critical technologies institute - rand corporation

CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES INSTITUTE

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T

R

For further information on CTI, contact

Bruce W. Don, DirectorCritical Technologies Institute

RAND1333 H Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: (202) 296-5000, ext. 5276Internet: [email protected]

World Wide Web URL: http://www.rand.org/centers/stpi/

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T

R

CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES INSTITUTE

The Critical Technologies Institute is afederally funded research and development

center operated by RAND, a nonprofitinstitution that helps improve public policy

through research and analysis.

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T

C R I T I C A L T E C H N O L O G I E S I N S T I T U T E

iii

As CTI marks its fifth birthday in 1997, it is worthwhile to reflect on howfar we have come as an institution since those first studies got under way in1992. A continuing theme in CTI’s history has been adaptation—morespecifically, adapting our research agenda and approach to make theoptimal contribution in a complex policy environment. As we note in theintroduction, CTI was the product of multiple visions—including those ofthe White House, Congress, the National Science Foundation (NSF) andRAND—of what a federally funded center for the analysis of science and

technology policy ought to be. Perhaps our greatest challenge as an institution has been toharmonize these visions. Doing so has involved a continual balancing act: maintaining a closeand confidential relationship with the principal consumer of our research, the White HouseOffice of Science and Technology Policy, and providing them with timely and responsive researchand analysis while also upholding RAND’s traditions of analytic objectivity and methodologicalrigor; meeting the high standards of accountability and program efficiency demanded by ourprincipal funding agency, NSF; and, finally, honoring the congressional vision of CTI as anabiding national resource above the fray of partisan politics.

One measure of our success in accomplishing this has been our contribution to specific policydecisions. There are several examples of such impact, at all levels of government and in theprivate sector. For instance, CTI research has informed eight presidential level initiatives,including an initiative focusing on how science and technology can help with child development(see p. 21). In addition, our research and analysis have supported policy decisions that haveempowered private industry. A prime example has been our analytic support for the Partnershipfor a New Generation of Vehicles.

Another measure of our success has been a vote of confidence from the U.S. Congress, which, aswe went to press with this report, passed legislation changing our name to the Science andTechnology Policy Institute and expanding our mandate specifically to reflect our contributions toscience as well as technology policy. We look forward to the continuing challenge of contributingto policymaking in these vital areas under our new banner.

DIRECTOR’S FOREWORD

Bruce W. DonDirector

v

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


Director’s Foreword iii

I. CTI: The First Five Years 1

II. Health and Environment 6

Research Highlight: Sustainable Community Activitiesand Pollution Prevention 9

III. Space and Transportation 13

Research Highlight: Keeping the Space Program Alive andCosts Low 14

IV. Critical Infrastructure and Technology 18

Research Highlight: Protecting the National Information Infrastructure 18

V. Technology in Education and Training 21

Research Highlight: Analysis in Support of Children’s Initiative 23

VI. Federal R&D Portfolio 26

Research Highlight: Cooperative R&D in Remote Satellite Sensing 27

VII. Special Projects and Outreach 30

VIII. Interns and AAAS Fellows 32

IX. CTI Publications 35

C O N T E N T S

1

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


The Critical Technologies Institute (CTI) waschartered by Congress in 1991. Its creationwas the culmination of decades of debate anddiscussion within the government and theU.S. scientific community about the need foran organization to conduct independent andobjective research and analysis in support offederal science and technology policymaking.CTI was the product of four complementaryvisions of how to fill that need. These camefrom Congress, the Executive Office of thePresident, Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy (OSTP), the National ScienceFoundation (NSF), and RAND.

The congressional vision saw a need for anobjective policy-research organization thatcould maintain a vision and agenda apartfrom political interests. Such an institutionwould require a dedicated, highly qualifiedresearch staff for continuity.

The executive branch had a slightly differentset of needs. These included the need tomaintain a close and confidential relationshipwith an analytic institution that wouldprovide rapid response on issues; possess thecapability to work with other agencies, stategovernments, academia, and private industry;and provide honest, trusted advice andsupport to OSTP.

A third interested party was the agencycharged with advancing the progress ofscience in the United States: the NationalScience Foundation. The NSF sought

stewardship to provide checks and balances tocounter the pull of political exigencies, ensurequality research, enforce cost-effectiveness,and provide proactive guidance and support.

Finally, RAND brought yet another set ofexpectations. RAND emerged as the winnerin a competitive bidding process for the CTIcontract. RAND envisioned an institutionthat would provide analysis and informationsupport on the nature and state of scienceand technology (S&T) policy in order toaddress critical national issues. To this effort,RAND would bring a diverse experience,including 40 years of studying defense policyissues, over two decades studying domesticand international policy issues, and a strongtrack record of providing candid informationand advice to government research sponsors.For RAND, the key characteristics of aquality research institution centered onidentifying policy alternatives, asking the“right” questions, and doing objectivethinking.

RAND’s Critical Technologies Institute,which began operation in 1992, was anattempt to blend these visions of how anindependent research organization could bestsupport the analytic needs of the governmentS&T policy formulation. Blending thesedifferent perspectives, in particular balancingthe RAND vision with OSTP’s needs, hasbeen a continuous learning process. Requestsfor information did not as a rule arrive at

I. CTI: THE FIRST FIVE YEARS

2

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


CTI in a form to which RAND wasaccustomed—that is, provide policyalternatives, or make sure policy formulationis addressing the right question, or provideconfidential advice on high-level issues.Rather, requests tended to arrive in a slightlydifferent context, asking for

• insight into cross-government operations

• data on science and technology

• direct support of presidential policydecisions

• institutional memory.

As RAND/CTI adjusted to these requestmodes, CTI’s mission refined itself to addressthose areas where its impact could bemaximized. These areas concerned high-profile issues of science and technology policythat involve or affect multiple executivebranch agencies or different branches of theU.S. government, or involve interactionbetween the U.S. government and othernations or the private sector.

To this evolving mission, RAND brought aunique set of characteristics. These includedits reputation as an “honest broker” andconfidante to both government and businessand an established set of connections andaccess to decisionmakers; a multidisciplinaryapproach to analysis with its foundation infact-based, objective research focused onpolicy applications and a decades-longorientation toward resource allocation;experience with a research center and themeans to invest in and nurture its growth;and a “bench” of over 600 professional staff

plus access to approximately 8,000consultants.

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

CTI’s annual research plan is developedinteractively with OSTP. It consists of threeactivities: analytic tasks, core support efforts,and analytic tool development. A fourthactivity, maintenance of the RaDiUS™R&D data system, is conducted incooperation with NSF and is funded by usersubscriptions. (See Figure 1.)

Analytic Tasks

Analytic tasks are the specific, deliverable-oriented blocks of the Research Program.They are the primary mechanism throughwhich CTI informs policymakers in OSTPand provides a public record of its analysis.Tasks may be conducted in support of OSTP,NSF, or other agencies when a policyquestion is interagency in nature.

Core supportefforts andoutreach

36%

Interagencytasks 14%

RaDiUS5%

OSTP tasks45%Analytic

tasks

Figure 1—CTI Research Tasks by Type

3

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


Experience with CTI research over the pastfive years has identified five issue areas inwhich RAND’s capabilities most effectivelymeet the needs of OSTP and other supportedoffices, agencies, and councils of the executivebranch. These areas are:

1. Health and the environment. There is aheavy emphasis currently in the federalgovernment on technological approachesto solving environmental problems.

2. Space and transportation. This is the“biggest” science enterprise. The figuresfor nondefense R&D clearly illustrate therationale for this and the previous issuearea.

3. Critical infrastructure and technology.This issue area is designed to cut acrosscanonical budget lines. Criticalinfrastructure and information technology,as such, do not appear separately in theusual breakdowns. Yet, this is a crucialcross-cutting area of concern that providesthe context for much of what is emergingin all areas of science and technology.

4. Education and training. This area, thewellspring of prosperity, competitiveness,and S&T leadership, shows the impor-tance of thinking beyond traditionalbudgeting and organizational boundaries.Although only a sliver of the formal R&Dpie, issues of education and training affectall aspects of the U.S. innovativeenterprise.

5. The R&D portfolio. Finally, there is valuein having in place a structure capable ofconsidering the federal R&D portfolio

overall—as well as of taking closer readingsof selected areas otherwise overlooked.

These five categories represent the bulk ofCTI’s policy-analytic efforts and resourceexpenditures. The level of effort attempts tostrike a balance across the five task areas andtake full advantage of the significant workunder way in other parts of RAND, mostnotably in national security, education, andthe nontechnical aspects of health care.

Core Support Efforts

In addition to research, CTI carries outsupport efforts necessary to underpin theresearch program. These “core” effortsinclude the activities of the Director and hisimmediate staff in conducting Instituteoperations and developing and managing theresearch program. They also include

• efforts associated with CTI’s legislativecharter, which requires it to consult widelywith representatives from private industry,institutions of higher education, andnonprofit institutions

• activities to exercise sound financialcontrol over the Institute’s resources

• work on special projects to complementtasks and provide quick-response analyticsupport

• explorations of substantive areas of likelyfuture concern to develop requisiteanalytic resources

• concept formulation research necessary toprovide a forward-looking perspective that

4

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


can anticipate problems and issues and sopreclude simply reacting to events.

