Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy: Background and Issues for Congress

Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy:
Background and Issues for Congress
Updated June 20, 2008
Deborah D. Stine
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy:
Background and Issues for Congress
Summary
Science and engineering activities have always been international. Scientists,
engineers, and health professionals frequently communicate and cooperate with one
another without regard to national boundaries. This report discusses international
science and technology (S&T) diplomacy, instances when American leadership in
S&T is used as a diplomatic tool to enhance another country’s development and to
improve understanding by other nations of U.S. values and ways of doing business.
According to the National Research Council, five developmental challenges where
S&T could play a role include child health and child survival, safe water, agricultural
research to reduce hunger and poverty, micro-economic reform, and mitigation of
natural disasters.
Title V of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY1979 (P.L. 95-426)
provides the current legislative guidance for U.S. international S&T policy. This act
states that Department of State (DOS) is the lead federal agency in developing S&T
agreements. The National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and
Priorities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-282) states that the director of the White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is to advise the President on international
S&T cooperation policies and the role of S&T considerations in foreign relations.
DOS sets the overall policy direction for U.S. international S&T diplomacy, and
works with other federal agencies as needed. Within DOS, the Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) coordinates international
S&T activities. The Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State
(STAS) provides S&T advice to the Secretary and the director of the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID). OSTP acts as a interagency liaison. A
number of federal agencies that both sponsor research and use S&T in developing
policy are involved in international S&T policy.
A fundamental question is why the United States should invest in international
S&T diplomacy instead of domestic research and development (R&D) and science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics education (STEM) activities, which are
facing budget constraints. If Congress should decide that funding international S&T
activities is important, agreeing on a policy goal beyond enhancing the country’s
development, such as improving U.S. relations with other countries, or enhancing
popular opinion of the United States may help set priorities.
Policy options identified for Congress by expert committees who have assessed
U.S. international S&T diplomacy efforts include taking actions in response to
concerns about (1) the lack of S&T expertise, presence, and global engagement at
DOS, (2) a decline in support for S&T capacity at USAID, and (3) a lack of coherent
and integrated international S&T policy direction and federal coordination role at
OSTP. Reversing those trends would likely require additional financial resources
and personnel with expertise in S&T. Possible additional actions include enhancing
the prominence of, and coordination among, S&T leaders at OES, STAS, and OSTP.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Overview of Current U.S. International Science and Technology (S&T) Policy.2
Department of State (DOS)......................................2
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
Affairs (OES).........................................3
Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State (STAS)...4
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).............4
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
and the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) ........5
Role of Other Federal Agencies and Nongovernmental Organizations.....5
Role of Congress..................................................6
S&T Expertise, Presence, and Global Engagement at DOS.............9
S&T Capacity at USAID........................................9
International S&T Policy Direction and Federal Coordination at OSTP
and NSTC..............................................11
Additional Considerations......................................11
List of Tables
Table 1. U.S. Objectives in International Research and Development Programs.7
Table 2. International Science and Technology Policy Mechanisms.........10

Science, Technology, and American
Diplomacy: Background and Issues for
Congress
Introduction
Scientists, engineers, and health professionals frequently communicate and
cooperate with one another without regard to national boundaries. Dating back to the
1700s, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are thought of as the nation’s first
scientific diplomats.¹ Scientists and inventors themselves, they corresponded with
colleagues and brought knowledge back from their visits to Europe to enhance the
development and policies of the very young United States. Today, the United States
serves the same role for other countries that are in the early stages of development
or at a major point of transition. Congress is currently discussing how to maximize
the effectiveness of these international science and technology (S&T) policy
activities.²
This report provides an overview of current U.S. international S&T policy;
describes the role of the Department of State (DOS), the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), and other federal agencies; and discusses possible policy
options for Congress. It focuses on international science and technology diplomacy,
where American leadership in science and technology is used as a diplomatic tool to
enhance another country’s development and to improve understanding by other
nations of U.S. values and ways of doing business. These efforts could focus on both
enhancing a nation’s science and technology (S&T) resources, as well as addressing
developmental challenges where S&T could play a role. According to the National
Research Council, five potential challenges include child health and child survival,
safe water, agricultural research to reduce hunger and poverty, micro-economic
reform, and mitigation of natural disasters.³

