[Front Page] [National] [Africa] [Middle East] [Europe] [Asia] [The Americas] [Kosovo]

U.S.-EU CONFERENCE ON COOPERATION IN SCIENCE

STUTTGART, Germany - The United States and other nations are
"critically dependent" on the global exchange of ideas and
technologies to maintain vibrant economies and scientific enterprises,
says Acting Assistant Secretary of State for International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs Melinda Kimble.

"The internationalization of science is 'win-win'; it extends our
capabilities while also extending those of our global partners," said
Kimble in a keynote speech June 21 at the U.S.-EU Conference on "New
Vistas in Transatlantic Science and Technology Cooperation."

Because the dimension of many of today's problems are global not
national, science and technology must adapt more rapidly to address
these problems, she said.

The new U.S.-EU Science and Technology Agreement supported by the
conference is a "potentially powerful tool" for responding to
trans-boundary issues such as environment and trade, intellectual
property rights and database protections, and ethical issues affecting
scientists and statesmen, said Kimble.

In her speech, she outlined the national dimensions of U.S. science
policy and examined how these influence U.S. ability to cooperate
internationally. Kimble noted that the decentralization of U.S.
science -- different federal agencies with different research
priorities, the plurality of groups funding and performing research --
creates "tremendous vitality" but also "unique problems of
coordination."

The conference's four main sessions -- sustainability, materials, life
sciences, and the information society technology -- are areas of joint
research potential for the U.S. and the European Union, she said. "Our
challenge in realizing the potential of joint U.S.-EU action is to
find the pathway through two very different bureaucracies that
facilitate" science and technology activities," Kimble added.
   
Following is a transcript of Kimble's remarks:

(Begin transcript)

Melinda L. Kimble
Acting Assistant Secretary
for International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
U.S. Department of State 

KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT SECOND U.S.-EU CONFERENCE
ON NEW VISTAS IN TRANSATLANTIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION
Stuttgart, Germany
June 21, 1999

Mr. Minister, Mr. Director General and Distinguished Colleagues, it is
a pleasure for me to address such a distinguished audience,
particularly on a topic as important as our transatlantic cooperation
in science and technology and the newly concluded US-EU Umbrella S&T
Agreement.

I think it important to focus on the message we heard in the first
plenary session, that is: International politics must align itself
with the globalization of business. Our firms are dealing with
globalization and if we, as science policymakers, do not adapt to that
reality and make this agreement a viable framework for science
cooperation, we will miss making this an effective tool.

There is a recurring theme that runs through many of the issues that
will face the international community in the 21st Century -
"Stewardship". We now realize that there are limits to how much carbon
the earth's atmosphere can absorb; limits to how many fish we can
harvest from the ocean; limits to how much forest we can cut for
agriculture and urban growth. Stewardship is necessary to help us
chart a path toward sustainable economic growth and development. Such
limits imply that boundless economic growth may not be possible.

Many politicians and academicians dispute the concept, arguing that
scientific and technological advancement will provide solutions for
the future as they have in the past. Their conviction is that future
technology breakthroughs will mitigate if not prevent the disastrous
effects of environmental degradation and offset, as well, the
pressures of rapid population growth. Yet, the reality we must face is
the future is now, and the dimensions of many problems are now global
not national -- and science and technology must adapt more rapidly to
address these problems.

The new US-EU Science and Technology Agreement supported by this
second EU-US Conference, "New Vistas in Transatlantic S&T
Cooperation," is a potentially powerful new tool we can use to respond
to these challenges -- challenges ranging from the balance between
economic cooperation and competition -- to transboundary, global
environmental problems; trade issues; agreements on intellectual
property rights and database protections; and ethical issues that
extend to scientists as well as to statesmen.

Such issues, transboundary in their scope and impacts, increasingly
underscore the global dependence on rapidly changing science and
innovative technology to solve them. The fundamental workings of
nature, the function of a gene, the quantum behavior of matter and
energy, and the chemistry of the atmosphere, respect no national
boundaries. The United States and other nations of the world are
critically dependent on the global exchange of ideas and technologies
to maintain vibrant economies and national science and technology
enterprises.

Many basic research opportunities now demand international efforts and
our accelerating global connectivity makes these opportunities more
viable. The US-EU S&T Agreement recognizes this. Our purpose is not to
support research -- research that can be undertaken easily and
independently by either side -- but rather to support that research
which must require collaborative action. For example, it is critical
that we move into the next century addressing global issues related to
biodiversity, biotechnology and biosafety, as well as climate change,
renewable energy, and emerging infectious diseases.

