Science
Advisors to Presidents and Prime Ministers
A Brief History of the Carnegie Group's First Years, 1990-1992
THE
MEETINGS
THE FIRST MEETING, MOUNT KISCO, NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 21-23, 1991
By coincidence, the science advisor to President Gorbachev of
the Soviet Union at the time was Professor Yuri Osip'yan, a long-time
personal friend of mine since we had served together on the executive
committee of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
and had each become president of that organization. At Bill Golden's
suggestion, it was agreed that Yuri and I would serve as co-chairmen
of the initial meeting.
On behalf of the Carnegie Commission, Bill Golden then invited
Hubert Curien of France, Wataru Mori of Japan, Yuri Osip'yan of
the Soviet Union, Filippo Pandolfi of the European Community,
Heinz Riesenhuber of the Federal Republic of Germany, Antonio
Ruberti of Italy, William Stewart of the United Kingdom, and William
Winegard of Canada; after discussion with them we settled on February
21-23, 1991, for the initial meeting. Unfortunately, Heinz Reisenhuber
was unable to attend (he subsequently has told me that he initially
had substantial doubts about the value of such a meeting); Antonio
Ruberti was unable to attend (in part because of an unfortunate
misunderstanding about the possibility of bringing a staff translator);
and Bill Winegard, at the last moment, was unable to attend because
of a minor crisis in the Canadian Cabinet. (Brief biographical
sketches of each of these members as well as of others who joined
the group in 1991-1992 are included in Appendix
A.) The remaining members of the group, together with Bill
Golden and David Beckler--a staff member of the Carnegie Commission
and a long-time senior staff member of the presidential science
advisory mechanism in the United States--convened at the Seven
Springs Center in Mount Kisco on February 21, 1991.
My co-chairman Yuri Osip'yan and I spent some time with the responses
to my earlier request for agenda items and put together the agenda
for the meeting, which is included here, together with those of
subsequent meetings, in Appendix B. Bill
Golden opened the meeting with a gracious welcome on behalf of
the Carnegie Commission, and I made a few remarks as the national
host; then discussion got under way over preprandial drinks and
an excellent dinner. This pattern of meeting on the evening before
the business sessions for drinks, discussion, and dinner, has
been followed in each of our subsequent meetings and has provided
an effective way for us to catch up on personal conversations
on a wide spectrum of matters--some left over from prior meetings.
It was agreed at the outset that we would not attempt to produce
any formal report or summary of our discussions and would not
grant interviews to media representatives concerning our discussions,
in order to retain the maximum degree of informality possible.
In that spirit I shall not attempt, in any way, to reproduce the
content of our discussions, but would emphasize that from the
very outset the discussions were remarkably open, friendly, and
productive.
During this first meeting, we spent a substantial part of the
first day simply providing reports covering our respective responsibilities,
problems, and challenges. All of us were impressed by the degree
to which we shared problems and also by the degree to which we
had been unaware of many aspects of our colleagues' activities.
The information transfer was both effective and efficient.
The agenda speaks for itself, but it is worth focusing on the
last item, "Desirability of, and mechanisms for, future Carnegie
Group Activity." By the beginning of the second full day,
we had all agreed that the meeting was an extremely useful one;
that, if possible, it should be repeated at roughly six-month
intervals; and that the group should formally be known as "The
Carnegie Group," in recognition of our sponsorship by the
Carnegie Commission. After considerable discussion, we drafted
the following statement for possible transmission to our respective
heads of state or governments: Science and technology are becoming
increasingly important to the welfare of mankind, to economic
competitiveness and to both national and international securities.
And scientific and technological activities are increasingly costly.
Sharing of such costs thorough international cooperation's is
becoming more and more attractive for this reason alone; but such
cooperation conveys other very important benefits. For example,
the channels of communication and trust forged in scientific and
technological cooperation can be broadened to encompass a much
wider range of topics.
We would suggest, as candidate topics for strengthened international
cooperation, each in its broadest sense:
a) Energy
b) Protection of the global environment
c) Technologies for the developing world
d) Human welfare and nutrition.
This informal group of senior science and technology advisors
would welcome the instruction to develop position papers on any
one of these or similar matters of global concern. In the end,
however, we decided against releasing the statement on the grounds
that such release would be contrary to our fundamental principle
of keeping the discussions informal and private.
It was recognized that the absence of our colleagues Riesenhuber,
Ruberti, and Winegard had left a large gap in our discussions,
and it was agreed that if a second meeting were to be held, it
was essential that every effort be made to ensure full participation.
In his opening remarks, Bill Golden had emphasized that if the
group decided that a second meeting would be useful, the Carnegie
Commission had already indicated that, in principle, it would
be willing to provide the necessary support, and I was asked to
communicate to Mr. Golden not only the appreciation of the participants
for the Commission's hospitality at the initial meeting, but also
the enthusiastic and unanimous desire of the group to take up
the Commission's offer and hold a second meeting in roughly six
months' time. It was agreed that thereafter the meetings would
circulate among the member countries, with the host country arranging
for a suitable site and providing the necessary financial support.
During the meeting we all agreed to circulate various documents
providing background for some of our discussion, and in Appendix
C I provide an illustrative list of the documents that I forwarded
to the other members of the group on April 4, 1992.
Although no staff were present at this meeting, or indeed at any
of the subsequent ones, a rather amazing number of police and
security personnel emerged from the woods surrounding the Seven
Springs Center at one point during the meeting, in response to
a local rumor that a female terrorist had been spotted in the
neighborhood! We were being watched over!
The only media reporting subsequent to this first meeting of the
Carnegie Group was an article in Le Monde which extrapolated
extensively--and incorrectly--from a few brief remarks that Hubert
Curien had made in response to reporters' questions when they
met him on his return to Paris.