Analytic Tool Development

The final component of the research programcomprises work to develop new analyticmethods and information systems that allowmore cost-effective analysis in the future.These efforts attempt to provide tools thatwill pay dividends in the future to OSTP,across the government, and to the largerscience and technology policy community.

This research program component may bethought of as CTI’s R&D. As with otherforms of R&D, there are associated risks.Additionally, some lead time is necessary tobring new methods and systems to maturity.Because of this, the level of effort for thiscomponent of the research program mustreflect the need to ensure the right balancewith more immediate analytic tasks.

CTI’S POLICY IMPACT

The measure of CTI’s value both to thenation and to RAND appears most in ourability to help shape policy. A number ofexamples illustrate this impact:

• CTI research has informed fivePresidential Decision Directives.

• CTI is supporting research on threePresidential Review Directives.

• CTI research has been the foundation forfour policy statements issued by the

National Science and Technology Council(NSTC).

• CTI has enhanced a dialogue between theexecutive branch and state and localgovernments and between OSTP and theprivate sector.

• CTI research has resulted in policydecisions that have enabled privateindustry.

• CTI databases are increasingly beingviewed as the de facto standards formanaging the federal R&D effort.

Figure 2 details the impact that a selected setof CTI tasks has had on policy as measuredin five different dimensions: informingpresidential-level decisions, informing agencyand NSTC initiatives, supporting state andlocal efforts, enabling U.S. industry, andhelping to shape analytically based standards.These tasks span the range of CTI’s work andshow substantial impact despite the need toaddress the broad research needs of ourprimary client.

In the many instances of informal, short-termcontact, CTI has created a core competencyof both functional knowledge and policytools. CTI has also conducted objectivecross-cuts of government activity at a fractionof the cost of previous cross-cuts, none ofwhich could have been carried out at theagency level. CTI has played roles, producedwork, and taken stands that are beyond themeans of most contractors.

5

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


POLICY IMPACTSPOLICY ANALYSIS

ANALYTIC TOOLS

Presidentialpolicy decisions

Agency-level and NSTCinitiatives

Enabling U.S. industry

Helping shapeanalytically-based standards

Support forstate and localefforts

Space/AerospaceGlobal Positioning System StudyTracking and Data Relay Satellite System Replenishment Study

Space Policies and ProgramsSmall Satellite StudyCore

Supported Pres. Decision Directive; enabled $8 billion U.S. industry

$1 billion OSTP / OMB decision to proceed with programInformed development of U.S. National Space Policy directiveNASA rescoping its R&D processInputs to Gore Commission on Air Safety and Security

Education/TrainingEducational Technology Informed Department of Education technology policy, which many

states and localities have used as framework for their strategic plansR&D Portfolio

Children's InitiativeAssessing Fundamental Science

International Cooperative R&DPartnership for a New Generation of Vehicles

Electronics Working Group

Informed President’s Decision for Conference on Child DevelopmentNSTC policy statement; defined agency response to Government Performance Review Act

Data informed international S&T negotiations

Supplied data for industry-government partnership that government had been unable to provide

Enabled formation of public-private partnership

RaDiUS Data System

Department of Energy R&D Information System

Revised OMB budget data call; changed agency reporting of intellectual property

Restructured DOE R&D data collection

Health/EnvironmentFed, State, Local CollaborationEnvironmental Tech WorkshopsCore (AAAS Fellows)

Informed local efforts about nationwide programs and resourcesDrafted portions of National Environmental Technology StrategyPresidential Decision Directive on National Earthquake Strategy

Figure 2—CTI’s Policy Impact

ORGANIZATION OF THEREPORT

The sections that follow summarize CTI’sresearch activities in 1997 according to themain areas of inquiry: environment andhealth; space and transportation; criticalinfrastructure and technology; technology in

education and training; and the federal R&Dportfolio. Each section summarizes the year’smajor projects and highlights a specificproject in detail. Following these sections, wedescribe CTI’s special activities and outreachprograms, then provide a comprehensive listof CTI publications to date.

6

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITYACTIVITIES AND POLLUTIONPREVENTION

The “sustainable community” approach tocommunity-level environmental problems isgathering momentum in the United States.This project examined the concept of“sustainability” and described the range ofprograms under way around the country (seehighlight).

MONITORING TECHNOLOGIESFOR ENVIRONMENTALREGULATION

New monitoring technologies are critical tothe development of performance-basedregulatory programs. However, the technicalcapability of these technologies is variable andin some cases unknown. Moreover, imple-menting these technologies in an evolvingregulatory system poses many challenges.This exploratory project interviewed relevantfederal agency personnel to characterizeexisting and emerging technologies formonitoring pollution. The interviews will besummarized in a nontechnical, unclassifiedreport.

The investigation focused on technologies for monitoring for fine particulate matter,based on EPA’s proposed revision of theNational Ambient Air Quality Standards forparticulate matter. We interviewed federalagency personnel to characterize existing and

emerging technologies that may be used forcontinuous monitoring for fine particulatematter. We characterized the advantages offive different methods of monitoring,including EPA’s proposed new FederalReference Method for monitoring for fineparticulate matter and commercially availablemonitoring technologies that could be usedfor continuous, real-time monitoring.

Publication: Elisa Eiseman, Monitoring forFine Particulate Matter, MR-974-OSTP.

MONITORING TECHNOLOGIESFOR ECOSYSTEMMANAGEMENT: FEDERAL,STATE, AND LOCALCOLLABORATION

For this research project, CTI has beenanalyzing federal, state and local governmentcollaboration in monitoring for ecosystemmanagement. This research will provideinput to the NSTC Committee on Environ-ment and Natural Resources (CENR) and itsNational Monitoring Initiative for integratingthe nation’s environmental monitoring andrelated research networks and programs.

The methodology used for this analysis is aliterature review and three in-depth casestudies focused on monitoring programs withsignificant federal involvement. These casestudies are focused on three diverse regions ofthe country in terms of ecosystems, federalinvolvement, and monitoring efforts. The

II. HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

7

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


areas are the Chesapeake Bay region, Florida,and the Pacific Northwest. CTI hasconducted in-depth interviews with state,local and federal government representativesin these three areas about their monitoringprograms for ecosystem management and thelessons they have learned from collaboratingwith other levels of government. Throughthese interviews, this study has emphasizedhow federal agencies can more effectivelywork with their regional, state, and localpartners in such monitoring efforts.

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCALCOLLABORATION INENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT,DIFFUSION, ANDIMPLEMENTATION

State and local government policies andactivities play an important role in thedevelopment, diffusion, and implementationof environmental technologies. For thisproject, CTI analyzed relationships betweenfederal, state, and local government efforts topromote the development and implementa-tion of environmental technologies, with anemphasis on innovative regional, state, andlocal programs. Three main research topicsare being addressed in this study:

1. How do state and local governmentactivities and policies affect the develop-ment and use of environmentaltechnologies?

2. What is the federal government’s role insuch activities?

3. How can the federal government moreeffectively collaborate with state and localgovernments in such activities?

CTI began the study by analyzing a widerange of state and local efforts that affect thedevelopment and use of environmentaltechnologies, including R&D, demonstra-tion, regulatory policies, financing, verifica-tion, economic development, promotingexports and market development, technicalassistance, and pollution prevention assis-tance. The application of such technologiesin infrastructure implementation, ecosystemmanagement, and sustainable communityactivities was also addressed. In this research,CTI performed a general broad analysis ofthe current status and directions of suchregional, state, and local efforts. This taskincluded identifying commonalities anddifferences in objectives, themes, andapproaches and understanding the relation-ships among the federal, state, and localgovernments.

Based on this initial analysis and OSTPneeds, CTI chose three areas to analyze suchissues in greater depth.

• State and local government innovativeregulatory activities

• Monitoring for ecosystem management:federal, state, and local governmentcollaboration

• Analyzing sustainable community activitiesand their relationship to pollutionprevention efforts.

8

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


STATE AND LOCALGOVERNMENT INNOVATIVEREGULATORY ACTIVITIES

State and local governments are implement-ing many innovative environmental activitiesto improve environmental performance andto lower the cost of compliance. Theseinnovative activities include regulatoryexperiments and voluntary programs inpartnership with many different stakeholdersand in a wide range of environmentalapproaches and activities.

Many states are providing complianceassistance and passing auditing laws to makeit easier for industry to be in compliance.Regional, state, and local pollutionprevention (P2) voluntary programs,technical assistance activities, and state P2planning laws are helping businesses savemoney and reduce the amount of pollutionthey generate.