¹ Silvio A. Bedini, Thomas Jefferson: Statesman of Science (New York: Macmillian, 1990).
I. Bernard Cohen, Benjamin Franklin’s Science (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1996). Joyce E. Chaplin, The First Scientific American: Benjamin Franklin and the Pursuit
of Genius (New York: Basic Books, 2007).
² See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, International Science and Technology^th^nd
Cooperation, hearing, 110 Cong., 2 sess., April 2, 2008, at
[http://science.house.gov/ publications/hearings _markups_details.aspx?News ID=2134].
³ National Research Council, The Fundamental Role of Science and Technology in
International Development: An Imperative for the U.S. Agency for International
(continued...)

Overview of Current U.S. International Science and
Technology (S&T) Policy
Title V of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1979 (P.L.
95-426, 22 U.S.C. 2656a - 22 U.S.C. 2656d, as amended) provides the current
legislative guidance for U.S. international S&T policy, and made DOS the lead
federal agency in developing S&T agreements.⁴ In that act, Congress found that the
consequences of modern S&T advances are of major significance in U.S. foreign
policy — providing many problems and opportunities — meaning that its diplomacy
workforce should have an appropriate level of knowledge of these topics. Further,
it indicated that this workforce should conduct long-range planning to make effective
use of S&T in international relations, and seek out and consult with public and
private industrial, academic, and research institutions in the formulation,
implementation, and evaluation of U.S. foreign policy.
The National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act
of 1976 (P.L. 94-282) states that the OSTP director is to advise the President on S&T
considerations in foreign relations. Further, the OSTP director is to “assess and
advise [the President] on policies for international cooperation in S&T which will
advance the national and international objectives of the United States.” The
following sections discuss the international S&T activities of DOS, OSTP, USAID,
and other federal agencies.
Department of State (DOS)
DOS sets the overall policy direction for U.S. international S&T diplomacy, and
works with other federal agencies, as needed. In its May 2007 strategic plan, DOS
and USAID identify the following key S&T diplomatic strategies:
^!encourage science and technology cooperation to advance
knowledge in areas related to water management;
^!promote sharing of knowledge in the international scientific
community that will enhance the efficiency and hasten the fruition
of U.S. research efforts, and promote international scientific
collaboration;
^!strengthen major international collaborations on cutting-edge energy
technology research and development in carbon sequestration,

³ (...continued)
Development (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2006), at
[http://www.nap.edu/catal og.php?record_id=11583].
⁴ According to DOS, science and technology agreements “establish frameworks to facilitate
the exchange of scientific results, provide for protection and allocation of intellectual
property rights and benefit sharing, facilitate access for researchers, address taxation issues,
and respond to the complex set of issues associated with economic development, domestic
security and regional stability.” See State Department, “List of Umbrella S&T Agreements,”
at [http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/fs/2006/77212.htm] for more information.

biofuels, clean coal power generation, as well as hydrogen, methane,
and wind power;
^!apply research including promotion of technological improvements
to foster more sustainable natural resource use, conservation of
biodiversity, and resilience to climate change impacts;
^!support scientific and technological applications, including
biotechnology, that harness new technology to raise agricultural
productivity and provide a more stable, nutritious, and affordable
food supply; and
^!enhance outreach to key communities in the private sector.⁵
DOS uses a variety of tools to implement this strategy, such as formal bilateral S&T
cooperation agreements that facilitate international collaboration by federal agencies;
promotion and support of S&T entrepreneurs and innovators;⁶ scientist and student
exchanges; workshops, conferences, and meetings; public-private partnerships; seed
funding for scientific programs and innovation activities; and production of
educational materials, including films, websites, posters, and cards.⁷
Within the State Department, the Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) coordinates international S&T activities,
and the Science and Technology Advisor (STAS) provides S&T advice to the
Secretary of State, DOS staff, and the director of USAID. USAID is an independent
federal government agency that, with guidance from DOS, supports developmental
and U.S. strategic interests, among other duties.
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
Affairs (OES). OES coordinates international S&T cooperative activities
throughout the federal government.⁸ Within OES is the Health, Space, and Science⁹
Directorate, which works with federal agencies on S&T policy issues. In addition,
some U.S. embassies have bilateral Environment, Science, Technology, and Health

