National Security and Science and Technology Policy - Coursework Example

National Security and Science and Technology Policy Introduction Strict implementation of the national security policies has turned out to be the most important concern of the US federal government since that haunting incident five years ago. An enormous attention has been given to the wellbeing of the citizens. In its quest to achieve its goals of assuring the safety of the nation and its people against the threat of terrorism, science and technology has played an essential part in achieving this goal. Extensive support has been given to the science and technology's research and development programs in order to find the best strategies against terrorists who are more than willing to destabilize the United States government. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security is simply an exhibition of the US federal government's crucial struggle towards the security of the nation and its people. "The National Strategy for Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 served to mobilize and organize our nation to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks. This exceedingly complex mission requires a focused effort from our entire society if we are to be successful. To this end, one primary reason for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security was to provide the unifying core for the vast national network of organizations and institutions involved in efforts to secure our nation." (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/theme_home5.jsp, para 2) National Security and Science and Technology Policy United States history tells that war prompted the creation of most U.S. government science agencies. The integration of an applied Research and Development programs were essential elements in addressing and supporting the agencies' missions. Elements of fundamental science allows breakthrough of these unlimited opportunities. (http://www.issues.org/18.2/ bonvillian.html, para 18) Thus, R&D, as an integral part in the science and technology policy, has become a major factor in attaining the US national security. The role of science and technology in the nation's security was launched when Thomas Jefferson was commissioned to Lewis and Clark two centuries. Since then, territorial expansion and the industrial revolution continued to drive U.S. science and technology policy throughout the 19th century. The country's unforgettable experiences in the two World Wars and their aftermaths were the primary factors that influenced the government's realization of science and technology in the 20th century which soon became the turning point that lead to the revolution of science and technology and the importance of its research and development programs. (Marburger, 2005) The birth of the National Science Foundation in 1950 was the result of the country's attitudes towards the government's role in science and technology. Larger and more advanced Department of Energy laboratories were existed and established under the Atomic Energy Commission. Military services were at the same time provided with an official research office in 1951. At that time National Institute for Health (NIH) had existed for twenty years, wherein National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) were established eight years later. Some reorganizations occurred after 1960, notably the metamorphosis of the AEC into the Department of Energy and more recently the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, but since 1960 the federal framework has evolved very little. (Marburger, 2005) Presidential science advisors were appointed by the government to take the responsibility in overseeing adherence to a presidential policy that insists on competent, objective, balanced, and open advice. Their roles moreover involves in creating strategies on implementation and enforcement of these policies. (Branscomb, 2005) Some of the most significant roles of science advisors in the US federal government involved national security. During the war they linked the President and top government policy makers with the nation's technical infrastructure in universities and industry. Presidential advisors were most important in the White House with which they have filled in the policy makers with the technical knowledge gaps of the rapidly developing fields of science that would strongly influence the course of the war, S&T's role in the transformation of the nation's economic status after the war, and the revolution of the society following the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the century's last decade. The early Presidential science advisors came from a small group who had played important roles during the war, including the Presidents of Bell Labs, MIT, and Caltech, and scientists who were active in the Manhattan Project or other wartime ventures. The unambiguous focus of science advice was military preparedness. The advisory arrangements have changed relatively little since 1950. Presidential science advisors are still mostly physicists known to each other, and national security is still an important focus of science advice (with a new homeland security angle). Given the enormous changes that have occurred in the landscape of science and the technical infrastructure of society, this invariance of the government machinery for science is mildly surprising. It speaks, perhaps, to the wisdom of the postwar policy architects, but it should also awaken a concern that the structure and practice of science policy today may diverge from the functions it needs to perform in a dynamic society. (Marburger, 2005) As an operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council (NRC) appointed an array of academic and industrial experts to assess and assure the quality of research at government laboratories such as the National Institute for Standards and Technology. The Department of Energy was as well advised by other committees in its research strategies upon the realization of its fusion energy. Furthermore, it helped the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in its