- Email: [email protected]
Statement
Technology
Pergamon
In Sociery, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 3141,
1991 Copyright 0 1997 Ekvier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0160-791x/97 $17.oo+o.00
D. Allan Bromley
Science has always been one of the most international of human activities. As we move into the 21st century there is a growing global consensus not only that science will inevitably play an increasing role in all our lives, but also that we need entirely new mechanisms, both to foster the advancement of science and to make its benefits accessible to many more of those on our small and fragile planet. The increasing internationalization of science is being driven by many recent developments. Among these are the recognition that the costs of major facilities defining the frontiers in many areas of science are outstripping the resources of even the most affluent countries; the recognition that modem communications technology makes remote utilization of major facilities entirely feasible and greatly facilitates long range cooperation; the recognition that increasingly the most serious societal problems, e.g., environmental stewardship and world population growth, are truly global in scope and scale; and, the recognition that the number of nations now doing frontier science, and capable of doing it, is increasing rapidly. It is essential, from the outset, that it be understood that the heart and soul of true international scientific cooperation is that between individual scientists, wherever they may be based. However, to facilitate such cooperation - and that involving groups of scientists sharing common interests - a certain level of international infrastructure is mandatory. Such infrastructure must foster international collaboration and not inject bureaucratic impediments into international science. This question of infrastructure deserves further comment. If we are to succeed in involving a much larger fraction of the world’s nations than is now the case, we need to recognize from the outset that there are certain essential national prerequisites to effective participation in the international scientific community. Among them are an adequate agricultural economy, a stable and supportive political environment, a stable, quality educational D. Allan Bromley is the Sterling Professor of the Sciences and Dean of Engineering at Yale University. From 1989 to 1993, Dr Bromley was the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Director of the 0f)ce of Science and Technology Policy in the white House. He is a recipient of numerous honors, including a Guggenheim Fellowship, and the Presidential Medal from the New York Academy of Sciences. Most recently, Dr Bromley was bonored as an Academician of the International Higher Education Academy of Sciences, in Moscow. Dr Bromley received his doctorate in physics from the University of Rochester. 37
38
D. Allan Bromley
system, and an indigenous science and technology enterprise that can provide challenging employment and career opportunities for scientists and engineers. It is essential - and often forgotten because those involved in planning meetings such as this one in Bellagio tend to be older - that the focus must be on young scientists. They own the future! Whatever the new cooperative infrastructure may ultimately be, it must be one with which young scientists are comfortable, one to whose design they will feel that they have had open access, and one that meets their needs for effective international cooperation. In this context, it will be important to understand why young scientists are much less likely to consider spending one or more years abroad today, as an integral part of their early career trajectory, than they were perhaps twenty years ago. The reasons are complex but a successful new infrastructure must be responsive to them. The existing international scientific infrastructure organizations and institutions fall into two broad classes - governmental and non-governmental. The outstanding example of the latter is ICSU with its member unions. ICSU has done yeoman service for world science in fostering international conferences, communication and free circulation of scientists, but it lacks the resources, staff, and structure to address many of the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. Currently, many argue that ICSU is involved in too many of its own projects, instead of facilitating those brought in from outside. It bears emphasis that most truly innovative ideas come from individuals, but such individuals encounter formidable and often insurmountable obstacles to implementing these ideas when they require substantial resources, organization and staffing. Whatever new mechanisms for international cooperation may emerge must operate to reduce or remove such obstacles. Of course, ICSU is a member of the UNESCO family and it might seem natural to begin our discussion directly under the United Nations umbrella. Unfortunately, and with outstanding exceptions - as in the case of the World Health Organization and its eminently successful attack on smallpox - UNESCO has not been successful in addressing science, the “S” part of its mandate. Again, the reasons are complex, but there is enough negative history and baggage associated with UNESCO (the United States, for example, has not chosen to renew its membership in UNESCO) that, in my opinion, it would be a mistake not to argue for an entirely independent, fresh start. Among the intergovernmental organizations, CERN, and, formerly, Dubna, stand as outstanding examples of multinational cooperation. The Third World Academy in Trieste is unique in the access to international science that it provides to scientists from the developing world. More contemporary creations are ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (a joint project of the European Community, Japan, Russia, the United States, and the Inter American Institute for the Environment, which includes some
