Foreign Relations of the United States, 1917–1972, Volume VII, Public Diplomacy, 1964–1968

112. Memorandum Prepared by the Council on International Educational Cooperation¹

Washington, November 1, 1966

SUBJECT

• The International Migration of Talent and Skills—Proceedings of a Workshop and Conference

This is to call your attention to certain background information about the attached report and also to emphasize various conclusions of the report itself.²

The International Migration of Talent and Skills is a report on a conference which was held in Washington, D.C. on June 14–15, 1966. Financed by the U.S.O.E. and sponsored by the interagency Council on International Educational and Cultural Affairs,³ the Conference was one of the major steps that have recently been taken by the Council to help diagnose the so-called “Brain Drain”⁴ problem and devise remedies for it.

The member agencies of the Council are not alone in their concern with this problem. Other U.S. Government agencies, and private agencies, international organizations, foreign governments and individual scholars are also involved. The Council therefore decided to sponsor a two-day meeting. The first day was devoted to a workshop to review past and current research on the “brain drain,” at which critical problems and data requirements for future studies could be reviewed. On the second day a conference was held to provide a forum for a fuller exchange of information among people from agencies and groups with programs or responsibilities connected with the field of educational and cultural exchange.

These sessions produced no “miracle drug.” But they demonstrated the complexity of the problem, and they provided useful insights and specific directions for future steps. The principal issues, viewpoints, and findings are summarized in the Introduction to the Report. Some of the major conclusions, however tentative, that can be drawn from the discussions are the following.

1. There is a basic need for more facts to establish the actual dimensions of the problem. Many of the necessary “raw” data are available in our Immigration and Naturalization records. Much also must be sought elsewhere.

2. The kinds of travelers to the United States who are involved in this problem vary widely—in their status under our immigration laws, their specialties, their relationship to developmental projects, their obligation to return home and, of course, in their professional, social and personal motivations.

3. The primacy locus of the problem lies in the developing countries. It is in connection with these countries that strong incentives should be provided to induce foreign nationals to return home—for example, attractive job opportunities and facilities—and social and political milieu.

4. The governments of developing countries vary greatly in their concern with the problem and in their views and policies regarding it. One step that they might take would be to encourage for study and work abroad only those individuals who are morally or legally committed to return home. Another would be to increase communication with their nationals while abroad so as to keep them abreast of developments at home, thus minimizing their alienation from their own cultures.

5. Means should be found to enable developing countries to exchange information as to what they are doing to attract their nationals homeward.

6. Again with respect to developing countries, greater emphasis should be placed on developing training and research facilities in countries other than their own but in the same region, where students, scholars, scientists, and other professional personnel can do advanced work within an environment similar to their own.

7. In the United States, one of the principal “host” countries, more might be done to provide: special academic programs to equip foreign students more adequately for jobs in their home countries; predeparture orientation to prepare them for reentry into their home environment; and a full awareness by all sponsors of development-related projects of their responsibility to encourage the return of foreign visitors whose work in the U.S. they sponsor.

8. The United States can cooperate with other governments, intergovernmental organizations, and nongovernmental organizations and institutions abroad in such efforts to reduce the “drain” as home-recruitment projects and institution-building. Moreover, insofar as it increases its own pools of skilled manpower to meet its own needs, it will decrease the opportunities for the employment of skilled persons from other countries.

Here in the United States, the Conference has been followed by certain steps which are advancing our realistic consideration of the problem, in both the Government and the private sectors.

The Department of State and the Immigration and Naturalization Service are giving priority to the development of statistical procedures which have the objective of providing the data needed for a meaningful appraisal of the dimensions of the talent migration. Also, the Department of State has alerted its missions abroad to the significance of the problem and the need for encouraging other governments to assume more responsibility for the return of their own. The American Council on Education, which has shared the Government’s concern about the “brain drain,” has played a leading role in focusing attention on the problem in the university world. The American Council’s Commission on International Education has deliberated at length on the “drain” at a number of sessions and is preparing a soon-to-be-published statement which attempts to define in reasonable terms the responsibility of the American academic community toward the problem.⁵

In conclusion, the assistance of the readers of the attached report is solicited. The Council on International Educational and Cultural Affairs will appreciate it if readers will supply any information they may have on any aspect of the “brain drain” problem. Bibliographic data from research specialists would be especially welcome (see page 151 of the attached report). Requests and inquiries should be directed to Francis J. Colligan, Executive Secretary, Council on International Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State, CU/PRS, Washington, D.C. 20520.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 306, Subject Files, 1955–1971, Acc. #69–H–3445 [A], Entry UD WW 200, Box 175, Council on International Education and Cultural Affairs (CIC) 1966. No classification marking. The memorandum was sent on behalf of the Council on International Educational and Cultural Affairs. Louchheim sent a copy of the memorandum to Council members Moseman, Bartlett, Miller, Vaughn, and Marks under a November 1 covering memorandum. (Ibid.) The memorandum was sent to all American diplomatic and consular Posts in circular airgram 5210, January 16, 1967. (National Archives, RG 306, Subject Files, 1955–1971, Acc. #69–H–3445 [A], Entry UD WW 200, Box 174, Brain Drain, 1966)
2. Attached but not printed is the October 1966 report entitled: “The International Migration of Talent and Skills: Proceedings of a Workshop and Conference.”
3. Chairman—Mr. Charles Frankel, Assistant Secretary of State; the Agency for International Development; the Department of Defense; the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Peace Corps; the U.S. Information Agency. Observers: the Bureau of the Budget, the Smithsonian Institution, and the White House Committee on Scientific and Technical Information (COSATI). [Footnote is in the original.]
4. Senator Mondale introduced S. 3905, the “International Brain Drain Act,” on October 13 “to assist developing countries in meeting one of the great and neglected problems of our time, the brain drain which robs them of the professional and skilled manpower they need to bring hope to their peoples.” For texts of Mondale’s remarks and the bill, see 112 Congressional Record, October 13, 1966, pp. 26496–26504. For additional remarks by Mondale on the subject of “brain drain,” see 112 Congressional Record, August 31, 1966, pp. 21477–21480.
5. Not further identified.