21 February 2000

Text: Secretary Albright's Remarks to American Association for the Advancement of Science

As prepared for delivery

Click here for portions pertaining to Biotechnology

It is a great honor to address the most distinguished and diverse gathering of scientists and engineers in the world.

It is also a bit intimidating. If just a fraction of the Nobel Prize winners and brilliant minds who are here today had been present 30 years ago when I defended my dissertation at Columbia, I might have turned around and headed right back out the door.

Of course, that couldn't have happened. My doctorate is in International Relations. Many of your degrees are in fields such as Physics and Physiology, Computer Science and Chemistry, Economics and Engineering. Someone reading C.P. Snow's Two Cultures might well conclude that even if you had been on my dissertation committee, we wouldn't have been speaking the same language.

I have to admit that I don't speak science very well. I'm not a member of the triple-A "S." However, I am a member of the triple-A, double "S"-- the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies. This doesn't help me understand physics, but it's nice to know that at least our acronyms are related.

Moreover, as Secretary of State, I have both learned and thought a lot about the linkages between what scientists and diplomats know and do.

We live in a global era. National borders mean less. From microbes to missiles, the threats we face could come from almost anywhere on earth. International cooperation is essential to respond to such challenges.

Because cooperation is required, so is diplomacy -- but that is not sufficient. For if negotiations are actually to solve problems, rather than merely paper them over, they must often be informed by first-rate scientific advice.

Even today, not everyone in the so-called "foreign affairs community" is comfortable with that. Sometimes, it takes awhile for something different to be accepted as a legitimate part of the mainstream of our foreign policy.

At one time, economics was considered outside the pale. It took decades for human rights to loom larger in our policies. And it required some two centuries before women were considered fit both as shapers of policy and builders of progress important to American aims overseas.

But today, there can be no question about the integral role science and technology must play in our diplomacy and more generally in world affairs.

And I want to thank you at the outset for all your community is doing to help the State Department meet its science and technology -- or S&T -- needs.

The ten AAAS Fellows we have at State this year -- like their many predecessors -- are a splendid resource. The National Research Council study completed in October was a great service to the Department and to the country. The National Science Foundation has allowed us to bring Jack Gibbons on board as Senior Science Consultant -- where my former White House colleague is doing a tremendous job. More broadly, the S&T community has given much of its time and resources, both material and intellectual.

I especially want to thank William Golden for his incredible generosity. Whether as a banker or in public service, Bill has always known the value of a good investment. And that has been clear ever since he helped persuade Harry Truman to bring a Science Advisor into the White House.

Speaking of which, it appears that President Clinton has been getting some pretty good advice. In his new budget, the President is proposing increased investments in civilian R&D for the eighth year in a row. He is also seeking a $1 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health; the largest dollar increase in history for the National Science Foundation; and $50 million to create an Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection.

Quite clearly, the President believes, as do I, in better living through science. That is true here at home. And it is true for the world.

This afternoon, I want to talk about the intersections between science and diplomacy, and how they are making a difference on issues and in parts of the globe that matter to Americans. Then, I would like to describe some specific steps we will be taking to ensure that our foreign policy takes full advantage of all available scientific and technological expertise.

For we have learned that our diplomacy is most effective when we have a full set of tools at our disposal. And that in a world being transformed by science, good science is one of the tools most vital to good diplomacy.

This is not theory. It is proven fact.

For example, it was first-rate science that alerted us to the loss of stratospheric ozone -- and the threat this poses to human health. The evidence was so compelling it led to an international agreement, known as the Montreal Protocol, under which ozone-depleting chemicals are being phased out around the world. The Montreal Protocol helped us turn the corner in fighting a global environmental problem. And the science behind it won a Nobel Prize.

Since the dawn of the nuclear age, science has informed our efforts on arms control. Today, it is easy to view advancing technology simply as the crux of the proliferation problem. But as Adlai Stevenson once said, "There is no evil in the atom, only in men's souls."

Our challenge -- which we are meeting -- is to use our growing knowledge to make arms control more effective and to broaden its scope. Often this is based on improvements in remote sensing and other verification technologies.

In the painstaking development of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the zero-yield decision, among others, was based on rigorous S&T analysis -- first by government scientists, then by the independent JASON group. There would be no viable Treaty today if not for that decision.

And because the science behind the Treaty is sound, I am convinced that America will ultimately join the CTBT -- and thus help to ensure that the nuclear arms race becomes a relic of the 20th Century, not a recurring nightmare of the 21st.

Simply put, arms control often is rocket science. And we must keep good rocket scientists in our midst if we hope to keep doing it well.

Speaking of rockets, another subject of interest to both diplomats and scientists is space. Two Decembers ago, I traveled to Cape Canaveral to see the launch of the first U.S. element of the International Space Station. The first launch was scrubbed, so it took me two tries and two sleepless nights. But I was determined to be there, because I knew I would be witnessing an historic event from the perspective of both your community and mine.

