TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Defense Science Board
which serves as the Defense Department's intermediary between weapons
needs and the physical sciences.
From their Web site:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-3140
December 31, 1987
MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THROUGH UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
SUBJECT: Report Of Defense Science Board Summer Study on Technology
The attached final report of the Defense Science Board Summer Study on Technology
Base Management was prepared under the Chairmanship of Dr. John M. Deutch.
This study focused on two main issues: 1) how effective is DoD's Technology
Base program at producing technology options for various users and operations;
and 2) how effectively is new technology being transitioned to the field.
The Study Group evaluated the management of DoD's Technology Base program
including the processes by which resource allocation decisions are made.
The principal findings of this study are as follows:
1. Over the long term, the leadership and vitality of the U. S., both economically
and militarily, depend extraordinarily on the quality and vision of the program
of basic research. In recent years, DoD's research program has been reduced
in perceived importance in favor of large development programs, with their
high visibility and insatiable demand for more financial resources. Where
once the Office of the Secretary of Defense exerted a centralized point of
unified leadership and budgetary authority and control for the 6.1 program,
the Study Group is concerned that now the 6.1 program lacks top management
2. This nation has long been well served by its defense laboratories. The
quality of the DoD laboratories and their technical leadership are of supreme
importance to DoD. The Study Group is greatly concerned about the quality
of many DoD laboratories and believes that their problems will likely worsen
in the future. The Group is also greatly concerned about the technical competence
of the personnel who manage DoD's Technology Base program.
3. Finally, the Study Group found the Defense Department seriously deficient
in its ability to rapidly transition technology into systems and products.
This situation is a primary contributor to the growing crisis in military
competition as Soviet weapons system performance approaches and, in some
cases, exceeds that of U.S. and Allied forces.
Specific recommendations are made by the Study Group to address the problems
* For the DoD basic research program, the Under Secretary
for Acquisition should delegate his Acquisition Executive leadership to an
individual with his staff. This individual should be vested with full authority
and responsibility for the integration and execution of 6.1 program as a
* For improving the DoD laboratories, three recommendations
are made, two outlining DoD-wide changes (expanding the NOSC/NWC personnel
demonstration to all DoD laboratories and directing minimum five-year assignments
for laboratory/technical directors) and the third suggesting Service laboratory
demonstration projects which embody more radical changes.
* To deal with the technology transition problem, the
Study Group recommends that budget category 6.3A be revitalized and focused
on the transition of technology through Advanced Technology Transition Demonstrations.
As noted in John Deutch's forwarding letter, the Services have expressed
concern over several Of these recommendations. We have received comments
from the Services and have incorporated appropriate changes into the attached
I believe that the implementation Of these recommendations will strengthen
the management of DoD's Technology Base. I recommend that you review the
Executive Summary and take necessary actions to implement these recommendations.
Charles A Fowler[s]
[Ed's note: People have to abandon this
notion that the department is defense because it isn't defending America,
it is the aggressor so this claim that it has to protect National Security,
it misinformation. In addition to it protecting the elite it is wasting taxpayer
dollars, money which could save lives instead of destroy them.
The money which now is used for war and weapons could be devoted to peacetime
applications. Shall we do that?