⁵ U.S. Department of State/U.S. Agency for International Development Strategic Plan, Fiscal
Years 2007-2012: Transformational Democracy, May 7, 2007, available at
[http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ coor dination/stratplan_fy07-12.pdf].
⁶ This report does not discuss issues related to the promotion and support of technological
innovation such as export controls or technology, trade, and security issues. For more
information on these issues, see CRS Report RL31832, The Export Administration Act:
Evolution, Provisions, and Debate, by Ian F. Fergusson, and CRS Report RL32591, U.S.
Terms of Trade: Significance, Trends, and Policy, by Craig K. Elwell.
⁷ Jeff Miotke, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, Space, and Health, OES, DOS,
Testimony before the House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on
Research and Science Education, International Science and Technology Cooperation,110th^nd
Cong. 2 sess., April 2, 2008, at [http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/
Commdocs/hearings /2008/Resear ch/2apr/Miotke_T estimony.pdf].
⁸ For more information, see [http://www.state.gov/g/oes/c20049.htm]. The FY2008 budget
estimate for OES is $31 million. See State Department FY2009 budget justification,
available at [http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/statecbj/2009/].
⁹ According to the FY2009 State Department budget justification, the FY2008 budget
estimate for this directorate is $4 million and includes 24 staff members.

foreign service officers. Embassies may host their own country-specific activities
such as joint research grants, junior scientist visit grants, events, and workshops.
Some have a joint board that includes both scientists from the host country as well
as government scientists to oversee these activities.¹⁰ There are also “hubs” that
focus on environmental issues on a regional basis.
Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State (STAS).
Within the State Department, but distinct from the OES, is the Science and¹¹
Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State (STAS). The STAS acts as an advisor
for both DOS and USAID. The goals of this office are to enhance the S&T literacy
and capacity of DOS; build partnerships with the outside S&T community, within the
U.S. government, with S&T partners abroad, and with foreign embassies in the
United States; provide accurate S&T advice to DOS; and shape a global perspective
on the emerging and “at the horizon” S&T developments anticipated to affect current¹²
and future U.S. foreign policy.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID is an
independent federal government agency with the goal of supporting transformational
development, strengthening fragile states, supporting U.S. geostrategic interests,
addressing transnational problems, and providing humanitarian relief.¹³ Although
independent, USAID’s overall foreign policy guidance comes from the Secretary of
State. At one time S&T had a major role at USAID. Today, however, S&T capacity,
staffing, and funding, particularly in overseas missions, are far less than in the past.¹⁴

¹⁰ For an illustration, see [http://egypt.usembassy.gov/usegypt/contacts.htm].
¹¹ For more information, see Nina Fedoroff, Science and Technology Adviser to the
Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID, Testimony before the House Committee
on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,^nd
International Science and Technology Cooperation,110th Cong. 2 sess., April 2, 2008, at
[http://democrats.science.house.gov/ Media/File/ C o mmd o c s / h e a r i n gs / 2008/Research/2apr/
Fedoroff_T estimony.pdf].
¹² For more information, see [http://www.state.gov/g/stas/c6063.htm].
¹³ U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID Primer: What We Do and How We
Do It, January 2006, at [http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/PDACG100.pdf].
¹⁴ National Research Council, The Fundamental Role of Science and Technology in
International Development: An Imperative for the U.S. Agency for International
Development (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2006) at
[http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11583]. Nina Fedoroff, Science and
Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID, Testimony
before the House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Research and^nd
Science Education, International Science and Technology Cooperation,110th Cong. 2
sess., April 2, 2008, at [http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/

2008/Research/2apr/Fedoroff_T estimony.pdf].

