1

Introduction

This report summarizes the Workshop on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Workforce Needs for the Department of Defense and the U.S. Defense Industrial Base held on August 1 and 2, 2011, in Rosslyn, Virginia, under the auspices of the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee on STEM Workforce Needs for the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Defense Industrial Base (biographies of the committee members are presented in Appendix C). The workshop was part of an 18-month study of the issue funded by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD[R&E]) to assess the STEM capabilities that the Department of Defense (DOD) needs in order to meet its goals, objectives, and priorities; to assess whether the current DOD workforce and strategy will meet those needs; and to identify and evaluate options and recommend strategies that the department could use to help meet its future STEM needs. At the conclusion of the study, the committee will issue a final report.

The present report summarizes the views expressed at the August 2011 workshop by individual workshop participants (the workshop agenda is presented in Appendix A and list of participants in Appendix B). While the committee is responsible for the overall quality and accuracy of the report as a record of what transpired at the workshop, the views contained in the report are not necessarily those of all workshop participants, the committee, or the National Research Council.

The workshop focused on the following set of questions:

1.  Identify emerging science and technology that could significantly impact the STEM workforce needs of the DOD and its defense contractors over the next 15 years.

2.  Estimate the STEM workforce needs by number and field of the DOD and its defense contractors under each of the following three budget scenarios:

a.  The current 5-year defense budget1 continues under identical basic assumptions.

image

1The outlays for fiscal year (FY) 2010 were $667 billion for “DOD-Military” (Function 051). The estimates for the out-years were as follows (in billions): FY 2011: $740; FY 2012: $707; FY 2013: $648; FY 2014: $637; FY 2015: $644; and FY 2016: $651. (SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget. 2012. Fiscal Year 2012 Budget of the U.S. Government. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.)



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 1
1 Introduction This report summarizes the Workshop on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Work - force Needs for the Department of Defense and the U.S. Defense Industrial Base held on August 1 and 2, 2011, in Rosslyn, Virginia, under the auspices of the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee on STEM Workforce Needs for the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Defense Industrial Base (biographies of the committee members are presented in Appendix C). The workshop was part of an 18-month study of the issue funded by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD[R&E]) to assess the STEM capabilities that the Department of Defense (DOD) needs in order to meet its goals, objectives, and priorities; to assess whether the current DOD workforce and strategy will meet those needs; and to identify and evaluate options and recommend strategies that the department could use to help meet its future STEM needs. At the conclusion of the study, the committee will issue a final report. The present report summarizes the views expressed at the August 2011 workshop by individual workshop participants (the workshop agenda is presented in Appendix A and list of participants in Appendix B). While the committee is responsible for the overall quality and accuracy of the report as a record of what transpired at the workshop, the views contained in the report are not necessarily those of all workshop participants, the committee, or the National Research Council. The workshop focused on the following set of questions: 1. Identify emerging science and technology that could significantly impact the STEM workforce needs of the DOD and its defense contractors over the next 15 years. 2. Estimate the STEM workforce needs by number and field of the DOD and its defense contractors under each of the following three budget scenarios: a. The current 5-year defense budget1 continues under identical basic assumptions. 1The outlays for fiscal year (FY) 2010 were $667 billion for “DOD-Military” (Function 051). The estimates for the out-years were as follows (in billions): FY 2011: $740; FY 2012: $707; FY 2013: $648; FY 2014: $637; FY 2015: $644; and FY 2016: $651. (SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget. 2012. Fiscal Year 2012 Budget of the U.S. Government. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.) 1

OCR for page 1
2 STEM WORKFORCE NEEDS FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE U.S. DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE b. An abrupt change in security threats calls for an abrupt 35 percent2 DOD budget increase over that in 2.a above. c. A peace dividend calls for reallocating 25 percent3 of the DOD budget in 2.a to other national needs. 3. Assess the limitations in meeting the above workforce needs and the forces shaping those limitations. 4. Estimate the fraction of the above workforce needs that will not be met by the civilian educational enter- prise without supplemental DOD intervention. Where and how should DOD invest to achieve its workforce need? 5. Given the unpredictability of: scientific and technological change; levels and trajectory of DOD budgets; advancements and emerging threats; and the historical inadequacy of past projections of future workforce needs—How can the DOD ensure an adequate workforce capability for itself and its defense contractors in the future? The workshop included discussions by five individual panels, each focusing on one of the questions listed above. Starting off each of the five panel sessions, an invited speaker(s) gave an introductory talk designed to provide an overview of the topic or to otherwise stimulate the discussion by offering thought-provoking comments or introducing a few key ideas. Then, each of the four panelists assigned to the panel on a particular question was given 10 minutes to address the topic. The panels were chosen to offer a broad range of views from the public sector and the private sector, including major defense contractors, and from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), all of whom are stakeholders in the future STEM workforce. At the conclusion of their prepared remarks, the panelists fielded questions from the session moderators, who were members of the NRC committee, as well as from other NRC committee members in attendance and from workshop participants. The workshop included two keynote presentations. One presentation was made by the president of the National Academy of Engineering to introduce the topic through a discussion of the supply of scientists and engineers enter- ing the workforce nationwide. The other presentation provided the opportunity for the workshop to hear from the sponsor, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. The report includes, in Chapter 2, a discussion of what the committee believes to be the key points raised by workshop participants. Chapter 3 then presents a summary of the keynote presentations, and Chapter 4 offers sum - maries of the panel discussions, including the introductory talks and the question-and-answer period that ensued. Chapter 5 summarizes the concluding session of the workshop. 2Roughly the percent increase, in real terms, in DOD spending from FY 2001 to FY 2005 following the events of September 11, 2001; compare also the 25 percent increase from FY 1982 to FY 1989. (SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget. Historical Tables. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals. Accessed June 17, 2011.) 3Roughly the percent decrease, in real terms, in DOD spending from FY 1990 to FY 2000 following the end of the Cold War. (SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget. Historical Tables. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals. Accessed June 17, 2011.)