Innovative facility and multimedia permittingand inspection programs are also beingimplemented to improve environmentalperformance and/or reduce the regulatoryburden on industry. The U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency (EPA) and the stateshave jointly developed the National Envi-ronmental Performance Partnership System(NEPPS), which allows for more statepriority setting and innovation in implement-ing U.S. EPA delegated programs. Manystates are exploring the potential regulatorybenefits of industry’s implementingenvironmental management systems such as ISO 14000. Regional, state, and local

government sustainable community, ecosystemmanagement, watershed management, andother place-based management approachesare other innovative ways to improveenvironmental performance. Many of theseintegrated place-based approaches haveemphasized cooperation and collaboration ofall stakeholders and have also includedregulatory flexibility. Such state and localactivities are helping to transform U.S.environmental policy and could change thenature of our future regulatory structure.

For this study, CTI has been analyzing suchactivities to better understand how theyimpact the development, diffusion, and useof environmental technologies. Anotherimportant emphasis has been understandingtheir current and future impact on environ-mental policy and the regulated community.

FRAMEWORK FORCOMPARINGENVIRONMENTAL R&D

Over the past few years, both public andprivate-sector organizations have been underpressure to cut back or reorient researchdollars. In this constrained climate, meetingexisting and future environmental goals willbecome more and more dependent onachieving an effective allocation of scarceR&D funds across the federal and privatesectors. While federal research anddevelopment investments are an importantpolicy tool, their magnitude pales incomparison to private investments.

9

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


To better structure its R&D priorities andpolicies, the federal government must developa clear understanding of how research-intensive industries are rethinking invest-ments in environmental management andtechnologies; where these industries are likely to invest, where they will not invest,and where there are opportunities forprivate–public sector partnerships; and howexisting and future competitive pressuresaffect industrial environmental R&Dstrategies.

In this project, CTI is analyzing private-sector environmental research anddevelopment activities. The effort involvescase studies of 4–5 firms in different sectorsthat have large R&D budgets, a history ofinnovative research, and a clear reputation asenvironmental leaders in the industry. This isan effort to ensure that private-sectorconcerns are addressed in federal policy.

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITYACTIVITIES AND POLLUTIONPREVENTION

Communities in the United States haveincreasingly come to believe thatenvironmental issues and other communityproblems cannot be addressed in isolation.Instead, many communities are confrontingthem as part of a broader approach todeveloping and achieving a healthycommunity by addressing economic,

environmental, and social issues together.This new approach is typically based on theconcept of “sustainability.” Indeed, thegrowing popularity of the concept hasprompted some to declare that a “sustainablecommunity” movement is under way in theUnited States.

Despite its widespread use, the concept of a“sustainable community” is confusing. Theterm lacks a single, widely accepted defini-tion. Likewise, the range of activities itencompasses has not been coherentlymapped. Because most sustainable com-munity initiatives are independent andunique projects undertaken at the local orregional level, there has been little broadlybased effort to identify and categorize thevarious sustainability efforts nationwide. As a result, many communities are launchingsimilar projects with limited awareness ofwhat others are doing.

Furthermore, the relationship betweensustainable community activities and otherenvironmental efforts—especially pollutionprevention—has not been closely examined.Consequently, individuals and organizationsmay have missed opportunities to exploit thesynergy between pollution prevention andsustainable community activities or to learnfrom similar projects in other parts of thecountry.

A recent RAND/CTI study attempted toremedy this deficiency. The study examinedand attempted to clarify the concept of a“sustainable community” and the principal

10

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


elements of sustainable communityinitiatives. The study also compiledinformation on these activities and describedseveral such efforts in detail. Finally, itexamined the relationship betweensustainable community activities andpollution prevention, noted synergiesbetween the two, and provided specificsuggestions for how pollution preventionpractitioners can take advantage of thesustainable community movement.

What Is a SustainableCommunity Effort?

Hundreds of communities of all sizes andtypes across the United States are developingand implementing sustainability projects.The City of Seattle, for example, hasexplicitly incorporated sustainability conceptsas part of its community planning anddevelopment, including a comprehensiveinitiative to address such urban problems assprawl. In EcoVillage at Ithaca, New York,community members are building a newneighborhood on previously undevelopedland. The project incorporates sustainableprinciples and practices in the communitydesign, buildings, and activities. CurryCounty, Oregon, a rural community whoseeconomy has been based on logging andfishing, has a Sustainable Nature-BasedTourism Project to design, build, andimplement a sustainable economic sector.

Relationship BetweenSustainable CommunityActivities and PollutionPrevention

Pollution prevention involves changingpolicy, practices, behaviors, and/or processesto reduce pollution at the source before it iseven generated. Such activities have beengoing on in this country for many years,frequently without any specific connection tosustainable community activities. Recently,pollution prevention efforts have begun tomerge with sustainable community activities.This is true in large part because pollutionprevention is a major building block formany communities’ sustainability projects.Pollution prevention is frequently a goal orguiding principle for communities and mayalso provide a focus for specific activities.Moreover, the vision of sustainablecommunity projects can provide a broadervision for pollution prevention activities.These pollution prevention activities areincorporated into the broader communityperspective for developing a healthycommunity over the long term. Sustain-ability projects also offer a way ofharmonizing industry, government, andgeneral public efforts to address environ-mental issues, including pollution preventionactivities. The CTI report points to a vastrange of information and resources forpollution prevention practitioners and otherindividuals who want to implement moresustainable practices in their communities.

11

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


Opportunities to Increase theSuccess of SustainableCommunity Activities

The sustainable community approach is anexciting experiment for addressing envi-ronmental and community problems. Byanalyzing these efforts and their relationshipsto pollution prevention activities, the authoridentifies the following general implicationsfor taking full advantage of sustainabilityactivities and potentially improvingcommunity health:

All levels of government have important rolesto play in supporting sustainability efforts.As this fledgling “movement” grows andevolves, it is important that all levels ofgovernment provide encouragement andassistance.

Private-sector organizations and the generalpublic also have critical roles. Businesses,nongovernmental organizations, anduniversities are among the organizationswhose participation can be central to suchactivities.

Businesses, for example, are the cornerstoneof eco-industrial park efforts. Communityand environmental groups often generatesignificant public enthusiasm and support.Individual volunteers and the general publiccan also contribute significantly.

Collaboration and cooperation among thevarious players are key factors in sustainabilityefforts. Community members work together,often forming unique partnerships ofindividuals; environmental and other

nongovernmental groups; industry andbusinesses; academia; and local, state, andfederal governments. Most of thesecommunities feel that only the combinedskills and cooperative effort of all segments ofthe community can solve the unique anddifficult problems that they face.

Government and private organizations needto break out of traditional stovepipeoperating modes and take a broader view inbalancing different interests and goals; acrossorganizations, disciplines, and stakeholders;and in addressing environmental and othercommunity problems. Many governmentand private organizations are accustomed toaddressing environmental problems based ontraditional media, organizational, ordisciplinary perspectives. This newintegrated approach often requires change inhow individuals act and view others ingovernment and other sectors of thecommunity. For example, sustainabilityactivities enable government pollutionprevention practitioners to work more easilywith individuals in other departments inaddressing environmental and communityproblems. To address urban sprawl, the localenvironmental agency might work with thetransportation, planning, and economicdevelopment departments, in addition tocommunity groups, businesses, and otherrelevant stakeholders.

There is no single or simple mechanism to solve the community problems thatsustainability projects address. Creating asustainable community—a community

12

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


with comprehensive environmental, social,and economic health and stability for many generations to come—is difficult.Many problems may be solved only through a mix of policy mechanisms, actions, andtechnological solutions across a range ofgovernmental departments and functionalareas based on local conditions. Commu-nities may focus on education, technology,development, and implementation or onchanging the practices and behaviors ofindividuals, government, and/or businesses.

In addition, more systematic analysis ofsustainable community efforts is needed.The CTI research represents a first step in this direction. We need a betterunderstanding of how to measure programs’

effectiveness, how to evaluate implementationstrategies and progress, and how to transferlessons learned. Conducting this work willpresent analysts with a difficult challenge.The highly individualized nature of eachsustainable community project—reflectinglocalities’ unique circumstances—complicatesthe task of quantifying, analyzing, andcomparing projects. Confronting thischallenge will help the evolution ofsustainable community activities and increasetheir potential for success.

Publication: Beth Lachman, LinkingSustainable Community Activities to PollutionPrevention: A Sourcebook, MR-855-OSTP,1997.

13

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


SMALL SPACECRAFT

Small spacecraft are now a key element of thecivil space program. This study examined themajor issues surrounding the growing relianceon small spacecraft and made recommenda-tions for addressing them (see researchhighlight).

