Suggestions from OTA on Internationalizing Big Science Projects
As budgets get tighter and science experiments get bigger, international collaborations will likely become more common. How can policymakers decide which projects are good candidates for internationalization? In a 132-page report released in July, before it had to close its doors, the Office of Technology Assessment examined this question.
According to the foreword, “This background paper...reviews U.S. experience with collaborative projects in many different fields and their implications for future activities. It assesses the factors that facilitate international partnerships in big science projects and those that, conversely, favor the pursuit of purely national projects. [It] also reviews and identifies several important issues to consider in structuring future collaborations.” The paper points out that the end of the Cold War and advances in communications and information technologies have increased interaction across national borders. In addition, the scientific expertise of other nations has improved, providing the U.S. more opportunity to benefit from the sharing of knowledge. The global nature of research in areas such as climate change, also, has necessitated an international approach.
Among the potential benefits of collaboration, OTA lists: increasing the likelihood of scientific success; sharing costs and risks; taking advantage of other countries’ expertise and facilities; and addressing issues with global implications. It warns of possible disadvantages, too: the need for more complex management and logistical arrangements; the uncertainty of ensuring long-term commitments from all partners; the difficulty of distributing costs and benefits equitably; as well as possible conflicts with U.S. economic and national security interests, and the goal of world leadership in science. Noting that “some U.S. science goals are difficult to reconcile with international collaboration,” the paper remarks that “future U.S. participation in large-scale collaborative projects may necessitate a redefinition of what constitutes scientific leadership.”
The paper offers a number of suggestions for evaluating future partnerships. If finds that projects must be considered for internationalization on a case-by-case basis, within, rather than across, disciplines. It recommends that for large projects Congress require an upfront analysis of the pros and cons of internationalization, as well as an accurate estimate of project cost and performance to “permit policymakers to weigh more accurately the technical and financial tradeoffs.” It notes that while the U.S. has a reputation as an unreliable partner, other countries are beginning to feel more budgetary pressures as well, and suggests a more formal structure for partnerships. While the flow of technologies to other countries is a concern, the report states that “building up national scientific capabilities and joining international partnerships are not necessarily mutually exclusive.”
OTA concludes that the above-mentioned problems “are almost always outweighed by the benefits that can be derived by pooling intellectual talent from around the world and by the increased understanding that results from the close interaction of diverse groups of people.” The report, “International Partnerships in Large Science Projects,” OTA-BP-ETI-150, can be purchased from the Government Printing Office, phone: 202-512-1800; fax: 202-512-2250.
