R&D strategy

1. Defense Science and Technology Programs-Issues and Recommendations-Peter PurdueDept. of Operations ResearchNaval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey, CA 93943

2. R&D strategy • The US defense strategy • High technology weapons’ systems. • Scientific and technological edge • Bought by • sustained investment in a defense science and technology system • Many players • High degree of redundancy

3. Federal labs • The DOD Corporate Laboratories • Army Research Laboratory • Naval Research Laboratory • Air Force Research Laboratory • play a fundamental role in this system. • Provide the services with • in-house research capability • the ability to gather and disseminate research findings from the non-DOD sector.

4. University elements • University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs). • university owned (in general) and operated R&D centers • Applied Physics Lab at the Johns Hopkins University • Applied Research Lab at Pennsylvania State University. • UARCs provide one model for linking university faculty with significant military research and development.

5. Basic research • University individual (or small group) research programs • Office of Naval Research • Army Research Office • Air Force Office of Scientific Research. • These programs play a dual role • DOD access to the very best researchers in our universities • supporting the education of the next generation of scientists and engineers.

6. Other players • DARPA • Bridging the gap between fundamental research and future military needs • FFRDC • Industry • CRADA

7. Investment strategy • To sustain the S&T system we need • Sustained or increasing budgets • Continued development of a S&E workforce • Undergraduate and graduate • High quality DOD labs • Continued industrial R&D investments • With emphasis on the “R”

8. Ominous signs • The S&T system is showing signs of strain • Investments in the basic and applied sciences are slipping. • Downsizing of the DOD S&T workforce • Very bad age distribution • Dwindling pool of scientists and engineers • Declining quality of R&D at the corporate labs • Defense Science Board etal.

9. R&D categories • Basic research (6.1) • Applied research (6.2) • Adv Tech. development (6.3) • Adv. Component development (6.4) • System development (6.5) • Management support (6.6) • Operational sys. Dev. (6.7)

10. The S&T budget • DOD S&T = 6.1 + 6.2 + 6.3 • Plus a small medical research component • The 2005 R&D budget shows a 6% increase over 2004 • The 2005 S&T budget shows a 15.5% decrease from 2004!!!!!! • Biggest decline is in the 6.2 area

11. What is the “R” in R&D? • Research addresses basic properties and questions • 60% is funded by the Federal Government • 6% (or less) of industry R&D budget is for research • Most is performed at universities and national labs • Development applies research results to everyday problems and issues • 70% of R&D money in the private sector is for “D” • Much of the Federal “D” goes to DOD and Homeland Security • ASTRA Briefing

12. U.S. R&D Funding:Federal Dollars Declining as % of GDP Since 1980, U.S. GDP has nearly doubled From $6 trillion to $12 trillion … While federal investment in R&D in the physical & mathematical sciences and engineering has plummeted … — 37%

13. S&T Funding / WorkyearDecline (FY93-FY99 ) 438 1489 377 $M DIRECT WYS 661 31 26 175 133 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.1 6.2 -29%-28% - 24 % - 56 % (in constant ‘00$) Applied Research (6.2) Workforce Decreased Twice as Fast as Funding

14. DOD lab problems • Dominant points of concern • The DOD lab system has declined in numbers by approximately 35% since 1990 • The loss within five years of a generation of experienced and talented staff • no trained backup to carry forward • Civil Service hiring practices and policies • Hiring, evaluation and compensation and termination policies are deficient • Good performers are not encouraged to stay and poor performers do not leave

15. People problems • Jobs requiring technical skills projected to grow by 50% in next decade • Aging S&E workforce • Shrinking S&E workforce • Decrease in S&E degree production despite • Rapid population growth • Significant growth in undergraduate enrollment • Degree/skill distribution moving in opposition to technology direction • Technological sophistication is increasing, while • Percentage of Ph.Ds in S&E population is at all-time low and decreasing • Decreasing ability to recruit foreign talent • Post 9/11 increases in restrictions on immigration • Increased S&E opportunities in their homelands • Misalignment of S&E degree trends with demographic trends