ANALYSES OF SPACE ANDAEROSPACE POLICIES ANDPROGRAMS

This long-term, direct support activityprovides analysis of issues of interest to OSTPin conjunction with space-related programs,technologies, and national policies. Tasks arerequested by OSTP on an as-needed basisand may require diverse technical skills.Much of the work is expected to be of adirect-assistance nature. The project willexamine federal R&D plans, the conduct ofgovernment-industry partnerships, andongoing civil and military space programs.Current efforts include analyses of fundingoptions for government space activities andsupport for international consultations withJapan, the European Commission, and Russiaon issues related to the Global PositioningSystem (GPS) and space technology–relatedtrade.

Extensive efforts were made in support ofinteragency discussions to develop a draft

U.S.–Japan Agreement on the GlobalPositioning System. Memos were preparedfor OSTP and the Department of State onobjectives, metrics, and strategy fornegotiations with Japan, Europe, and Russia.A white paper on governmental barriers tothe use of GPS technologies and services wasprepared for OSTP and State.

COMMERCIAL RESOURCES FORMISSION TO PLANET EARTH

NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) isthe largest U.S. government civil remotesensing effort. It is central to global climatechange research, a priority concern of OSTP,and it is also under severe budgetary pressure.The ability of MTPE to achieve its scientificobjectives may be threatened by fundingreductions and instability. At the same time,there is an increasingly capable commercialspace sector which may offer opportunities toleverage private resources to meet publicobjectives.

Crafting mutually beneficial arrangementsrequires addressing multiple policy, legal, andregulatory issues affecting government-industry cooperation in remote sensing. Suchissues cut across multiple agencies—theDepartments of Commerce, State, andDefense, as well as NASA. In particular, ifMTPE is to leverage commercial remote

III. SPACE AND TRANSPORTATION

14

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


sensing resources, then attention to potentialdata policy issues in close government-industry partnerships will be needed.

This project is identifying current datapolicies, laws, and regulations that createbarriers for MTPE scientists seeking toacquire data and services from the privatesector. When this activity is complete, theproject team will make recommendations onthe removal of barriers, including alternativepolicies and legislation where appropriate.The research is being funded by NASA.

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT

KEEPING THE SPACEPROGRAM ALIVE AND COSTS LOW

Small spacecraft have evolved to become akey element of the civil space program. Inthe wake of federal budget reductions, civiland military space programs have had todownsize. Small spacecraft are an importantmeans of maintaining scientifically viableprograms within tighter budgets. WithinNASA, small programs also substantiate the

$4.30

$3.40

$2.50

$1.20

$2.20

$1.91

$1.36

$.68

$.38

$.60

Small satellites$1.01B

All satellites$3.84B

NASA overall$13.9B

0.34

$.15

$.13

$.15

SpacecraftLaunch systemsOperationsResearch and analysisPersonnel

$.24

Figure 3—Satellite Budgets at NASA (FY96)

15

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


“faster, better, cheaper” management anddesign strategies created in response to theNational Performance Review.

One-quarter of NASA’s current investment inspace and earth science is spent on small pro-grams, an amount certain to increase as largerprograms, now under development, con-clude. In the area of defense, the Air Force,the Navy, and the National ReconnaissanceOffice are exploring ways to shift assets tosmaller platforms that can be deployed morerapidly at lower cost. As small spacecraftcome to play a more central role in nationalspace policy, it is important that decision-makers understand the dynamics of smallerprograms and maintain realistic expectationsof their potential. Developments related tosmall programs also offer new options inpolicy formulation and implementation.

With these thoughts in mind, OSTP and theOffice of Management and Budget (OMB)asked RAND/CTI to undertake a study ofsmall-spacecraft programs. The study identi-fied several key issues and made recommen-dations for addressing them. The projectused an interdisciplinary methodology thatrelied heavily on close interactions with theNASA offices responsible for conductingspace research and the many supportingoffices that develop technology and assist inthe process of building and testing spacecraft.

The study identified four categories of issues:civil space-policy objectives, performanceimprovement, improvement of technologyplanning and implementation, andmeasurement of performance.

National Civil Space PolicyObjectives

Profound change has swept through NASA inrecent years. Funding constraints and theagency’s changing role as a builder of spacesystems have altered the environment inwhich it operates. These changes suggest theneed for a reexamination and reformulatingof agency goals to balance cost-containmentand program effectiveness aims whilestrengthening NASA’s core competencies.Accordingly, the study recommended that theNational Space Policy call for NASA topursue mission excellence in the design anddevelopment of science spacecraft and alsosuggested an examination of NASA’s rolesand missions.

Improving TechnologyPlanning and Implementation

NASA spends approximately 2 percent of itsannual budget on spacecraft technologyprograms. To maximize returns from thismodest investment, NASA in 1992 createdthe Integrated Technology Plan (ITP), anattempt to coordinate agency projectscentrally. However, the plan lacked a clearmethodology for managing technologydevelopment, a clear tie between projects andfuture mission requirements, and a means ofevaluating success and failure. In 1996,NASA realigned its planning functions toplace all responsibility for technologyplanning under a new Office of Technology.A central objective of this realignment was torefine and reissue the ITP. Of the many

16

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


factors complicating this task, perhaps mostimportant is the challenge presented by theagency’s dual mandate to conduct science anddevelop technology.

The study recommended that NASA makethe Integrated Technology Plan a focal pointfor the coordination of all instrument,spacecraft, and ground-system technologyinitiatives and merge current spacecrafttechnology-development programs under theumbrella of the ITP.

Risk Measurement andReduction

While the study found that, historically,science spacecraft have demonstratedincreasing reliability, this trend might notcontinue with the current generation of smallspacecraft. A consequence of the shift tomanaged risk is a greater potential for failure.Less money is generally available to smallerprograms to test spacecraft functions andoperational procedures prior to launch.Small spacecraft are also generally less robust.Consequently, policymakers should anticipatethat failures will occur more frequently thanin the past. This observation highlights theimportance of NASA’s research in the area ofhigh-reliability systems. Efforts to reduce thepotential for failure by applying more-reliablecomponents, better testing, and advanceddesign techniques should receive greaterattention.

The study recommended increased fundingfor efforts to improve quantitative

measurement of risk and reliability. New riskmeasurement techniques should be designedto support not only the technical manage-ment of missions but also the need for NASAprogram offices to communicate risks to thepolicymakers.

NASA should direct additional funds toresearch in high-reliability space systems andto the study of failure analysis, new testpractices, and advanced design processes.Finally, it should augment funding for testand evaluation of high-reliability mechanicalsystems for small spacecraft.

Measuring Performance

NASA rarely discusses risk-related issues withCongress and other policymakers. Policy-makers can no longer assume that risks arebeing minimized and should be aware of thelevel of risk reduction that is being achievedwith available funds. NASA’s new managed-risk strategy carries with it both a need andan opportunity to communicate riskinformation more effectively.

Another key issue in evaluation of smallspacecraft programs is formulating a responseto the requirements of the 1993 GovernmentPerformance and Results Act (GPRA). Thestudy recommended that NASA applyrelative measurements of reliability within theearth- and space-science portfolios to monitorprocess improvement. NASA could also usethese measures to communicate overallprogram risk to policy offices and todistribute reserves within its programs.

17

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


The study also recommended a formal reviewprocess for the ITP. The review shouldinvolve senior technologists as peers. Itshould include individuals who use spacetechnology—mission scientists, who rely ontechnology to meet future requirements, andspacecraft designers, who must integrate newsystems. The resulting user-peer review

process should also involve external, unbiasedexperts to assess the merits of the agency’sprogress on these programs.

Publication: Liam Sarsfield, The Cosmos on aShoestring: Small Spacecraft for Space andEarth Science, MR-864-OSTP, 1998.

18

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


SECURITY OF THEINFORMATIONINFRASTRUCTURE

The growing reliance of U.S. industry oninformation networks has raised securityconcerns about the vulnerability of thatinfrastructure to attack and disruption byoutside threats. This study examined thevulnerability of the U.S. informationinfrastructure (see research highlight).

CYBERPAYMENTTECHNOLOGIES AND MONEYLAUNDERING

Innovations in Internet commerce andelectronic transactions have begun tochallenge existing regulatory and law-enforcement frameworks. Whereas in thepast money laundering required theinvolvement of intermediaries, each of whichleft evidence of its activities, in the future theuse of cyberpayment systems for electroniccommerce may reduce the informationavailable to government authorities forinvestigating money laundering. Thepotential exploitation of Internet commerceby criminals or terrorists is a critical newchallenge facing law-enforcement andfinancial regulators as a result of theinformation revolution. This emergingsituation demands that the law enforcementand financial communities improve theirunderstanding of the potential vulnerabilitiesof cyberpayment systems, identify potential

countermeasures that can be deployed tomake such systems more secure, andanticipate the broader implications ofcyberpayment schemes for the future ofmonetary systems.

The goal of this effort is to design andimplement a policy exercise that will serve to

• raise general awareness regarding thepotential adverse impact of emergingcyberpayment technologies

• educate exercise participants across federalagencies and the private sector on thecharacteristics of those technologies

• explore avenues for potential criminalapplications and identify associatedvulnerabilities

• generate illustrative response strategies fordealing with those vulnerabilities

• consider legal, regulatory, and educationalplans for implementing these strategies.

