|
APA Testimony for Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriations for DoD
Written Testimony of Wayne S. Sellman, Ph.D.
on behalf of the
American Psychological Association
Submitted to the
United States Senate
Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense
The Honorable Ted Stevens, Chairman
Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriations for the
Department of Defense
May 15, 2003
Conflict is, and will remain, essentially a human activity in which man's
virtues of judgment, discipline and courage - the moral component of fighting
power - will endure…It is difficult to imagine military operations that will
not ultimately be determined through physical control of people, resources and
terrain - by people…Implicit, is the enduring need for well-trained,
well-equipped and adequately rewarded soldiers. New technologies will, however,
pose significant challenges to the art of soldiering: they will increase the
soldier's influence in the battlespace over far greater ranges, and herald
radical changes in the conduct, structures, capability and ways of command.
Information and communication technologies will increase his tempo and velocity
of operation by enhancing support to his decision-making cycle. Systems should
be designed to enable the soldier to cope with the considerable stress of
continuous, 24-hour, high-tempo operations, facilitated by multi-spectral,
all-weather sensors. However, technology will not substitute human intent or the
decision of the commander. There will be a need to harness information-age
technologies, such that data does not overcome wisdom in the battlespace, and
that real leadership - that which makes men fight - will be amplified by new
technology. Essential will be the need to adapt the selection, development and
training of leaders and soldiers to ensure that they possess new skills and
aptitudes to face these challenges.
NATO RTO-TR-8, Land Operations in the Year 2020
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I'm Dr. Steve Sellman, Vice
President and Director for Public Policy Issues at the Human Resources Research
Organization, and former Director for Accession Policy in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense. I am submitting testimony on behalf of the American
Psychological Association (APA), a scientific and professional organization of
more than 150,000 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 (ARI) and Army
Research Laboratory (ARL); the Office of Naval Research (ONR); and the Air Force
Research Laboratory (AFRL). I would like to address the proposed cuts to Fiscal
Year 2004 human-centered research budgets for these military laboratories within
the context of the larger Department of Defense Science and Technology budget.
Department of Defense (DoD) Science and Technology Budget
APA joins the Coalition for National Security Research (CNSR), a group of
over 40 scientific associations and universities, in urging the Subcommittee to
provide DoD with $11.4 billion for 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 level research in Fiscal
Year 2004. This figure also is in line with recommendations of the independent
Defense Science Board and the Quadrennial Defense Review, the latter calling for
"a significant increase in funding for S&T programs to a level of three
percent of DoD spending per year."
As our nation rises to meet the challenges of a new century, including
current engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as other asymmetric threats
and increased demand for homeland defense and infrastructure protection,
enhanced battlespace awareness and warfighter protection are absolutely
critical. Our ability to both foresee and immediately adapt to changing security
environments will only become more vital over the next several decades.
Accordingly, DoD must support basic Science and Technology (S&T) research on
both the near-term readiness and modernization needs of the department and on
the long-term future needs of the warfighter.
Despite substantial appreciation for the importance of DoD S&T programs
on Capitol Hill, and within independent defense science organizations such as
the Defense Science Board (DSB), total research within DoD has remained
essentially flat in constant dollars over the last few decades. This poses a
very real threat to America's ability to maintain its competitive edge at a time
when we can least afford it. APA, CNSR and our colleagues within the science and
defense communities recommend funding the DoD Science and Technology Program at
a level of at least $11.4 billion in Fiscal Year 2004 in order to maintain
global superiority in an ever-changing national security environment.
