State Department Official On S&T in Foreign Policy-making

“I can say that in the State Department, [there is] widespread, total understanding of how important science and technology are in pursuit of foreign policy objectives.” Frank Loy, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs

In the past year or two, the State Department has come under fire from many in the science community for not sufficiently taking into account the scientific aspects of foreign policy. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has taken a leading role in initiating discussions with the State Department on this topic. On April 15, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Frank Loy spoke at the AAAS Colloquium on Science and Technology Policy to describe current and future efforts by the department to remedy this situation. The subject is “of great really importance to Secretary Albright and myself,” Loy stated.

Last year, Albright asked the National Academy of Sciences to examine how the department can better receive and utilize scientific expertise in pursuing its foreign policy goals. The Academy delivered a preliminary report last September (see FYI #130, 1998 ), and its final report is expected by this fall. According to Loy, the review was initiated because the State Department was sensitive to the criticisms raised by the science community, and to ensure that S&T is fully integrated into the department’s overall foreign policy and conduct of diplomatic affairs. The department cannot treat S&T issues “as a sideshow,” he asserted.

Until a decade ago, Loy noted, foreign policy was primarily shaped by the Cold War. Now, he said, the State Department is “trying to retool...for the next phase of history,” and look at whether it is sufficiently equipped to take S&T factors into consideration. The answer, he said, is “not quite.” Most important, Loy stated, is taking steps to ensure that State Department policy-makers have ready access to the scientific information and analyses they need to make good decisions. Secondly, when there is consensus within the science community on a large-scale science project, the State Department must be able to act promptly to build international participation. Also important is facilitating cooperation on the investigator-to-investigator and institution-to-institution levels; Loy said the department must recognize when its involvement is needed, but “get out of the way” when its participation is unnecessary.

Loy defended his department’s past record on utilizing science in policy-making. Although relatively few foreign service officers have scientific training, he said, the department has “gotten rather adept at getting the science we need when we need it to make decisions.” He cited a number of examples where the department has recognized an issue’s scientific aspects and solicited expert advice from visiting scientists, AAAS scientifically-trained Diplomacy Fellows, and scientists from other departments and agencies. Examples included arms control and nuclear nonproliferation, infectious diseases, global climate change, bleaching of coral reefs, and negotiations on trade in genetically- modified agricultural products. The bottom line, Loy declared, is that “it’s hard to point to very many cases where the department ‘booted one’ on the basis of inadequate science.” That does not mean that the department is where it needs to be, he acknowledged; that is why it is seeking the Academy’s recommendations.

Although the department is awaiting the final Academy report, Loy said there are some actions that it can begin now. One is to establish the position of a Science Advisor, with appropriate scientific credentials, direct access to the Secretary, and a small staff, to ensure adequate consideration of the S&T aspects of all foreign policy matters. This person would be responsible for relations between the department and the science community. One of the tasks of the Science Advisor would be to organize a Science Roundtable, an ad hoc gathering of recognized experts on science- related matters of concern to the department. Loy proposed that the department, the Academy, and AAAS act now to organize the first roundtable, on the subject of genetically-modified products.

Also under discussion, he reported, are more emphasis on S&T in the foreign service exam, heavier recruitment of people with a technical background, and additional training of existing staff. The Foreign Service Institute has already taken several steps to enhance the emphasis on science, technology, and environment throughout its curriculum. “It is absolutely our intention to beef up further the training of both new and current staff,” he stated. But he added that the State Department also needs to leverage its limited resources by using staff from other agencies and by expanding the “enormously valuable” AAAS Diplomacy Fellowship program, which places PhD scientists in the Department for a term. The department has recently received authorization to increase its support of AAAS Fellows from four to eight.

The department also plans to identify host countries where it is important to have a scientifically-knowledgeable person in the embassy S&T position to interact with his or her counterpart in that country. Loy cited India as an example. One thing the department does not intend to do, he said, is reestablish an environmental, science, and technology career track; that did not attract the best people, and segregated science rather than integrating it into the entire department.

“I’ve tried candidly to give you an idea of the state of thinking at the department,” Loy concluded. Although the department does not have adequate staff to meet all its S&T needs on its own, he commented, it has still “done rather well in addressing foreign policy issues with S&T components.” In answer to a question, he acknowledged that, in addition to being able to get the best scientific advice when seeking it, the department must also have the capacity to recognize when scientific expertise is needed and what questions to ask. That would be the principle function of the Science Advisor to the Secretary, he said.

Most of Loy’s proposals were similar in scope and intent to the recommendations in the preliminary NAS report. Whether the final report will advocate more far-reaching changes will not be known until it comes out later this year.