Statement
39
22 nations in the Americas), and the Human Frontiers Program, established in Stasbourg as a Japanese initiative in the life sciences that continues to attract national members. In contrast, the American Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) is an example of a frontier initiative that failed because it was not internationalized from the outset when competition, rather than cooperation, was the driving motivation. What lessons have we learned from the past? What are the essential characteristics of a new 21st century approach to international scientific cooperation? Clearly, the cooperation must be advantageous to all the participants, and it is essential that there be a sharp distinction between cooperation among equals and the various forms of foreign aid. In today’s world it is essential that the focus be on fundamental scientific research open to all; this does not preclude work on generic technologies but does mean that we should avoid activities that are directly relevant to the competitive international marketplace. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that a large fraction of the world’s scientists are employed in directly marketdriven industrial organizations. Past attempts by the ICSU Unions to develop effective ways to bring such scientists into their activities, with the exception of the IUPAC series of CHEMRAWN (Chemistry Research Applied to World Needs), have not been successful. The challenge will be to provide a structure that includes all three categories of scientists - academic, industrial and governmental -without becoming strangled by questions of patents, copyrights, intellectual property rights, and market share. We in the United States have, in such projects as the SSC and the Space Station, earned a reputation as an unreliable partner in international science and technology. This has two root causes. First, we have not been adequately sensitive or responsive to the entirely appropriate demands of our partners for timely information concerning our activities, nor have we provided access to the early discussions and decisions as would have been essential to true partnership. Second, in the absence of formal treaty obligations, we do not, as is customary for our international partners, appropriate the entire funding for a project when it is originally approved, but rather return to Congress for the required annual funding - something that our partners find difficult to understand, particularly since, by tradition, no Congress can commit any subsequent one to a particular course of action on funding. Correction of the first problem requires simply increased sensitivity, but of the second requires either treaty obligation or innovative multi-year authorization and appropriation in Congress. Whatever the mechanism, partners in international projects must be able to rely on the commitments made by any and all of the participants. Whatever the organizational structure, it is essential that implementation mechanisms be built in from the outset; otherwise, degeneration into a discussion forum is almost inevitable. It bears emphasis that not everyone is convinced of the benefits of international scientific cooperation. A recent report of the US Congressional
40
D. Allan Bromley
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) emphasizes the potential for loss of scientific leadership, the possibility that cost savings may be substantially less than projected, and the possibility that the increased bureaucratic complexity of international management may lead to increased costs, increased delays, and, in general, increased viscosity. These are real concerns that must be addressed directly and openly. What, then, are some of the approaches to improved structures for international scientific cooperation in the 21st century? ICSU provides a possible starting point. To become a truly effective vehicle for cooperation it would require very substantially increased staff and resources. It would also require substantial restructuring. The current Executive Board is composed of representatives of the member scientific and technological unions; this should probably remain. An additional senior board comprised of representatives of the member countries’ national scientific communities would be essential to provide the necessary accountability; an implementing body comprising representatives of the member governments - with authority to commit resources to approved projects - would also seem essential. A great many detailed decisions would be required in establishing this Super-ICSU, but with good will none should prove too difficult. The MegaScience Forum established within the OECD in 1992 has been, in my opinion, a very successful experiment in international cooperation in its initial three year existence; it has provided a very important learning environment for those involved with large projects in international science. As emphasized at the 1995 OECD Ministerial Meeting, however, the Forum’s activities highlighted the need for an implementation mechanism to follow up on decisions made within the Forum and the US delegation did suggest specific mechanisms to this end as part of the Forum renewal discussions. It must be noted, too, that many scientists have objected to the OECD as the vehicle for enhanced international cooperation because its membership does not include many of the nations of the developing world. While the MegaScience Forum made specific provision for the inclusion of all interested nations in its activities, this objection to the OECD is again one that must be given serious consideration. A much expanded Carnegie Group would, in my opinion, be an important part of any restructuring of the international scientific infrastructure. As originally founded, under the aegis of the Carnegie Commission, this was a group comprising the senior scientific ministers, or advisors to the heads of state, of the G-7 countries (Canada, European Community, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus the Soviet Union (subsequently Russia). It meets twice a year but in contrast to the usual, formal, heavily staffed governmental meetings that were, and still are, customary, these Group meetings are entirely informal, without fixed agendas, without staff, and without reports or press coverage. They were designed so that the members could get to know one another on a personal basis,
