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.

In its most recent (Congressionally-mandated) report released several weeks ago, the independent Defense Science Board – or DSB – noted that "increasingly, scientific research is the key to military supremacy" and concluded 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. APA joins the Coalition for National Security Research – and the DSB – in recommending $10 billion for research at DoD in Fiscal Year 2002.

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).

Psychological scientists address a broad range of important issues and problems vital to our national security through the three military research labs, with expertise in understanding and optimizing cognitive functioning, perceptual awareness, complex decision-making, stress resilience, and human-systems interactions. The Army Research Institute, for example, 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. 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 on performance. The Navy’s Cognitive and Neural Sciences Division has funded cutting-edge research in robotics systems that will fundamentally change the nature of warfare.

Unfortunately, reductions in the Air Force’s support for applied research in human factors – my own area of research --have resulted in an inability to determine 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 Air Force research funding, I have identified perceptual factors that influence the effective use of comprehensive visual displays, which are increasingly used throughout the military.

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 – a total of 4.1%. Increases of 4.1% would fund the Army Research Institute at $24.48 million, the Office of Naval Research at $63.605 million, and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research at $105.5 million.

I 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.