• Long-term professional participation of Air Force personnel as active partners with the external micro- and nanotechnology community.

  • Strong leadership and technical evaluation at the highest levels of AFRL technical leadership, as has already begun.

  • Both fundamental research and focused, interdisciplinary development efforts. Fundamental research efforts are required to sustain a cadre of scientists with a deep understanding of both micro- and nanotechnology developments and of Air Force requirements. Interdisciplinary development efforts put an essential Air-Force-specific overlay on this fundamental research and force multidisciplinary teams to confront real system- and subsystem-level problems, which is essential for bringing any technology from the laboratory bench to practical application.

REFERENCES

1. National Science Foundation. 2000. Science and Engineering Indicators 2000. Available online at <http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind00/start.htm> [July 9, 2002].

2. National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

3. Air Force Association. 2000. Shortchanging the Future January: Air Force Research and Development Demands Investment. Arlington, Va.: Air Force Association.

4. National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

5. National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

6. U.S. House of Representatives. 2001. Blue-Ribbon Panel Warns of Dangers of Reduced Investment in Defense Science and Technology, Committee on Science Press Release, July 27. Available online at <http://www.house.gov/science/press/107pr/107-66.htm> [July 10, 2002].

7. Meeks, R.L. 2002. Changing Composition of Federal Funding for Research and Development and R&D Plant Since 1990, National Science Foundation InfoBrief NSF 02-315, April. Available online at <http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/infbrief/nsf02315/nsf02315.pdf> [July 10, 2002].

8. U.S. House of Representatives. 2001. Pentagon Advisory Panel Criticizes Science Budget, Press Release, March 19. Available online at <http://www.house.gov/tonyhall/pr214.html> [July 10, 2002].

9. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2002. Trends in Federal R&D, FY 1990–2003. Available online at <http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/rd/cht9003a.pdf> [July 10, 2002].

10. U.S. House of Representatives. 2001. Pentagon Advisory Panel Criticizes Science Budget, Press Release, March 19. Available online at <http://www.house.gov/tonyhall/pr214.html> [July 10, 2002].

11. U.S. House of Representatives. 2001. Pentagon Advisory Panel Criticizes Science Budget, Press Release, March 19. Available online at <http://www.house.gov/tonyhall/pr214.html> [July 10, 2002].



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement