These class notes were composed by Dr. Tom O'Connor for his class on Homeland Security at NORTH CAROLINA WESLEYAN COLLEGE, original documents can be found here

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT IN HOMELAND SECURITY
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations" (Richard Feynman)

    The lecture addresses the homeland security need for "cutting edge" technology.  A subsequent lecture on Integration with Police Technology addresses the uses of such technology.  Since its inception, the Department of Homeland Security has been committed to the research, development, and use of technology.  DHS maintains a Science & Technology directorate, is an intramural partner in an extensive network of national laboratories, has the benefit of an advanced research projects agency known as HSARPA, and has completed building three out of five Centers of Excellence in academia (one for economic risk analysis; two for agro-security; and the fourth and fifth one will deal with the sociology of terrorism and bioterrorism).  Initial plans called for fifteen university-based centers of excellence.  The section below provides a brief overview of the laboratories and centers of excellence.

National Laboratories:
    The relationship between DHS and the national laboratories is interesting.  Homeland Security only officially controls two labs it can truly call its own, as follows:

    Then, there are certain Department of Energy laboratories, mostly nuclear-related ones, that DHS appears to have a special "intramural" relationship with, which means that each lab has been designated as an official "contributing laboratory" to DHS and can expect further involvement down the road.  One of the top four labs in the list below may eventually be named as the "headquarters lab" for DHS.  As of 2005, however, the percentage of the these laboratories' budgets which is devoted to homeland security only averages about 10-15% of total budget.  The list of contributing laboratories is as follows, with only the briefest description given of each:

University Centers of Excellence:
    The Homeland Security Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE) at the University of Southern California is actually a consortium with three or four other universities, but is also an institute in the USC Viterbi Graduate School of Engineering, one of the nation's top engineering schools and a pioneer in distance education.  The center aims to become the world's leading academic program for modeling the risks and vulnerabilities of terrorism, assessing the direct and indirect consequences, gauging their economic impacts, and evaluating the effectiveness of countermeasures.  Probabilistic risk assessment, game theoretic extensions of risk analysis, and expert elicitation of risks and uncertainties are some of the techniques used to model terrorism and improve counterterrorism response.  The center is a regular participant in TOPOFF exercises.  

    The Homeland Security National Center for Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Disease Defense at Texas A&M is also a consortium with a couple of other schools, and part of an umbrella organization at Texas A&M known as the Integrative Center for Homeland Security which includes other Texas A&M resources such as a Public Policy Center.  This center of excellence focuses primarily on the threats posed by zoonotic (diseases passed from animals to humans) and foreign-animal diseases and also develops new diagnostics and vaccines, provides new analytic methods for assessing the consequences of alternative strategies for preventing, responding to, or recovering from outbreaks.  The center is also involved in educational outreach programs.

    The Homeland Security Center for Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD) at the University of Minnesota is a large consortium with at least five major universities participating.  This center focuses on prevention and response to deliberate contamination of the nation's food supply, with priority given to efficient detection of when deliberate contamination occurs.  Much of the center's research involves business or IT approaches to supply chain management, but it also investigates ways to improve public health epidemiology and response.

    The Center for Behavioral and Social Aspects of Terrorism and Counterterrorism has not yet had its location announced, and several universities are competing for the $13 million that usually comes with being selected as a center.  Like much of how DHS doles out money, there are no "matching" or sharing costs that a recipient has to put up.  This represents a change in direction from federal grant policy which had developed over the years in criminal justice and other fields.  This center, once established will apply sociological perspectives to the problem of domestic terrorism, and it is expected it will develop geospatial, cultural, linguistic, and political indicators for use in scenario-driven models that predict terrorist activity at the earliest point in time.  The center may also be involved in "profiling" research which looks into the usefulness of demographic indicators.

    It's also not well known, but starting in 2004, DHS provides dozens of undergraduate and graduate scholarships and fellowships to college students at the junior level or higher.  These aren't all in "hard science" fields, as several were awarded in psychology and social science.  Information on the 2005 cycle of scholarships should be available soon.

