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.

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.

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.

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

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

available to everyone a means of self-education.