INTERACADEMY PROGRAMS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND EASTERN EUROPE 1967-2009

The Changing Landscape

Glenn E. Schweitzer

Office for Central Europe and Eurasia Development, Security, and Cooperation

Policy and Global Affairs

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent an official policy of the National Academies.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
INTERACADEMY PROGRAMS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND EASTERN EUROPE 1967-2009 The Changing Landscape Glenn E. Schweitzer Office for Central Europe and Eurasia Development, Security, and Cooperation Policy and Global Affairs The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent an official policy of the National Academies.

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Gov- erning Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engi- neering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by the Presidents’ Committee of the National Acad - emies. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academies. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-14442-1 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-14442-6 A limited number of copies are available from the Office for Central Europe and Eurasia, National Research Council, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; (202) 334-2376. Cover: The map on the cover is a depiction of Eastern Europe in 1988. Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal govern- ment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its mem - bers, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advis - ing the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in pro - viding services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface T his report documents more than four decades of cooperation in science, engineering, and medicine (hereinafter referred to as “sci- ence”) between the National Academies of the United States and the academies of sciences and other organizations of several countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Taking into account recent changes in the political architecture of Europe, the report offers suggestions for future cooperative activities. The report encompasses interrelated international interests and activi- ties of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and the National Research Council (NRC). Collectively, these organizations are known as the National Academies. For many years the NAS has provided the lead - ership for the international effort involving Eastern Europe, with the NRC serving as the implementing organization. In recent years, the NAE and IOM also initiated activities in the region. STATEMENT OF TASK AND SCOPE The Statement of Task that led to this report is as follows: The report will document how interacademy programs played a sig- nificant role in establishing and maintaining American scientific contacts with colleagues in Eastern Europe prior to and following the lifting of the Iron Curtain. The report will also discuss the changing roles of the academies of the region and the changing nature of interacademy coop - eration that has emerged since 1991. 

OCR for page R1
i Preface The countries of interest are Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, the former German Democratic Republic, and the countries that previously were united within the framework of the former Yugoslavia. These countries include Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Kosovo. Activities involving other nearby countries of the region (for example, Albania) 1 have been very limited. Cooperation between the NAS and academies in the region based on interacademy agreements began in 1967. However, cooperation has been on a downward trend since the mid-1990s. Events are now occasionally held on an ad hoc basis. For the purposes of this report, the countries of interest that are noted above are referred to as countries of “Eastern Europe,” a terminology that was commonly used prior to 1990. Now, several of these countries are referred to as countries of “Central Europe.” But the geographic reach of Central Europe is in transition, and therefore “Eastern Europe” has been adopted to avoid further confusion. The author has used his judgment as to the most significant aspects of the relationships of the National Academies with the academies and other partner organizations in Eastern Europe that should be addressed in this report. In this context, “significant” has been interpreted as meaning the promotion of the international dimensions of science, while taking into account the secondary impacts on strengthening U.S. political rela - tions with the individual countries of interest. Important considerations in singling out activities of interest have been (1) the relationships that have been established, which can provide the basis for future cooperation through interacademy or other channels; (2) the types of activities that have proved successful; and (3) the lessons learned that have relevance to developing future scientific partnerships between the United States and other middle-income countries. This report does not attempt to provide a catalogue of the many indi- vidual contacts between officers and members of the National Academies with colleagues from the region. Such contacts have occurred at meet- ings of international organizations and at other scientific gatherings held throughout Europe and elsewhere. These types of contacts will be impor-  Albania was not included in the NAS-led program during the Cold War in view of the country’s limited scientific capability and the formidable political barriers to engagement. A U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) program has been operating in Albania since 1992 with a small science-oriented effort in the field of health. Also, in 2007 the NRC assisted USAID in reviewing assistance programs to strengthen democracies throughout the world; for this effort, Albania was selected as a case study in the 2008 NRC report Improing Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Ealuation and Research. The report is avail- able online at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12164.

OCR for page R1
ii Preface tant in the future since the availability of funding for bilateral activities has declined considerably, and various multilateral venues of particular relevance are addressed in Chapter 5. The cutoff date for activities considered in this report is May 31, 2009. RELATED REPORTS AND OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION This report and an earlier report, Scientists, Engineers, and Track-Two Diplomacy: A Half-Century of U.S.-Russian Interacademy Cooperation,2 pro- vide insights concerning initial efforts of the NAS and the more extended efforts of the National Academies to engage counterpart scientists in countries that were under the control of Soviet-oriented regimes. Many scientists in the partner countries had been isolated from the broader inter- national community, particularly during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The earlier report concerning cooperation with Russia through 2004 presented some precedents for the interacademy relationships that evolved with academies in Eastern Europe prior to 1990. That report is currently being updated to include activities through 2009. A third report on interacademy relations involving the United States and other states of the former Soviet Union since 1959—activities involving 14 countries, including the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—would be useful. For administrative purposes, these three states were addressed until 1991 by the NAS as Soviet states, recognizing that they were under the control of Moscow even though there were disputes as to whether they were ever legally incorporated into the USSR. Collectively the foregoing reports would provide an extensive over- view of the activities of the National Academies involving colleagues in the former Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe in recent decades. This report is an important step in that direction. The interacademy contacts involving Eastern Europe during a period of more than 40 years have been vast and varied. Many of them have been documented. Information on other contacts is not readily available. Four sources of information have provided most of the basis for this report: 1. Newsletters published by the NRC Office of Soviet and East Euro- pean Affairs (OSEEA) and by its successor, the Office for Central Europe and Eurasia (OCEE), during the period 1979 to 1997. Schweitzer, Glenn E. 2004. Scientists, Engineers, and Track-Two Diplomacy: A Half- Century of U.S.-Russian Interacademy Cooperation. Washington, D.C.: The National Acad - emies Press.

