Written Testimony of Stephen Zaccaro, Ph.D. 
on behalf of the American Psychological Association 

Submitted to the United States Senate 
Committee on Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Defense 
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman 

Fiscal Year 2003 Appropriations for the Department of Defense 
(Army Research Institute, Office of Naval Research and Air Force Office of Scientific Research)  
June 12, 2002

Dr. Stephen Zaccaro,

Professor of Psychology at George Mason University

  Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I’m Dr. Stephen Zaccaro, Professor of Psychology at George Mason University, and a researcher who studies leadership, leader development and team effectiveness in military contexts.  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 (ARI), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR).  I would like to address the proposed Fiscal Year 2003 research budgets for these three military laboratories within the context of the larger Department of Defense Science and Technology budget.

Department of Defense (DoD) Research Budget  

As our nation rises to meet the challenges of a new century, including multiple, 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 become only 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 declined in constant dollars during the last decade.  This decline poses a 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 billion in Fiscal Year 2003 in order to maintain global superiority in an ever-changing national security environment.  We strongly urge the Committee to direct a small portion of proposed increases for national security activities to the core S&T research accounts to achieve the $11 billion funding target.  

[back to top]

Behavioral Research within the Military Service Labs  

Within DoD, the military service laboratories provide a stable, mission-oriented focus for science and technology, conducting and ponsoring 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.  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.”

The Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI)

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 21^st 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.  

[back to top]

The 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.  

The Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR)

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 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.

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 supporting the human-oriented research within the laboratories and universities.    

Below is suggested appropriations report language which would encourage the Department of Defense to fully fund its behavioral research programs within the military laboratories:  

[back to top]

Back to Top^