Are We Giving Away Our Science and Technology?

Abstract

Does an open information policy pay off, or does it simply give away technical and scientific advantages of a country? Strong philosophical arguments can be marshalled on either side. Here, for what may be the first time, the author offers empirical evidence that an open information policy pays off in concrete rewards of information. THE JAPANESE BUY 30,200 reports annually from the National Technical Information Service. This is 17 percent of total foreign sales.The Russians buy 7,000 reports for four percent of foreign sales. Foreign sales, in turn, are 19 percent of domestic sales. At the same time, American companies are importing Russian technology in aluminum manufacturing and high-voltage transmission.'In a similar manner, Japanese businessmen serve as economic and technical intelligence agents who scour the open literature for promising leads. They benefit from their business and professional contacts to gain and pass on information.' The effects on competitive American industry and the balance of payments are well known. Harvey Brooks, Dean of Engineering and Applied Physics at Harvard, foresees a future of relative parity in technology between the U.S. and the rest of the world, and this will logically result in an era of heightened competition.3Faced with these problems of balance of payments and greater competition, can the U.S. afford its liberal policies of information dissemination any longer? Are we, in fact, giving away our science and technology without any return? What should our future policy be? Is the open spirit of scientific inquiry in the U.S. and Britain no longer valid? Depending on one's response to these questions, one strategy would be to withdraw behind protective barriers and seek to maintain secrecy over the outflow of information. Another strategy would be to recognize the international nature of world science and technology and continue to participate fully and openly in its development. Imposing arguments can surely be marshalled in defense of cither strategy.