IP: Defense Science Board Report

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy
News
Number 140: November 30, 2000

Defense Science Board Task Force Wants 30% Increase In
University S&T

A Defense Science Board Task Force recommends a 30% increase in
university science and technology funding to enable the
Department of Defense to better access new S&T and engineering
capabilities.  This was one of four major recommendations in the
"Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on the
Technology Capabilities of Non-DoD Providers," written in
response to a provision in the FY 1998 defense authorization
act, which recently became available.

The task force of 11 individuals with university, industry, and
laboratory affiliations, was chaired by Walter Morrow, Jr. of
MIT Lincoln Laboratory.  It met nine times, beginning in early
1999, at various locations throughout the United States.  Their
report can be accessed at http://stinet.dtic.mil/str/index.html
by requesting document ADA380423.pdf in the search box and then
selecting "Citation/Document(s)."

There is concern about the effectiveness of the Defense
Department's efforts to acquire the latest technologies.
Relatively flat defense S&T funding, changes in the conduct of
research by various performers, a shrinking DoD work force, the
emergence of a global economy, and burdensome government
regulation were identified as some of the  factors
necessitating a change in the way that the Defense Department
acquires S&T.

One of the task force's findings concerned eroding funding for
physical sciences, engineering, and information technology.  The
report comments: "The DoD provides the majority of support for
university research and associated graduate student support in
the fields of the physical sciences, engineering fields and
information technology associated with military systems.
However, such support has decreased by nearly 30% in the last
ten years.  As a result, recently trained professional personnel
in these fields are in very short supply resulting in the use of
foreign professionals as well as the use of overseas engineering
of components of DoD systems.  In addition, the number of
scientific and engineering professionals graduated in foreign
countries now greatly exceeds that graduated in the United
States.  As a result the U.S. may be in danger of losing its
leadership in fields which are of critical importance to
maintaining the superiority of U.S. military systems."

There are four major recommendations in this report.  Two center
on how DoD acquires technologies by calling for the
establishment of an Office of Global Technology Acquisition and
the development of  streamlined acquisition requirements.
Another recommendation calls for the utilization of private
sector, non-profit and academic personnel in acquisition
positions.

The fourth recommendation concerns funding for basic research.
"Research universities provide a leading source of creative
professionals for the pursuit of new knowledge," the report
states.  But, the report continues, "the 6.1 basic research
funding, most of which goes to universities, has declined by
nearly 25% since 1991; yet these university research programs
generate the long term future scientific knowledge that will
enable the technologies that will allow the U.S. military forces
to maintain their dominance in the future.  Perhaps an even more
significant benefit of 6.1 funding of universities involves the
training of science and engineering graduate students who then
move on to provide the professional staff for government and
industrial research laboratories as well as new faculty for the
universities."  The task force concludes, "This 6.1 support
needs to be sustained and even increased, if the Department is
to continue using technology to maintain its military
leadership."

The task force makes the following recommendation about 6.1
funding: "A 30% increase is judged necessary to counter the
increasingly short term focus of industrial R&D relating to DoD
interests and also to address future shortfalls in technical
talent, especially in DoD - unique areas.  To achieve this goal,
6.1 funding should be increased by 10% per year for the next
three years and then maintained at that level.  Funding should
be obtained from 6.3 (or higher) programs."

Last February, the Clinton Administration requested a 4.8%
increase in FY 2001 6.1 funding.  The final appropriations bill
provided a 14.3% increase.

###############
Richard M .Jones
Public Information Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi () aip org
(301) 209-3095
http://www.aip.org/gov
##END##########



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/