"No significant quantities of 6.1 funds (basic research) have
been directed toward projects that are typical of research funded under
categories 6.2 or 6.3." This statement will probably be the
most discussed finding of a just-released study by the "Committee
on Department of Defense Basic Research" of the National Research
Council of the National Academies.
When Congress passed the FY 2004 National Defense Authorization Act
it included report language mandating an NAS study "to assess
the basic research portfolio of the [armed] services and the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This assessment should
review the basic research portfolio in order to determine if the programs
are consistent with the definitions of basic research in DoD regulation."
The 16-member NAS committee was chaired by Larry Welch, U.S. Air Force
(retired), now with the Institute for Defense Analyses. Other committee
members have backgrounds in academia, industry, and government. The
study began in March 2004, and involved two meetings in which the committee
heard from private and governmental experts. In addition, numerous visits
or interviews were conducted at universities and site visits were made
to defense facilities. The committee reported its findings in a 33-page
document, with additional appendixes. It may be ordered or read on line
at http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11177.html
The motivation for the congressional mandate was concern expressed
by universities and defense laboratories over the last six years that
the conduct of DOD basic research was changing. Specifically, there
was concern that some 6.1 basic research money is being used to fund
other research. In addition, DOD grant and contract reporting requirements
are cumbersome and constraining. Finally, the services use basic research
funds differently, making tracking and monitoring difficult.
The committee questioned the appropriateness of only a "small
percentage" of work classified as 6.1 research, and that some of
this uncertainty may revolve around the definition of basic research.
"There is no evidence of significant misapplication of basic
research funding," the committee stated. It urged that the
definition of basic research be refined to include that it "has
the potential for broad, rather than specific, application," and
"may lead to: . . . the discovery of new knowledge that may
later lead to more focused advances." Rejecting the traditional
linear process view of 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 research, the committee advised
that "DOD should view basic research, applied research, and
development as continuing activities occurring in parallel, with numerous
supporting connections throughout the process."
While the committee may not have found 6.1 funding be used inappropriately,
it did find reduced attention to basic research: "there has
been a trend within DOD for reduced attention to unfettered exploration
in its basic research program. Near-term DOD needs are producing significant
pressure to focus basic research in support of those needs. DOD needs
to realign the balance of its basic research effort more in favor of
unfettered exploration."
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl