no international

political crisis

resulting in a
moratorium on the exchanges, there is every indication.
judging from the comments of the American
involved. that the program would have been both pro-

ductive and successful.

scientists

Working Group on Earth Sciences: In view of preliminary
appraisal of Soviet research strengths in this area,
there appeared to be a strong possibility for the United
States to benefit from a cooperative research program in
earth sciences with the Soviet Union. However, the
joint earth sciences program. because of its late date
of inception. never advanced beyond the negotiation
stage. The program was held in abeyance with the U.S.
Government moratorium in the fall of 1980. and brought
to a halt with the expiration of the Science and
Technology Agreement with no substantive cooperation
having ever occured.

Working Group on Polymer Sciences: The polymer sciences
program never reached the preliminary negotiation stage.
The program was cut back in early 1980 in accordance
with the U.S. moratorium on U.S.-Soviet cooperation and
was cancelled altogether in 1982 with the termination of
the Science and Technology Agreement. Because much of
the Soviet research in this area was considered an
off-shoot of U.S. research, the U.S. had little to gain
scientifically in any case.

scientific exchange with the Soviet those of the lapsed the Fields of

to

U.S.-U.S.S. R. Agreement on Cooperation in
Science and Technology?

Provided national security concerns were adequately addressed. reestablishment of some form of bilateral cooperation with the Soviet Union in the basic sciences could be of benefit in keeping the U.S. scientific community up-to-date on Soviet scientific accomplishments. It would also provide opportunities for U.S. enhance their research through international

scientists to Cooperation.

The mixed outcomes of the 11 Working Groups under the former bilateral agreement, highlighted under item 6 (above). indicate that the design of any successful science and technology exchange program with the Soviet Union must proceed from a view toward the scientific. as opposed to the political, benefits that can accrue to the U.S. Thus, if NSF were to consider a renewed scientific exchange program with the Soviet Union. it would expect that the program be defined in terms of "basic science," both to

reflect

A

accurately the NSF's mission and to avoid the various forms of misunderstanding that attended the previous program's "science and technology" nomenclature. focus on the basic sciences would be facilitated by having a Soviet counterpart agency (such as the Soviet Academy of Sciences) whose mission is more sharply focused on basic research than the SCST. NSF would

also propose that the program start with a targeted focus on some three to five fields of basic science to be identified and agreed to in advance. These fields would be selected on the basis of Soviet research excellence, mutuality of interest, and prior

experience.

NSF would further hope that the program would be structured to give highest priority to investigator-initiated projects with a high probability of mutual scientific benefit. Thus, jointly conceived cooperative research proposals, for projects of two to three years duration. would be received and reviewed by both sides. Proposals would be reviewed competitively, primarily on the basis of their scientific merit.

Under

this

type

investigator-initiated

framework

of

of jointly prepared research proposals, there would be an inherent assurance of mutuality of interest and benefit. The NSF would require that each proposal document the concurrence of both the U.S. and Soviet partners. Since preparation of an NSF proposal itself entails

a considerable investment of time and effort. it is highly unlikely that a U.S. investigator would expend the requisite effort if the project did not seem scientifically justified. Scientific benefit to the U.S. would also be specifically addressed during the NSF peer review process.

63-629 0-86--6

Soviet

The enclosed report is in response to your June 27, 1986, inquiry and subsequent discussions between our respective staffs on the activities of the U.S. Working Group on Water Resources. Because the potential for beneficial exchanges was so great, a lot of effort was expended by the Working Group. However, it soon became obvious that, for a variety of reasons, very little could be gained by the U.S. side and most of the proposed activities were substantially changed and in some cases abandoned. There were some notable exceptions, as described in the report, where we would liked to have continued the exchanges. We would be willing to discuss continuing the exchanges in these areas provided adequate funds can be identified in our program.