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT

PROTECTING THE NATIONALINFORMATIONINFRASTRUCTURE

The United States is not in imminent dangerof massive disruption through infrastructurecyber-attacks. In part, this stems from theresilience the country has developed fromhaving to deal with natural disasters andman-caused events of various kinds and

IV. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY

19

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


magnitudes; in part, from the responses oforganizations to insulate themselves againstanything that causes operational intrusions orupsets.

The country can readily withstand some levelof attack and recover—and can even enhanceits ability to do so by strengthening and/orexpanding the mechanisms now in place tohandle what are commonly called disasterareas or business disruptions. It follows that,for extreme events, the national preparationthat has been completed for lesser ones willprovide an enhanced basis for response to a“big one.” For small attacks especially andfor some moderate and/or coordinatedattacks, the country can make do without—or with impaired—sectors of the normalinfrastructure for limited periods of time; butwith such consequences as reduced efficiency,inconvenience to the citizenry, loss of livingaffluence, and disruption of services.

If infrastructure attacks and intrusions areextensive enough to disrupt or destroy thefunctioning of very large geographical areas,or bring down a major industry, or if severalkinds of attacks occur in a seeminglycoordinated pattern, then the country cannotexpect to sustain “business as usual.” In fact,we may have to deliberately stand down orlimit some aspects of normal life on aregional or national basis.

Even though the country is not in imminentdanger of major cyberspace attack, we shouldnot be complacent about the possibility thatour national judgment is wrong or ourintelligence insight incomplete. Intentional

infrastructure cyber-attacks are technicallyfeasible; it is the probability of their happen-ing that is uncertain. The United States mustdo a substantial amount of preparatory workto develop an accurate portrayal of nationalstatus and risk, level of preparedness, and arealistic estimate of threat.

No comprehensive survey has yet been madeof infrastructure vulnerabilities to cyber-attacks or of the resilience of the country towithstand them. Resilience can surely beenhanced, but a study of the present status isrequired before actions can be recommended.A status baseline is essential; e.g.,preparedness planning, sources of and statusof resilience, industry vulnerabilities, presentsources of early warning.

We need to establish what the engineeringcommunity would call the “noise level” in theinfrastructure—namely, the day-to-dayabnormal or accidental events that occur as amatter of routine operation.

Physical attack is a high-probability riskthroughout the infrastructure. The UnitedStates government and the private sectormust give it attention. Intelligence, earlywarning, and data sharing are collectively anearly order of business.

Energy supplies, telecommunications, andcomputer-based systems share an inescapableposition of centrality in the area ofinfrastructure, and are thus of first priorityfor attention and remedial actions.

• Without an ongoing supply of energy—electrical and/or petroleum based—the

20

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


infrastructure will wind down to a state ofquiescence over a few days or a few weeks.

• The public switched network (i.e., thenational telephone system) is a concernbecause it provides the bulk ofconnectivity among computer systems,people, organizations, and functionalentities. It is the backbone ofinterpersonal and organizational behavior.

• The federal information infrastructure isconsidered to be weakly postured oncomputer and network security. Agenciesmust be motivated—or directed—torespond, and their progress monitored.

• There are specific R&D “cyber-issues”relevant to protecting critical infrastruc-tures, particularly with respect to thecomputer system/telecommunication/information infrastructure. The researchcommunity must become aware of them,and be motivated to respond.

Immediate actions include improving theinformation security posture not only ingovernment but throughout the privatesector. Physical security needs promptexamination and, as required, attention.Near-term actions include analytic studies toestablish such infrastructure features as sourceof resilience and characterization of normalcy(i.e., establishing the noise level), and tospecify R&D requirements. Medium-termactions include establishment of a warningmechanism and a supporting coordinationcenter. For some of these steps, WhiteHouse–sponsored conferences might be anappropriate and useful mechanism, but anymechanism available to the country shouldalso be exploited.

Publication: Willis Ware, The Cyber-Postureof the National Information Infrastructure,MR-976-OSTP, 1998.

21

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OFTHE CHILDREN’S INITIATIVE

As part of the Children’s Initiative to improvethe quality of life for American children, theNSTC asked RAND to analyze the scope andcomposition of federal R&D related tochildren’s development and welfare (seeresearch highlight).

LEARNING-TECHNOLOGY R&DPROGRAMS IN FEDERALAGENCIES

As background, RAND identified theprincipal learning technology R&D efforts inthree federal departments and agencies: TheDepartment of Defense, National ScienceFoundation, and the Department ofEducation. The study found that the diversemissions, perspectives, and cultures of thedifferent agencies make it difficult to create acoordinated learning technologies R&Dagenda. DoD’s fundamental concern isimproving the quality and efficiency of itsown operations; in contrast to the operationalmission of DoD, NSF is charged with thebroad advancement of scientific educationand technology. At the Department ofEducation, R&D related to learningtechnologies is conducted in a complex andcontinually changing political andorganizational environment.

The study also found that

• Agency and departmental missionemphases differ in their attention toeducation content areas. There was littleemphasis on areas outside science andmath.

• Formal evaluation of projects andprograms is comparatively limited andtraditional evaluation paradigms need tobe reexamined.

• Program planning gives uneven attentionto practitioner and commercial activitiesthat have the major influence on actualapplications in schools and workplaces.

The research suggested that the interagencyworking group tasked with addressing theproblem should consider establishing anonprofit National Learning TechnologiesInstitute to facilitate the planning, evaluation,and dissemination of federal learningtechnologies programs.

IMPLEMENTING EXECUTIVEORDER ON SURPLUS FEDERALCOMPUTERS

In 1996, President Clinton issued anexecutive order requiring federal agencies tomake surplus computers available to schoolsand nonprofit organizations. Subsequently,CTI was asked to study agency progress inimplementing the new executive order. Theproject examined the potential supply ofsurplus government computers in relation to

V. TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING

22

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


school needs, assessed agencies’ earlyexperiences with the executive order, focusingon barriers to implementation, and identifiedlessons and “best practices” from existinggovernment programs and successful private-sector efforts that might be applied toovercome these barriers.

The study found that most agency programleaders felt that the program was not givenhigh priority at upper agency levels, especiallysince no funds were authorized for carryingout the order. Concerns also surfaced aboutidentifying appropriate recipients, deliveringequipment, and upgrading and repairing it.To address these concerns, the authors drewon the successful experiences of establishedfederal donation programs and the privatesector to make recommendations for contin-uing implementation. Private-sector expe-rience suggests that use of specializedorganizations to upgrade and refurbishcomputers can increase the number ofoperable and useful computers substantially.About 60 agencies have developedimplementation plans, some of which buildon existing programs.

ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OFCHALLENGE GRANTS FORTECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION

In 1997, the National Science andTechnology Council’s Committee onEducation and Training (CET) planned aresearch, development, and demonstrationprogram called Challenge Grants forTechnology in Education to advance the use

of telecommunications and othertechnologies in support of education andtraining across the country. The program, tobe administered by the new InteragencyLearning Technology Office (ILTO), willaward grants to provide seed money forimplementing promising new technologies inspecific learning communities. CTI willprovide analytic support for ILTO in seeingthat evaluations of the various technologies’educational value are carried out in a timelyand effective manner. This project extendswork initiated under NSTC’s Task Order 14on the role of technology in education. CTIwill continue to work closely with OSTP andNSTC/CET to ensure that the results of thistask inform the continuing development offederal policy for education and trainingtechnology.

The project conducted the following specificactivities:

• Developed guidance and assistancedocuments for the project teams selectedto receive Challenge Grant awards, tosuggest useful and appropriate approachesto evaluation of their projects.

• Helped project teams plan and organizetheir evaluation efforts, via workshops andother assistance.

• Assisted ILTO in developing performanceindicators for the Challenge Grantprogram as a whole.

• Prepared papers and presentations to guideand assist the evaluators of ChallengeGrant projects and the ILTO staff.

23

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


At the Department of Education’s request,RAND prepared a sourcebook to help projectmanagers and evaluators design an evaluationthat would (1) delineate and communicateexpectations and key milestones, (2) provideregular feedback to project leaders and otherparticipants, (3) document project outcomesand lessons learned, and (4) provide anaccount to funders and stakeholders. RANDproposes that documentation of projects takethe form of a Progress Portfolio.

Publication: Susan Bodilly and Karen J.Mitchell, Evaluating Challenge Grants forTechnology in Education: A Sourcebook,MR-839-ED, 1997.

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT

ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OFCHILDREN’S INITIATIVE

One question the Children’s Initiative soughtto answer was “How much does the federalgovernment spend on research anddevelopment related to children andadolescents?” To answer this question, CTIconducted an analysis of federally supportedR&D programs related to children.

