Improving the Army’s Next Effort 

in Technology Forecasting 

John Lyons, Richard Chait, and Simone Erchov, Editors 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy 

National Defense University 

September 2010 
ii

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official 

policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense, or the 

U.S. Government. All information and sources for this paper were drawn from 

unclassified materials.

Paul Bartone is a Senior Research Fellow in the CTNSP Life Sciences Directorate. He 

has conducted numerous field studies of stress, health and adaptation among military 

personnel and their families, covering deployments ranging from the Gulf War to Bosnia. 

He is a past-President of the Society for Military Psychology, Division 19 of the 

American Psychological Association. He is a charter member of the Association for 

Psychology Science, and a Fellow of the American Psychological Association. He earned 

a B.A. in Psychology, magna cum laude, from the University of Massachusetts and a 

Masters and PhD in Psychology and Human Development from the University of 

Chicago. 

Richard Chait is a Distinguished Research Fellow at CTNSP. He was previously Chief 

Scientist, Army Material Command, and Director, