Mr. PRESS. I don't want to monopolize this discussion, but may I respond? Mr. SMITH of Florida. Yes, sir. Mr. PRESS. I have not read the Discover magazine article, but I just been told about it. I am about a week or two behind in my reading. There is no question that, across the board no nation in the world compares to the United States in terms of scientific leadership. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, there are certain important fields in which where they do operate at world levels and many other fields in which they definitely are behind. Our own Government, in a report issued this past month, listed the following fields in which the Soviets were scientifically comparable to us: Mathematics, oceanography, materials science, theoretical high-energy physics-and we have an expert here who might confirm or deny that-fluid dynamics, condensed matter physics, theoretical astrophysics, and theoretical and experimental laser physics. In the area of molecular biology, the Soviets are distinctly behind us but, because of enormous investment, they are catching up very fast. These are the kinds of fields in which we would like to cooperate, where they do have a capacity comparable to our own. Why are the Soviets weak in certain other fields despite enormous investments? I believe it is because of the secrecy, compartmentalization, and discrimination against Jews and other groups in the U.S.S.R. There is no question that it hurts them. I believe that the individual Soviet scientist understands that this is wrong, and that this is why they are behind. Mr. SMITH of Florida. If, in fact, they are at world class, to use your words, level on some of those like math and oceanograpy and theoretical physics, fluid dynamics-why is it that they are not hampered in those fields like they are in the other fields? For instance, take the compartmentalization. If I am not mistaken, they have little or no really valid computerized capabilities in terms of the interdepartmental exchanges. They have no software capability of really making exchanges; people can't share information. Why is it that in some areas they continue to maintain a strong, if not advantage a strong ability to maintain progress with the rest of the world and in other areas they fall woefully behind? Are there areas where the Soviets put additional moneys that they are willing to expend even more of their capital or direct their energies to those areas? Mr. PRESS. You are correct in your assessment. Their lack of computers hurts them, as does their general lack of advanced instrumentation. Mr. SMITH of Florida. What is the status of their instrumentation? Mr. PRESS. It is second rate to ours, except what they import. Mr. PRESS. What helps them is that it is a big country. They have good universities. They pour enormous amounts of money into science. The motivation to be a scientist is very high, because it is a good life if you make it. It is one of the few avenues open for travel, a higher standard of living, intellectual camaradarie, and a relative degree of freedom. So, the Soviet motivation for scientific achievement may exceed that which exists in the United States. Because of motivation, the Soviets get some very, very smart people who compensate for all the other difficulties which we have been discussing. Mr. SMITH of Florida. I don't want to shut anybody else off. Mr. LEDERMAN. I would add one thing. In some fields the defects that were mentioned are not terribly important, in areas like theoretical physics and math. You have to know what is going on in the world sort of, but these are a subject for very young people who are not too imbued with what is going on which could inhibit making new ideas and breakthroughs. So, in those fields they do well. The human element there, the human resources, is very rich. Mr. SMITH of Florida. The young mind is the single most significant factor at the beginning of it? Mr. LEDERMAN. Exactly. DO THE SOVIETS COPY FROM US? Mr. SMITH of Florida. So, you would reject the argument that much of their science is addicted to copying ours as opposed to making real advances or moving forward in their own technological areas. Have you seen any indication that they are trying to copy other people's things or somehow make up for their deficits by taking technology? Mr. PRESS. In science, everybody copies each other. You build on the work of others, the mistakes of others, and the successes of others. So, copying in science is what we call free scientific communication. That is the most significant way in which we make progress. I would say that, in fields in which the Soviets are behind, there is more of a one-way flow from West to East through world literature and international meetings. As for fields in which they operate at a world level, we copy each other. We benefit from each other's work. QUALITY OF SOVIET SCIENTISTS IN THE 1970'S VERSUS TODAY Mr. SMITH of Florida. One final question. The relative or comparable capabilities between the scientists you saw in the 1970's exchanges and the ones you are seeing now, and ancillary, when you go to the Soviet Union-because I assume that when they send scientists here they are almost exclusively Soviet-that means Russian or any of the other ancillary states-but when you go to the Soviet Union, do you see foreign scientists, non-Soviet-in other words, people brought in to study from other countries, not necessarily on exchanges but on a more permanent basis, people they may have trained in their own universities and wind up staying there from Africa, you know, the Third World countries, developing countries? They have an enormous education program all over the world. South America, et cetera, it is hundreds of times bigger than ours. Do you see foreign scientists winding up staying in the Soviet Union? Mr. PRESS. Mr. Schweitzer spent a couple years in Moscow, so why don't- Mr. SMITH of Florida. If you can give me an indication of your feeling of the comparable level of scientists in the 1970's and now, and then about the foreign scientists. Mr. PRESS. Our new agreement is just getting underway, if you ask that question a year from now, after I have seen the first scientists that come under the new agreement, in accordance with the new stipulations, I would be in a better position to give you an answer. As far as reading the literature in my own field, and in running across scientists from the Soviet Union in my field, I don't see much difference. In terms of the actual exchange, that is, who we are involved with and how good they are compared to a decade ago, I would also have to reserve judgment until the program gets underway. Mr. SCHWEITZER. There is a very large number of foreign scientists in the Soviet Union for extended periods of time, often for 1 year or 2 years. Most of them are from Eastern Europe. This is a dramatic change from 20 years ago, when there were primarily foreign students in the Soviet Union. Now, particularly, in academy institutes there are a large number of resident senior scientists from the Eastern bloc. There are fewer long-term visitors from the West. But from the East European countries there are very many, indeed. Mr. SMITH of Florida. Working on projects or just resident in the universities? I am talking about dealing directly in the applied portion of the scientific arena. Mr. SCHWEITZER. I was speaking specifically of scientists doing research projects in the Academy of Sciences Institutes not students, not training, but actually