priorities for new telescopes on earth and in space. In 2001, the NRC performed 242 studies for the executive branch and Congress. A staff of more than 1,000, working with some 5,000 volunteer experts from universities and industry, prepared these studies and served as quality control reviewers of the finished products. Most of these studies were quite technical and, from a policy perspective, largely uncontroversial. (Branscomb, 2004) Living under an organizational structure that was fixed in place half a century ago, the United States science undertaking had advanced since then. Its progress had increasingly required cross-disciplinary approaches, which in turn dictate cross-agency and public-private efforts. On the other hand, the society is yet but not organized for these new kinds of approaches. A homeland technology entity, which was purposely created to cross agency, disciplinary, and sectoral lines and to promote cooperation across these lines, could provide a model for a new kind of organization for the new S&T advances we must have in all areas. A new technology entity will be needing to pull other agencies into its governance structure upon encouragement through involvement and participation. This might however require a two-part structure that would need a council of senior S&T leaders from other mission agencies in homeland security for overall policy direction, and a group of public managers from affected agencies that are organized around developing detailed programs in each key threat area. The governance structure must create cooperative buy-in among agencies, which must see this as a shortcut to solving security problems they face in their jurisdictions for the reason that S&T can't be ordered into existence, thus they have to be nurtured. (http://www.issues.org/18.2/ bonvillian.html, para 26) The country's intensive campaign against terrorism that threatens its national security was clearly shown in its budgetary allotment in among its different agencies. Science and Technology's R&D had focused itself on defense which was obviously revealed in the total domestic spending last year. Overall, non-defense R&D does better than total domestic spending, with modest increases for many agencies; still, some agencies face cuts in R&D funding, that provided a decrease in other agencies budget. There was an apparent increase in the budgetary allotment in the defense R&D which was exhibited by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science receiving a boost of 4.3 percent to $3.3 billion for its R&D programs, although its energy R&D falls slightly to $1.3 billion. R&D in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) falls 0.3 percent to $545 million, although Congress reversed most of the Administration's proposed cuts. Congress rejected the Administration's proposal to eliminate the Advanced Technology Program, but R&D in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Commerce still declined with 0.5 percent because of cuts to the ATP budget. R&D in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declines 2.8 percent; EPA and NSF are funded through the VA-HUD bill, where increases for veterans, housing and space priorities squeezed out other funding. (AAAS, 2004) On the other hand, there was at the same time an equivalent increase for defense and justice R&D as a result of the current focus on defense and homeland security results. In addition, there is at the same time a modest increases or cuts for most of the other national missions Defense R&D (including DOD, DOE's defense activities, and a large part of the (Department of Homeland Security [DHS] R&D portfolio) rises $4.8 billion or 6.8 percent to $75.0 billion for a record total driven by substantial boosts to defense-related development activities in DOD and DHS. DHS R&D increases dramatically, resulting in a 9.4 percent boost for justice R&D to $727 million. After several years of near-parity between defense and non-defense R&D around the turn of the century, defense R&D pulls ahead to 56.7 percent of total federal R&D. Because of the tremendous growth in defense and health R&D over the past few years, R&D for all other national missions has steadily shrunk to less than 21 percent of the federal R&D portfolio in FY 2005. (AAAS, 2004) Conclusion National security concerns are not any ordinary affair that the federal government of the United States had been trying to improve on. The government's focus on research and development that would eventually lead them to an exceptional strategy that would ensure its community's safety became its precedence that should however not involve science and technology alone. Although science and technology's capabilities and scope are unlimited, there are certain conditions that the government should take into considerations such that it might eventually lead to an unexpected discomfort unconsciously affecting the society's unity which might reflect as its weakness that will soon be attacked by the terrorists. There had been too much of importance given to science and technology's R&D programs involving technological advancements that would soon protect its homeland. As a result, some other agencies proved to be helpful towards national security are often neglected. References and Works Cited: AAAS, 2004. "Defense and Homeland Security R&D Hit New Highs in 2005; Growth Slows for Other Agencies." 2004. American Association for the Advancement of Science. http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/upd1104.pdf, Oct. 22, 2006. Branscomb, L. "Science, Politics, and U.S. Democracy." 2004. Issues in Science and Technology. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200410/ai_n9457074. Oct. 14, 2006. "Homeland Security Technology." http://www.issues.org/18.2/bonvillian.html. Oct. 14, 2006. Marburger, J.. "Policy, Politics, and Science in the White House: Conversations with Presidential Science Advisors." 2005. University of Colorado. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/scienceadvisors/marburger_cu.pdf. Oct. 14, 2006. "Homeland Security Technology." http://www.issues.org/18.2/bonvillian.html. Oct. 14, 2006. Read More