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
and the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
OSTP, a staff office within the Executive Office of the President (EOP), does
not fund domestic or international programs. Rather, the Assistant to the Director for
International Relations acts as a liaison: within the EOP, to organizations such as the
National Security Council; with federal agencies, including DOS and the
international offices of federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation; and
with the science liaisons of foreign country embassies in the United States.¹⁵ Within
OSTP, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), currently established
by Executive Order 12881, coordinates S&T policy across the federal government.¹⁶
Management of international S&T policy issues at OSTP and NSTC has varied
among Presidential administrations. During the Clinton Administration, OSTP had
a Presidentially-appointed associate director whose primary focus was on
international policy. This presidential appointee, along with a DOS presidential
appointee, co-chaired a NSTC Committee on International Science, Engineering, and
Technology (CISET) that addressed “international science cooperation as it related
to foreign policy and the Nation’s research and development (R&D) agenda.”¹⁷ In
the George W. Bush Administration, rather than an OSTP political appointee focused
on international issues, there is a staff member who serves as an assistant to the¹⁸
director for international affairs. Another difference is that rather than focusing an
NSTC committee on overall international S&T policy, OSTP coordinates federal
international S&T activities through NSTC committees that focus on a particular
topic, like nanotechnology, or a specific country, like Brazil.¹⁹
Role of Other Federal Agencies and Nongovernmental
Organizations
A number of federal agencies that both sponsor research and use S&T in
developing policy are involved in international S&T policy. These include National
Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health, Department of Energy,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Agriculture,

¹⁵ John H. Marburger, Director, OSTP, Testimony before the House Committee on Science
and Technology, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, International Science^nd
and Technology Cooperation, 110th Cong. 2 sess., April 2, 2008, at
[http://democrats.science.house.gov/ Media/File/Co mmd o c s / h e a r i n gs / 2008/Research/2apr/
Marburger_T estimony.pdf].
¹⁶ National Science and Technology Council, at [http://www.ostp.gov/cs/nstc].
¹⁷ National Science and Technology Council, 2000 Annual Report, at [http://www.ostp.gov/
pdf/nstc_ar.pdf].
¹⁸ John H. Marburger, Director, OSTP, Testimony before the House Committee on Science
and Technology, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, International Science^nd
and Technology Cooperation, 110th Cong. 2 sess., April 2, 2008, at
[http://democrats.science.hous e.go v/ M e di a/ Fi l e / Commdocs / hear i n gs / 2008/ Res e ar ch/ 2apr/
Marburger_T estimony.pdf].
¹⁹ Ibid.

Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Interior, and others.²⁰ Federal
programs may be formal “top-down” activities focused on the agencies’ mission and
identified by agency leadership, or “bottom-up” activities identified by scientists and
engineers. Examples of “Top-down” activities include the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and
Information Service focused on Earth observation data exchange, or the National
Institute for Science and Technology (NIST)’s development of uniform measurement
standards for ethanol and biodiesel. “Bottom-up” activities often arise from
proposals submitted in response to a specific solicitation or as part of a general
solicitation for research in their field.²¹
Role of Congress
An April 2008 House Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education hearing examined global and domestic benefits
from cooperation in science and technology.²² One fundamental question asked
during the hearing was why the United States should support international science
diplomacy rather than invest in domestic R&D. Table 1 provides a summary of the
Administration’s response.
For the United States to be competitive, according to Administration witnesses,
it needs to know where the frontier of science is occurring. As other countries
increase their investment in higher education and R&D, the top science and
engineering research and facilities may not be in the United States, but in other
countries. This increases the importance of U.S. investment in international S&T
diplomatic activities, say Administration witnesses, including federal programs that
support U.S. scientists’ collaborations with foreign scientists, and access to the best
research facilities in the world, as well as enhancing the international connections of
U.S. science and engineering students and leaders. In addition, U.S. science and
engineering higher education and research helps developing countries by enhancing
their human resource capacity, and as a result, their ability to achieve long-term
development. These international connections can be important, say witnesses, not
just for those countries, but in helping the U.S. respond to global challenges such as
infectious diseases such as avian flu. Further, according to an Administration
witness, international cooperative activities at their agency in almost all instances are

²⁰ A description of federal agency international S&T activities is provided in Jeff Miotke,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, Space, and Health, OES, DOS, Testimony before
the House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Research and Science^nd
Education, International Science and Technology Cooperation,110th Cong. 2 sess., April

2, 2008, at [http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/

2008/Research/2apr/Miotke_T estimony.pdf].

