GOVERNMENT
U.S. May Need Foreign Partners To Pursue Large Science Projects
T
o maintain scientific leadership, the U.S. may need to boost collaboration with other nations, particularly in large science projects, says a report just released by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). The U.S. and other nations are increasingly drawn to international partnerships as budget pressures grow, new centers of expertise emerge around the world, and the complexity of scientific projects—such as the need to study global-scale problems like climate change— mounts. Indeed, OTA notes, "Some scientifically worthy but expensive projects might not be pursued at all unless carried out on a collaborative basis." Only recently has the U.S. begun to participate in international "big science" projects. They include the National Aeronautics & Space Administration's work with Russia, as well as the European Space Agency, Japan, and Canada, on an international space station, scheduled for completion by 2002 at a capital cost of $38 billion (excluding operational expenses). The U.S. is collaborating also in fusion research with Russia, Japan, and Europe to explore the possible building of an International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), projected to be finished in 2005 at a capital cost of $8 billion to $10 billion. And the U.S., Europe, Canada, and Japan plan to complete initial
components of an $8 billion Earth Observing System by 2000. The 132-page OTA study, "International Partnerships in Large Science Projects," was requested by the House Science Committee. The U.S. has participated in numerous small-scale international science ventures. But it has limited experience in large-scale projects, where efforts are highly interdependent and jointly funded and conducted. The U.S. has run primarily as national ventures its megascience projects in high-energy physics, space, and nuclear fusion, for example. The report says selection of large projects will likely remain ad hoc: Generic frameworks for setting priorities "are probably not workable." But it recommends development of intergovernmental mechanisms to identify worthy projects and explore collaboration. Collaborative R&D promises a variety of benefits but also poses drawbacks. Benefits must be balanced against drawbacks to determine whether national interest dictates that a project be done by the U.S. alone or that it be internationalized. The most often cited benefit is reducing net U.S. costs. The costs of big science have soared, with megaprojects (defined by OTA as costing more than $100 million) now constituting about 10% of the federal (defense and nonde-
Intemational collaboration poses benefits, drawbacks Benefits
Drawbacks
Reduce net U.S. costs, share financial and technical risks
Increase total project costs, increase management complexity, lose sole U.S. control of project
Enhance U.S. scientific capabilities by enlisting partners' strengths
Enhance competitive capabilities of partners
Enhance stability of science goals and funding
Increase rigidity of goals and funding, discouraging innovative research
Support U.S. foreign policy, strengthen ties with other nations
Distort or undermine science because of political goals or political instability
fense) R&D budget. Collaboration also allows the U.S. to share with other nations a megaproject's high financial and technical risks. On the other hand, an international framework requires more complex management and may raise total project costs. Project partners may contend over equitable distribution of costs and benefits. And the U.S. may lose sole control over a project. For example, NASA has always kept control over critical paths in its international projects. But with the space station, it has put Russian elements in the critical path to completion. This "poses unprecedented programmatic and political risks/' noted an OTA report last May (C&EN, June 5, page 30). Moreover, the new OTA report points out, ITER efforts are "true quadripartite collaborations/ ' with each partner contributing a quarter of the costs and decisions reached by consensus. However, reducing net U.S. costs is not by itself enough to justify international cooperation, OTA notes. Another key benefit is enlisting partners to enhance U.S. capabilities "to do the best science." But the flip side is making the partners more competitive with the U.S. International collaboration may also help a project to survive in the current congressional maelstrom. The uncertainty of long-term funding for research projects has been a serious problem in recent years, arousing foreign questioning of the reliability of U.S. commitments. Indeed, adding Russia to the space station program has expanded congressional support. Assessing the benefits and drawbacks, OTA concludes "the most concrete benefits of partnerships include opportunities to reduce net U.S. costs and to enhance a project's scientific capabilities." And the problems "are almost always outweighed by the benefits that can be derived by pooling intellectual talent from around the world." Richard Seltzer
22
AUGUST 28,1995 C&EN
