Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on University Responsiveness to National Security Requirements

Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on University Responsiveness to National Security Requirements
Author: DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD WASHINGTON DC.
Publisher:
Total Pages: 81
Release: 1982
Genre:
ISBN:

Science and engineering manpower needs can be met if the large numbers of students now enrolled in engineering programs are effectively trained and employed. Certain temporary problems, such as the shortfall in the number of PhD - level engineers needed for teaching, can be solved by judicious applications of resources. Export control regulations continue to pose a problem for the university researcher, in part, because of the large uncertainty as to what is militarily sensitive. DoD can alleviate this problem by negotiating with university representatives a mutually acceptable set of guidelines for dissemination of research information considered sensitive. Publication of a new unclassified version of the Militarily Critical Technologies would aid the process. (Author).

Final Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Globalization and Security

Final Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Globalization and Security
Author: United States. Defense Science Board. Task Force on Globalization and Security
Publisher: DIANE Publishing
Total Pages: 163
Release: 1999
Genre: Globalization
ISBN: 1428981217

Globalization-the integration of the political, economic and cultural activities of geographically and/or nationally separated peoples-is not a discernible event or challenge, is not new, but it is accelerating. More importantly, globalization is largely irresistible. Thus, globalization is not a policy option, but a fact to which policymakers must adapt. Globalization has accelerated as a result of many positive factors, the most notable of which include: the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War; the spread of capitalism and free trade; more rapid and global capital flows and more liberal financial markets; the liberalization of communications; international academic and scientific collaboration; and faster and more efficient forms of transportation. At the core of accelerated global integration-at once its principal cause and consequence-is the information revolution, which is knocking down once-formidable barriers of physical distance, blurring national boundaries and creating cross-border communities of all types.

Protecting the Homeland

Protecting the Homeland
Author: United States. Defense Science Board
Publisher: DIANE Publishing
Total Pages: 181
Release: 2001
Genre: Computer security
ISBN: 1428980865

Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Technology Capabilities of Non-DoD Providers

Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Technology Capabilities of Non-DoD Providers
Author:
Publisher: DIANE Publishing
Total Pages: 106
Release: 2000
Genre:
ISBN: 1428981063

This report is a product of the Defense Science Board (DSB). The DSB is a Federal Advisory Committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense. Statements, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations in this report do not necessarily represent the official position of the Department of Defense. Attached is the report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Capabilities of Non-DoD Providers of Science and Technology, Systems Engineering and Test and Evaluation. This Study was requested by the Under Secretary of Defense (AT & L) in the Fall of 1998. The Terms of deterence directed that the Task Force make recommendations on: Non-DoD sources of Science and Technology and Systems Engineering - Processes tor out-sourcing of Science and Technology and System Engineering.

Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication

Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication
Author:
Publisher: DIANE Publishing
Total Pages: 111
Release: 2004
Genre:
ISBN: 1428980253

The Defense Science Board Summer Study on the Transition to and from Hostilities was formed in early 2004 (the terms of reference are contained in Appendix A) and culminated in the production of a final report and summary briefing in August of 2004. The DSB Task Force on Strategic Communication conducted its deliberations within the overall Summer Study schedule and revisited a topic that was addressed in October 2001.1 Task Force members and Government advisors are identified in Appendix B. The current Strategic Communication Task Force re-examined the purposes of strategic communication and the salience of recommendations in the earlier study. It then considered the following questions: (1) What are the consequences of changes in the strategic communication environment? (2) What Presidential direction and strategic communication means are required? (3) What should be done about public diplomacy and open military information operations? The Task Force met with representatives from the National Security Council (NSC), White House Office of Global Communications, Department of State (DOS), Department of Defense (DOD), Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), and the private sector (the schedule of meetings, briefings and discussions is contained in Appendix C). Based on extensive interaction with a broad range of sectors in the government, commercial, and academic worlds, as well as a series of highly interactive internal debates, we have reached the following conclusions and recommendations.

Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication

Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication
Author:
Publisher:
Total Pages: 111
Release: 2004
Genre:
ISBN:

The Defense Science Board Summer Study on the Transition to and from Hostilities was formed in early 2004 (the terms of reference are contained in Appendix A) and culminated in the production of a final report and summary briefing in August of 2004. The DSB Task Force on Strategic Communication conducted its deliberations within the overall Summer Study schedule and revisited a topic that was addressed in October 2001.1 Task Force members and Government advisors are identified in Appendix B. The current Strategic Communication Task Force re-examined the purposes of strategic communication and the salience of recommendations in the earlier study. It then considered the following questions: (1) What are the consequences of changes in the strategic communication environment? (2) What Presidential direction and strategic communication means are required? (3) What should be done about public diplomacy and open military information operations? The Task Force met with representatives from the National Security Council (NSC), White House Office of Global Communications, Department of State (DOS), Department of Defense (DOD), Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), and the private sector (the schedule of meetings, briefings and discussions is contained in Appendix C). Based on extensive interaction with a broad range of sectors in the government, commercial, and academic worlds, as well as a series of highly interactive internal debates, we have reached the following conclusions and recommendations.

Final Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Research Enterprise Assessment

Final Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Research Enterprise Assessment
Author: United States. Defense Science Board. Task Force on Defense Research Enterprise Assessment
Publisher:
Total Pages: 64
Release: 2017
Genre: Laboratories
ISBN:

"The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Defense Research Enterprise Assessment, as instructed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) and Congress, focused on assessing the defense laboratories and engineering centers and warfare centers (referred to in this report collectively as 'the Labs') missions and their responsiveness to Department needs, their workforce and infrastructure challenges and opportunities, and the balance of authority between Directors and their respective Services. The Task Force neither conducted a detailed evaluation of the scientific and technological output of the Labs nor conducted a 'right sizing' exercise for the Labs"--Page 1.