Statement
41
and thus feel entirely comfortable in picking up a telephone to resolve international questions before they became international problems. More recently, and again under the sponsorship of the Carnegie Commission, a parallel regional group of senior governmental scientists was convened for the Latin American countries. I would suggest that other such regional groups be assembled, perhaps in Africa and in southeast Asia, and that Brazil, China, and India be added to the original Carnegie Group. Any attempt to bring all such groups into a single entity would, I believe, be doomed to failure, but once such regional groups were assembled and functioning I assume they would quickly evolve mechanisms to send representatives to perhaps annual discussions that would focus on the truly global scientific issues. It would be extremely important, based on my experience with the original Carnegie Group, to keep all these discussions informal for the reasons stated. Such discussions would provide a very important communication linkage at the highest levels of government and would complement whatever mechanisms may emerge from the discussions which are initiated at this Bellagio meeting. Finally, I should like to make a specific suggestion for a possible, new, non-governmental, international infrastructure that in some sense would parallel the informal Carnegie Group activities. The time has come when it may be appropriate to consider bringing the world’s leading universities, however defined - with their unique resources, expertise, and regional understanding - into more formal regional groupings that would, in turn, create a representative coordinating umbrella body. In many ways these universities are natural representatives of their national scientific communities with the potentially very important additional benefit of providing for a future inclusion of both social sciences and the humanities - all of which are essential, in the long run, if we are to address, successfully, many of our most pressing global scientific and technological issues. The stakes are high and the opportunities great.
Pergamon
In Sociery, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 3141,
1991 Copyright 0 1997 Ekvier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0160-791x/97 $17.oo+o.00
D. Allan Bromley
Science has always been one of the most international of human activities. As we move into the 21st century there is a growing global consensus not only that science will inevitably play an increasing role in all our lives, but also that we need entirely new mechanisms, both to foster the advancement of science and to make its benefits accessible to many more of those on our small and fragile planet. The increasing internationalization of science is being driven by many recent developments. Among these are the recognition that the costs of major facilities defining the frontiers in many areas of science are outstripping the resources of even the most affluent countries; the recognition that modem communications technology makes remote utilization of major facilities entirely feasible and greatly facilitates long range cooperation; the recognition that increasingly the most serious societal problems, e.g., environmental stewardship and world population growth, are truly global in scope and scale; and, the recognition that the number of nations now doing frontier science, and capable of doing it, is increasing rapidly. It is essential, from the outset, that it be understood that the heart and soul of true international scientific cooperation is that between individual scientists, wherever they may be based. However, to facilitate such cooperation - and that involving groups of scientists sharing common interests - a certain level of international infrastructure is mandatory. Such infrastructure must foster international collaboration and not inject bureaucratic impediments into international science. This question of infrastructure deserves further comment. If we are to succeed in involving a much larger fraction of the world’s nations than is now the case, we need to recognize from the outset that there are certain essential national prerequisites to effective participation in the international scientific community. Among them are an adequate agricultural economy, a stable and supportive political environment, a stable, quality educational D. Allan Bromley is the Sterling Professor of the Sciences and Dean of Engineering at Yale University. From 1989 to 1993, Dr Bromley was the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Director of the 0f)ce of Science and Technology Policy in the white House. He is a recipient of numerous honors, including a Guggenheim Fellowship, and the Presidential Medal from the New York Academy of Sciences. Most recently, Dr Bromley was bonored as an Academician of the International Higher Education Academy of Sciences, in Moscow. Dr Bromley received his doctorate in physics from the University of Rochester. 37
38
