UNITED STATES-SOVIET SCIENTIFIC EXCHANGES THURSDAY, JULY 31, 1986 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met at 10:18 a.m., in room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lee H. Hamilton (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. HAMILTON. The meeting of the subcommittee will come to order. The subcommittee meets today in open session to conduct an oversight hearing on United States-Soviet exchanges. The Chair recognizes that there are a wide variety of important United States-Soviet exchanges and has sent letters to every Federal agency and several quasi-public organizations involved in exchanges. The answers to these letters will be included in the hearing record. In this brief hearing today, the Chair wishes to focus on the subject of scientific exchanges because they have been the area of some controversy. We have with us today four individuals who have been participants in United States-Soviet scientific exchange programs: Dr. Frank Press, president of the National Academy of Sciences; Dr. Leon M. Lederman, director of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, IL; Professor Reginald D. Noble, chairman of the Department of Biological Science, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH; and Dr. Martha Vaughan, chief, Laboratory on Cellular Metabolism, Division of Intramural Research, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. That is quite a title you have got there, Dr. Vaughan. In earlier correspondence with our four witnesses, the Chair asked them to address their remarks to some of the following questions: What have been the benefits to American participants in these scientific exchange programs? What would have been United States access to Soviet research findings without these exchange programs? To what extent have American participants gained greater benefits from these exchanges, have the benefits been equal for Americans and Soviets, or have the Soviets gained greater benefits? (1) Should exchanges of this kind be continued at the present level of activity, expanded, curtailed, or terminated? It is the Chair's intention to proceed informally today after each witness has had a chance for some opening comments. Members will be recognized when they want to speak and brief interjections will be in order if a participant or member wishes to speak to a specific point under discussion. We welcome each of our witnesses today. Your written statements will be entered into the record in full, and we appreciate your appearance before us. We look forward to a useful dialog. Dr. Press, could you begin please. STATEMENT OF FRANK PRESS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Mr. PRESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear this morning. I have submitted for the record both written testimony and supporting documentation. This includes an overview of the National Academy of Science programs, a list of joint publications resulting from cooperation with Soviet scientists, examples of successful exchange visits, experiences with bilateral workshops, summaries of four reports which evaluate the exchange programs, a copy of the new agreement which the NAS recently signed with the Soviet Academy of Sciences, and a press release we issued with respect to Andrei Sakharov. Mr. HAMILTON. All of those matters will be entered into the record in full. We appreciate getting them.1 Mr. PRESS. I have observed United States-U.S.S.R. cooperation as an active researcher, as a government official and most recently as a participant in restructuring cooperative agreements between the Soviet and United States Academies. From these vantage points I have witnessed and experienced both the rewards and enormous frustrations of scientific cooperation between our nations. I fully believe that such cooperation is worthwhile and that it serves the U.S. national interest. Why? First, Soviet scientists are doing forefront work in a number of key fields. They are, for example among the world leaders in mathematics and in theoretical physics. Recently, Soviet scientists have made impressive achievements in astronomy, geology, oceanography, electro chemistry, fluid dynamics and material sciences. They are are advancing in molecular biology and their achievements in space science and technology are well known. We are also, wrestling with global problems which involve the environmental and atmospheric sciences. To effectively deal with these problems requires the active participation of Soviet scientists. It is specious to think otherwise. These facts have shaped our cooperative programs. The bilateral program of workshops, individual exchanges and other activities conducted between our two academies is science driven. We cooperate in those fields where Soviet achievements are at or near the leading edge of research. By the same token, we avoid cooperative activities that may raise national 1 See appendix 3B(1). security concerns, such as research in advanced microelectronics and information coding. Indeed, our latest agreement with the Soviet academy is limited to cooperation in nonsensitive fields. How do the programs work in practice? We have, during the past several years, been reasonably satisfied with the scientific capabilities of the Soviet exchanges. The downside is that Soviet authorities prevent many Soviet scientists who are well known and respected by United States colleagues from traveling to the United States. My academy has examined our exchange program several times, most recently in 1982, and in each instance scientific cooperation was found to benefit the United States a more recent review of some 20 evaluations supports the opinion that well-managed exchanges contribute