This meeting focuses on key topics, which highlight areas of mutual
concern for much of our modern research. And the practical importance
of such problems does not make the science less challenging or less
intellectually exciting. And we hope that these discussions will chart
a way forward that will yield concrete results as soon as possible.

It is not surprising that scientific research is steadily moving in
the direction of increased cooperation, both within and among nations.
Yet, public science policy will continue to be centered at the
national level, where it receives the bulk of its funding. What I
would like to do here is examine briefly the dimensions of U.S.
science policy nationally, and then look at how national policy
influences our ability to cooperate internationally.

The President's fiscal budget request of $77.9 billion demonstrates
the forces at work in U.S. science policy. Five technical agencies --
the National Institutes of Health, NASA, the Department of Energy, the
National Science Foundation, and USDA receive 50% of the total. The
Department of Defense receives the largest share of federal R&D
funding (44%), and the remaining amounts are spread out among other
funding agencies, including Department of Transportation and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology. These agencies develop
their budget requests using guidelines established by the President
and the Office of Management and Budget.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP),
represented on our delegation by Dr. Bruce MacDonald, plays an
important role in shaping the overall budget request to meet the
Administration's priorities. The National Science and Technology
Council (NTSC) plays an important role in coordinating interagency
research efforts. It should be noted that in the FY 2000 budget,
health research is second only to national defense. Our demographics,
much like Europe's, have made disease prevention and cure a high
priority.

This conference offers an opportunity to focus on a key area of public
health policy -- food safety -- and I am looking forward to that
session. We believe both shared experience and ongoing research in
food safety is vital to ensuring all our consumers have the safest
possible food. And as new products come to market, we must share
information on how we evaluate potential risks. This is an area of
particular importance now. The European Commission of the European
Union has a more centralized system than that of the United States.
Our decentralization has pluses and minuses. I believe, in part, it
helps account for the tremendous vitality of U.S. science, which has a
robustness and creativity that arise from the plurality of
organizations and groups that fund and perform research.

Different federal agencies have different research priorities
depending on their missions, and this has lent dynamism and creativity
to U.S. efforts. To sustain the synergies in this system, however, we
must maintain a rigorous standard of excellence. But a decentralized
system also presents unique problems of coordination. Our challenge in
realizing the potential of joint US-EU action is to find the pathway
through two very different bureaucracies that facilitate our S&T
activities.

The four main sessions of this conference (Sustainability, Materials,
Life Sciences and the Information Society Technology) reflect the
pulse of our joint research potential. In that spirit I would like to
elaborate upon the criteria for making funding decisions within the
U.S. federal government.

In "Science and the National Interest", the Administration identified
several principles to guide the agencies as they craft their budgets.
In June of last year, the President's Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and OSTP identified four fundamental principles for the total
federal R&D investment. They are as follows:

-- Sustain and nurture America's world-leading science and technology
enterprise through pursuit of specific agency missions and through
stewardship of critical research fields and scientific facilities.
This means that we must maintain our tradition of scientific
excellence and create an infrastructure able to capitalize on and
advance key discoveries no matter where they occur.

-- Strengthen science, mathematics, and engineering education; ensure
their broad availability; and contribute to preparing the next
generation of scientists and engineers. We cannot expect to stay at
the frontiers of science unless we produce a scientific, engineering
and technical workforce educated at the highest levels in all
important disciplines and technologies. Neither can we expect to
sustain a strong economy if we fail to bring under-represented
minorities, our fastest growing populations, into the science and
engineering workforce.

-- Focus on activities that require a federal presence to attain
national goals, including national security, environmental quality,
economic growth and prosperity, and human health and well-being. We
must ensure that the federal government focuses on issues the private
sector cannot address, but that leaves a large role for federal
support of applied as well as basic research. Without federal support
for generic applied research and development, as well as
rehabilitation and basic research, our industries will be at a
significant competitive disadvantage and our strength will be
diminished.

-- Promote international cooperation in science and technology.
International cooperation in science and technology is vital for all
the reasons I have discussed today: it enriches our S&T enterprise; it
enables us to use S&T to address issues that are fundamentally
international in nature; and it serves other national goals, including
peace, security, and economic growth.

These principles for the federal investment in science and technology
specifically reinforce international cooperation in science. They
provide a context in which priorities are set. They are also, in my
mind, consistent with the general approach of the European Union's
Fifth framework.