If we can be of further assistance, please advise.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure

C. Dale Duvall
Commissioner

Report on the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Exchange

under the

1972 U.S.-U.S.S. R. Agreement on Cooperation
in the Fields of Science and Technology

WATER RESOURCES

Background

On May 24, 1972, during the period of Detente, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to exchange scientific and technical information in an effort to improve bilateral relations. Small exchanges between the two nations had begun in 1958, followed by a series of one-time visits by scientists for information exchange. The 1972 U.S.-U.S.S. R. Agreement of Cooperation in the Field of Science and Technology (S&T) was the eighth U.S.-U.S.S.R exchange agreement but was the first which stressed joint collaborative research, as well as mutual benefit, equality and reciprocity. The 1972 S&T Agreement was designed to meet four basic goals: 1) advancement of science and technology; 2) enhancement of prestige of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., reduction of tensions between super powers, and encouragement of international understanding; 3) promotion of trade between the two nations; 4) and increased intergovernmental contact. The original pact expired in July, 1977, and was extended until July, 1982. However, after the U.S.S.R. invaded Afghanistan in the winter of 1979-1980, the Department of State ordered an end to direct communication with the Soviets, and controlled all contact with the U.S.S.R. Most program activities ceased at that time.

A review of the activities undertaken during the exchange will help determine the value of the agreement and provide the information necessary to decide if further exchanges with the Soviet Union would benefit the United States. An evaluation of the activities completed and scientific accomplishments achieved by the Water Resources Group was prepared March 31, 1982, towards the expiration of the agreement. (This early evaluation was sent from the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation to the Director of Science and Technology Programs, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, at the Department of State.) This present report draws from the findings reported in 1982 and includes responses to the specific questions raised in July, 1986, by the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East.

The Agreement

The U.S.-U.S.S.R. Agreement on Cooperation in the Fields of Science and Technology of 1972 established a Joint Commission on Scientific and Technological Cooperation. This Joint Commission

organized 11 working groups including the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Joint Working Group on Cooperation in the Field of Water Resources, which coordinated all project activity related to water resources. The Joint Working Group defined four program areas which oversaw a total of nine water resource projects. These nine projects comprise the total effort in the field of water resources, but merely one-eleventh of the total activities under the 1972 S&T Agreement.

The Joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. Working Group on Water Resources first met in Moscow in September, 1972. William S. Butcher, Chairman of the National Science Foundation, headed the U.S. delegation. 1.1. Borodavchenko, Deputy Minister of the U.S.S.R. Ministry for Land Reclamation and Water Management, led the Soviet delegation and remained the principal point of contact for the duration of the ten-year agreement. As proscribed by the S&T Agreement, 4-6 representatives from each country met alternately in Moscow and in Washington, D.C., for a total of four meetings from 1972 to 1978. The fifth meeting, scheduled for May 1980, was cancelled due to strained relations after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The points discussed at each session of the Joint Working Group included: results and progress of the work executed since the previous joint meeting; proposals for joint programs for the upcoming two-year period; changes needed to improve program effectiveness; and dates of the next session of the Joint Working

Group.

The delegates to the first Joint Working Group on Water Resources selected the set of projects which would allow for mutually beneficial exchange. The Joint Working Group assessed fifteen proposed program areas: some areas strongly favored the U.S., some strongly favored the U.S.S.R., and others promised mutual benefits. Both countries strove to create a balanced overall program and after careful assessment the Joint Working Group selected four program areas from the proposed list of fifteen:

1) Planning, Utilization and Management of Water Resources; 2) Cold Weather Construction Techniques;

3) Plastics in Hydrotechnical Construction; and

4) Methods and Means of Automation and Remote Control in Water Resource Systems.

The original set of programs appeared well balanced. U.S.S.R. technology lagged behind ours; thus Automation and Remote Control in Water Resource Systems strongly favored the Soviets. At the same time the Soviets agreed to share their unique expertise in Cold Weather Construction Tehniques, although their Water Ministry later refused to cooperate on this project. In the general area of planning, the national approaches differed hopelessly, which