²¹ Ibid.
²² U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Research
and Science Education, International Science and Technology Cooperation, hearing, 110^th^nd
Cong., 2 sess., April 2, 2008, at [http://science.house.gov/publications/
hearings _markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2134].

conducted on a “no exchange of funds” basis with U.S. funding supporting U.S.
scientists and engineers, not those in the cooperating country.²³
Table 1. U.S. Objectives in International Research and
Development Programs
1. To maintain and continually improve the quality of U.S. science by applying global
standards of excellence. (Performing science to the highest standards)
2. To provide access by U.S. scientists to the frontiers of science without regard to
national borders. (Access to the frontiers of science)

3. To increase the productivity of U.S. science through collaborations between U.S.

scientists and the world’s leading scientists, regardless of national origin. (Access to
scientific talent)
4. To strengthen U.S. science through visits, exchanges, and immigration by outstanding
scientists from other nations. (Augmentation of scientific human capital)
5. To increase U.S. national security and economic prosperity by fostering the
improvement of conditions in other countries through increased technical capability.
(Security through technology-based equity)
6. To accelerate the progress of science across a broader front than the U.S. may choose
to pursue with its own resources. (Leveraging on foreign science capabilities)

7. To improve understanding by other nations of U.S. values and ways of doing business.

(Science diplomacy)

8. To address U.S. interests of such global nature that the U.S. alone cannot satisfy them.

(Global support for global scientific issues)
9. To discharge obligations negotiated in connection with treaties. (Science as a tradable
asset)

10. To increase U.S. prestige and influence with other nations. (Science for glory)

^Source:^J^o^{hn M}^a^r^b^ur^ge^r^,^Dⁱ^r^e^c^t^o^r^,^O^ffi^c^e^o^f^Scⁱ^e^nc^e^aⁿ^d^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gy^P^o^lⁱ^c^y^,^“N^a^tⁱ^o^na^l^S^cⁱ^e^nc^e
^{Board Hearin}^g^on^In^tern^ation^a^{l S}^c^ien^{ce P}^a^rtn^e^rs^hⁱ^ps^{,” s}^p^{eech, May}^{11, 2006. Joh}ⁿ^{H. Marbu}^r^g^e^r,
^{Director, OST}^P^{, R}^e^s^pon^s^e^{to que}^s^tion^s^{at Hou}^s^{e C}^o^m^m^{ittee on}^Scien^{ce an}^{d T}^echⁿ^o^log^y^,
^Su^bcom^m^{ittee on}^R^e^s^earch^an^{d Scien}^{ce Edu}^cation^,^Int^e^rⁿ^a^tⁱ^onal^Sci^e^{nce and T}^echnol^ogy^nd
^C^ooper^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^,110t^h^C^oⁿ^g^.²^s^e^s^s^{., A}^p^{ril 2, 2008, at [}^h^ttp://s^cien^ce.h^o^u^s^e.g^o^v^/^pu^blication^s^/
^h^eariⁿ^g^s^_m^ark^u^p^s^_det^aⁱ^l^s^.as^p^x^?^N^e^w^s^ID^=2134].

²³ Testimony and response to questions by John H. Marburger (OSTP), Arden Bement
(NSF), Nina Fedoroff (STAS), Jeff Mitoke (DOS), and Michael O’Brien (NASA) at U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Research and^th
Science Education, International Science and Technology Cooperation, hearing, 110^nd
Cong., 2 sess., April 2, 2008, at [http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_
details.aspx?NewsID=2134]. A transcript of the hearing is available from Congressional
Quarterly.

