Embassy Events 2004

Dr. George Atkinson is Secretary of State Colin Powell's Adviser for Science and Technology issues

Why was the Science and Technology advisory position in the State Department created?

The position was created because the American scientific community – mostly the National Academies were concerned about whether good science, sound science was being incorporated into the discussion of foreign policy. So foreign policy was increasingly dependent on technological issues.

If you look at the wide range of issues – from energy to infectious diseases, genetically modified organisms and so forth – these are really the issues that oftentimes shape society. In fact, one can make a case that many modern societies are shaped by the technology available to them. So it was natural to be concerned with strengthening science.

Over the years, perhaps in the late 80s and almost all the way into the 90s, this information was diminished; there were very few scientists who were really into foreign policy. And at the same time, the rate of science and technology advances was accelerating, and the impact on the international community was accelerating even faster. And the way in which the public was learning about science was accelerating even faster than that – and probably from sources that were not well informed. So we had a confluence of lots of problems.

What is the Science and Technology Adviser supposed to do?

So what is the Science Adviser supposed to do? We are really talking about three things.

First, increase the capacity of science within the State Department. So that means more science fellows who come for short periods of time. The Jefferson Science Program is a new one I created – we just started it. It’s a new relationship with the economic community in the United States. This a program where tenured American faculty can come to State for one year and remain as consultants to the Department for five years after they go back to economics. So it’s not a way of trying to change a person’s career, but a way to get them to provide advice.

And we have internships, as you know. We have a very heavy recruitment program for finding Foreign Service Officers in the science field. So one is issue is capacity.

The second issue: To help on some contemporary issues in science, particularly the ITER program [an international program to develop fusion energy for peaceful purposes] and visas – trying to find ways that provide the appropriate level of security for the United States, while at the same time maintaining the openness of the scientific community.

The United States is very dependent on foreign nationals. More than 40% of all the graduate school students in science and engineering in the United States today are from outside the country. In areas like engineering it’s more than 80%. So we have in the real world of the 21st century a very strong dependence on foreign nationals entering our program. And this, of course, is reflected directly in history. Science has been international for 200 years or more. The United States has probably been the best example, having an open system, which attracts scientists. To say it’s a fully American system is probably to misunderstand it. The system may be American, but the people who populate the system tend to be from around the world. So visas are a big issue for us.

The third area is to move the attention of the Department away from a reactive mode to a more anticipatory, proactive mode. This means providing direct advice to the Secretary – so not only to the bureaucracy, but to actually have opportunities to speak directly with the Secretary. I saw him about a week ago yesterday.

In the areas of what I’ll call emerging and at-the-horizon science we want a chance to identify opportunities and vulnerabilities. What options do these scientific advances give us? And, of course, once we decide, then what are the potential positives and negatives for them? And that is a very complicated issue.

So when you come to Poland, are you talking mostly with academics or with the government – or both – to find out what the state of science is in Poland?

A little bit of both. Yesterday I was in Krakow and was invited to give a talk at the European Molecular Spectroscopy Conference. This was purely in my role as a scientist. I’m still an active scientist at the University of Arizona. But today I was talking to a couple policy people in the Polish government.

I think there’s always going to be an opportunity for us to take advantage of what is in the national interests of countries like Poland and the United States. Where are the overlaps? Where are the opportunities that are mutually beneficial? But in a way it’s already determined, because the scientific community works internationally.

I’ve met Polish post-doctoral fellows over many years of interaction. I’ve been here before – in the 80s. The community of scholars dominates this question to begin with. It isn’t determined by science and technology agreements. It’s facilitated sometimes by them, but it’s certainly not limited.

I think that the conversation with the Academy with the Science and Technology Minister at lunch laid out in a very productive way what the interests of Poland are and then compared them to what the interests of the United States are. Where are the overlaps?

It’s more controversial to say that it is in the best interests of the United States to find these overlaps. It is not largesse on our part. We have a self-interest to identify and productively push forward these relationships.

The Polish community has a long, very distinguished history in science and technology – Madame Curie and many others. I just visited Copernicus’ place for the second time in my life in Krakow. And this is a point that should really be emphasized: The distinguished achievements of countries like Poland rank extremely high among the opportunities provided to the United States in terms of the 20th century. You know, the old story about Galileo standing on the shoulders of giants. He was referring to Copernicus and others. These are the descendants of scientists who are absolutely relevant to today.

The United States’ position in the world is, I think arguably, traceable to a large extent through its technological advances. How did that happen? It happened because we’re a very open, welcoming, very embracing type of community. That should be expanded into the 21st century. There are new mechanisms, new ways of doing things. So the U.S.-Polish relationship starts with that premise, at least in science and technology.

We know our communities have mutual benefits for each other. We know the government’s task is to find those overlaps and then to facilitate them. The current environment is wonderfully positive. We have every reason to be optimistic about it. Whether it’ll be easy, I question. But it’ll happen.

Thank you for the interview, Dr. Atkinson.