conducting research. Mr. SMITH of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. NOBLE. In reference to the comments made about the areas of excellence, I think it should be noted that within those areas where the Soviets are not recognized for being maybe in the forefront of the activity there are pockets of excellence and certainly opportunities for us to interact with individuals within a very narrow area of interest we may have. For example, in the environmental area that I deal with, the Soviets at this point appear to be relatively weak in some of the laboratory experimental approaches to the problem, but in the more descriptive areas they are quite strong in the use of bioindicators for use of amelioration of pollution problems. In this area they probably have done a great deal more than we have. In reference to the question about their copying us, I think there is another component of that which is interesting. In some respects, I get the feeling that they may be more rigid in dealing with us relative to defending their point of view, than they might otherwise be if it weren't for the fact they are sensitive to assertions that they copy our work. Mr. SMITH of Florida. This is a valid sensitivity? I mean, you know, do they perceive they are copying from us and therefore are very, very defensive about it? Mr. NOBLE. I think they are sensitive to the accusations being made in the West, yes. Mr. SMITH of Florida. Thank you. Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Smith—— Dr. VAUGHAN. If I can say one thing in response to one of your questions about the differences between science in the 1970's and the 1980's, so far as the exchange that I have been talking about where the National Cardiology Research Center in Moscow has been a principal point of contact, I think there has been a remarkable change over the years. In the 1970's there was a small group of very excellent scientists, and that institute has grown impressively with new facilities and with a number of new people, many of them very good young scientists representing a gratifying expansion of the capabilities in that field and, therefore, it has affected the exchange. Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Smith. STATUS OF NUCLEAR FUSION EXCHANGES Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In these days of post-Chernobyl, when nuclear energy is again under the microscope and the world seems to be reassessing how safe and whether or not we should continue it, the movement toward the fusion type of energy source seems to be picking up some steam. The Tokamak nuclear fusion-the fusion test site is right outside my district. I have been to it. I know there are several exchanges that occur with other several exchanges that occur with other nations, particularly with Japan. Since the Soviets have done a great deal in this area, what is the status of the exchange in that area of energy is? Mr. LEDERMAN. It is not my field, but I did have a talk with the director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory and asked him this question, and he said it has been going at a reasonable level of exchange of people. There hasn't been any talk about doing projects. There has been talk about joint projects that came down from the summit, but nothing on the working level. I don't remember the actual numbers, but a fairly steady flow, going up and down with Afghanistan and so on, and on the average they have been pretty steady. There is a lot of communication and a lot of familiarity with the projects in each country. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Do you see any risk in that area where the Soviets could pick up additional information, technology, capabilities, to enhance their military apparatus? Mr. LEDERMAN. Again, I don't see there is much connection except as a spinoff application. The subjects are quite different. Fusion is such an enormously difficult subject that it seems to me it is going to take the cooperation of everyone who is capable of innovating in this field to contribute before we can say anything like that. Again, that field is so hard that it would be very inefficient to put in people who would look there for military applications. MEDICAL EXCHANGES CONCERNING DIABETES Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Dr. Vaughan, you mentioned the great exchanges that have been occurring in the cardiovascular area. Are there similar types of exchanges contemplated in the area of diabetes and other specific problems that are shared worldwide. More people in this country, as you know, suffer from diabetes than ever before, and it is a growing problem and often misdiagnosed. Dr. VAUGHAN. We can certainly provide you with an answer for the record. As I have been involved only in the area of cardiopulmonary research, I do not have that information. [The information provided follows:] In addition to the very fruitful exchanges in the cardiovascular area, similar interactions with the Soviets have taken place in five other areas covered by the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Health Agreement: i.e., cancer, environmental health, influenza and acute respiratory diseases, arthritis and eye diseases. Although there are no plans for exchanges in the area of diabetes, opportunities for mutually beneficial collaboration in this field exist under the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Individual Health Scientist Exchange Program. This program, established in 1972, supports short-term (up to 3 months) visits for the purpose of conducting joint research or for exploring the prospects of future longer-term collaboration in areas not included in bilateral agreements or memoranda of understanding. In recent discussions with the Soviets, both sides agreed to encourage an increase in scientific exchanges and to discuss the initiation or expansion of cooperation in the following fields: oncology; biomedical communication; primatology; congenital heart disease; health education of children to decrease cholesterol levels and excess weight; and studies of biological mechanisms in the development of alcoholism. Both sides look forward to an overall expansion of cooperative activities in the field of medical science and public health. MEDICAL EXCHANGES CONCERNING AIDS Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. In your treatment of blood, does the AIDS issue ever come up? I mention that because you are familiar with the World Health Organization's recent report recently, parallel what Dr. Cooper was saying a few weeks ago, that the AIDS virus now is infecting the general population. Leaders in some areas are reluctant to come forward with the information because of the fact that they will be looked down upon, such as in Africa. I know many of their health ministers don't want the label of having a large epidemic of AIDS within their boundaries. Has the Soviet Union looked at that. Dr. VAUGHAN. I am not aware of any information in that field. This is another question to which we can provide you a response for the record. [The information provided follows:] In the bilateral health exchange in the cardiovascular area, program area 6 is concerned with safe and effective blood and blood products. There are a number of facets to this and the safety aspect has emphasized the prevention of transfusion transmitted hepatitis as the topic of collaborative activity. More recently, there has been interest and discussion about the AIDS aspect of transfusion safety. |