In space, the Global Positioning System, based on U.S. technology, is bringing major advances in air traffic safety, and is also guiding millions of hikers, boaters and motorists all over the world. The United States has a major stake in ensuring that GPS becomes the world standard. Our diplomats are working to ensure that at a minimum, any other systems -- including Europe's proposed Galileo -- are compatible with GPS.

The oceans are another area where wise management and international cooperation are required. Fish don't respect marine boundaries. And the economic stakes are high. So science provides the only sure basis for reaching agreements that can not only be signed, but implemented to bring about the best sustainable use of marine resources.

We took a major stride in the agreement we completed last summer with Canada to manage North America's Pacific Salmon fishery. Good science helped us shift the debate away from unresolvable issues of "equity" to the development of rules for conservation of salmon stocks and habitat. This treaty will be good for the resource and for those who depend upon it on both sides of the border.

Of course, diplomacy and science are not negotiated in a vacuum. Governments respond to many forces, including economic and trade interests, as well as the values and fears of their people. That has certainly been the case with recent international differences about the perceived risks and benefits of biotechnology.

Biotech crops have tremendous potential to produce more and better food while using less land, water and pesticides. For example, vitamin A-enriched rice could reduce blindness and disease among the more than 100 million children in the world who suffer from a deficiency in that vitamin.

At the same time, science tells us that biotechnology -- like all technologies -- may present risks. If improperly managed, some biotech products could harm "non-target" species or increase the resistance of weeds.

But science does not support the "Frankenfood" fears of some -- particularly outside the United States -- that biotech foods or other products will harm human health. So it is unfortunate that unsubstantiated fears about biotech products exerted significant influence on the recently-concluded Biosafety Protocol.

We fought and succeeded in basing that agreement on good science. That small victory could yield big benefits for Americans and consumers worldwide. But we know that the biotech controversy has not fully been resolved.

The Biosafety negotiation shows that simply having good science is not always enough. The science must be part of a larger long-term strategy to educate publics and work with governments to address concerns and find practical solutions to specific problems. In fact, on many of the issues where my field intersects with yours, this may be the closest thing we have to a working formula for success.

This formula certainly accounts for our advances in the area of global climate change. Don't get me wrong: the Kyoto Protocol remains a work in progress. And we have many skeptics yet to convert on Capitol Hill.

But on this issue more broadly, the United States has not only been out front in doing the science; we have been out front in communicating the science publicly, and in a coordinated and energetic way. So that whatever international disagreements there are about how to deal with this challenge -- and there are plenty -- almost all of them concern how to address it, not whether a problem exists.

For that we can thank the S&T community, working through such bodies as the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. This Panel is a model of how governments and scientists can work together to develop international consensus.

Of course, scientists need the support of political leaders to foster popular understanding and change public policy. I am proud of the effort that President Clinton and Vice President Gore have invested in the climate change issue. And I am convinced it will make all the difference in the end.

I don't want to imply that this very selective discussion I've just gone through is exhaustive. There are a number of other commercial, regional, and security-related subjects on which our ability to integrate science and diplomacy is vital to success.

In the Middle East, for example, our diplomats work closely with scientists on water issues that are critical to the search for a comprehensive peace.

In the telecommunications area, gaining expertise on spectrum allocation and standards-setting for wireless services has allowed us to better advocate U.S. commercial interests.

In the global fight against narco-trafficking, we have been helped by sound science on alternative crops to coca, marijuana and opium poppy.

In our Science and Technology Centers, we engage former Soviet weapons scientists in civilian activities so they do not sell their skills to rogue states.

Our foreign policy also now encompasses a number of issues that once were viewed simply as health matters.

We have long known that the HIV/AIDS pandemic is a profound human tragedy. In recent years -- as Vice President Gore recently indicated at the UN -- we have recognized it as a foreign policy challenge, as well.

That is why we launched a diplomatic initiative last year to urge foreign leaders to put more money and muscle into the fight against HIV/AIDs.

And it is why, more broadly, President Clinton in his State of the Union address called for concerted action to fight infectious killer diseases around the world.

I noted earlier what a profound service the National Research Council has performed in answering my request to study the ways and means by which the State Department may better fulfill its S&T responsibilities.

This is not the time or place for an extended response to the NRC's report or to similar contributions by others here. Within the next few weeks, I will be receiving the final report of a Departmental Task Force on Strengthening Science at State. But I do want to comment on the subject, because I think it is of mutual interest.

First, a mea culpa. The State Department's science capabilities have not always been as substantial as they should be. That's why I asked for the review.

But bear in mind that to a great extent, this has been the result of a serious, Department-wide shortage of resources in recent years. Our workload and security costs have gone way up. Our funding and personnel have not kept pace. Our people with science responsibilities have been stretched thin. But they have done a great job under the circumstances, and deserve our thanks and support.