OCR for page R1
iii Preface 2. Internal documents of OCEE, and particularly annual reports to the National Science Foundation, which until 2005 provided substantial funding for programs. 3. Observations and publications of the author of this report, who served as director of OSEEA and OCEE from 1985 to 2009, with a 2-year leave of absence during 1992-1994. From 2007 to 2009, he consulted with the academies of sciences in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia to help ensure that the observations in the report took into account the views of these partners. 4. Interviews with former OSEAA and OCEE staff members, program participants, and other knowledgeable persons concerning the National Academies program and related activities. Hundreds of books have been written on political and economic developments in Eastern Europe in recent years that provide a broad con- text for discussions of scientific activities. Also, thousands of articles have been published about specific scientific achievements by participants of the activities sponsored by the National Academies. A few of these politi - cal developments and scientific advances have been recognized in this report, and they contribute to the basis for the discussions. In addition, several reports prepared by the United Nations Edu- cational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (Venice Office) and the European Academy of Sciences provide interesting assessments of trends within the academies of sciences of the region. Of course, each of the acad- emies of the region prepares periodic reports on its activities and achieve- ments, usually on an annual basis. This report presents a few highlights concerning the structural and policy transitions within the academies. The details of these developments within each country are documented in the academies’ reports, which can be obtained directly from the academies. INTENDED AUDIENCE This report should be of interest to officials and specialists in both the United States and the countries of Eastern Europe who are actively engaged in promoting scientific cooperation through bilateral or other channels. The report includes considerable information that is not easy for government officials or scholars, let alone the general public, to obtain. While the funding outlook is not bright for an increase in centrally organized bilateral scientific activity, multilateral channels for cooperation are increasingly available. In particular, European officials and specialists of international organizations should be able to learn from the bilateral experiences of the National Academies. Of course, informal scientist-to-

OCR for page R1
ix Preface scientist channels for cooperation are manifold, and scientists who have their own networks may also be interested in the discussions. Finally, a newly emerging audience for this report is the small group of analysts in “science diplomacy,” particularly specialists working within the U.S. government and in think tanks in Washington, D.C. A few are currently focusing on U.S. scientific cooperation with (1) countries with political agendas that differ in important respects from the objectives of U.S. policies and (2) countries that are involved in transitions from closed to open societies. In any event, analyzing in detail the relevance of the experiences in Eastern Europe to other specific countries is beyond the scope of this report. However, it should be widely recognized that from the beginning of the program involving Eastern Europe, the National Academies has emphasized the importance of mutual scientific benefits. While transparency, bridge-building, and other politically oriented objec - tives have been significant, particularly to the U.S. government prior to 1991, scientific integrity has been essential to achieving political successes in this region as well as in advancing international science.

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments S everal thousand scientists, engineers, and health professionals from the United States and Eastern Europe participated in the activities discussed in this report. Their contributions to international science and to the building of gateways to understanding on both sides of the ocean were critical components of the search for peace and prosperity in the difficult days of the Cold War and during the transition period of 1989 through 2009. Their achievements provided the substance for this report. For their innumerable contributions, the National Research Council is truly grateful. Special accolades are extended to the staffs of the academies of sci - ences throughout Eastern Europe. In a highly professional manner, they repeatedly pushed aside political concerns and took the necessary steps to organize and implement complicated and sometimes controversial programs—whatever the visa, travel, or access challenges. They deserve considerable credit for the successes cited throughout the report. Without the steadfast, and at times risky, financial support by U.S. government agencies and private foundations as well as by the academies of Eastern Europe, this story could not have been told. On the U.S. side, the National Science Foundation, the Department of State, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund were the principal benefactors of the activi - ties during the past 40 years. They provided long-term support, which together with internal funds of the National Research Council, enabled the program to facilitate many sustainable activities. xi

OCR for page R1
xii Acknowledgments This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review Com- mittee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institu- tional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process. I wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Ivan Berend, University of California, Los Angeles; George Bugliarello, Polytechnic Institute of NYU; Stephen Deets, Babson College; Hans Frauenfelder, Los Alamos National Laboratory; Hana Rambous- kova, Fulbright Commission, Prague; Ivo Slaus, University of Zagreb, Croatia; and Gary Waxmonsky, Environmental Protection Agency. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many construc- tive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the con- clusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the author. Finally, I express my appreciation to Kelly Robbins and Merc Fox for their assistance in preparing this manuscript for publication. Glenn E. Schweitzer, Director, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia, National Research Council

OCR for page R1
About the Author G lenn E. Schweitzer has served as director of the Office for Central Europe and Eurasia (previously named the Office for Soviet and East European Affairs) of the National Research Council since 1985. From 1992 to 1994, he was on a leave of absence to serve as chair- man of the Intergovernmental Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) in Moscow and then as the first executive director of ISTC, which was established by the gov - ernments of the United States, European Union, Japan, and Russia. He is the author of several books on international scientific affairs. xiii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents Summary 1 1 New Approaches to Cooperation 7 2 Individual Exchanges 23 3 Bilateral and Regional Workshops 35 4 Special Activities 47 5 The Way Forward 55 Appendix: Workshops with Eastern European Institutions 61 x

OCR for page R1