Science Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner on International Science Cooperation

The importance of international scientific partnerships dominated a speech by House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) on June 11 to the U.S.-Korea Science Policy Forum. Portions of his address, touching on international cooperation, the SSC, LHC, ITER, space station, and science budget and policy formulation, follow:

“When I assumed the Chair of the Science Committee in January of 1997, I defined several guiding principles that have been applied to the Committee’s work in order to reach our goal, enabling the United States and its scientists to remain the world’s preeminent intellectual and economic leaders in the 21st Century. One of my principles is centered on the need to nurture international scientific partnerships to leverage scarce federal dollars. The increasing cost of cutting edge science requires cost sharing by international partners. Over 90 percent of the space science projects launched by NASA have international components. The International Space Station and the Large Hadron Collider could not be built by any single nation.

“The US Congress is putting emphasis on these projects. International scientific cooperation is politically popular in Congress because, contrary to most foreign aid programs, it is viewed as an international investment with tangible returns for the United States. Not only do international partnerships enable countries to make the most of federal resources, it allows vital knowledge to be shared in hopes that it will be used to its full potential.

“However, any agreement for international cooperation requires well-defined and enforceable terms from the outset. This is essential to maintain existing relationships and promote future projects. Without well-defined and accepted parameters, international cooperation will not succeed.

“The United States learned this lesson the hard way when we failed to secure international partners before beginning construction of the Super Conducting Super-Collider (SSC). With initial cost estimates of 4 billion dollars, the US decided to fund the project on its own. As the costs of the SSC escalated past 18 billion dollars, the US was forced to solicit international partners to finance completion of the project. Other nations were reluctant to join the project after it had begun. Congress defunded the SSC because of the escalating costs and the lack of international contributions.

“A firm foundation is the key to every successful international scientific partnership. As many of you know, the US is partner in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) project located at the European Council for Particle Physics (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland. The preliminary agreement initialed in February by officials of CERN and the US Department of Energy (DOE) did not contain assurances I felt were absolutely imperative before the United States finalized the deal.

“I voiced these objections after my visit to CERN in April, 1997. In June, CERN ratified modifications made at my suggestion which were negotiated by the United States Department of Energy.

“It is imperative that all parties involved in large multinational scientific projects remain vigilant on behalf of their interests. Prior to modifying the agreement, funding caps were reserved exclusively for CERN members. If construction costs went over budget, non-European contributors and the United States would have been left to pay the bill. Our taxpayers would have been asked to make additional contributions or our scientists would have been forced to work with an inferior research tool.

“The lessons learned during the negotiation of the LHC agreement should be applied to any scientific negotiations that the US undertakes. They are particularly important to the negotiations currently underway with respect to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Although the ITER discussions are currently focused on the explorations process, it is important to have clearly defined and enforceable terms for each participant at every stage of an international project.

“During the last year, it was hard to miss the troubles plaguing the Russian space station, Mir. The US involvement in the Shuttle-Mir partnership is an exceptionally bad example of an international scientific agreement. It was established in the wrong way for the wrong reasons. The Shuttle-Mir partnership was arranged by the Clinton Administration to augment US-Russian foreign policy more than for the science that could be achieved.

“We cannot risk making scientific cooperation vulnerable to accusations that it is just another type of foreign aid. We must guard against creating the perception in the minds of the taxpaying public that international science is foreign aid. Foreign aid continues to be politically unpopular and linking it to funding for science will not advance our cause.

“In addition to promoting international scientific cooperation, I have worked in a bipartisan fashion with the ranking democrat, George Brown, to make the Science Committee a prominent contributor to the budget and policy making process. In order to maintain essential American federal funding for science, the committee passed its authorization bills with broad support from both parties. This legislation increased federal funding for science by 3 percent in Fiscal Year 1998.

“To sustain adequate federal funding for science research and development, programs must have clearly-defined goals and parameters. The Science Committee, at Speaker Gingrich’s request, was tasked with conducting the National Science Policy Study, led by the committee’s Vice Chairman Vernon Ehlers, which will lay out priorities for U.S. science and technology well into the next century. At the very least, this document will serve as a road map for the Science Committee as it considers legislation affecting the future of American scientific enterprise. Congressman Ehlers is currently producing a report that will lay out where the pressing demands for research and development are in the future and how we as a nation should pursue them. We expect to complete the study next month.”

“In my opinion, it is incumbent upon U.S. science policy leaders to support science and technology as vigorously as we can.”