The military, political, and economic preeminence of the United States during the post-World War II era is based to a substantial degree on its superior rate of achievement in science and technology, as well as on its capacity to translate these achievements into products and processes that contribute to economic prosperity and the national defense. The success of the U.S. scientific enterprise has been facilitated by many factors, important among them the opportunity for American scientists and engineers to pursue their research-and to communicate with each other-in a free and open environment. During the last two administrations, however, concern has arisen that the characteristically open U.S. scientific community has served as one of the channels through which critical information and know-how are flowing to the Soviet Union and to other potential adversary countries; openness in science is thus perceived to present short-term national security risks in addition to its longer-term national security benefits in improved U.S. military technology. The Panel on Scientific Communication and National Security was asked to examine the various aspects of the application of controls to scientific communication and to suggest how to balance competing national objectives so as to best serve the general welfare. The Panel held three two-day meetings in Washington at which it was briefed by representatives of the departments of Defense, State, and Commerce, and by representatives of the intelligence community, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. The Panel also heard presentations by members of the research community and by university representatives. In addition to these briefings, the Rand Corporation prepared an independent analysis of the transfer of sensitive technology from the United States to the Soviet Union. To determine the views of scientists and administrators at major research universities, the Panel asked a group of faculty members and administrative officials at Cornell University to prepare a paper incorporating their own views and those of counterparts at other universities. The main thrust of the Panel's findings is completely reflected in this document. However, the Panel has also produced a classified version of the subpanel report based on the secret intelligence information it was given; this statement is available at the Academy to those with the appropriate security clearance.
The military, political, and economic preeminence of the United States during the post-World War II era is based to a substantial degree on its superior rate of achievement in science and technology, as well as on its capacity to translate these achievements into products and processes that contribute to economic prosperity and the national defense. The success of the U.S. scientific enterprise has been facilitated by many factors, important among them the opportunity for American scientists and engineers to pursue their research-and to communicate with each other-in a free and open environment. During the last two administrations, however, concern has arisen that the characteristically open U.S. scientific community has served as one of the channels through which critical information and know-how are flowing to the Soviet Union and to other potential adversary countries; openness in science is thus perceived to present short-term national security risks in addition to its longer-term national security benefits in improved U.S. military technology. The Panel on Scientific Communication and National Security was asked to examine the various aspects of the application of controls to scientific communication and to suggest how to balance competing national objectives so as to best serve the general welfare. The Panel held three two-day meetings in Washington at which it was briefed by representatives of the departments of Defense, State, and Commerce, and by representatives of the intelligence community, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. The Panel also heard presentations by members of the research community and by university representatives. In addition to these briefings, the Rand Corporation prepared an independent analysis of the transfer of sensitive technology from the United States to the Soviet Union. To determine the views of scientists and administrators at major research universities, the Panel asked a group of faculty members and administrative officials at Cornell University to prepare a paper incorporating their own views and those of counterparts at other universities. The main thrust of the Panel's findings is completely reflected in this document. However, the Panel has also produced a classified version of the subpanel report based on the secret intelligence information it was given; this statement is available at the Academy to those with the appropriate security clearance.
The U.S. national security export controls systemâ€"which was instituted to impede Soviet acquisition of high technology from the Westâ€"is both necessary and appropriate. Balancing the National Interest provides a thorough analysis of this controls system, examining the current system of laws, regulations, international agreements, and organizations that control the international transfer of technology through industrial channels. Foreign Affairs calls it "the best on the subject to have been published in the 40 years that the United States has exercised controls on exports that might add to Soviet power.
The government of the United States today is deeply involved in activities that have significant scientific and technical (S&T) components that are vitally important for economic productivity and technological competitiveness, national security, an improved environment, better health, and many other purposes. Leadership of the government's role in S&T is exercised by fewer than 100 positions, most of them presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed. Yet there is considerable evidence of increasing difficulty in filling and keeping filled these seemingly prestigious positions. This book by a distinguished panel composed mostly of former presidential appointees delves into the reasons these federal S&T-related positions are vacant, identifies the serious consequences, and recommends a series of changes to reduce the hurdles and disincentives posed by the appointment and confirmation process and to make the positions more attractive to top candidates.
