STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT IN

GLOBAL S&T

OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEFENSE RESEARCH

Committee on Globalization of Science and Technology:
Opportunities and Challenges for the Department of Defense




Board on Global Science and Technology
Policy and Global Affairs

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
                          OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.

www.nap.edu



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



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Committee on Globalization of Science and Technology: Opportunities and Challenges for the Department of Defense Board on Global Science and Technology Policy and Global Affairs

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 FIFTH STREET, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Insti- tute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. N00014-10-G-05809 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Office of Naval Research, the Air Force Office of Scien- tific Research, and the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-30622-5 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-30622-1 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2014 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
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. C. D. Mote, Jr., 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 re- sponsibility 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 Nation- al 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. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON GLOBALIZATION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ARDEN BEMENT, Co-Chair, Purdue University RUTH DAVID, Co-Chair, Analytic Services, Inc. JIM CHANG, National Cheng Kung University and North Carolina State University PAUL CHU, University of Houston SUSAN COZZENS, Georgia Institute of Technology PATRICIA GRUBER, Battelle Memorial Institute (through December 2013) DANIEL HASTINGS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology PETER HOFFMAN, The Boeing Company CELIA MERZBACHER, Semiconductor Research Corporation ANTHONY (BUD) ROCK, Association of Science and Technology Centers JAMES WILSDON, University of Sussex Principal Project Staff WILLIAM O. BERRY, Study Director ETHAN N. CHIANG, Study Director (through May 2014) v

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON GLOBAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RUTH DAVID, Chair, Analytic Services, Inc. JEFFREY BRADSHAW, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition DIANNE CHONG, The Boeing Company NAN JOKERST, Duke University BERNARD MEYERSON, IBM Corporation NEELA PATEL, Abbott Laboratories DANIEL REED, Microsoft Research Staff WILLIAM O. BERRY, Board Director PATRICIA WRIGHTSON, Associate Board Director ETHAN N. CHIANG, Program Officer (through May 2014) NEERAJ GORKHALY, Research Associate (through March 2014) PETER HUNSBERGER, Financial Officer (through March 2014) vi

OCR for page R1
Preface Over the past several decades, the global science and technology (S&T) landscape has changed, in terms of both scientific output and contributions made by the global, as opposed to national, S&T communities, as well as the means and rapidity by which S&T knowledge is created and shared around the globe. Universities and industries must compete globally to attract the best talent from an increasingly global talent pool. Countries whose S&T enterprises fail to maintain awareness of emerging technological advances and to engage and collaborate with those who lead their fields may find themselves falling behind, with dramatic implications for economic competitiveness and national security. On the one hand, the globalization of research, of knowledge, and of the S&T workforce presents great opportunities for leveraging investments, sharing costs, and solving environmental and societal challenges that require international coordination and collaboration. On the other hand, it also presents several challenges, including increased global competition, prioritizing international engagement activities as S&T budgets shrink, and overcoming the stigma that the benefits of international collaboration are outweighed by the risks. The United States’ Department of Defense (DoD) has long relied on its historical technological superiority to maintain military advantage. However, as the U.S. share of S&T output shrinks and as the U.S. defense research enterprise struggles “to keep pace with the expanding challenges of the evolving security environment and the increased speed and cost of global technology development,”1 the DoD must reexamine its strategy for maintaining awareness of emerging S&T developments occurring around the world. To fully leverage these advances and to make strategic research investments, the DoD must assess with whom and in which areas it should collaborate. To delve more deeply into the implications of the globalization of S&T and of international S&T engagement for the Department of Defense, the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), and the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology (DASA(R&T)) asked the National Research Council (NRC) to assess current DoD strategies in the three Services—Army, Air Force, and Navy—for leveraging global S&T and for implementing and coordinating these strategies across the department. The committee’s work was focused on fundamental research, as defined in National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 1 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report. Department of Defense. February 2010. p. 84. vii

OCR for page R1
viii Preface 1892, and those organizations within DOD and its components for which that is a primary mission. The study did not include the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) whose main mission is advanced research projects. The Committee on Globalization of Science and Technology: Opportunities and Challenges for the Department of Defense (GSTOC) was appointed under the auspices of the NRC’s Board on Global Science and Technology (BGST) to conduct this exploration. The members of the study committee represent academia and industry and have expertise in the globalization of science and technology, international engagement, the defense research enterprise, program evaluation, and national security. Biographical information for members of the committee is presented in Appendix A, and Box P-1 contains the committee’s statement of task. The committee held five meetings during the course of its work (February 2013, April 2013, July 2013, October 2013, and January 2014), and Appendix B lists speakers who provided briefings to the committee during these meetings. To meet its charge, the committee took a three-tiered approach. First, it provided background and context for the rapid and ongoing globalization of science and technology, as well as the implications of globally emerging S&T for the DoD. The committee then examined current approaches for global S&T engagement and awareness used by the DoD research enterprise, which includes scientists and engineers (S&Es) at defense laboratories and research centers, the Service S&T offices in the United States and overseas, and policy and decision makers at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)) and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The committee also visited the Services’ S&T field offices to learn how those offices operate and what each of the offices see as the greatest opportunities and challenges for global S&T engagement. The committee then examined opportunities for DoD to adapt or adopt or leverage approaches for international engagement used by S&T organizations across academia, industry, and government. Finally, as a part of its information-gathering efforts, the committee sent small delegations to Asia and to Europe to gain a better understanding of how other countries’ S&T enterprises engage in global S&T. Appendix C lists individuals who met with and shared their views on global S&T engagement with the committee delegations. A list of sample questions posed by committee members on their data-gathering visits is provided in Appendix D. A list of abbreviations is provided in Appendix E. We would like to thank the members of the study committee for their many contributions in developing this report. We also thank the briefers who met with the committee in Washington, D.C., as well as the individuals who met with committee subgroups who travelled to Europe and Asia. These meetings provided valuable insights and input throughout the study process. We also thank the reviewers (see page xi). Lastly, the support of the NRC staff was indispensable to accomplishing this study. Special thanks go to Ethan Chiang, who worked closely with the 2 Memorandum on Fundamental Research signed by USD/ATL, May 24 2010.

