between intellectual freedom and the proprietary interests and needs of industrial sponsors? Should this balance be different if the sponsor is a foreign corporation? How can governmental pressures for limiting foreign access to research be reconciled with the openness of academic institutions—an openness that is important to the integrity and effectiveness of the process of basic research? There are no easy answers. I am afraid that the lot of the university president, seldom a happy one in recent years, is likely to become less so.
To conclude, let me suggest that the quality of American science and engineering is rooted in the nation's research universities and in their historic effectiveness generating knowledge and communicating it to successive generations of young men and women. That effectiveness has depended on openness—on the free communication of ideas and research results—and on the conviction that the difference between best and second best is all important. Out of these propositions, which have been supported by the NAE as well, have grown relationships with organizations and institutions in Japan and Europe. I am persuaded that U.S. universities, and the nation that sustains them and which they serve, are strengthened by these relationships. I earnestly believe that we all should work, as Gerry Dinneen has, to ensure that they can thrive in the geopolitical and economic realities of the future.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Operations. 1992. Is Science for Sale?: Transferring Technology from Universities to Foreign Corporations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1991. The International Relationships of MIT in a Technologically Competitive World. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Samuels, R.J. 1994. “Rich Nation, Strong Army”: National Security and the Technological Transformation of Japan . Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.