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.
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: • Increase the Army’s overall 6.2 budget from $66.034 million to $69.099 million; and the Army’s overall 6.3 budget from $63.508 million to $74.634 million in FY04. • Increase the Navy’s overall 6.2 budget from $19.982 million to $24.554 million; and the Navy’s overall 6.3 budget from $28.746 million to $36.027 million in FY04. • Increase the Air Force’s overall 6.2 budget from $51.764 million to $55.249 million; and the Air Force’s overall 6.3 budget from $31.641 million to $35.743 million in FY04.
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.”
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.
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.
