Report Says Foreigners Strenghten U.S. Labs

WASHINGTON—Most members of Congress and the executive branch have a nagging fear that visiting foreign scientists are stealing research secrets from United States labs and turning them into products that compete successfully against those of U.S. firms. Indeed, the Reagan administration wants to both restrict foreign access to information from U.S. government labs and pressure foreign nations to open up their labs. THE EXTENT OF FOREIGN PRESENCE As part of its attempt to gauge the extent of foreign particapation in U.S. labs the GAO found that: " About 44% of the 8,252 outside senior scientists who conduct research at federal labs are foreigners " The National Institutes of Health have the largest contingent of outside foreign researchers, with 1,934, followed by the Energy Department's research laboratories, within 1,1791 Foreign organizations, mostly governements, sponsor less than 2% of the $1.8 billion in outside research conducted by U.S. federal labs. U.S. companies sponsor a similar share, amounting to about $30 million. The cheif sponsors, with some 95% of the total, are other U.S. government agencies. But a new study that examines how to make better use of research at 50 federal labs concludes that such xenophobia is unfounded. “I don’t recall interviewing a single administrator who thought that foreigners were getting more out of the arrangement than we were,” says Richard Cheston, who con- ducted the U.S. General Accounting Office study. Lab managers told Cheston that most of the foreign scientists and engineers who visit the U.S. are experienced researchers who add their knowledge to whatever problem is being investigated. As a result, say the lab managers, the benefit to U.S. science increases the longer foreign scientists remain in this country. Consequently, federal lab managers oppose efforts by the Reagan administration to restrict foreign access to their labs or to require that U.S. scientists be given equal access to foreign labs. The proposed restrictions, lab managers told GAO, would stymie the free flow of information and hurt the U.S. in the long run. If Congress and the administration are really serious about facilitating the transfer of technology from federal labs to U.S. firms, the report says, they should increase U.S. industrial participation in the work being done at the labs. “Federal laboratories have staffing and space constraints that limit the number of outside researchers who can work at the laboratories,” the report notes. Filling those slots with U.S. scientists, Cheston says, would increase technology transfer to U.S. firms and, de facto, squeeze out foreign scientists. But White House officials are not convinced that having U.S. businesses show a greater interest in the labs is the most effective route to improved U.S. competitiveness. “We’re not in a position to sign off on a statement like that,” says Bob Post, special assistant to White House science adviser William Graham. Instead the administration continues to insist that the U.S. needs to restrict access of foreign scientists to federal labs in order to protect valuable research from falling into foreign hands. After all, the Reagan officials argue, foreign governments routinely close their labs to U.S. scientists, and the U.S. therefore needs to retaliate in kind. So it is more than a little embarrassing that the administration’s own executive branch has failed to turn up evidence of such practices by foreign governments. The Commerce Department, which last spring was ordered to collect such information as part of a presidential directive on trade, has not received a single complaint from in- dustry about restrictions on collaborative efforts between their company and Japanese scientists. Open File But the administration still hasn’t given up. This summer the Commerce Department wrote to several professional societies, again seeking evidence of restrictive practices by foreign governments. And despite the fact that, once again, it received no replies, a department spokesman says that ‘‘we’re keeping the file open.’’ The GAO study was not intended to prove the Reagan administration wrong. Instead, it was conducted at the request of Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas), who, like the administration, is concerned that U.S. firms are not as successful as foreign companies in turning discoveries from federal labs into commercial products. The report concludes that there is reason for concern, but that foreign companies obtain their edge by responding to published research results more quickly than do U.S. firms to published research results, not by taking away inside inform tion. [Ed. note: For free copies of the report, Untitled Technology Transfer: U.S. and Foreign Participation in R&D at Federal Laboratories,” write the GAO at P0. Box 6015, Gaithersburg, Md. 20877, or call, (202) 275-6241. Ask for RCED-88-203BR.]

Report Says Foreigners Strenghten U.S. Labs

THE EXTENT OF FOREIGN PRESENCE

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of