washington

A dozen well placed technical staff and a $500,000-a-year external advisory board could revive the scientific and technical capabilities of the US Department of State. So says a preliminary report prepared by the National Academy of Sciences and delivered earlier this month to Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state.

Important issues on science and technology “are not receiving adequate attention within the department”, says the report. It was written over the summer by a panel chaired by Robert Frosch of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government in response to mounting criticism of how the state department handles science-related issues.

Briefing a meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology on the study last week, Frosch said there were plenty of sources of sound advice on science and technology available in Washington, but that the state department was ill-equipped to access it.

“The question is how the state department can develop better internal receptors” for scientific input, Frosch said. “We suggest that the secretary of state asks one of the under-secretaries to take special responsibility for these issues.”

Scientists in the United States have long complained that the state department, which is responsible for US foreign affairs, is ill-equipped to handle scientific and technical questions. But the complaints have sharpened markedly over the past year (see Nature 392, 427; 1998).

Critics charge that, under the Clinton administration, the state department's Office of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) has concentrated on the environment at the expense of science.

They also claim that the department's meagre scientific and technical capability is overwhelmed by the range of foreign-policy issues — from international copyright laws to trade disputes involving satellites or genetically modified organisms — which now revolve around science or technology.

The Frosch study says that the state department should hire two or three technical staff in the office of the under-secretary who would be assigned special responsibility for science and technology. It should also develop “several additional clusters” of scientific competence at five of its other Washington bureaux.

The report adds that the department should set up procedures enabling it to second people from science agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, to fill science counsellor positions at US embassies with suitably qualified staff. It suggests an array of possible mechanisms to garner advice on science and technology.

The most comprehensive of these would be a formal advisory committee modelled on the Defense Science Board, which advises the Pentagon.

The panel was hesitant in recommending the appointment of a science advisor to the secretary. Glenn Schweitzer, the study director, notes that interest groups such as women and labour unions have pressed for similar appointments to represent their particular interests. “We're reluctant to line up with them just yet,” Schweitzer says.

The department is recruiting a science adviser for Melinda Kimble, the assistant secretary for OES (see Nature 393, 612; 1998). But Frosch says this will have little effect on the department as a whole.

The interim Frosch report was produced quickly to help the state department prepare its budget for 2000. In a letter to Albright, Bruce Alberts, the president of the National Academy of Sciences, said the report's recommendations could be implemented with the establishment of about 12 positions and, at most, $500,000 for the advisory structure. “These seem modest investments given the stakes involved,” Alberts wrote.

Alberts also asked for a meeting with Albright to help direct a fuller report from the Frosch panel, due in a year's time. Although she requested the study, the most senior official to meet the Frosch panel was her deputy, Strobe Talbot.