16. AVERAGE AGE FY91 38.2 YRS FY97 41.7 YRS FY98 42.2 YRS The”Bow Wave” 10000 8000 Scientists & Engineers -78% 6000 4000 2000 0 <31 31-40 41-50 51-60 >60 Age (Yrs) Demographic Issue Naval Warfare Centers and Research Laboratory SOURCE: DTIC/DMDC (DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL DATA SYSTEM, AUG 99) NSWC EXCLUDES NWAS Must Develop New Generation of Scientists & Technologists

17. National problem • It is not only DOD that faces a shortage of S&Es in the near future • Decreases over the past 25 years • 21% in engineering degrees • 30 % in computer science degrees • 34% in mathematics degrees, • 19% in the physical sciences.

18. National problem • At the doctoral level • 35% of doctoral degrees in the natural sciences and almost 50% in engineering are awarded to non-US citizens • Immigration of foreign-born S&E workers over the past two generations has allowed the US to sustain its dominance in most scientific and engineering fields

19. U.S. Competitiveness Relies on U.S. Innovation Numbers tell the story: we are falling behind: Percentage of students receiving degrees in all sciences, 1998

20. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense-LABS Workforce Initiatives

21. DOD lab problems • Almost all of the reports noted that the military drawdown • caused hiring slowdowns and freezes--after several decades of “staffing up” • created an entirely predictable future loss of technical competence and leadership.

22. DOD labs in decline • The Defense Science Board • the quality of the DOD R&D workforce has suffered serious degradation over the last decade or so. • Not clear how they are measuring • the quality or effectiveness of the workforce • outcomes of the R&D programs • Particularly the S&T component.

23. How to evaluate • Measuring the effectiveness of the S & T programs and institutions is a difficult task • research activities are inherently risky • often lack a clear outcome and timeline • change direction several times before either succeeding or being abandoned altogether • Standard metrics • meeting performance goals (on-time or on-budget) • time required to transform new research results into military capability • will always be somewhat arbitrary.

24. D 20%* ~ ~ Evidence of Decline Implications • Reduction in Referred Journal Publications • Reduction in PhD & Advanced Degrees • Outdated DoD/Navy entry-Level Pay Scale compared to Priv. Sector • Decreased Interest in Navy-Unique Skill Areas • Underwater Acoustics • Underwater Weaponry • Energetics • *National Association of Colleges and Employees S&T Workforce is Perceived as Less Capable than Academic Peers Diminished Intellectual Capacity to“Do Research” Inability to “Hire the Best and Brightest” Lack of Career Incentives for Students to select these areas DECREASED 36% 1995-1999 DECREASED 15% 1995-1999 While a Decade of Downsizing has taken its toll, Warfare Centers remain a crucial element of the DoN S&T community

25. DOD labs: bad news! • DSB concluded • DOD Lab directors are unable to obtain or retain the services of not only the “best and brightness” scientists and engineers but even those of average capability, and • DSB recommended • DOD should no longer depend upon the Civil Service System for such personnel.

26. A basic question • Are the DOD R&D laboratories a good investment? • Is it worthwhile for the nation to spend public funds to maintain S&T institutions? • Metrics needed to show that S&T outcomes are beneficial to National security • Not just contributions to the S&T literature

27. DOD labs are needed • Studies of the DOD laboratory infrastructure • almost universal agreement that an independent in-house RDT&E capability is needed to • DOD and the services to be smart buyers • ensure the ability to respond rapidly in times of crisis • support facilities and capabilities not practical in the private sector • execute S&T programs and maintain the long-term view • provide direct technical support to the war fighter • maintain technical corporate memory