D. Allan Bromley
system, and an indigenous science and technology enterprise that can provide challenging employment and career opportunities for scientists and engineers. It is essential - and often forgotten because those involved in planning meetings such as this one in Bellagio tend to be older - that the focus must be on young scientists. They own the future! Whatever the new cooperative infrastructure may ultimately be, it must be one with which young scientists are comfortable, one to whose design they will feel that they have had open access, and one that meets their needs for effective international cooperation. In this context, it will be important to understand why young scientists are much less likely to consider spending one or more years abroad today, as an integral part of their early career trajectory, than they were perhaps twenty years ago. The reasons are complex but a successful new infrastructure must be responsive to them. The existing international scientific infrastructure organizations and institutions fall into two broad classes - governmental and non-governmental. The outstanding example of the latter is ICSU with its member unions. ICSU has done yeoman service for world science in fostering international conferences, communication and free circulation of scientists, but it lacks the resources, staff, and structure to address many of the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. Currently, many argue that ICSU is involved in too many of its own projects, instead of facilitating those brought in from outside. It bears emphasis that most truly innovative ideas come from individuals, but such individuals encounter formidable and often insurmountable obstacles to implementing these ideas when they require substantial resources, organization and staffing. Whatever new mechanisms for international cooperation may emerge must operate to reduce or remove such obstacles. Of course, ICSU is a member of the UNESCO family and it might seem natural to begin our discussion directly under the United Nations umbrella. Unfortunately, and with outstanding exceptions - as in the case of the World Health Organization and its eminently successful attack on smallpox - UNESCO has not been successful in addressing science, the “S” part of its mandate. Again, the reasons are complex, but there is enough negative history and baggage associated with UNESCO (the United States, for example, has not chosen to renew its membership in UNESCO) that, in my opinion, it would be a mistake not to argue for an entirely independent, fresh start. Among the intergovernmental organizations, CERN, and, formerly, Dubna, stand as outstanding examples of multinational cooperation. The Third World Academy in Trieste is unique in the access to international science that it provides to scientists from the developing world. More contemporary creations are ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (a joint project of the European Community, Japan, Russia, the United States, and the Inter American Institute for the Environment, which includes some
Statement
39
22 nations in the Americas), and the Human Frontiers Program, established in Stasbourg as a Japanese initiative in the life sciences that continues to attract national members. In contrast, the American Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) is an example of a frontier initiative that failed because it was not internationalized from the outset when competition, rather than cooperation, was the driving motivation. What lessons have we learned from the past? What are the essential characteristics of a new 21st century approach to international scientific cooperation? Clearly, the cooperation must be advantageous to all the participants, and it is essential that there be a sharp distinction between cooperation among equals and the various forms of foreign aid. In today’s world it is essential that the focus be on fundamental scientific research open to all; this does not preclude work on generic technologies but does mean that we should avoid activities that are directly relevant to the competitive international marketplace. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that a large fraction of the world’s scientists are employed in directly marketdriven industrial organizations. Past attempts by the ICSU Unions to develop effective ways to bring such scientists into their activities, with the exception of the IUPAC series of CHEMRAWN (Chemistry Research Applied to World Needs), have not been successful. The challenge will be to provide a structure that includes all three categories of scientists - academic, industrial and governmental -without becoming strangled by questions of patents, copyrights, intellectual property rights, and market share. We in the United States have, in such projects as the SSC and the Space Station, earned a reputation as an unreliable partner in international science and technology. This has two root causes. First, we have not been adequately sensitive or responsive to the entirely appropriate demands of our partners for timely information concerning our activities, nor have we provided access to the early discussions and decisions as would have been essential to true partnership. Second, in the absence of formal treaty obligations, we do not, as is customary for our international partners, appropriate the entire funding for a project when it is originally approved, but rather return to Congress for the required annual funding - something that our partners find difficult to understand, particularly since, by tradition, no Congress can commit any subsequent one to a particular course of action on funding. Correction of the first problem requires simply increased sensitivity, but of the second requires either treaty obligation or innovative multi-year authorization and appropriation in Congress. Whatever the mechanism, partners in international projects must be able to rely on the commitments made by any and all of the participants. Whatever the organizational structure, it is essential that implementation mechanisms be built in from the outset; otherwise, degeneration into a discussion forum is almost inevitable. It bears emphasis that not everyone is convinced of the benefits of international scientific cooperation. A recent report of the US Congressional
