Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

This page intentionally left blank.

This study was an exercise in coping with complexity. The subject matter is complex. Important networks like the Internet and the power grid are becoming ever larger, encompassing up to hundreds of millions if not billions of nodes. They exhibit complex and often dynamic patterns of links between the nodes. Networks interact with one another and are recursive. Social networks are built upon information networks which are built upon communications networks which in turn are built on physical networks. Moreover, this layered structure of interacting networks built on top of other networks is reflected directly in the diversity of communities that study networks: sociologists, management theorists, warfare strategists, economists, biologists, chemists, physicists, and a wide variety of engineers. Getting such a diverse group to agree on a common core of knowledge about networks, i.e., the content of network science, is a significant challenge. Last but by no means least, the customer community for this study is equally diverse. Military planners and strategists, operational commanders (“warfighters”), logistics commanders, and R&D managers each have their own points of view on what network science ought to provide in order to be useful to the military.

The extent to which the committee did manage to cope successfully with these complexities will be judged by you, the reader. In order to comprehend the topical scope, committee members were selected who are actively publishing experts on physical, biological, engineered, and social networks. Systematic efforts at outreach to interested communities were undertaken, including a survey of extant courses on networks and a questionnaire sent to members of as diverse a group of communities as the committee could identify. Committee members also were selected to encompass various constituencies in the military that have an interest in the design, procurement, deployment, and use of networks. Representatives of each of these groups made presentations to the committee. Value creation scenarios were prepared to address the concerns of these constituencies. Thus, the composition of the committee, the data that it collected, and the analyses that it generated are broadly representative of the inherent complexities of the subject of the study.

The committee was able to lay out the scope of the topic, organize an overview of the diverse streams of activity and knowledge into a synthetic whole, and survey the sorts of options that the Army might want to explore to create value from investments in network science. As a result, it is my hope that this report will broaden the horizons of its readers, stimulate them to think about the role of network science in today’s connected world, and, hopefully, act upon their enhanced understanding of this role.

The committee learned three major things of overarching importance about the role of networks in modern society and the availability of the knowledge necessary to create and operate them. First, networks lie at the core of the economic, political, and social fabric of the 21st century. The demand for structured knowledge that can be used to design, procure, and operate networks is ubiquitous and growing rapidly. Moreover, social and communications networks lie at the core of both conventional military operations and the war on terrorism. Thus, investment in network science is both a strategic and urgent national priority.

Second, the current state of knowledge about the structure, dynamics, and behaviors of both large infrastructure networks and vital social networks at all scales is primitive. A lot is known about the design, construction, and use of the components of physical networks. The science of integrating these components into large, complex, interacting networks that are robust and whose behaviors are predictable is uncharted ground. Communications networks that are being built today exhibit unpredictable behavior and robustness. For social networks, even the characteristics of the components are largely unexplored. The development of predictive models of the behavior of large complex networks is difficult. It is basically an unsolved problem that will require focused attention from the best brains in the nation to make significant progress on it.

Third, the United States is not on track to consolidate the information that already exists about the science of large, complex networks, much less to develop the knowledge that will be needed to design the networks envisaged by the military to realize futuristic warfare concepts like network-centric operations. Current research on networks is highly fragmented, usually conducted in disciplinary settings. The committee did observe an encouraging preliminary consensus on the part of practitioners about the broad outlines of the core of knowledge that allows them to practice their art in a wide variety of applications areas. Nevertheless, individual researchers are naturally more interested in marketing their own work than in collaborating on larger projects of the scope that would have a realistic chance to impact the Army’s aspirations. Major changes in the funding and organization of activities on network science are required before the knowledge that can realistically be expected from research in this area will be available in a form that is useful for the design and procurement of the capabilities envisaged by the Army.

The committee does not expect its report to change any of these things. It does, however, aspire to articulate its learnings clearly and to document the data and analysis on which they are based. It also aspires to provide specific answers to the questions in the statement of task. I hope that the readers will find that these aspirations were accomplished.

Charles B. Duke, Chair

Committee on Network Science for Future Army Applications

The committee thanks the organizations and guest speakers that provided support. The presentations from the military on network-centric operations (NCO), on the procurement and deployment of operational capabilities of NCO in the field, and on the Army’s R&D portfolio of network-related research were especially helpful.

The committee also thanks the various academic and military researchers with whom it conducted personal interviews over the telephone. Their candid comments were instrumental in the committee’s achieving a realistic understanding of the complexities of current research on networks.

The committee is deeply grateful to Katy Börner of Indiana University for her analysis of the data acquired from our outreach questionnaire and her permission to use this material in its report.

The excellent support of the National Research Council staff is especially appreciated. Special thanks go to Bob Love, who worked closely with the chair and vice chair during the entire study process. The cheerful and effective assistance of Tomeka Gilbert, Nia Johnson, Deborah Kuzmanovic, and Leon James was indispensable to accomplishing this study.

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Stewart D. Personick, NAE, Drexel University. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

AAAS

American Association for the Advancement of Science

AIDS

acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

APS

American Physical Society

BAST

Board on Army Science and Technology

BCT

brigade combat team

BFT

Blue Force Tracker

C3

command, control, and communications

C4ISR

command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance

CDC

Centers for Disease Control

COP

common operational picture

DARPA

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DOD

Department of Defense

DOE

Department of Energy

FBCB2

Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below

FCS

Future Combat System

GIG

Global Information Grid

HIV

human immunodeficiency virus

IED

improvised explosive device

JCI

Joint Combat Identification

JNN

Joint Network Nodes

JTF

Joint Task Force

MAS

medical aid station

NAS

National Academy of Sciences

NASA

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCE

Networked Center of Excellence

NCO

network-centric operations

NCW

network-centric warfare

NIH

National Institutes of Health

NRC

National Research Council

NSF

National Science Foundation

NSRN

network science researcher network

NTC

National Training Center

OCP

Open Control Platform

OFT

Office of Force Transformation

OPFOR

opposing force

OSI

open system interconnection

PI

principal investigator

R&D

research and development

RFP

Request for Proposal

S&T

science and technology

SARS

severe acute respiratory syndrome

SBIR

Small Business Innovation Research

SEC

Software-Enabled Control

SIAM

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

TCP/IP

Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol

UAV

unmanned aerial vehicle

UGC

unmanned ground vehicle

URL

Uniform Resource Locator

WHO

World Health Organization

www

World Wide Web