28. White House Report - 1979 • Smart Buyer • Mission-Oriented Studies, Tech Analyses and Evaluation • R&D Expertise for the Long Term • Independent T&E • R&D Corporate Memory • Rapid Response Capability • Mandated In-House Performance Responsibilities • Large/Unique R&D Facilities not Commercially Feasible • White House Report - 1994 • Lowest Cost to the Sponsor • Improve Planning and Avoid Technological Surprise • Special Facilities for Unique Technical Requirements • Quick Response • Flexibility and Responsiveness • Inherently Governmental Tasks • Corporate Memory • Technology and System Integration • Reducing Management Complexity • Continuity of Personnel and Facilities Across a Systems Lifecycle • Long-Term/Low Pay-Off Essential Military R&D • NAVMAT Report - 1982 • Smart Buyer • Technical Leadership/Expertise • Warfare and System Analyses • Interaction with Operating Forces • Tech Base Planning and Conduct • Prototyping and Concept Eval • Independent Reviews • Systems Engineering • Alternative Designs and Products • System Introduction • Performance Validation re Need • Transition from R&D • Quick Response • Major RDT&E Facilities • NLCCG/ASN (RDA) - 1995 • Little to No Duplication of 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 • 1991 SECNAV WFC Purification Working • Overall S&T Funds to WFCs Declining Do We Need In-House Technical Capability?…Yes!! (Recurring Question -- Recurring Answer) • Perry Report - 1980 • Smart Buyer • RDT&E-Program Project Management • Technical Intelligence Assessment • Provide Options for Future Systems • RDT&E in Areas of Limited Interest to Private Sector • Exploitations of New Technological Opportunities • Understanding-of and Interaction-with the Military User • IR&D Program Evolution • Contractor Proposal and Performance Evaluation • Quick Reaction to Operational Problems • Interface with S&E Community • Cooperative R&D with Allies • Integrated Logistic Support • Reliability and Maintainability • Mobilization Requirement • Producibility • Design to Cost Management • Human Engineer • Operational Systems Safety • Special Technology • Transition Agents • Quick Response • Stewardship • Forward Thinking • Adolph Commission - 1991 • Enable Services to be Smart Buyers and Users of New and Improved Systems Art of Possible into Military Planning • Act as Principal Agents in Maintaining the Tech Base • Avoid Technological Surprise and Ensure Technological Innovation • Support the Acquisition Process • Provide Special Facilities Not Practical for the Private Sector • Respond Rapidly in Time of Urgent Need or National Crisis • Be a Constructive Advisor for DoD Directions and Programs Based on Technical Expertise • Support the User in the Application of Emerging and New Technology • Translate User Needs into Technology Requirements for Industry • Serve as S&T Training Ground for Civilian and Military Acquisition Personnel • Civilian Workforce 2020 Study - 2001 • A Critical Mass of Civilian Employee Expertise is Necessary to Protect the Government’s Interests • The Real Problem is a Shortage of Diverse Candidates in the Scientific and Technical Disciplines where the Navy’s Greatest Need Exists White House Report 79: Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology Report “Application of OMB Circular A-76 to R&D: An R&D Management Approach” of 31 Oct 79 Perry Report: USD (R&E) Report “ Required In-House Capabilities for DoD RDT&E” of 1 Oct 80 NAVMAT Report: NAVMAT “Mission Review Panel Report” of 13 Dec 82 Adolph Commission: Federal Advisory Commission Report on “Consolidation and Conversion of Defense R&D Labs” of 30 Sep 91 White House Report 94: OSD Interagency Review of Federal Labs for NSTC/PRD#1 of 12 Sep 94 NLCCE BRIEF TO ASN (RDA)-1995 Civilian Workforce 2020 “Strategies for Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Department of the Navy, 2001

29. A way ahead • Defense Laboratory Strategies • Laboratories from the transformation perspective • S&E human resources system implications • Structural reforms (processes, programs, organization) • Basic Research Strategies • Enhanced integrity of the basic research program • Expanded domain of innovation for research topics • Expanded domain of innovation for Service basic research program • Increased funding for basic research • Defense Educational Program Strategies • K-12 program • Undergraduate initiatives • Defense Graduate Fellowship Program modification

30. Tactical level recommendations • Carry out a study, based on clearly defined metrics, of the corporate labs to establish their status as world-class labs. • This study should include a comparison over the same metrics with the existing UARCs.