Second, a caveat. I'm not going to limit myself to outlining a plan for upgrading science at the Department merely through the end of the Clinton Administration. Rather, I want to lay out my long-term vision for doing so. Because this will be a multi-year, multi-Administration, bipartisan mission.

As a start, next month I will issue a Policy Statement setting forth my commitment to enhance the Department's ability to handle S&T issues and to improve our access to the experts who can help us.

Second, I want to begin building an enhanced leadership and management structure for these issues across the Department.

I will appoint a Science Advisor as soon as possible, who will be located within the Under Secretariat for Global Affairs. We are seeking the very best person from a strong list of candidates. There is not one we are considering in whom I would not have great confidence. Or who would not have direct access to me. That is more than a congressional mandate -- it is what I want.

I also intend to establish a Science Directorate within the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.

I do not intend to limit consideration of science at State to the Global Under Secretariat or the OES Bureau. Rather, we should aim for a network of small clusters of solid scientific competence throughout the Department, wherever they are needed to wrestle with tough problems.

Where such clusters already exist, we should learn from and make good use of them. For example, the office of the Under Secretary for Arms Control has its own Science Advisor. It draws on the independent expertise of an advisory board that meets monthly. And we have established a new Bureau of Verification and Compliance which has responsibility over the R&D and much of the science that is needed in its field.

I plan to review the Department's recruitment, training, and promotion policies to upgrade and broaden our in-house scientific expertise.

I will launch a review of our Science Counselor positions worldwide, and decide which need to be upgraded. New Delhi, I can promise you already, is one that will.

And I want to forge a truly active partnership with the S&T community. That means more and better communication with outside scientists. It means co-sponsoring regular roundtables on key issues such as the one on biotech agriculture we had last summer, or the one on carbon sinks that we are planning for this spring. And it means better use of Internet technology to follow developments in technology.

I have no illusions that these changes will be quick or easy. After all, it doesn't take a physicist to know that change is harder than inertia.

When I was a professor at Georgetown, it was difficult even to add a geography course to the curriculum at the School of Foreign Service. The thinking was that although geography may be destiny, it has nothing to do with diplomacy. We fought that thinking -- and we won.

The changes I envision for the Department are likewise necessary and worth fighting for. With your help, that process can get well underway, right away.

Speaking of help, I cannot leave you without saying just a few words about a subject that is critical to so much of what we both want -- and that is resources.

For years now, the funds available for foreign policy have not kept pace with our responsibilities, which have grown in even more ways than you have heard about today. People often cannot believe it when I tell them that only one penny out of every dollar the Federal Government spends goes for international affairs.

But that one percent of the Federal budget affects the lives of 100 percent of the American people, and countless millions around the world as well. For peace, for progress, for a healthier environment and a safer world, U.S. diplomacy is often our first line of defense and the best investment we can make.

So I hope I will have the support of every one of you, and the entire S&T community, in seeking the resources we need. Because as much as I want to do for science at State, our current budget is a very small pie. And the changes I have talked about today will have to be made within our existing resource constraints. So the more we work together to expand the overall pie, the bigger the slice we will have for our responsibilities related to science.

Before closing, I have an additional thought. The purpose of American diplomacy is to protect American interests. This basic fact hasn't changed in 200 years. But because the world has grown so much smaller, we now define our interests much more broadly.

To one degree or another, we have a stake in the stability of every part of the globe. To us, diplomacy has ceased to be a zero-sum game. It is in America's interest to bring nations closer together around basic principles of democracy, liberty and law that will lift the lives of people everywhere.

To me, this provides a deeper connection between diplomacy and science than any single initiative or project. Because the best science is driven by a similar impulse to improve not just the American condition, but also the human condition; to enable children in even the poorest countries to grow up in health and hope.

Here, you have a bit of an advantage over diplomats, for we are by definition official representatives. And today, although our government is widely respected, America is also resented by those who confuse leadership with hegemony, and distrusted by those who, in our place, would use their power for more selfish ends.

Scientists, I hope, are less vulnerable to such negative pressures. Because there is no hegemony in the quiet, but persistent, quest for truth. No resentment towards those who seek to conquer malaria or HIV/AIDS. No doubting the motives of those working to spare a region or an entire planet from ecological disaster.

Science, perhaps even more than diplomacy, carries with it the hopes of people everywhere who seek a future better than the past. As I look out at you today, I believe more and more that when our best efforts are truly joined together, we have it within our power to realize that simple, but all-important aspiration.

In the same classic I cited at the outset, Sir Charles Snow wrote that scientists "have the future in their bones."

As we strive to shape the future together, America's diplomats must have scientists in our ranks and by our side. And you must be able to inform our efforts with what you know and can help us understand.

The divide between our two cultures is real. And bridging it completely -- to benefit our nation and our world -- is a mighty tall order.

But there is no better time than the start of a new century to design a great mission. And no better gathering than this to launch one.

To that end, I pledge my own best efforts, and respectfully solicit your wise counsel and support.

Thank you very much.