If Congress should decide that funding international S&T activities is important,
agreeing on a policy goal beyond enhancing the country’s development, such as
improving U.S. relations with other countries, or enhancing popular opinion of the
United States may help set priorities. Activities funded might differ depending on
those priorities. For example, two possible goals might be (1) improving U.S.
relations with the government of a country or in a region, or (2) raising popular
opinion of the United States in that country or region. In the case of the first goal,
activities might focus on enhancing the foreign government(s) decision-making based
on science and engineering information or providing financial or technical aid to a
country’s science and engineering efforts. In the case of the second goal, activities
might focus on a challenge more visible to the public, such as increasing access to
water, enhancing agricultural productivity, or obtaining high quality STEM
education.
Although the effectiveness of different S&T diplomatic initiatives has not been
studied, the State Department contends that some key elements for success are
finding areas or programs that (1) break new ground, sometimes in a neglected area
of science or development; (2) are educationally and developmentally transformative;
(3) address core developmental issues of poverty and human development; (4)
promote sustainable uses of natural resources; (5) stimulate job creation and private
sector investment; and (6) are collaborative projects with tangible results.²⁴
Six broad categories of international S&T cooperative activities include (1)
agreements; (2) research; (3) facilities and equipment; (4) academic opportunities
from primary through post-secondary education; (5) meetings, dialogues, and visits;
and (6) private sector activities (see Table 2). International S&T cooperative
activities can be multinational, regional, or bilateral. A related question is who might
best lead such efforts relative to the desired goal. Options include scientists,
engineers, and health professionals at academic institutions, business and industry,
and non-governmental organizations; scientists, engineers, and health professionals
who work for the federal government; and S&T federal government leaders.
Expert committees which have assessed U.S. international S&T diplomacy
efforts express concerns about (1) the lack of S&T expertise, presence, and global
engagement at DOS, (2) a decline in support for S&T capacity at USAID, and (3) a
lack of coherent and integrated international S&T policy direction and federal
coordination role at OSTP.

²⁴ Jeff Miotke, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, Space, and Health, OES, DOS,
Testimony before the House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on
Research and Science Education, International Science and Technology Cooperation,110th^nd
Cong. 2 sess., April 2, 2008, at [http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/
Commdocs/hearings /2008/Resear ch/2apr/Miotke_T estimony.pdf].

S&T Expertise, Presence, and Global Engagement at DOS
The report of the State Department Advisory Committee on Transformational
Diplomacy, State Department in 2025 Working Group²⁵ recommends that the State
Department expand its investment in Science, Engineering, and Technology (SET)
expertise, presence, and global engagement. The report’s specific recommendations
include ensuring a baseline of SET literacy among all appropriate Department
personnel, increasing the presence overseas of personnel with significant SET
expertise, and expanding the Department’s engagement within global SET networks
through exchanges, assistance, and joint research activities addressing key global
issues. In addition, the report recommends creating a closer connection between the
roles of the Assistant Secretary for OES and the STAS to bring senior attention to the
full range of SET challenges and opportunities facing the Department. For example,
if the Assistant Secretary for OES is a scientist, that person could serve
simultaneously as the Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State.
Otherwise, the STAS could become the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
(PDAS) in OES.²⁶
S&T Capacity at USAID
A National Research Council (NRC) report recommends Congress and others
take action to reverse what they state is the decline in USAID support for building
S&T capacity, and strengthen the capabilities of its leadership and program managers
in Washington, DC, and in foreign countries on S&T issues. In addition, the report
recommends that Congress encourage other departments and agencies to orient their
S&T developing country programs to support the development priorities of the host
countries, and that USAID take actions to enhance interagency coordination.²⁷

²⁵ State Department, Advisory Committee on Transformational Diplomacy: Final report of
the State Department in 2025 Working Group, at [http://www.state.gov/secretary/diplomacy/

99774.htm].

²⁶ Ibid.
²⁷ National Research Council, The Fundamental Role of Science and Technology in
International Development: An Imperative for the U.S. Agency for International
Development (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2006), at
[http://www.nap.edu/catal og.php?record_id=11583].