[back to top]
Behavioral Research within the Military Service Labs
In August, 2000 the Department of Defense met a congressional mandate to
develop a Report to the Senate Appropriations Committee on Behavioral, Cognitive
and Social Science Research in the Military. The Senate requested this
evaluation due to concern over the continuing erosion of DoD's support for
research on individual and group performance, leadership, communication,
human-machine interfaces, and decision-making. In responding to the Committee's
request, the Department found that "the requirements for maintaining strong
DoD support for behavioral, cognitive and social science research capability are
compelling" and that "this area of military research has historically
been extremely productive" with "particularly high" return on
investment and "high operational impact." Given such strong DoD
support, APA strongly encourages the Committee to restore planned FY04 cuts to
military behavioral science programs and provide funding at FY03 appropriated
levels:
Within DoD, the majority of behavioral, cognitive and social science is
funded through the Army Research Institute (ARI) and Army Research Laboratory
(ARL); the Office of Naval Research (ONR); and the Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRL). These military service laboratories provide a stable, mission-oriented
focus for science, 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 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).
All of the services fund human-related research in the broad categories of
personnel, training and leader development; warfighter protection, sustainment
and physical performance; and system interfaces and cognitive processing. In
addition, there are additional, smaller human systems research programs funded
through the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), the Marine Corps, and the Special Operations Command.
Despite substantial appreciation for the critical role played by
behavioral, cognitive and social science in national security, however, total
spending on this research is cut from $404.984 million appropriated in FY03 to
$376.753 million in the Administration's FY04 budget. Whereas basic research
(6.1) increases by six percent, due to a substantial increase in the Navy's
budget (Air Force 6.1 decreases slightly and Army 6.1 increases slightly), all
three services propose cuts in their 6.2 and 6.3 funding. Navy 6.2 human-related
research decreases by over 18 percent, and 6.3 research declines by over 20
percent. Only small 6.2 and 6.3 investments in behavioral research by OSD,
DARPA, Special Operations Command, and the Marine Corps increase over FY03
levels in the President's FY04 budget.
Behavioral and cognitive research programs 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. As DoD noted
in its own Report to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
"Military knowledge needs are not sufficiently like the needs of the
private sector that retooling behavioral, cognitive and social science research
carried out for other purposes can be expected to substitute for
service-supported research, development, testing, and evaluation…our choice,
therefore, is between paying for it ourselves and not having it."
[back to top]
The following are brief descriptions of critical behavioral research funded
by the military research laboratories.
Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) and Army
Research Laboratory (ARL)
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; and attrition. 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. One effort underway is designed to help the Army
identify those soldiers who will be most successful meeting 21st century
noncommissioned officer job demands, thus strengthening the backbone of the
service-the NCO corps.
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.
ARL's Human Research & Engineering Directorate sponsors basic and applied
research in the area of human factors, with the goal of optimizing soldiers'
interactions with Army systems. Specific behavioral research projects focus on
the development of intelligent decision aids, control/display/workstation
design, simulation and human modeling, and human control of automated systems.
Office of Naval Research (ONR)
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.
Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)
Within AFRL, Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) behavioral
scientists are responsible for basic research on manpower, personnel, training
and crew technology. The AFRL Human Effectiveness Directorate is responsible for
more applied research 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 previous cuts to the Air Force behavioral research budget, 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 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.
[back to top]
Summary
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 reversing another round of cuts to the human-oriented research
within the military laboratories.
Below is suggested appropriations report language which would encourage the
Department of Defense to fully fund its behavioral research programs within the
military laboratories:
Department of Defense
Behavioral Research in the Military Service Laboratories: The
Committee recognizes that psychological scientists address a broad range of
important issues and problems vital to our national security through the
military research laboratories: the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the
Army Research Institute and Army Research Laboratory, and the Office of Naval
Research. Given the increasingly complex demands on our military personnel,
psychological research on leadership, decision-making under stress, cognitive
readiness, training, and human-technology interactions have become even more
mission-critical, and the Committee strongly encourages the service laboratories
to reverse cuts made to their behavioral research programs. A continued decline
in support for human-centered research is not acceptable at a time when there
will be more, rather than fewer, demands on military personnel, including more
rapid adaptation to changing conditions, more skill diversity in units,
increased information-processing from multiple sources, and increased
interaction with semi-autonomous systems.
Back to Top^
|