31. Tactical recommendations • DOD should bring the scientists and engineers in the Services‘ corporate labs under the NSPS • Pay top scientists and engineers up to the new salary and total compensation levels for the SES. • Create a higher pay scale, up to the Vice Presidential level for lab directors

32. Strategic recommendations • Conduct a senior level review of possibility of restructuring the S&T labs as Federal Government Corporations. • FGC give great flexibility • Similar to how DSTL is structured • Increase the number of PhD military officers • 3 to 6 year terms in labs

33. At the national level • Increase investments in S&T • Outreach to schools and universities

34. WHAT Congress Can Do?Increase the budgets for the physical & mathematical sciences at least 12% a year for next seven years • DOE Office of Science • NSF • K-12 Science/Math Education (DOEd) • NIST • DOD “R” accounts (6.1)

35. Target Identification The Way Ahead - Education Strategies - Targeting High School Interest Interest of high aptitude students in pursuing careers in science and engineering has diminished over the past decades. Freshman Science Experience The largest fraction of students entering college with interest in, and aptitude for, science is lost here Under- Grad Research Overwhelming majority of students entering graduate school in science and engineering influenced by positive experience (NOTE: Over 50% of domestic physics PhDs from 4-yr institutions) We must work with anyone (NSF, DoEd), but wait for no one! DoD must now lead!

36. Back-up slides

37. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense-LABS Workforce Initiatives Physical Review & Physical Review Letters - Total Submissions Source: American Physical Society - APS News August/September 2000 -

38. Summarizing the Crisis “The Navy has lowered its level of intellectual involvement in research and development and weakened its entire infrastructure, which at the end of WWII was the strongest in the world. For a service that sleeps on its weapons, this weakened institutional position in the world of science and engineering is dangerous.” Source: Dr. James Colvard, Naval Institute Proceedings, June 2002

39. Federal Support of Basic Research is Critical… • From Research to product: timeline in decades, not months =conflict with need for immediate ROI. • “Wall Street”/ Investment Community demand short term profitability. • Lasers developed in late 1940’s • Global Positioning System dates to 1930’s • Corporations invest primarily in applied research tied to next generation product development. • ASTRA Briefing

40. … But Federal Support is Declining

41. Physical Sciences & Engineering Funding: Flat! While Health Sciences Soar, 26 Other Disciplines Stagnate or Decline

42. & Decreasing as share of GDP

43. How to evaluate • Typical measures of performance at the professional staff level • publications, citations, • invited presentations at professional meetings, • reputation within scientific or engineering community • editorships and other professional activities, and other related measures • rules for confidentially and secrecy may severely impact the staff’s scientific/engineering exposure.

44. How to evaluate • Metrics that measure impact on the lab’s goals and missions • extremely important • much harder to articulate • Metrics that have been used • Patents • patent citations.

45. Problems we face • Bottom Line: “U.S. no longer leads the world in the generation of new knowledge in the fundamental, and critical, area of physics” • Similar pictures for several other areas (JACS, JOSA, JAO) • This system has a very large time constant, so the picture will get a lot worse, even if we take immediate action • This ominous trend is driven by many factors • Reduction in basic research investments • Fewer Ph.D.s in S&E production distribution • Too few domestic students in graduate school S&E population • Loss of mature scientists to other countries (500-1,000 experienced scientists and engineers, including Nobel Laureates, each year to Taiwan and South Korea alone for more than a decade) • Loss of basic research productivity from corporate laboratories (Bell Labs, IBM, Xerox, etc.)

46. People problems • Aging problem more serious • More S&E becoming eligible for retirement (50% over age of 50) • New system (FERS) makes “separation” more attractive • Hiring rate currently inadequate to balance separation rate • DoD S&E workforce decreased from 45,000 to 28,000 in last decade • Over half of young Lab S&Es don’t expect to be there in 10 years • Challenge is not simply cranking up entry level flow of S&Es • We must retain, and enhance, knowledge • We must retain, and enhance, critical skills • We must transfer knowledge and critical skills