CTI conducted its analysis using theRaDiUS™ database. A number of agenciesalso provided information directly to CTI tosupplement the RaDiUS™ data. The CTIanalysis estimated the size and composition ofthe federal portfolio; it is not a compre-hensive, in-depth examination of each federal

R&D project related to child and adolescentdevelopment.

CTI found that, in fiscal 1995, the federalgovernment spent an estimated $2 billion onR&D directly related to children and youth.These funds were distributed among 12federal departments, including eight agencieswithin the U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services (HHS) and 21 fundingcomponents within the National Institutes ofHealth (NIH) and three independent federalagencies. The National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development (NICHD),the National Institute of Mental Health(NIMH), and the Department of Educationaccount for about half of the research.

There are several ways to put in perspectivethe estimated $2 billion federal R&Dinvestment in children and youth. One wayis to compare this investment to the totalfederal R&D budget, which includes researchon defense, energy, health and other topics.Such a comparison shows that federal R&Don children represents less than three percentof the total federal research investment of $71billion, and about six percent of the $33billion nondefense R&D budget.

The research showed that the federalinvestment in R&D affecting children isrelatively small compared to that in otherareas. The share of total national R&Ddirected toward children is less than 1.2percent. This is true despite the fact that,unlike in other areas of research, the federal

24

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


government bears almost total responsibilityfor such R&D. For instance, the privatesector provides over 50 percent of health andenergy R&D funding and over 90 percent oftransportation R&D. In contrast, the federalgovernment provides approximately 90percent of children’s R&D.

A second way to consider the investment inR&D for children is as a proportion of totalexpenditures on children. The U.S. totalinvestment in R&D is between 2 and 3percent of national expenditures (GrossDomestic Product, or GDP). In the areas ofhealth, energy, and transportation, theUnited States invests between 2 and 3percent of expenditures in R&D. This R&Dcommitment is directed toward making theexpenditures in each area more effective andefficient.

In contrast to the 2–3 percent commitmentin other areas, less than three-tenths of apercent of the expenditures on children is

spent for R&D on children (see Figure 4).Total government expenditures for childrenand youth in FY1995 were an estimated$555 billion, almost two-thirds of which wasdevoted to K–16 education. Most of theremaining funds were allocated for socialwelfare (including Aid to Families withDependent Children (AFDC); Medicaid;Head Start; the Women, Infants, andChildren supplemental food program (WIC);and Food Stamps), criminal justice(including police, courts, and prisonexpenditures), health care, and otherprogrammatic expenses. Private-sectorexpenditures for children are far larger thanpublic-sector expenditures, so our total R&Dcommitment to children of $2 billion to $2.4billion is certainly less than three-tenths of apercent of public and private expenditures forchildren.

Given these comparisons, an obviousquestion is whether the nation’s investmentrelated to child and adolescent R&D is

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Health

Perc

ent e

xpen

ditu

res

to R

&D

Transportation Energy Education Children/youth

Figure 4—Share of Spending Devoted to R&D Is Smaller for Children and YouthThan for Other Areas

25

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


consistent with our research investments to solve other social, economic, energy,transportation, and health problems. Thelack of dramatic progress on some youth-related problems may stem from havinglimited R&D funding that must be spreadacross the spectrum of developmentalproblems arising during the first 20 years of life.

The U.S. research investment in childrenneeds to address developmental issues (social,emotional, cognitive, and health) from beforebirth to age 21 and also a wide range of socialissues (such as education, social services, anddelinquency). In addition, such researchshould seek not only to address issues and

problems that arise during childhood but alsoto uncover the origins of health conditionsthat are manifested later in life but have theirgenesis and best hope of prevention inchildhood.

This analysis was presented in a reportpublished by the National Science andTechnology Council Committee onFundamental Science Committee on Health,Safety, and Food: Investing in Our Children:A National Research Initiative for America’sChildren for the 21st Century. The documentis available on OSTP’s website athttp://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/Children/.

26

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


COOPERATIVE R&D INREMOTE SATELLITE SENSING

A growing area of international cooperation isthe use of remote satellites to obtain dataabout the earth and its atmosphere. Thisstudy examined the nature and extent of U.S.cooperative activities in this area (see researchhighlight).

ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCESOF U.S. INTERNATIONALTECHNOLOGY-TRANSFERPOLICIES

The United States is a net exporter oftechnology and technical knowledge. Thereare concerns that this outflow of technologymeans that U.S. taxpayers in effect subsidizeforeign R&D. This study examined U.S.policies for monitoring and restricting theflow of government-developed technologyand attempted to estimate the economicconsequences of technology transfersoverseas.

The study found that it would be impracticalto institute a governmentwide system formonitoring and restricting overseastechnology transfers. First, a review of theeconomic effects of technology transfershowed that it is not possible to estimateaccurately the financial effect on the UnitedStates of the international transfer ofgovernment-sponsored technology.Moreover, the methods of transfer that might

be monitored or restricted are also sources ofthe valuable, high domestic societal return togovernment investments in research anddevelopment. Finally, government agenciesdo not see international technology transferissues as central to their missions and arelikely to consider new requirements to beconstraints on their ability to carry out theirmissions. The study recommended no majorpolicy shifts but suggested minor changes inexisting policy that would enhance the U.S.government’s ability to trace and capture thebenefits of certain technological innovations.

ANALYTIC SUPPORT FORFOURTH NATIONAL CRITICALTECHNOLOGY PANEL (NCTP)REPORT

Critical technologies assessment can serveseveral purposes. In the United States, thepurpose is to measure the health of this areaof public concern, to highlight whatappropriate actions government needs to taketo fulfill its constitutional responsibility fornational defense and public welfare, and todo so through a public and inclusive process.

The National Critical Technologies Report(NCTR) process has been elaborated witheach successive two-year iteration. TheSecond NCTR addressed the larger issue ofthe process itself. It recommended that theNCTRs be used to better understand howtechnology is linked to economic well-being.

VI. FEDERAL R&D PORTFOLIO

27

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


The Third NCTR laid a foundation byproviding a detailed discussion, based onexpert opinion, of the technologies deemedmost important for the future.

The Fourth NCTR will continue the work ofthe previous NCTPs and will primarilyaddress problems of substance and procedurethat have arisen in all previous efforts. Onthe substantive side, it will seek to understandwhat is meant by a “critical technology.” Onthe procedural side, it will attempt to gain anew perspective by looking as much aspossible from the industry viewpoint.

The analysis is engaging the following threequestions with selected firms:

1. What makes technologies critical? Forwhom are they critical and for whatpurpose are they held to be critical?

2. Among the list of emerging technologiesand according to the criteria developed bythe National Critical Technologies Panel,what are the technologies that appear toindustry to most match these criteria?

3. What is the appropriate public role insustaining the environment in which thesetechnologies may be developed andutilized?

The supporting analysis will be based on in-depth interviews with industry personnelfrom larger firms. These interviews will formthe basis for a report to the NCTP that willseek roughly equal representation fromindustrial categories that track into thetechnology areas identified by the ThirdNCTR, with the addition of a consideration

of the services sector. Primary attention willbe directed toward industries heavily engagedin materials processing, informationtechnology, and, manufacturing technology.The Fourth NCTP views these as the cuttingedge of the U.S. technological base. Thereport is expected to be published in Fall,1998.

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT

COOPERATIVE R&D INREMOTE SATELLITE SENSING

Because satellite observations of the earthprovide valuable information regarding thebehavior of the planet, many other nationsare seeking earth observation information andare developing sophisticated satellites andearth-based capabilities in this area.

These developments represent opportunitiesfor partnership to better serve theinternational community. Interest ininternational cooperation in satelliteobservation research continues to grow, withproposals arising in bilateral and regionalforums. To ensure that U.S. participation inthese international arrangements is conductedin the most effective manner, timely andstrategic coordination is needed. This studywill help shed light on the extent ofcoordination efforts and opportunities forimprovement.

The goal of this study was to catalog andassess international R&D agreements relatedto earth observation satellite monitoring and

28

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


exchange and management of earthobservation data in which the U.S. isengaged. The study addresses two questions:

1. What is the full set of internationalagreements addressing satelliteobservations of the earth and the exchangeand management of earth observation datain which the U.S. is involved?

2. How is U.S. participation in theseagreements coordinated, and are themechanisms for coordination effective?

The study found that as of November 1997,a total of 490 international science andtechnology agreements (ISTAs) were in forceto support aspects of unclassified U.S.international cooperation in remote sensingand earth observation. These agreements

have been signed with 76 countries and sixmultinational organizations and cover theoperations of 32 active satellites conductingremote sensing as of the end of 1997.

