Fermilab visits to the USSR have averaged about fifteen man-weeks

It is difficult to quantify the benefits which accrue to both sides but it is clear that both sides do benefit. The U.S.. side, Fermilab and its university-based customers benefit in the following ways:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Soviet theory and the ideas of Soviet colleagues are of high quality and to the extent that these advance the research, we gain. Their contributions to the research serves to decrease the costs This is at the level of a few percent or so but

of the research.

counts for more because it is incremental at the top.

We receive a pretty good idea of the state of technology available to the Soviet physicists. This information must be carefully weighted by the priority given to the subject by Soviet authorities.

On the human level, contacts made in the joint effort to fathom the laws of nature, often result in close friendships which continue after hours and add to the culture of the participating scientists. Some of the more frank political discussions go on at the social center, leading to U.S. scientists, better informed on Soviet life and Soviet attitudes.

Individual Soviet physicists and, I believe, their families, return to the USSR with a dramatically altered view of the U.S. Since scientists in the Soviet Union have fairly high social status, this may be very important in the long run. What I don't know is how long is the run?

I should comment on item 1 above by reaching out to contiguous fields of fusion and technological devices used in other laboratories. The Soviets have made many original contributions to fusion (Tokomaks), to acceleration (RFQ, electron cooling) and to high power radiofrequency amplifiers (Gyrokens and Gyrotrons). Many of these ideas if not all, have been more quickly implemented in the U.S. than in the Soviet Union.

1.

2.

3.

4.

How do the Soviets gain?

They get access to superb research facilities which are not now available in the Soviet Union. The Soviets are building a new accelerator (UNK) which, in 1992 or later, will surpass the one at Fermilab but by that time, the U.S. may well be on its way to a vastly more powerful machine, the Supercollider.

Clearly they can look at technology that is as sophisticated as anything that goes on anywhere. They can see the same things at CERN or in Japan too.

They observe other things, management techniques, styles of collegiality, a manageable bureaucracy.

They gain the same social benefits ("on the human level") that we do.

with a very high level of bureaucratic hindrance which makes formality a necessity. The vigor of the exchange is sensitive to the political climate. There are basic asymmetries: Westerners find travel and especially residence in the Soviet Union "hard." But the overriding consideration to the expansion of the exchange is the human rights issue. Many

scientists in my laboratory and in our university groups refuse to participate in these exchanges and urge me not to participate. They cite Sakharov, Orlov, Sharansky and many other cases of severe mistreatment of outstanding scientists. Over and over again, well-known Soviet scientists are not permitted to attend international meetings. These issues are well-known and they act as a damper on increasing the

collaboration.

In spite of the above, the system has worked remarkably well. We have the opportunity of expressing our conerns about Soviet behavior to their scientists and that opportunity is indeed used. (We receive in exchange, lectures on the defects of American society). On the working level things go well; we are communicating and we are forming connections which may grow to greater significance.

I do not believe that the scientists we see at Fermilab are compiling military technology in any significant way. I suspect that it would require a "full-time" operative and the physicists at Fermilab work pretty hard when they are here. Our technology is widely published and is roughly comparable to the work in Europe and Japan, which is also published.

U.S. scientists are free to visit the Soviet labs (they are in fact urged to come!). The inhibition against free travel of Soviet physicists is a criticism but when Soviets are abroad, they advertise their results, even unpublished, as vigorously as their capitalistic competitors do.

VI. Summary

Although the human rights issue weighs heavily, there is probably a consensus that there is enough mutual benefit to continue the scientific exchange. Most importantly is the maintenance of the lines of communication which appear so naturally in science.

Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you very much, Dr. Lederman.

STATEMENT OF REGINALD D. NOBLE, CHIARMAN, DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE, BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY

Mr. NOBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present testimony before your subcommittee today. I also have a prepared statement. My comments today are based mainly on perceptions that I have developed as a scientist during interactions with Soviet colleagues over the past 8 years.

My dealings with the Soviets began in 1978 and since 1982 I have served as the U.S. project leader for Project 02.03-21, which is covered under the 1972 United States-U.S.S.R. agreement on cooperation in the field of environmental protection.

The project is entitled Interactions Between Forest Ecosystems and Pollutants. As project leader I am responsible for promoting cooperative research of mutual interests to the two sides.

Various barriers to our work exist, including geographical, cultural and political ones. They pose unique problems as we attempt to develop and conduct cooperate research. At times they test our patience, however as we circumvent these problems as best we can and focus on our goals our enthusiasm is usually rekindled.

Those American scientists who participate in the projects in the past continue to show interest. Furthermore, we have met many who are well qualified and indeed anxious to participate in these cooperative efforts. Many have demonstrated a willingness to give unselfishly of their time and personal resources.

For example, one member of the American delegation who traveled to the Soviet Union with us last June paid all of his travel expenses from personal funds. Numerous deeds of this nature demonstrate the dedication to and support for cooperation in the scientific community. You can rest assured that the limits on progress in such cooperative endeavors will not be imposed by lack of interest or commitment at the scientific level.

Participants in the projects such as this one seem to get to see the Soviet Union from a much different perspective than other visitors. Often few if any special preparations are made by the Soviets beyond making ready for the work at hand. Our discussions are usually open and frank and we feel free to move about host cities in our free time. We do not get the impression that we are under surveillance or that we are receiving any special attention from the Soviet authorities.

We have opportunities to interact at various levels in Soviet society. The Soviet citizens I visited range from those spontaneous visits to a home that would be the envy of many of us, to the lowly shack of a livestock herder. We are almost always received warmly and under some circumstances with considerable curiosity. Our Soviet hosts always go to great lengths in attempting to make our visits worth while and to accommodate our special requests to visit specific laboratories or particular areas, although they are not always successful.

In many respects the Soviets system does not lend itself well to short-term exchanges that Americans usually insist upon, thus collaborative work in the U.S.S.R. is sometimes frustrating for Ameri