton Science, Lechnology and Innovation... ...2:.5.¢2.66. 06-5400 05s ee tee one Ralph I. Cole

SAE CEMESCCIOIODICAILSOCIELV irr pio eo ico Sure aise Mae neal baie d Oieidlerads clea ees Ronald W. Manderscheid

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Northern Virginia Section.............. Ralph I. Cole

Association for Computing Machinery, Washington Chapter.....................--. James J. Pottmyer

SR ASMP LOMESALISLICAl SOCIELY Meee Sorta ole cio oe Re Rinse siis ein sa yeas een aeerd nde R. Clifton Bailey

Delegates continue in office until new selections are made by the representative societies.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES

MC

01303 2172

Arlington, Va. 22201 iti en as

. and additional mailing offices.

eturn Requested with Form 3579