Five agencies account for more than 90percent of the remote-sensing ISTAsidentified for this project: in the Departmentof Commerce, the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA); in theDepartment of Defense (DoD), the U.S. AirForce and Defense Mapping Agency; in theDepartment of the Interior, the U.S.Geological Survey (USGS); NASA; and inthe U.S. Department of Agriculture, theForest Service. NOAA, with 285 ISTAs,leads other government agencies in the totalnumber of agreements in place to sponsor

70

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

Num

ber o

f agr

eem

ents

Kore

a

Den

mar

k

Russ

ia

Israe

l

Mex

ico

Spai

n

Taiw

an

Vene

zuel

a

Arg

entin

a

Chi

na

Can

ada

Fran

ce

Japa

n

Aus

tralia

Uni

ted

King

dom

Nor

way

Ger

man

y

Braz

il

Italy

Net

herla

nds

Directly relatedIndirectly related

Figure 5—Principal U.S. Partners in International S&T Agreements on Remote Sensing

29

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


cooperative activities, followed by NASAwith 99 and DoD with 56.

Fewer than 10 percent of these agreementshave been approved through a formalinteragency process. However, U.S.government agency officials actively seekinformal interagency coordination forinternational cooperative agreements. Thiscoordination takes place between governmentagency officials, who report keeping activecontact with their counterparts in otheragencies.

Current governmentwide policy coveringnegotiating and signing internationalagreements allows the agencies considerablelatitude to determine when to establishformal cooperative relationships with othercountries. The current mix of formal andinformal coordination works well, accordingto agency officials. Nevertheless, the lack of aclear policy on when to enter into anagreement and at what level of formality toestablish relations results in inconsistencyacross the agencies about how, when, andwhy to agree to cooperate. Moreover, lack ofa central location to collect these agreementsand provide information about them leads tosome duplication of effort among agencies.One government official suggested that thecurrent process of informal coordination has

grown up largely because of the cumbersomenature of the formal interagency process,which takes months to complete and oftendelays important international cooperativeactivities.

The research identified three possible policyactions. The first action would be torationalize the terms of and descriptions forinternational agreements across agencies.Each agency currently uses its own names foragreements, making it difficult to comparethe nature of U.S. activities across agencies.A second action would be to create a centralclearinghouse for information on agreements,perhaps using the World Wide Web to storeand obtain information on governmentagreements. Third, streamlining the formalinteragency (Circular 175) process, possiblyusing new information tools such aselectronic file transfer, may increase thefrequency with which this process is used.

Publications: Caroline S. Wagner,International Cooperation in Research andDevelopment: An Inventory of U.S.Government Spending and a Framework forMeasuring Benefits, MR-900-OSTP, 1997;and International Agreements on Cooperationin Remote Sensing and Earth Observation,MR-972-OSTP, 1997.

30

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


As part of its core mission, CTI conductsadditional activities beyond its policyanalysis. These include a variety of specialprojects categorized as “core” research efforts,including overseeing the RaDiUS™ datasystem and a range of outreach activities.

RaDiUS DATA SYSTEMSUBSCRIPTIONS

RaDiUS is a data system developed byRAND that contains descriptions andexpenditures of all U.S. federally fundedresearch and development conducted since1995. RaDiUS has been used to supportseveral research projects at RAND and willcontinue to be used to support severalPresidential and NSTC initiatives.

A special subset of NSF’s five-year review ofCTI examined the issue of sharing RaDiUScosts through the purchase of subscriptionsby federal user agencies. These RaDiUSsubscriptions would provide each federalagency with better access to its and otheragencies’ R&D records to improve thecoordination and management of the federalR&D enterprise. All subscriptions will begoverned by and accounted through a taskorder under the CTI FFDRC contract withNSF. Each subscription, however, will beindividually funded through a purchase ordersent directly to RAND from subscriberswithin the agencies.

The NSF Comprehensive Review Panelrecommended that NSF commission anadvisory panel of government and outsideexperts to evaluate RAND’s RaDiUS datasystem. The RaDiUS Review Panel’s reportincluded the following recommendations forshort-term and long-term actions:

• To ensure RaDiUS’s immediate and short-term viability, the federal governmentshould enter into a three-year agreementwith RAND. In principle, the agreementshould provide the following:

— Funds raised by making RaDiUSavailable to federal agencies andgovernment contractors (i.e.,subscription fees) should be used tooffset the cost of maintaining thesystem.

— Funds raised in excess of the amountneeded to maintain RaDiUS shouldbe provided to RAND to offset itsshare of the original developmentcosts.

— To the extent that the funds raised bysubscription fees are inadequate tosustain RaDiUS, the government(NSF) should agree to underwrite thiscost for a period of three years.

• OSTP should designate NSF as the leadfederal agency for RaDiUS’s operation.OSTP and NSF should formulate a jointworking plan for the continued operation

VII. SPECIAL PROJECTS AND OUTREACH

31

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


of RaDiUS as a support mechanism forOSTP and NSTC.

• Working with OSTP, NSF should developworking arrangements with participatingfederal agencies to develop standards forthe internal data systems that compriseRaDiUS. NSF should also establish acommittee of RaDiUS users and potentialusers in participating federal agencies toadvise NSF and OSTP on RaDiUS—including data needs, system enhance-ments, resource requirements, and useraccess principles.

• Within three years, NSF should issue arequest for proposal for the multiyearoperation of the RaDiUS system.

Throughout 1997, RAND continued itsmarket evaluation of RaDiUS and its efforts to develop a user base capable ofsupporting the system. NSF will consider the possibility of government support for thesystem in the context of its Review Panelrecommendations.

32

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


INTERNS

CTI hosts interns from across the country,typically over the summer as part of its coreresearch efforts. The objective of theinternship program is to provide analyticexperience to participants, provide them witha window on the science and technologypolicy formulation process, and give CTIfirst-hand experience with students from thescience and technology programs conductedat a broad range of academic institutions.The interns participate as project teammembers on CTI tasks, typically fulfilling therole of research assistant to senior staffmembers.

The number of interns hosted each summeris based on a number of factors. CTI obtainsinterns principally through the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science(AAAS) Science and Technology InternsProgram, through which CTI selects up totwo interns each year. The AAAS programprovides the basis for CTI’s selection processfor interns for other programs, including theRAND Summer Interns Program, the MITTechnology and Public Policy Program, andthe George Washington University Scienceand Technology Policy Program. CTItypically hosts one to two additional internsfrom these programs, depending on therequirements of the student’s program,funding arrangements, and the ability ofproject leaders to provide a positiveeducational experience without

compromising their responsibilities under theresearch plan.

AAAS FELLOWS

CTI’s legislative charter and contractualobligations call for it to consult widely withrepresentatives from private industry and toincorporate information and perspectivesderived from such consultations in its work.One of the ways that CTI fulfills this aspectof its mission is through a fellowship programconducted through the auspices of the AAAS.In this program, CTI hosts one or moreresearch fellows each year as part of CTI’score research. This enables senior scientistsand technology experts from private industryto spend a year with CTI and participate inCTI research. The program’s benefits arenumerous—CTI learns about industry’sperspective on key science and technologyissues and is able to incorporate theseconsiderations into its analysis and reports toOSTP; the experience and skills of seniorstaff are available at a fraction of their normalcost due to cost-sharing arrangements withAAAS and each Fellow’s sponsoring firm; andthe fellows in turn learn about the publicpolicy perspective of CTI’s sponsors and thepolicy formulation process.

Dr. Elisa Eiseman, the CTI-AAAS Fellowduring 1997, is supporting the President’sNational Bioethics Advisory Council(NBAC). One of her projects focuses on the

VIII. INTERNS AND AAAS FELLOWS

33

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


issue of cloning. A paper on stored tissuesamples is in peer review within RAND. Dr.Eiseman will publish the report on storedtissue samples, and she will continue tosupport the NBAC with research and analysisas requested. The CTI Director will meetwith AAAS staff to discuss candidates for the1998 AAAS-CTI Fellow (due to commencein September 1998).

SEMINARS

During 1997, CTI conducted a series ofseminars on important technology issues.Each seminar featured a distinguished speakerand prominent discussants and was open tothe public.

Antimatter. For each fundamental particle,there exists an antiparticle with the sameinertial mass, the same intrinsic lifetime, andan opposite electrical charge. In the past twoyears, experimental physicists have combinedanti-electrons and anti-protons into actualanti-atoms of hydrogen. In principle, thisopens the possibility of creating macroscopicamounts of condensed anti-hydrogen. In thenext century, this could allow applicationsranging from medical imaging to space travel,depending on the amount that becomesavailable. Can antimatter move off the pagesof science fiction and into practice?

Biosensors. Combining biological agentswith high-speed electronics has long beendiscussed, but is only beginning to berealized. Biosensors are moving from theproof-of-concept stage to field testing and

commercialization in the United States,Europe, and Japan. They have potential forcontinuous and in-situ applications in suchfields as medical diagnostics, genetics, andenvironmental monitoring. For example,emerging DNA microchip technology isbeing designed to analyze gene expressionpatterns, carry out genome-wide mapping,and detect genetic mutations. Biosensorssuch as nerve cells grown on a microprocessorcan provide electrical signals in response tostimuli such as the presence of toxins in theenvironment. These technologies are creatingstrategic, innovative links between electronicengineering and biological sciences with far-ranging implications for both fields.