The U.S. national security export controls systemâ€"which was instituted to impede Soviet acquisition of high technology from the Westâ€"is both necessary and appropriate. Balancing the National Interest provides a thorough analysis of this controls system, examining the current system of laws, regulations, international agreements, and organizations that control the international transfer of technology through industrial channels. Foreign Affairs calls it "the best on the subject to have been published in the 40 years that the United States has exercised controls on exports that might add to Soviet power.
Protecting U.S. security by controlling technology export has long been a major issue. But the threat of the Soviet sphere is rapidly being superseded by state-sponsored terrorism; nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile proliferation; and other critical security factors. This volume provides a policy outline and specific steps for an urgently needed revamping of U.S. and multilateral export controls. It presents the latest information on these and many other pressing issues: The successes and failures of U.S. export controls, including a look at U.S. laws, regulations, and export licensing; U.S. participation in international agencies; and the role of industry. The effects of export controls on industry. The growing threat of "proliferation" technologies. World events make this volume indispensable to policymakers, government security agencies, technology exporters, and faculty and students of international affairs.
In the years since the Shelby Amendment, scientists, industry, and policy makers have struggled over how the public's new right of access should be applied to scientific data. There is loose agreement that research data should be accessible, but wide disagreement over the "depth" to which the public has such a right. The National Academies' Science, Technology, and Law Program held a workshop to explore the mounting tensions in the federal regulatory process between the need to provide access to research data and the need to protect the integrity of the research process. The workshop provided a picture of the debate arising from passage of the Shelby Amendment and the resulting OMB revisions of Circular A-110. This report is a summary of the workshop.
...should help mobilize Government support for the nation's slipping technological and international trade position...." Leonard Silk, The New York Times. A blue-ribbon panel takes a critical look at the state of U.S. leadership in technological innovation and trade.
A congressionally mandated study carried out in 2013-2014 led to the November 2014 report A New Foundation for the Nuclear Enterprise. That report summarizes the panel's findings on the current health of the enterprise, examines the root causes of its governance challenges, and offers the panel's recommendations to address the identified problems. It concludes that the existing governance structures and many of the practices of the enterprise are inefficient and ineffective, thereby putting the entire enterprise at risk over the long term. It offers recommendations to put the entire nuclear security enterprise on a stronger footing. Recognizing the persistence of governance and management concerns, this report serves as an initial assessment of the implementation plan developed by the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department Of Energy for addressing the recommendations from A New Foundation for the Nuclear Enterprise. There will be seven semi-annual interim reports to evaluate progress in implementing the plan. A final report will be issued at the end of the study to document the overall progress in executing the implementation plan, assess the effectiveness of the reform efforts under that plan, and recommend whether further action is needed.
An Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Material Measurement Laboratory: Fiscal Year 2017 assesses the scientific and technical work performed by the National Institute of Standards (NIST). This publication reviews technical reports and technical program descriptions prepared by NIST staff summarizes the findings of the authoring panel.
The report examines a draft plan, prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency, that identifies critical security issues for drinking water and wastewater and outlines related research and technical support needs. This report recommends increased attention to interagency coordination and encourages additional consideration of current restrictions on secure information dissemination. It further suggests that EPA incorporate the results of their research activities into an integrated water security guidance document to improve support for water and wastewater utilities.
The report examines a draft plan, prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency, that identifies critical security issues for drinking water and wastewater and outlines related research and technical support needs. This report recommends increased attention to interagency coordination and encourages additional consideration of current restrictions on secure information dissemination. It further suggests that EPA incorporate the results of their research activities into an integrated water security guidance document to improve support for water and wastewater utilities.
Computers and telecommunications have revolutionized the processes of scientific research. How is this information technology being applied and what difficulties do scientists face in using information technology? How can these difficulties be overcome? Information Technology and the Conduct of Research answers these questions and presents a variety of helpful examples. The recommendations address the problems scientists experience in trying to gain the most benefit from information technology in scientific, engineering, and clinical research.