THE
SECOND MEETING, MOUNT KISCO, NEW YORK, OCTOBER 4-6, 1991
Fortunately, all members found it possible to attend this second
meeting of the Carnegie Group, and again Bill Golden and Dave
Beckler were present for the cocktail hour and dinner on October
4. Again Yuri Osip'yan and I served as co-chairmen, and, based
on the response of members to my earlier request for agenda items,
the agenda included in Appendix B was developed. Where indicated,
specific members had agreed to lead the discussion, and this greater
degree of organization added substantially to the scope of the
meeting. Again, the last item ("Questions concerning the
future functioning of the Carnegie Group") bears emphasis.
It had already become clear that, building on the personal relationships
developed in the first meeting, members had found it possible,
on several occasions, simply to pick up their telephones and resolve
international issues that, in the absence of such communications,
could well have become international problems. We again
considered the possibility of a short public note concerning the
meeting, because considerable curiosity had developed--both in
the media and in our respective governments--about the activities
of the Carnegie Group, but again we decided against any such reporting.
We also decided against the preparation of formal issue papers
before subsequent meetings on the grounds that what distinguished
the Carnegie Group meetings was the absence of such formal documents
and the open, candid, informal discussion of all the issues on
the agenda. Substantial time was devoted to discussion of whether
additional countries should be added to the membership, with specific
attention focused on China, but the conclusion was that the addition
of China would be premature and that it would not be possible
to add only a small number of members without raising invidious
and divisive questions of selection--while to add a large number
would effectively destroy the informality that we considered to
be of crucial importance.
Bill Stewart, on behalf of the United Kingdom, invited the group
to hold its third meeting at Leeds Castle, and this invitation
was enthusiastically accepted.
THE
THIRD MEETING, LEEDS CASTLE, UNITED KINGDOM, MAY 22-24, 1992
All members of the group, except for Antonio Ruberti, who was
forced to cancel at the last moment because of political problems
in Italy, were in attendance, but, reflecting the political changes
in the Soviet Union, Yuri Osip'yan was replaced by Boris Saltykov.
Bill Stewart was joined in hosting the meeting by William Waldegrave,
the new Minister of Science and Technology and Chancellor of the
Duchy of Lancaster in the Government of the United Kingdom. Bill
Golden also was able to join us for drinks and dinner, before
which we had the pleasure of a guided tour of the entire castle,
perhaps the finest in the United Kingdom.
Bill Stewart had earlier requested suggestions for discussion
items, and the resulting agenda is included in Appendix
B; again, individual members had volunteered to lead discussion
in particular areas, and, reflecting the growing trust and personal
friendship among the members, the discussions were even more candid
and open than had been the case in the earlier two meetings. For
this reason they were particularly valuable to all the members,
many of whom have commented subsequently on this increased trust
and candor. Although our colleague Osip'yan was missed, the group
was pleased to learn that his cardiac surgery had been successful,
and we welcomed Boris Saltykov, who drew on his intimate knowledge
of the state of science and technology in Russia and the former
Soviet Union to provide the group with a uniquely detailed overview
of the problems and challenges facing the former Soviet republics
as they adjusted to independence, and--unfortunately--to rapidly
dwindling resources for science and technology.
In our closing discussion of future meetings, it was agreed that
the format was a successful one, that six months was an appropriate
interval between meetings, and that the next two meetings would
be held in France and Japan, respectively, with Hubert Curien
and Wataru Mori serving as hosts.
THE
FOURTH MEETING, RAMBOUILLET, FRANCE, DECEMBER 3*-6, 1992
Through the good offices of Hubert Curien we were privileged to
hold the fourth meeting of the Carnegie Group at the Rambouillet
country home of President Francois Mitterrand of France. Moreover,
Hubert had been able to arrange for the President's culinary staff
to be present at Rambouillet for our meeting and to be responsible
for both food and wine! Bill Stewart and Boris Saltykov were not
able to be present, and the United Kingdom was represented by
William Waldegrave, while Alessandro Fontana replaced Antonio
Ruberti as the Italian representative. Bill Golden was able to
join us for the cocktail hour and dinner on December 3, and we
were also privileged to have Madame Lauvergeon, the Secretary-General
of the Presidency of the French Republic and herself a scientist,
join us for cocktails and dinner. Again, we were delighted to
have a guided tour of the Rambouillet castle.
The agenda for this fourth meeting is included here in Appendix
B, and the agreed-upon discussion leaders are indicated for
a number of the agenda items.
Inasmuch as my tour of duty as science advisor ended on January
20, 1993, so also did my membership in the Carnegie Group. Happily,
and in part on the separate but identical advice of Bill Golden
and myself, my successor, John H. Gibbons, was named very early
in the Clinton administration--on December 24, 1992--and so represented
the United States in the Tokyo and subsequent meetings of the
Carnegie Group. Appendix D lists
the participants in the first eight meetings of the Group.
Speaking now as an alumnus of the Group, I can say that I believe
that it far more than fulfilled our original expectations and
is now a very well recognized and unique channel for international
communication and cooperation in science and technology. In ways
that we had never anticipated, it complements the more formal
intergovernmental mechanisms, and the advantages of having a large
enough group (and sufficient trust and respect among the members)
to permit entirely candid discussion of common and mutual problems
have been even more important than we anticipated.
I believe that the success of the Group's meetings has been largely
due to their informal nature, to the absence of publicity, and
to the camaraderie developed among the participants, and I believe
that the danger of losing either or both of the first two elements
is always real, and will require vigilance for their preservation
I have considered my membership in the Carnegie Group to be both
a personal pleasure and privilege and one of the high points of
my service in government.
Go
to table of contents
Go to next section