to our national interest. While the issue of technology transfer has been raised repeatedly, the opinion prevails in all of our analyses that scientific exchanges are not a major conduit for Soviet acquisition of militarily important technology. We consult closely with the U.S. Government on our exchange program. Such consultations are very important in addressing national security issues. And while we may have occasional differences of opinion, conflicts invariably have been resolved by focusing on the scientific details of the programs proposed. As this subcommittee knows, the exchange program in recent years has had a turbulent history, punctuated by abuses of human rights within the Soviet Union. In 1980 we terminated our program of bilateral symposia and refused to negotiate the formal renewal of our exchange agreement because of the internal exile to Gorki of Andrei Sakharov. We continued our program of exchanging individual scientists on the basis of informal understandings during the early 1980's. In 1984, however, after extensive consultations with our members and with many others, we concluded that we could be more effective in addressing contentious issues if we restored our formal channels of communication with the leadership of Soviet science. A new exchange agreement was signed this spring. That new agreement has several features of particular interest to this hearing. First, it stipulates that cooperative programs will be concentrated in those fields of science in which both countries are leaders. Second, all activities under the agreement must be based on the Helsinki principles. Further, officers of both academies will meet at least once a year to discuss how to improve the environment for the program. Third, each academy may both nominate its own members and invite those of the other academy for exchange visits of 2 to 4 weeks. More broadly, the academies agreed that invitations from scientists to colleagues in the other country should become an important and significant portion of the total individual exchanges. Indeed no upper limit is placed on the number of invitational visits. Fourth, if either side is unable to meet the agreed conditions of individual projects, the agreement states that those projects may be terminated by the other side, or may be postponed pending a joint review by officers of the two academies. Mr. Chairman, this completes my oral testimony. The written testimony is somewhat more extensive. [The prepared statement of Mr. Press follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK PRESS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES I am pleased to participate in this discussion today on the prospects for scientific cooperation with the USSR. As you know, I have been directly involved in such cooperation for many years. Initially, as an earth scientist I interacted frequently with Soviet colleagues working in my area of interest, and I participated in a number of cooperative research activities in both the United States and the USSR. Later, during my Government service in the late 1970s, I participated in the development and implementation of Administration policies which encompassed many exchange activities in science and technology between U.S. Government agencies and counterpart organizations in the USSR. Most recently, I have been responsible for restructuring the scientific exchange relationship between the National Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. From these various vantage points I have witnessed both the scientific and the political rewards of successful coooperative endeavors. I have also experienced the frustrations and disappointments which have been all too common in attempting to cooperate with Soviet organizations. Overall, however, our national interests are served by scientific cooperation with the USSR. First, the USSR has the largest science and engineering manpower pool of any nation, and in many areas of science and technology Soviet accomplishments are at the forefront. For example, for many years Soviet scientists have been among the world's leaders in mathematics and theoretical physics. More recently, Soviet scientists have made impressive achievements in astronomy, geology, oceanography, electrochemistry, fluid dynamics, and material sciences, and their capabilities in molecular biology are increasing rapidly. And, of course, Soviet accomplishments in military technology and in space exploration are well known. Also, the sheer size of the USSR is of great importance in addressing scientific problems of global dimensions, and particularly problems involving the environmental and atmospheric sciences. If many international scientific programs are to be successful, Soviet scientists must actively participate, and bilateral activities are often an effective first step in engaging Soviet scientific institutions in such global endeavors. Thus, we cannot afford not to coooperate with the USSR in scientific research activities. We can benefit considerably from their capabilities and from access to their unique data banks and to important geographical areas. Also, cooperative efforts provide insights as to the development of Soviet technical capabilities which are important not only for science but also for economic and national security reasons. Accordingly, the bilateral program conducted by the National Academy of Sciences emphasizes cooperation in those fields where Soviet achievements are at or near the leading edge of science, thereby helping to ensure that the program is conducted on the basis of reciprocal scientific benefits. Before we nominate a U.S. scientist to conduct research in the USSR, we carefully review the capabilities of the host |