WHY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT IS IMPORTANT

    The federal government has always taken the lead on missions and goals relating to technology development, and it is, perhaps, highly symbolic that the first lab acquired by DHS was EMI, which used to be the part of the Manhattan Project, and which in 1945 beat the Nazis at developing a nuclear bomb.  The Manhattan Project is the most studied event in American history and has some rich history that is worthwhile exploring in the Internet Resources provided.  However, the rationale for a government role in technology is based on one of two economic perspectives: the equilibrium model, and the evolutionary model (Metcalfe 1995).  These are more generally known about in the fields of classical and neoclassical economics.  Under the equilibrium model, all scientists and all R&D (research & development) efforts are considered fairly equivalent in their capacities to develop innovative technology, and "market failures" occur when this assumption is proven wrong so that one or more competitors jump ahead.  That is why the government must be involved as a regulator -- to restore equilibrium.  Under the evolutionary model, all scientists and R&D efforts are seen as having unique creativity and risk-aversive characteristics, and only those who take the most risk jump ahead.  That is why the government must be involved as a coordinator -- to enhance, encourage, and improve the innovation system.  Clearly, DHS sees its role as that of a coordinator.

    Technology transfer has long been a part of public policy, and the National Technology Transfer Center exists where the private industry can have access to federally funded research.  The United States is unique in having a wealth of publicly funded research and an entrepreneurial economy, and technology transfer, or sharing, helps bridge these two sectors.  Technology transfer works by not only disseminating the results of finished research and prototypes, but by suggesting what future technology products are needed.  For example, in the homeland security area, technology products are needed for such things as portable people locators which first responders can use to more efficiently search for casualties at disaster sites.  Various types of chemical and biological weapons sensors are also needed.  A technology transfer center usually assists with matters of patent law, licensing, and intellectual property.  In addition, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 provides certain litigation protection for claims arising out of deployment of anti-terrorism technologies.  Models of technology transfer and commercialization have worked quite well in criminal justice (see IACP Technology Clearinghouse, OLETC, or Technology Programs at NIJ) and although having technological "toys" doesn't automatically translate into greater feelings of safety and confidence, there is no reason why technology transfer won't work well in homeland security.

HOMELAND SECURITY TECHNOLOGY COORDINATION

    DHS supports regional technology integration initiatives which are intended to help build local infrastructures.  The Safe Cities Initiative, for example, which is somewhat similar to Safe City Initiatives launched by municipalities themselves, is looking into ways to enhance situational awareness in urban areas.  It is considered good practice to pilot and test new technologies under operational circumstances at local levels.

    DHS also taps into the research and development resources of other agencies via documents called a "memorandum of understanding" or MOU.  These procedures usually outline who pays for what and specify the grounds for cooperation.  One important MOU is between DHS and the Department of Commerce Technology Administration at http://www.technology.gov/ which specifically targets the resources of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). 

    Nor does DHS stop in its pursuit of technology coordination with civilian agencies.  Military agencies are involved, and a couple of the more important ones are as follows:

    Homeland security, it should be remembered, also is responsible for cyberspace protection, and when it was created, it inherited many agencies devoted to that purpose.  A few of these agencies are discussed below:

THE CARE AND FEEDING OF SCIENTISTS

    Scientists are not the easiest bunch to manage, and although saying this may involve some gross mischaracterization beyond what others have semi-bravely said about managing knowledge workers, scientists don't easily work with one another and have little patience for what they perceive as "silly" rules and procedures that stand in the way of advancing their progress or egos.  On the other hand, some scientists may be well-suited to the entrepreneurial and security-conscious environment of homeland security work, but few are trained in business models like project management and contract-consulting work.  Scientists are particularly sensitive to things like idea theft, and so-called "clinical" scientists who follow a post-doc fieldwork track rather than an academic track are particularly sensitive to rejection by their "academic," teaching-and-writing colleagues.  And, academic scientists are particularly sensitive to efforts at "politicizing" science education.

    A primary problem is finding an adequate supply of homeland security scientists.  Some, who are overspecialized, will of course be attracted to homeland security projects because they aren't generalist enough to fit into academia.  Others might be attracted to the possibilities for mentorship under a "great man" (or woman) since idol-worship tends to run rampant in science.  A few may go into it simply for the money, but the main problem, as most everybody knows, is that traditional American college students are notoriously illiterate when it comes to math and science.  Less than 11% of Americans can define the word "molecule" as distinct from an "atom" (see EdTrust or National Science Foundation's Indicators).  Not being able to find domestic scientists, scientific homeland security programs will then have to turn to foreign scientists, or those who are at least being educated in the states.  Fortunately, this will be easy, since at least 60% or more of those who have what it takes and do make it into graduate (Ph.D. level) programs in the United States are foreign students.  Since such foreign students will fulfill American's need for specialized, technical skills, it should not be a problem to process them for a technical (H1) visa and create an eventual "brain drain" from foreign countries.  Hopefully, the process of obtaining security clearances and the like will not be relaxed too much for this.                 

