Scientists, Engineers, and Track-Two Diplomacy A Half-Century of U.S.-Russian Interacademy Cooperation (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
6. Lessons Learned and the Future of the Interacademy Program
6. Lessons Learned and the Future of the Interacademy Program
Pages 81-95
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 81... ...
Despite the adoption in Russia of new approaches to governance and the economic crisis throughout the country, the RAS rests on three pillars that in many ways closely resemble academy pillars of the Soviet era: 1 . A prestigious, influential, and relatively well-paid membership consisting of academicians and corresponding members.
|
From page 82... ...
A clear trend within the RAS institutes during the past decade has been a greater role for applied research and a decline in basic research despite the commitments of the readerships of both the nation and the RAS to retaining strong fundamental research capabilities. Driven by the need to find commercial sources of financing and by Sunders' waning interest in basic research that has no economic, environmental, or social payoff in the foreseeable future, most senior officials of the RAS and its institutes agree that even the most brilliant Russian scientists must learn to break bread with paying customers.
|
From page 83... ...
Now a surprisingly large number of academy researchers who had little involvement in Soviet defense activities are being recruited to participate in counterterrorism, nonproliferation, and other security-related programs with extensive international dimensions. Also, in both security and nonsecurity areas some institutes have established core programs that are largely supported by foreign organizations in exchange for continuing foreign access to the strong intellectual capabilities of Russian staffs.
|
From page 84... ...
science-based organizations with international programs is to convince an array of U.S. government departments and agencies that building science and technology capacity in Russia in nonsensitive areas of global concern is an important objective, and that cooperative programs can have tangible benefits for the United States.
|
From page 85... ...
Most if not all of these lessons are also relevant to other cooperative programs, and the National Academies should certainly share successes and difficulties broadly with interested parties. Learning from Reviews of Past Cooperative Activities A review of government-financed U.S.-Russian cooperative efforts is carried out each year by the U.S.
|
From page 86... ...
The report of the assessment sets forth a list of lessons learned from cooperative programs (Schweitzer, 19971. Those that seem particularly relevant to future interacademy activities appear in Box 6-1.
|
From page 87... ...
Clearly, an important lesson learned in preparing this report is that there should be more frequent across-the-board reviews of past interacademy programs to help guide future plans. Cooperating on Important Topics Not Adequately A`l~lresse~l in Moscow anal Washington Over the years, a characteristic of many ofthe most notable interacademy projects has been that they were "ahead of the curve." They explored topics that were of great interest to both governments but that had not benefited from scrutiny by highly qualified, independent experts; they were held in locations not accustomed to receiving foreign visitors; or they involved organizations and individuals who were not regular participants in cooperative programs and who brought fresh perspectives to efforts to address seemingly intractable problems.
|
From page 88... ...
Documenting Conclusions from Interacademy Projects An important characteristic of many interacademy activities has been the participation of specialists from both countries who have had close ties with officials of their governments, thus easing the flow of observations and suggestions from interacademy deliberations to government policy circles, at least during and immediately after the projects. In the mid-1980s, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev established a brain trust of academicians, who were also the principal interlocutors for interacademy programs.
|
From page 89... ...
Senior academy officials and experts assembled from around the country were given access without delay to senior government officials addressing vulnerabilities in the nation's physical infrastructure. Moreover, Secretary of State Colin Powell has met with academy leaders, and he delivered a particularly memorable talk on the nation's international agenda vis-a-vis science and technology at the NAS annual meeting in April 2002.
|
From page 90... ...
No better example can be cited than the enthusiasm of the leadership of the Russian Patent Agency in carrying forward the ideas on modification of Russian patent laws that were initially tabled at several interacademy meetings in the mid-1990s. Although the significant legislative changes were enacted five years later, the roots of the changes can be clearly traced to the interacademy program.5 Sometimes special measures are needed to focus attention on the important issues of the knowledgeable Russians invited to participate in interacademy activities.
|
From page 91... ...
At the same time, they retained their interest in cooperating through interacademy channels. Adopting Modest Goals for Interacademy Projects Frequently, false expectations are associated with interacademy projectsparticularly when some of the participants are unfamiliar with the traditional role of interacademy cooperation, which, with several exceptions, has emphasized convening specialists rather than initiating operational programs.
|
From page 92... ...
.6 Also important in developing interacademy programs are the following technical areas selected by the Russian government ("Basic Principles of the Russian Federation Policy in the Field of Development of Science and Technology for the Period until 2010," approved by President Vladimir Putin, March 30, 2002) for priority in revitalizing the science and technology base: · information-telecommunication technologies and electronics · aerospace technologies 6A good overview of the science and technology potential, organization, legislation, policy, funding, and education in Russia is presented in Gokhherg (1997)
|
From page 93... ...
Innovating for prof t. This theme should build on past experience in developing linkages between RAS researchers and Russian industry, establishing viable high-tech firms in science cities and improving the legal
|
From page 94... ...
The interacaclemy projects on ethnic relations, environmental NGOs, ancl the international nuclear spent fuel site have underscored the important role of scientists in clarifying policy options, the consequences of value-laclen clecisions, ancl the significance of the evolution of a strong civil society. The RAS is playing an important role in these ancl related areas, ancl the ground is fertile for additional activities throughout the regions of Russia directed toward strengthening the civil society infrastructure.
|
From page 95... ...
But the National Academies, which for the present must assume the burden of providing most of the funding for travel and related costs, will find the task of raising sufficient funds to support such cooperation difficult, particularly in the nonsecurity area. The National Academies have repeatedly used limited internal funds to support interacademy activities.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.