U.S. Toughens Stance On Japan Science Pact

WASHINGTON—The Reagan administration is asking Japan to participate in a major U.S.-led research project as part of what it hopes will be a tougher bilateral agreement on scientific cooperation. The U.S. proposal has, not been made public, but it is thought to seek Japan’s participation in a large-scale project such as the space station or the Superconducting Supercollider. According to Charles T. Owens, the National Science Foundation’s member of the negotiating team, “the people most interested in this at OSTP [the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy] have wanted it to be the flagship for U.S.-Japan relations.” They want it to include “jazzy projects,” he said, declining to spell out details of the proposal. Japan has overcome its initial surprise at the expanded scope of the U.S. proposal, said Toichi Sakata, first secretary in the science office at the Japanese Embassy here. Sakata said he is optimistic that negotiators will reach “a mutually acceptable solution in the near future.” The U.S.-Japan Science and Technology Agreement, concluded in 1980, was intended to govern access to R&D in some two dozen fields, from space to environmental protection. Due to expire last spring, it has since been extended several times, most recently until January 31. A third round of talks is set next month in Tokyo. Compared with several of the dozen other U.S.-Japan pacts in effect at various levels, the current agreement, a general pledge of mutual cooperation, has had little impact. Because it was signed at the head-of-state level, however, it is a politically prominent bluff from which to reassess—and perhaps redirect—bilateral relations. Originally, the U.S. side was developing a plan in which both countries would create a structure to coordinate international exchanges in science and technology, according to a former official involved in the process. But as trade friction between the two countries heated up, the former official said, “the politics overwhelmed the science.” Two-Way Street Several witnesses at a Senate subcommittee hearing here last month favored a more detailed and prescriptive document to help redress what Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa.) called “the tremendous imbalance in Japan’s R&D presence in the U.S.” An agreement that gives U.S. scientists more access to Japanese research “will clearly help the United States [improve] its competitive position in the world,” noted Undersecretary of Commerce Bruce Smart. To illustrate the imbalance, Rockefeller and others pointed to the 325 Japanese scientista at the National Institutes of Health last year, most of them receiving stipends from the United States of $20,000 or more. In contrast, only three NIH researchers were working in Japan last year. John D. Negroponte, outgoing assistant secretary of state and head of the U.S. negotiating team, noted that “the benefits [arising from Japanese studying at NIH] are not just in one direction.” According to Philip Chen, associate director for intramural affairs at NIH, Japanese and other foreign researchers are “contributing fully” there. Many factors account for the relative absence of U.S. researchers in Japan, said Chen from his NIH office. He noted that “there are opportunities for American post-does to study in Japan that are not being fully taken advantage of,” because—unlike Japanese postdocs—they are unlikely to have jobs waiting for them when they return. Americans in Japan also face barriers of language and culture. Other witnesses at the hearing observed that Japanese researchers in America study basic science, which generally is not subject to patents, whereas Japan’s strength is in industrial R&D, where proprietary issues limit access by foreigners. Clyde Prestowitz of the Carnegie Endowment, noting that Japan would be hard-pressed to duplicate America’s “unparalleled research establishment,” said “we should not bar Japanese from the U.S., but we should ensure that we get something from it.” Extracting Information Among the ideas that have been suggested for inclusion in a new bilateral agreement are that Japan be asked to help support its researchers in the United States financially and that it sponsor Japanese-language training for U.S. scientists and engineers. Both ideas have drawn a skeptical response. “If the U.S. tried to do this with the Germans, they’d never stand for this kind of treatment,” said Justin L. Bloom, a former science counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo who was advising American negotiators until earlier this year. The White House, he charged, has tried to turn an agreement on scientific cooperation into “a test of our ability to extract technical information from Japan for competitiveness reasons.” Sakata questioned whether an intergovernmental agreement is the best way to increase the flow of U.S. researchers to Japan. “The exchange of scientists per se cannot be controlled by such an agreement,” he cautioned. “Japan is aware that we need to make more of an effort,” he said, pointing to several new programs to increase its share of foreign researchers. But he added, “The United States also has to think about what it could do to improve the situation.” Greene is on the staff of the THE SCIENTIST.

U.S. Toughens Stance On Japan Science Pact

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of