    University reform is needed if universities are ever going to have any real impact on the ways in which science and technology can contribute to homeland security.  At one level, university reform faces some of the same difficulties that K-12 adminstrators face with such issues as creationism versus evolutionism (Scott 2002), and on another level, the whole system of outmoded incentives (tenure and the like) in higher education may need changing (Boyer 1990; Glassick et. al. 1997).  Many universities (except a very few, according to Hirsch & Weber 2003) often ignore their leading-edge educational functions (being overwhelmed with, shall-we-say, remedial functions), and no matter how much money is poured into them, traditional universities aren't going to change much that is "traditional" (and quite frankly, too "liberal" for homeland security initiatives).  Although this may sound harsh, the prospects for homeland security programs involving traditional universities are quite dim.  It's like that line from the movie Ghostbusters where Ray says-- "Personally, I like the University. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything. You've never been out of college. You don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector. They expect results."  

    There are also matters of ethics involved, particularly as to the intersections of theology and technology when it comes to things like Artificial Intelligence (AI), which isn't necessarily bad unless pursued in its pure form and most people know that it's the spin-offs of such pursuits that pay off.  Although there are no definite signs that homeland security is headed that direction, related agencies and entities like DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) have heavily funded research into pure forms of AI, like robotics and efforts such as getting machines to read, and think, intelligently, like humans (see, for example, Rensselaer's Artificial Intelligence & Reasoning Laboratory, which is DARPA-funded).         

INTERNET RESOURCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science
CNET News.com
Conference Presentations archived at JUSTNET
DOE List of National Laboratories & Technology Centers
DOE's Science.gov Website
DHS HSARPA Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) site
DHS HSARPA Solicitations Portal
DHS Research & Technology Home Page
DHS Science & Technology Directorate Home Page
DHS Technical Support Working Group (TSWG)
Federal Computer Week (FCW) Magazine
Government Computer News (GCN) Magazine
Government Executive (GovExec) Magazine
Government Technology (GovTech) Magazine
GovTech's Homeland Security Toolkit
Manhattan Project Heritage Preservation Association
National Science Foundation's SBIR World
SBIR Gateway
SBIR Resource Center
Secure Computing (SC) Magazine
Technologies for Public Safety at NIST
The E-gov Institute
The History and Ethics of the Manhattan Project
The Socio-Economic Role of Higher Education Reading List
Washington Technology Magazine
Wikipedia Article on Manhattan Project

PRINTED RESOURCES
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. NY: Carnegie Foundation.
Bullock, J., Haddow, G., Coppola, D., Ergin, E., Westerman, L. & Yeletaysi, S. (2005). Introduction to Homeland Security. Boston: Elsevier.
Glassick, C., Huber, M. & Maeroff, G. (1997). Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. NY: Jossey-Bass.
Haddow, G. & Bullock, J. (2003). Introduction to Emergency Management. Boston: Elsevier.
Hake, R. (2000). "The General Population's Ignorance of Science Related Societal Issues: A Challenge for the University." AAPT Announcer 30(2), 105-111. [available online pdf]
Hirsch, W. & Weber, L. (Eds.) (2003). As the Walls of Academia are Tumbling Down. Washington DC: Brookings.
Mena, J. (2003). Investigative Data Mining for Security and Criminal Detection. NY: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Mena, J. (2004). Homeland Security Techniques and Technologies. Hingham, MA: Charles River Media.
Metcalfe, S. (1995). "The Economic Foundations of Technology Policy: Equilibrium and Evolutionary Perspectives." Pp. 408-422 in P. Stoneman (ed.) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. 
National Research Council. (1997). Preparing for the 21st Century: The Education Imperative. NY: National Reseach Council.
Scott, E. (2000). "Not Just in Kansas Anymore." Science 228: 813-815.

Last updated: 04/09/05
Syllabus for JUS 415 (Homeland Security)
MegaLinks in Criminal Justice

 

ml>