Table 2. International Science and Technology Policy
Mechanisms
Agreements
^!Formal multinational, regional, and bilateral agreements between the
U.S. government and the government of another country.
^!Government-level bilateral agreements between a U.S. agency and a
research agency of a foreign country that are related to a
government-level agreement and provide additional details that define
how each agency will cooperate.
^!Agency-level bilateral agreements between a U.S. agency and a
research agency of a foreign country that are not related to a
government-level agreement.
^!Agency-level multilateral agreements between a U.S. agency and
research agencies of international organization and/or of two or more
foreign countries.
Research
^!Joint research sponsorship where a U.S. and foreign researcher, group
of researchers, or institutions work together.
^!Visiting foreign researchers who come to the United States, or U.S.
researchers who visit the foreign country.
^!Sponsorship of foreign researchers in early stage of their careers.
^!Sponsorship of research conducted by a U.S. researcher in a foreign
country or a researcher in the foreign country.
Education
^!Fellowships, research assistantships, and traineeships.
^!Undergraduate and graduate student exchange programs.
^!Visiting foreign lecturers who come to the United States, or U.S.
researchers who visit the foreign country.
^!K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
curriculum development and teacher training, methods, and
certification.
^!Educational materials including films, websites, posters, and cards.
Meetings, Dialogues, and Guidance
^!Meetings to exchange ideas.
^!Workshops to learn about a science and technology topic.
^!Guidance on the application of research and technology.
^!Dialogues on how best to harmonize S&T regulatory activities.
Facility, Equipment, Data, and Information
^!Facility utilization.
^!Equipment provision and lending.
^!Data and information measurement, provision, and exchange.
Private Sector
^!Promotion and support of S&T entrepreneurs and innovators.
^!Public-private partnerships.
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice. A}^g^reem^en^ts^s^ection^is^bas^e^d^on^Gen^e^ral^A^ccouⁿ^tin^g^Of^fⁱ^ce,
^Feder^a^l^Res^e^ar^{ch: Inf}^o^r^m^atⁱ^{on on Sci}^e^{nce and T}^echnol^{ogy In}^t^e^rⁿ^a^tⁱ^onal^Agr^eem^ent^s^{, R}^e^port^N^u^m^b^e^r
^R^C^E^D-^99-^{108, A}^p^{ril 1999 at [h}^ttp://^www.^g^a^o^.^g^o^v^/^a^r^c^hⁱ^v^e^/^1999/^rc99108.pdf^].

International S&T Policy Direction and Federal Coordination
at OSTP and NSTC
A National Science Board (NSB) report²⁸ recommends that the United States
create a coherent and integrated international science and engineering strategy,
balance U.S. foreign and R&D policy, and promote intellectual exchange. In
addition, it recommends reestablishing the NSTC Committee on International
Science, Engineering, and Technology, and appointing a high-level international
S&T policy official in OSTP. Congress, according to NSB, should amend the
Government Performance and Results Act to require Federal agencies to address
international S&T partnerships. Further, Congress should direct the Department of
Commerce, OSTP, DOS, and the Department of Homeland Security to balance U.S.
security policies with international science and engineering (S&E) needs. The report
also contends it is important to facilitate “brain circulation” as opposed to “brain
drain,” by supporting study abroad opportunities for American students, streamlining
the visa process for foreign scientists, engineers and students, and identifying and
increasing the use of U.S. and international facilities for collaborative research.²⁹
Additional Considerations
If Congress should decide to address the trends described above, additional
financial resources and personnel with expertise in S&T may be necessary. If
Congress is concerned about a lack of overall international S&T policy direction at
OSTP or coordination among the White House and federal agencies as described by
the reports above, possible actions include enhancing the prominence of, and
coordination among, S&T leaders at OES, STAS, and OSTP. One option that takes
into account all three reports is for the STAS to play a greater role in coordination by
appointment to a high-level position within OES as well as chairing a revived CISET.

²⁸ National Science Board, International Science and Engineering Partnerships: A Priority
for U.S. Foreign Policy and Our Nation’s Innovation Enterprise, NSB 08-4 (Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation, 2008), at [http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2008/
nsb084.pdf].
²⁹ Ibid.