Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I’m Dr. Deborah Boehm-Davis, Professor of Psychology in the Human Factors and Applied Cognition Program at George Mason University. I am submitting testimony on behalf of the American Psychological Association (APA), a scientific and professional organization of more than 155,000 psychologists and affiliates. Although I am sure you are aware of the large number of psychologists providing clinical services to our military members here and abroad, you may be less familiar with the extraordinary range of research conducted by psychological scientists within the Department of Defense. Our behavioral researchers work on issues critical to national defense, particularly with support from the Army Research Institute, the Office of Naval Research, and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. I would like to address the proposed Fiscal Year 2002 research budgets for these three military laboratories within the context of the larger Department of Defense Science and Technology budget.

The Defense Science Board (DSB) released its most recent (Congressionally-mandated) report several weeks ago, noting that "increasingly, scientific research is the key to military supremacy" and concluding that "if the DoD does not pursue a strong forward looking Science and Technology Program, it runs the danger of ultimately falling behind potential challengers." For each of the last five years, the Pentagon’s budget request for science has not even kept up with inflation, much less approached the minimum levels suggested by the DSB. We thank this Subcommittee and your colleagues in the Senate for reversing deep cuts and providing critical, additional support for DoD research in the past several funding cycles. Both the DSB and the Coalition for National Security Research (CNSR) recommend funding the DoD Science and Technology Program at a level of at least $10 billion in Fiscal Year 2002 in order to maintain global superiority in an ever-changing national security environment.

Within DoD, the military service laboratories provide a stable, mission-oriented focus for science and technology, conducting and sponsoring basic (6.1), applied/exploratory development (6.2) and advanced development (6.3) research. These three levels of research are roughly parallel to the military’s need to be able to win a current war (through products in advanced development) while concurrently preparing for the next war (with technology "in the works") and the war after next (by taking advantage of ideas emerging from basic research). Our past investment in basic research in particular is responsible for the dramatic increases we have seen in our military capabilities – and yet basic research continues to be a target for cuts and elimination. Especially at the 6.1 and 6.2 levels, research programs which are eliminated from the mission labs as cost-cutting measures are extremely unlikely to be picked up by industry, which focuses on short-term, profit-driven product development. Once the expertise is gone, there is absolutely no way to "catch up" when defense mission needs for critical human-oriented research develop.

The President’s budget blueprint does not provide funding details beyond the proposed overall DoD budget, but we urge this Subcommittee to provide funding increases for each of the three military laboratories at the DSB-recommended level of inflation plus two percent. Using the current inflation rate for research costs of 2.1%, a 4.1% increase in the research budgets will meet the DSB’s recommendation of inflation plus two percent.

ARI works to build the ultimate smart weapon: the American soldier. ARI was established to conduct personnel and behavioral research on such topics as minority and general recruitment; personnel testing and evaluation; training and retraining. ARI is the focal point and principal source of expertise for all the military services in leadership research, an area especially critical to the success of the military as future war-fighting and peace-keeping missions demand more rapid adaptation to changing conditions, more skill diversity in units, increased information-processing from multiple sources, and increased interaction with semi-autonomous systems. Behavioral scientists within ARI are working to help the armed forces better identify, nurture and train leaders.

Another line of research at ARI focuses on optimizing cognitive readiness under combat conditions, by developing methods to predict and mitigate the effects of stressors (such as information load and uncertainty, workload, social isolation, fatigue, and danger) on performance. As the Army moves towards its goal of becoming the Objective Force (or the Army of the future: lighter, faster and more mobile), psychological researchers will play a vital role in helping maximize soldier performance through an understanding of cognitive, perceptual and social factors.

The Cognitive and Neural Sciences Division (CNS) of ONR supports research to increase the understanding of complex cognitive skills in humans; aid in the development and improvement of machine vision; improve human factors engineering in new technologies; and advance the design of robotics systems. An example of CNS-supported research is the division’s long-term investment in artificial intelligence research. This research has led to many useful products, including software that enables the use of "embedded training." Many of the Navy’s operational tasks, such as recognizing and responding to threats, require complex interactions with sophisticated, computer-based systems. Embedded training allows shipboard personnel to develop and refine critical skills by practicing simulated exercises on their own workstations. Once developed, embedded training software can be loaded onto specified computer systems and delivered wherever and however it is needed.

Naval personnel can only take advantage of these technologies if we understand how to optimize the human-machine interfaces, however. My own ONR-funded research has focused on investigating individual differences in acquisition of computer skills and assessing the cognitive demands of various human-computer dialog techniques.

AFOSR behavioral scientists are responsible for developing the products which flow from manpower, personnel, and training and crew technology research in the Air Force, products which are relevant to an enormous number of acknowledged Air Force mission needs ranging from weapons design, to improvements in simulator technology, to improving crew survivability in combat, to faster, more powerful and less expensive training regimens.

As a result of recent cuts to the Air Force behavioral research budget, for example, the world's premier organization devoted to personnel selection and classification (formerly housed at Brooks Air Force Base) no longer exists. This has a direct, negative impact on the Air Force's and other services' ability to efficiently identify and assign personnel (especially pilots). Similarly, reductions in support for applied research in human factors – my own area of research --have resulted in an inability to fully enhance human factors modeling capabilities, which are essential for determining human-system requirements early in system concept development, when the most impact can be made in terms of manpower and cost savings. For example, although engineers know how to build cockpit display systems and night goggles so that they are structurally sound, psychologists know how to design them so that people can use them safely and effectively. In my own work with AFOSR funding, I have identified perceptual factors that influence the effective use of comprehensive visual displays, which are increasingly used throughout the military.

On behalf of APA, I would like to express my appreciation for this opportunity to present testimony before the Subcommittee. Clearly, psychological scientists address a broad range of important issues and problems vital to our national security, with expertise in understanding and optimizing cognitive functioning, perceptual awareness, complex decision-making, stress resilience, and human-systems interactions. We urge you to support the men and women on the front lines by supporting the human-oriented research within the laboratories and universities. Thank you.