NOTES:
1. National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research and Development and Other Scientific Activities, vol. XV, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), 60.
2. Richard H. Stephens and Eston T. White, eds., Science and Technology (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University.
3. National Science Foundation, "Annual Survey of Industrial Research and Development," 1995.
4. Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Defense Science and Technology Strategy (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, September 1994), 15.
5. White House Committee for National Security, National Science and Technology Council, National Security Science and Technology Strategy (Washington, DC: Office of Science and technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, 1995), 7.
7. White House Committee for National Security, 7.
8. This absolutely drives the accounting people bonkers. Scientists cannot point at a research project and say "The project is basic research at this point and over here it has tranisitioned to exploratory development." The process is a continuum, and is not discrete.
9. William L. Miller, "A Broader Mission for R&D," Research Technology Management, November-December 1995, 40.
10. Nathan Rosenberg and L.E. Birdzell, How the West Grew Rich (New York: Basic Books/Harper Collins, 1986), 244.
12. Actually, some advances even in the scientific field still happen by accident. For example, the discovery of the background microwave radiation in space was totally unexpected. And there is even truth to the stories that some scientists still conduct their research as an "art:" Look to the advances in room temperature superconductivity, where no rigorous theory yet exists, and many of the advances are still made by insight.
13. Rosenberg and Birdzell, 243.
14. Isaac Asimov, Asimov's Chronology of Science and Discovery (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), 338-371.
15. Donald L. Losman and Shu-Jan Liang, The Promise of American Industry: An Alternate Assessment of Problems and Prospects (Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1990), 104.
16. Rosenberg and Birdzell, 254.
17. Daniel Boorstin, The Americans: The Democratic Experience (New York: Vintage Books, 1974), 538-539.
18. Nathan Rosenberg and L.E. Birdzell, How the West Grew Rich (New York: Basic Books/Harper Collins, 1986), 247.
19. Hendrick Smith, Re-Thinking America (Random House, NY, NY: 1995), 67-71.
20. Genevieve J. Knezo, "Defense Basic Research Priorities: Funding and Policy Issues" (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Institute, 90-506 SPR, October 24, 1990), 12.
21. Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Security Science and Technology Strategy (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995), 64-65.
22. Ralph Sanders, Defense Research and Development (Washington, DC: Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 1968), 73.
27. Herbert N. Foerstel, Secret Science: Federal Control of American Science and Technology (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993), 2.
29. Paul Kennedy, in Preparing for the Twenty-First Century (Random House, NY, NY: 1993), 293, argues that although military funding may have diverted some money from the civilian sector, many technological advances were made because of military R&D that might not have been made otherwise. This is a "boot strap" argument, showing how military R&D spin-offs have helped society as a whole. Another way to look at this is to consider what the money would have been used for if it had not been used for military R&D. With the waste, fraud, and abuse present in myriad non-DOD programs, it is highly likely the money would have been squandered
32. This situation is inherent of almost all review committees that exist today in Washington, DC. The typical process of selecting committee members is to pick a large majority of past committee members-those that have served on similar committees in the past. This results in self-perpetuating views-the members of committees drawing upon recommendations that they made in the past. Another common tactic is for committee members to be picked because of their preconceived notions, especially if it happens to coincide with the views or agendas held by those tasked to create the "unbiased" report.
36. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, The Budget of the United States Government (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995).
40. FY96 RDT&E: Aerospace Fact Handbook, 63.
42. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for the 21st Century, report to the Secretary of the Air Force and Air Force Chief of Staff (Washington, DC: USGPO, 1995), 13.
44. Ben Rich and Leo Janos, Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed (Little, Brown and Company, New York: 1994), 112.
45. Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Who's Bashing Whom? Trade Conflict in High-Technology Industries (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 1992), 163.
46. U.S. Congress, Office of technology Assessment, The National Space transportation Policy: Issues for Congress, OTA-ISS-620 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1995), 15.
47. Dr. Michael D. Griffin, General Manager, Advanced Systems Group and Executive Vice President, Orbital Sciences Corporation, in remarks before the National Security Industry Study symposium on "Space: Getting out of the Box," held at the Crystal City Gateway Sheraton, Arlington, VA, on March 6, 1996.
48. Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal, Reframing Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991), 4.
49. Remarkably, this propensity of "putting up shields" to fend off revolutionary ideas is just as likely to be abused by self-claimed "forward thinkers" as anyone else. One reason is that perhaps the self-called forward thinkers have realized they are not as competent in their profession as others, and this is a way to compensate for their shortcoming. And when faced with a truly revolutionary idea, they cannot become dispassionate.
50. To physicists this is known as "just an engineering problem."
51. The common argument for championing the "impossible" technologies often found in science fiction series such as STAR TREK is that the same skepticism was brought up about landing a man on the moon. The difference of course is that landing a man on the moon violated no physical laws-only "common sense" at the time.