March 5, 1962

MEMORANDUM
TO; Chairman, Panel on Scientific Manpower, PSAC
FROM: Joshua Lederberg, Professor of Genetics

SUBJECT: Realistic View of Immigrant Technical Manpower

May | remark that most discussions of the role and utility of ex-
change visitors programs take an utterly unrealistic view of our special
requirements and capability to abeorb sclentific and technical talent
from other countries, especially undeveloped countries. The United States
is at the forefront of an explosion of technical and scientific culture.
The premises of this Panel's deliberations are the special requirements
that we will face during the next 15 - 25 years. | believe that our Immi-
gration policy should take a more realistic view of the urgency of our
requirements In science and technology. We have, of course, made a number
of progressive steps to facilitate the fnee passage of scientific talent
across national boundaries. However our exchange visitors program in
particular is calculated, quite Intentionally, to inhibit the flow of re-
cently trained technical people especially from underdeveloped countries
to the United States. | would not wish to argue against the desirability
of specialized exchange visitors who have been trained in this country
returning to their native lands to assist in technical developments there.
However, in such countries as Japan, Indiag and even Italy, the capacity
of these countries to absorb the more specialized sclentific graduates
and postgraduate trainees is highly limited and often leads to wasteful
frustration of scientific capability. 1 do not believe that the limite-
tions inherent in the exchange visitors program--the visa provides that
the visitor be barred from returning to the United States for a period
of at least two years after the expiration of his exchange visit--are
really very constructive from the point of view of any of the parties,
the United States, the trainee or his home country. We all know from
personal experience what a discouragement these immigration provistons
have been for the movement of some of the most talented people from a-
broad who have &rained and visited here. | am not anxious to de-populate
the scientific talent of other countries, but |! believe that we should
also consider our own perticular needs in the near future as well as the
human, non-national aspirations of the people involved. Perhaps the ground
rules ought to be that we return just as many trainees to their home
countries as we do now, but thet we double our international training
program do that we can designedly keep at least half of the output for
ourselves.

This Idea would also have a constructive impact in a number of other
ways-~-for example the motivation and justification for the acceptance of
foreign students and fellows in such research training programs as those
administered by the National Institutes of Health. Under the present system
Chalrman, Panel on Scientific Manpower Page 2

we certainly do not bar the acceptance of foreign students but we are
bound to be much more uncomfortable about it than we would under the
ground rules | propose. This new approach could lead to a general liberal-
ization of our training benefits to foreign nationals. In any case we
need hardly advertise the self-serving basis for the liberalization of

our scientific immigration policy and could stress that we are helping

to implement the non-national basis of sclentific advance.

Let me re~state the indicated actions recommended.

1. To remove the blanket restriction on re-immigration of
Scientists under exchange visitors visas to provide that as many as 50
per cent of them will be eligible for prompt re-entry.

2. To use provision | as the justification for a doubling of
our present level of activity in accepting foreigners for entry and support
in our science training programs.