Nanotechnology Applications in a Space-Based Environment (co-sponsored by TheNational Space Society). Since the 1993 CTIseminar on nanotechnology, the field hasdeveloped quickly enough to warrant asecond look at this technology. It has gonefrom a “what if ” to a “how” mode, withengineers exploring the use of scanningtunneling microscopes and other productiontools to assemble complex structures from theatomic level on up—molecule by molecule,as nature does. As an engineering discipline,molecular nanotechnology promisesrevolutionary advances not only inmanufactured products, but in the processesused to make them. Initial applications mayinclude space-based machining and electronicand quantum computing. This seminarexamined the feasibility of thesedevelopments over the next 20 years.

34

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


Quantum Computing (co-sponsored byTexas Instruments). Computer hardwareperformance is bumping up against naturallimits imposed by the laws of physics.Quantum physics offers a tantalizingpossibility: the construction of qualitativelynew types of logic gates and absolutely securecryptosystems. In theory, quantumcomputers can conduct massively parallelcomputation—not by having manyprocessors working in parallel but by having aquantum processor performing a singlecommand operating on a coherentsuperposition of many different numberssimultaneously. The implications for thefuture of computing are astounding andrevolutionary. The recent and potentialdevelopments were explored in this seminar.

Solar Energy from Satellites (co-sponsoredby NASA). Solar-powered, space-basedsatellites may eventually be used to beamenergy to earth. The solar energy collectedby a solar-powered satellite would beconverted into electricity, then intomicrowaves. The microwaves could bebeamed to the Earth’s surface, where theywould be received and converted back intoelectricity by a large array of devices known asa rectifying antenna, or “rectenna.” Thisconcept is being tested now and, if provenefficient and effective, could change the waywe think about energy production and use.This seminar examined current developmentsand the feasibility of large-scale investment inthis technology.

35

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


Note: All MRs and RBs are available on the CTI Web site in HTML or PDF format athttp://www.rand.org/centers/stpi/.

HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Reports

Health Care in Transition: Technology Assessment in the Private Sector, Richard A. Rettig, MR-754-DHHS/ASPE/AHCPR, 1997.

Linking Sustainable Community Activities to Pollution Prevention: A Sourcebook, Beth Lachman,MR-855-OSTP, 1997. For a summary of this research, see RB-1502, “On Common Ground:Sustainable Community Activities and Pollution Prevention,” 1997.

Monitoring for Fine Particulate Matter, Elisa Eiseman, MR-974-OSTP, 1998.

Other Publications

Technology for a Sustainable Future-—Ideas: A Summary of Workshop Discussions, Beth Lachman,Robert Lempert, Susan Resetar, Thomas Anderson, RP-417, 1994. Reprinted from White HouseConference on Environmental Technology, 1995.

Beyond Command and Control: An Evolution Is Occurring in State and Local GovernmentEnvironmental Activities, Beth E. Lachman, RP-642, 1997.

“National Environmental Technology Strategy: Residential Construction Workshop,” October1994, Thomas L. Anderson, Beth E. Lachman, P-7965, 1996.

“Sustainable Food Production Workshop, Policy Options to Promote EnvironmentalTechnologies,” Beth E. Lachman, P-7966, 1996.

SPACE AND TRANSPORTATION

Reports

The Global Positioning System: Assessing National Policies, Scott Pace et al., MR-614-OSTP, 1995.For a summary of this research, “A Policy Direction for the Global Positioning System, BalancingNational Security and Commercial Interests,” RB-1501, 1995.

IX. CTI PUBLICATIONS

36

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


The Cosmos on a Shoestring: Small Spacecraft for Space and Earth Science, Liam Sarsfield, MR-864-OSTP, 1998.

Other Publications

“The Regulation of Commercial Remote Sensing Systems,” Scott Pace, CT-112, 1994.Congressional testimony.

“Standards and the National Information Infrastructure: Implications for Open Systems Standardsin Manufacturing,” Caroline S. Wagner, Carl F. Cargill, Anna Slomovic, P-7882, 1994.

“GPS-Aided Guidance for Ballistic Missile Applications: An Assessment,” Gerald P. Frost, IrvingLachow, RP-474-1, 1996.

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Reports

The Cyber-Posture of the National Information Infrastructure, Willis H. Ware, MR-976-OSTP, 1998.

TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Reports

The Cost of School-Based Educational Technology Programs, Brent Keltner and Randy L. Ross, MR-634-OSTP/ED, 1996.

Fostering the Use of Educational Technology: Elements of a National Strategy, Thomas K. Glennan and Arthur Melmed, MR-682-OSTP/ED, 1996.

Evaluating Challenge Grants for Technology in Education: A Sourcebook, Susan Bodilly and Karen J.Mitchell, MR-839-ED, 1997.

Surplus Federal Computers for Schools: An Assessment of the Early Implementation of E.O. 12999,Thomas K. Glennan, Walter Baer, Susanna Purnell, Gwendolyn Farnsworth, and Gina Schuyler,MR-871-OSTP, 1997.

Other Publications

The Market for Educational Software, James Harvey, DRU-1041, 1995.

Planning and Financing Education Technology, James Harvey, DRU-1042, 1995.

37

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


Technology and Teacher Professional Development, James Harvey and Susanna Purnell, DRU-1045,1996.

Evaluation of Educational Technology: What Do We Know, and What Can We Know? Douglas C.Merrill, DRU-1049, 1995.

The Costs and Effectiveness of Educational Technology, Proceedings of a Workshop, Arthur Melmed(ed.), DRU-1205, 1995.

U.S. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO

Reports

The Decline of the U.S. Machine Tool Industry and Prospects for Its Sustainable Recovery: Vol. 1,David Finegold et al., MR-479/1-OSTP, 1994. For a summary of the research in this and thecompanion report, see “The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects forRecovery,” RB-1500, 1994.

The Decline of the U.S. Machine Tool Industry and Prospects for Its Sustainable Recovery: Vol. 2,Appendices, David Finegold (ed.), MR-479/2-OSTP, 1994. For a summary of the research in thisand the companion report, see “The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospectsfor Recovery,” RB-1500, 1994.

Assessment of Fundamental Science Programs in the Context of the Government Performance andResults Act (GPRA), Susan E. Cozzens, MR-707.0-OSTP, 1995. (Available in hard copy only.)

Economic Approaches to Measuring the Performance and Benefits of Fundamental Science, Steven W.Popper, MR-708.0-OSTP, 1995. (Available in hard copy only.)

Other Publications

What Is a Critical Technology? Bruce Bimber and Steven W. Popper, DRU-605, 1994.

The Competitive Position of the U.S. Foundry Industry, Steven W. Popper and Donald F. Smith, Jr.,DRU-671, 1994.

Sources of Metal Casting Technology: Industry and University Roles, Christopher T. Hill, DRU-672,1994.

Applications of Advanced Composites in Civil Construction: Dual Use in Action, J. Kardos and T.Anderson, DRU-719, 1994.

38

A N N U A L 1 9 9 7 R E P O R T


Lean and Agile Manufacturing: Compatible Concepts or Competing Visions? D. Roos, DRU-807,1994.

Bibliometrics: A New Tool for Evaluating and Monitoring Scientific Research, DRU-895, 1994.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Reports

Techniques and Methods for Assessing the International Standings of U.S. Science, Caroline S.Wagner, MR-706.0-OSTP, 1995. (Available in hard copy only.)

International Cooperation in Research and Development: An Inventory of U.S. Government Spendingand a Framework for Measuring Benefits, Caroline S. Wagner, MR-900-OSTP, 1997.

International Agreements on Cooperation in Remote Sensing and Earth Observation, Caroline S.Wagner, MR-972-OSTP, 1998.

International Cooperation in Research and Development, Caroline S. Wagner, CT-146, 1998.Congressional testimony.

NON-RAND PUBLICATIONS

The S&T Policy Institute occasionally contributes to publications published by governmentagencies and organizations other than RAND. Printed copies can be ordered from the NationalTechnical Information Service.

Investing in Our Future: A National Research Initiative for America’s Children for the 21st Century,National Science and Technology Council Committee on Fundamental Science, Committee onHealth, Safety, and Food, Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy, April 1997.

National Critical Technologies Report (1995 Biennial), Office of Science and Technology Policy,March 1995.

National Critical Technologies Panel—Second Biennial Report, Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy, January 1993.

RAND DRUs (”Drafts—Unrestricted“) are intended to transmit preliminary results of RAND research. They have notbeen technically reviewed or edited. Views or conclusions expressed in draft documents are tentative and do notnecessarily represent the policies or opinions of the sponsor. Drafts should not be cited or quoted. RANDdocuments are available from RAND Distribution Services, Telephone: 310-451-7002; FAX 310-451-6915; orelectronic mail: [email protected]; or World Wide Web: http://www.rand.org.

AR -7027- CTI

critical technologies institute - rand corporation

Documents