U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DoD) PERSPECTIVE 



General Description of the Current Relationship: 



Background. "Military preparedness requires a permanent, independent, civilian controlled organization, 

 having close liaison with the [Military Services], but with funds direct from Congress and the clear power to initiate 

 military research ... The job of long-range research involving application of the newest scientific discoveries to 

 military needs should be the responsibility of those civilian scientists in the universities and in industry who are best 

 trained to discharge it thoroughly and successfully." 



These words were written not in 1992, but in July 1945 by Vannevar Bush in his famous report Science, the end- 

 less Frontier, subtitled A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research, at the close of World 

 War II (reprinted by the National Science Foundation, July 1960, quoted from pages 33 & 34). This report has 

 withstood the test of time. 



Vannevar Bush had been Director of the wartime Office of Scientific Research and Development, and was 

 responding to a letter from President Roosevelt. Largely as a result of the recommendations contained in this report, 

 the first government research office was established by Act of Congress: the Office of Naval Research, established in 

 1946. It provided the model for research offices elsewhere, including the National Science Foundation (established in 

 1950). This was the beginning of a long and potent relationship between Defense and universities. 



Current Status. Department of Defense research covers many disciplines. In some areas the DoD is the largest 

 federal sponsor of research, for example in computers, electronics and materials; DoD is also a major federal sponsor 

 of research in aeronautics (about equal with NASA), and mathematics (about one third of all federal support). Al- 

 though the disciplines supported by DoD research offices are those that form the basis for cutting edge technologies 

 on which superior military systems depend, history has shown that they also frequently result in dramatic and revolu- 

 tionary benefit to the public in areas other than national defense. 



DoD basic research offices (ARO, ONR, AFOSR, and DARPA) coordinate their programs with those of other 

 agencies in the same research areas. DoD leverages research sponsored by NSF, DOE, NASA, DOC, and other re- 

 search sponsoring agencies. Taking that into account, DoD fashions a carefully balanced portfolio of research. DoD 

 is a mission agency, and the ultimate customers for its research are the operational military forces. Highly qualified 

 scientists and engineers in DoD's research offices drive the research with the customers' needs in mind, with a view 

 toward generating new knowledge and understanding, and a focus on long-term weapon system needs (including af- 

 fordability, manufacturability, maintainability, and performance). This management paradigm has been a major con- 

 tributor to the success, productivity, and strength of defense research throughout the years. 



Research-intensive universities are a prolific source of new knowledge and ideas, and a training ground for fu- 

 ture scientists and engineers in disciplines important to national defense. Universities perform about 60 percent of 

 Defense's basic research, funded through the 6.1 Research program. When one includes applied research funded 

 through the 6.2 Exploratory Development account, universities perform more than 25 percent of the Department of 

 Defense Technology Base efforts. In 1991, universities received more than $800 million in Technology Base funds 

 within the portion of the program that was competitively awarded. 



Trends for the Future. This proven, strong historical relationship with research-intensive universities will be 

 amplified by the new Defense Acquisition Strategy. Although the Cold War has ended, continued uncertainties re- 

 quire that a robust science and technology program be maintained as the foundation for future defense capability. It is 

 no secret that increasingly sophisticated weapons are appearing in arsenals throughout the globe, and that future ad- 

 versaries may possess more advanced systems than ever before. Consequently, it has become national policy to in- 

 crease emphasis on Science and Technology (S&T) efforts to maintain future military advantage in all scenarios. The 

 new acquisition strategy also calls for reduced development of new systems in light of reduced global pressure for 

 near-term materiel modernization. Thus, as the total defense acquisition budget shrinks, the fraction of the budget 

 dedicated to S&T will continue to grow; in real terms, it has grown about 20% in the period FY91-92. 



34 