OCR for page R1
ix Preface committee throughout the study and played a major role in the preparation of this report. Arden Bement, Co-Chair Committee on Globalization of Science and Technology: Opportunities and Challenges for the DoD Ruth David, Co-Chair Committee on Globalization of Science and Technology: Opportunities and Challenges for the DoD BOX P-1 Statement of Task An ad hoc committee will conduct an assessment of the opportunities and challenges stemming from the globalization of science and technology (S&T) and the implications for the Department of Defense (DoD) and its Services. The committee will assess current DoD strategies in the three Services for leveraging global S&T and implementation and coordination of these strategies across DoD. The committee may also examine past outcomes of these efforts and the impact these efforts have had on the U.S. Defense S&T enterprise. In addition, the committee will explore models for global S&T engagement utilized by other domestic and foreign organizations. Finally, it will assess how the ongoing globalization of S&T may impact the future DoD mission space (possible examples include research funding and priorities, workforce needs, building and maintaining trusted relationships, avoiding technology surprises, etc.). In addition to findings, the committee may make recommendations for future DoD and Service strategies to better meet the challenges and opportunities that result from the ongoing globalization of S&T.

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgment of Reviewers 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 National Research Council’s 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: Wanda Austin, The Aerospace Corporation; William Banholzer, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Vance Coffman, Lockheed Martin Corporation (Ret.); Natalie Crawford, The RAND Corporation; Mitra Dutta, University of Illinois at Chicago; Paul Gaffney, Monmouth University; Sophie Laurie, Research Councils UK; Bernie Meyerson, IBM Corporation; Chung-Yaun Mou, National Taiwan University; Brian Schmidt, Australian National University; Sylvia Schwaag Serger, VINNOVA; and David Stonner, National Science Foundation (retired). 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 Honorable Malcolm O’Neill, U.S. Army retired. Appointed by the National Academies, 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. xi

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................1 1 GLOBALIZATION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY .............................7 1.1 Painting the S&T Landscape, 8 1.2 Global S&T Engagement, 17 1.3 Implications for Department of Defense, 21 1.4 Summary, 25 2 GLOBAL S&T ENGAGEMENT BY DOD .....................................................27 2.1 U.S. Defense and Service (Navy, Air Force, Army) Research Enterprise, 28 2.2 Office of the Secretary of Defense International Strategy, 35 2.3 Mechanisms for Global S&T Engagement by the DoD, 36 2.4 DoD S&T Workforce, 45 2.5 Improving the Effectiveness of Current DRE Global Engagement Practices, 47 2.6 Summary, 54 3 OTHER APPROACHES FOR GLOBAL S&T ENGAGEMENT.................55 3.1 Approaches by Government, 55 3.2 Approaches by Academia, 60 3.3 Approaches by Industry, 66 3.4 Summary, 72 4 IMPERATIVES FOR GLOBAL S&T ENGAGEMENT AND IMPLICATIONS FOR DOD ............................................................................81 Findings and Recommendations, 81 APPENDIXES A Committee Member Biographies .......................................................................91 B Contributors to the Study ...................................................................................99 C Participants of Overseas Visits ........................................................................101 D Some Questions Asked During Fact-Finding Visits ........................................113 E Abbreviations...................................................................................................119 F Listing of International Branch Campuses from GlobalHigherEd.org ............123 xiii

OCR for page R1
xiv Contents BOXES, FIGURES AND TABLES BOXES P-1 Statement of Task, ix 3-1 IBM Research–Tokyo Case Study: Factors for Successful Engagement, 80 FIGURES 1-1 NSF Science and Engineering Indicators showing (a) 1996–2011 regional shares of worldwide R&D expenditures, (b) 2001–2011 contributions of selected countries/regions/economies to growth of worldwide R&D expenditures, and (c) 2001–2011 average annual growth in R&D expenditures of selected countries/economies, 10 1-2 National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicator data that examines (a) S&E first university degrees for selected countries between 2000 and 2010 and (b) S&E doctoral degrees by field of study for selected countries in 2010, 12 1-3 Top 100 (2013–2014) University Rankings (a) by region, overall and domain-specific; (b) by country, overall and engineering and technology; and (c) for BRIC countries and emerging economies, overall, 13 1-4 Percentage of S&E articles with international co-authorship in 2012 for countries with overall top 100-ranked universities, 15 1-5 Percentage share of U.S. international S&E articles in 2012 for countries with top 100-ranked universities in engineering and technology, 16 1-6 Top-ranked supercomputer sites; each time point shows the site location (country) of the world’s number one performing computer system, 16 2-1 Army S&T Enterprise, 30 2-2 Air Force S&T Enterprise, 31 2-3 Navy S&T Enterprise, 32 2-4 Technical areas of interest identified in Reliance 21, 36 2-5 R&E EXCOM oversight structure, 50 TABLES 1-1 Mechanisms for S&T Awareness and Engagement, 19