The Physical Measurement Laboratory (PML) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is dedicated to three fundamental and complementary tasks: (1) increase the accuracy of our knowledge of the physical parameters that are the foundation of our technology-driven society; (2) disseminate technologies by which these physical parameters can be accessed in a standardized way by the stakeholders; and (3) conduct research at both fundamental and applied levels to provide knowledge that may eventually lead to advances in measurement approaches and standards. This report assesses the scientific and technical work performed by the PML and identifies salient examples of accomplishments, challenges, and opportunities for improvement for each of its nine divisions.
The report on the EEEL presents an assessment of the Lab's four divisions. The assessment is based on four criteria: alignment with national priorities, motivation of its programs, technical merit, and technical program quality. The report also provides a look at three additional concerns: staffing and funding, international issues, and the planning process.
Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for-and in many cases is already affecting-a broad range of human and natural systems. The compelling case for these conclusions is provided in Advancing the Science of Climate Change, part of a congressionally requested suite of studies known as America's Climate Choices. While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never closed, the book shows that hypotheses about climate change are supported by multiple lines of evidence and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. As decision makers respond to these risks, the nation's scientific enterprise can contribute through research that improves understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change and also is useful to decision makers at the local, regional, national, and international levels. The book identifies decisions being made in 12 sectors, ranging from agriculture to transportation, to identify decisions being made in response to climate change. Advancing the Science of Climate Change calls for a single federal entity or program to coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research effort aimed at improving both understanding and responses to climate change. Seven cross-cutting research themes are identified to support this scientific enterprise. In addition, leaders of federal climate research should redouble efforts to deploy a comprehensive climate observing system, improve climate models and other analytical tools, invest in human capital, and improve linkages between research and decisions by forming partnerships with action-oriented programs.
The attacks of September 11 and the release of anthrax spores revealed enormous vulnerabilities in the U.S. public-health infrastructure and suggested similar vulnerabilities in the agricultural infrastructure as well. The traditional public health response-surveillance (intelligence), prevention, detection, response, recovery, and attribution-is the paradigm for the national response not only to all forms of terrorism but also to emerging infectious diseases. Thus, investments in research on bioterrorism will have enormous potential for application in the detection, prevention, and treatment of emerging infectious diseases that also are unpredictable and against which we must be prepared. The deciphering of the human genome sequence and the complete elucidation of numerous pathogen genomes, our rapidly increasing understanding of the molecular mechanisms of pathogenesis and of immune responses, and new strategies for designing drugs and vaccines all offer unprecedented opportunities to use science to counter bioterrorist threats. But these same developments also allow science to be misused to create new agents of mass destruction. Hence the effort to confront bioterrorism must be a global one. Countering Bioterrorism makes the following recommendations: Recommendation 1: All agencies with responsibility for homeland security should work together to establish stronger and more meaningful working ties between the intelligence, S&T, and public health communities. Recommendation 2: Federal agencies should work cooperatively and in collaboration with industry to develop and evaluate rapid, sensitive, and specific early-detection technologies. Recommendation 3: Create a global network for detection and surveillance, making use of computerized methods for real-time reporting and analysis to rapidly detect new patterns of disease locally, nationally, and ultimately- internationally. The use of high-throughput methodologies that are being increasingly utilized in modern biological research should be an important component of this expanded and highly automated surveillance strategy. Recommendation 4: Use knowledge of complex biological patterns and high-throughput laboratory automation to classify and diagnose infections in patients in primary care settings. Recommendation 5: USDA should create an agency for control and prevention of plant disease. This agency should have the capabilities necessary to deal effectively with biothreats.
Since 1959, the National Research Council (NRC), at the request of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has annually assembled panels of experts to assess the quality and effectiveness of the NIST measurements and standards laboratories. In 2011, the NRC evaluated three of the six NIST laboratories: the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST), the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) and the Information Technology Laboratory (ITL). Each of these was addressed individually by a separate panel of experts; this report assesses ITL.
A panel of experts appointed by the National Research Council assessed the scientific and technical work of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The scope of the assessment included the following criteria: (1) the technical merit of the current laboratory programs relative to the current state of the art worldwide; (2) the adequacy of the laboratory facilities, equipment, and human resources, as they affect the quality of the laboratory technical programs; and (3) the degree to which the laboratory programs in measurement science and standards achieve their stated objectives and desired impact.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.