40
D. Allan Bromley
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) emphasizes the potential for loss of scientific leadership, the possibility that cost savings may be substantially less than projected, and the possibility that the increased bureaucratic complexity of international management may lead to increased costs, increased delays, and, in general, increased viscosity. These are real concerns that must be addressed directly and openly. What, then, are some of the approaches to improved structures for international scientific cooperation in the 21st century? ICSU provides a possible starting point. To become a truly effective vehicle for cooperation it would require very substantially increased staff and resources. It would also require substantial restructuring. The current Executive Board is composed of representatives of the member scientific and technological unions; this should probably remain. An additional senior board comprised of representatives of the member countries’ national scientific communities would be essential to provide the necessary accountability; an implementing body comprising representatives of the member governments - with authority to commit resources to approved projects - would also seem essential. A great many detailed decisions would be required in establishing this Super-ICSU, but with good will none should prove too difficult. The MegaScience Forum established within the OECD in 1992 has been, in my opinion, a very successful experiment in international cooperation in its initial three year existence; it has provided a very important learning environment for those involved with large projects in international science. As emphasized at the 1995 OECD Ministerial Meeting, however, the Forum’s activities highlighted the need for an implementation mechanism to follow up on decisions made within the Forum and the US delegation did suggest specific mechanisms to this end as part of the Forum renewal discussions. It must be noted, too, that many scientists have objected to the OECD as the vehicle for enhanced international cooperation because its membership does not include many of the nations of the developing world. While the MegaScience Forum made specific provision for the inclusion of all interested nations in its activities, this objection to the OECD is again one that must be given serious consideration. A much expanded Carnegie Group would, in my opinion, be an important part of any restructuring of the international scientific infrastructure. As originally founded, under the aegis of the Carnegie Commission, this was a group comprising the senior scientific ministers, or advisors to the heads of state, of the G-7 countries (Canada, European Community, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus the Soviet Union (subsequently Russia). It meets twice a year but in contrast to the usual, formal, heavily staffed governmental meetings that were, and still are, customary, these Group meetings are entirely informal, without fixed agendas, without staff, and without reports or press coverage. They were designed so that the members could get to know one another on a personal basis,
Statement
41
and thus feel entirely comfortable in picking up a telephone to resolve international questions before they became international problems. More recently, and again under the sponsorship of the Carnegie Commission, a parallel regional group of senior governmental scientists was convened for the Latin American countries. I would suggest that other such regional groups be assembled, perhaps in Africa and in southeast Asia, and that Brazil, China, and India be added to the original Carnegie Group. Any attempt to bring all such groups into a single entity would, I believe, be doomed to failure, but once such regional groups were assembled and functioning I assume they would quickly evolve mechanisms to send representatives to perhaps annual discussions that would focus on the truly global scientific issues. It would be extremely important, based on my experience with the original Carnegie Group, to keep all these discussions informal for the reasons stated. Such discussions would provide a very important communication linkage at the highest levels of government and would complement whatever mechanisms may emerge from the discussions which are initiated at this Bellagio meeting. Finally, I should like to make a specific suggestion for a possible, new, non-governmental, international infrastructure that in some sense would parallel the informal Carnegie Group activities. The time has come when it may be appropriate to consider bringing the world’s leading universities, however defined - with their unique resources, expertise, and regional understanding - into more formal regional groupings that would, in turn, create a representative coordinating umbrella body. In many ways these universities are natural representatives of their national scientific communities with the potentially very important additional benefit of providing for a future inclusion of both social sciences and the humanities - all of which are essential, in the long run, if we are to address, successfully, many of our most pressing global scientific and technological issues. The stakes are high and the opportunities great.