Since the beginning of this administration, the President and
Vice-President have placed science and technology high on their
priority list. Moreover, as federal funding for science and technology
is seen as one of the best investments we can make in our nation's
future, we have broad bipartisan Congressional support for these
initiatives. Economists estimate that technological progress accounts
for as much as half of the Nation's growth over the past 50 years. And
polls show that the public recognizes the tremendous value of
investments in research and development, even if the dividends of
those investments are only realized in the long term.

The challenge for the future, however, is how to increase investments
in science and technology as we operate under the balanced budget
agreement, address Social Security, and manage the constraints of the
political process. Priorities will be set; and trade-offs will be
made. Projected surpluses may provide some room for budgetary
expansion, but there are many competing demands.

Yet, despite these very real constraints, science has never been more
exciting, scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs more
stunning, and the American people know this. The principle of
"sustaining and nurturing America's science and technology enterprise"
clearly has international implications. For example, once the
Superconducting Supercollider was cancelled, the only way for the
United States to remain at the forefront of high-energy physics was to
be integrally involved in building and using a non-U.S. facility. That
is why the United States is collaborating with more than 4,000
scientists and engineers on six continents to build the Large Hadron
Collider (SHC) at CERN and two of its massive detectors. The
International Space Station is another powerful symbol to people
around the world of what nations can do through peaceful cooperation.
These projects stand as a visible illustration of the tremendous
possibilities open to us.

"Meeting our national goals in security, environmental quality,
economic prosperity, health, and quality of life" clearly requires
that we have greater scientific cooperation with developing countries.
Although the more than 130 developing countries account for about
four-fifths (80%) of the world's people, they account for only
one-sixth of its economic output. Pervasive poverty has far-reaching
implications for all the world's citizens and nations. Poverty
degrades the dignity of all of us no matter where it occurs, North,
South, East, or West. There is a global imperative to close the
widening gap between the haves and have-nots. By helping to build
knowledge and capacity in the less developed world, we help ourselves.

To meet these needs, Vice President Gore has led cooperation
initiatives with several key countries, including South Africa, China,
and Russia, emphasizing the importance of science and technology in
strengthening these relationships. Education is another example of
fostering lifelong engagement in science and technology among citizens
of all ages. All countries need to build a cadre of well-trained
scientists and engineers who can work at the frontiers of science and
its applications. And all countries need to foster public
understanding of science and technology so that people support the
development of and use the products of new knowledge. Science and
science education know no national boundaries.

The internationalization of science is "win-win;" it extends our
capabilities while also extending those of our global partners. This
topic will be a major focus at the UNESCO/ICSU World conference on
Science for the 21st Century to be held in Budapest this month -- just
as transatlantic cooperation will also be high on the agenda of the
US-EU Summit, which is taking place in Bonn, as we meet here in
Stuttgart.

The review of U.S. international goals in science illustrates two
things: firstly separating out support for international collaboration
is difficult because the U.S. budget process requires activities with
an international dimension to be tightly linked to the domestic
priorities of the agencies. But, that linkage accurately reflects the
international character of scientific and technical knowledge and the
importance of international cooperation in achieving many of the
agencies' goals.

Secondly, the decentralized nature of U.S. science is relatively
unique. Thus, the ways in which U.S. scientists engage in
international activities are characteristically diverse. There are
multilateral forums and bilateral S&T agreements, special programs and
activities suited to unique opportunities -- and now the US-EU
Umbrella S&T Agreement which, though bilateral in form, is
multilateral in content. These diverse approaches should lend the U.S.
international science portfolio the same robustness that is
characteristic of purely domestic research. At the same time, they
present policymakers with challenges of coordination that are further
complicated by the international dimension. Our challenge for today
and tomorrow is to construct a pathway or pathways for genuine
productive US-EU cooperation.

As I indicated earlier, the challenges -- from the balance between
economic cooperation and competition, to transboundary, global
environmental problems, to agreements on intellectual property rights
and database protections, to ethical issues -- extend to scientists as
well to statesmen. Scientists will help determine the ways in which
new knowledge intersects with human needs and values. And this forum,
New Vistas under the US-EU Umbrella S&T Agreement, has the potential
to be a cornerstone in this process.

Once again, let me say that it is my privilege to be with you, and I
look forward to our panel sessions and discussions and to concrete
results from our collaboration.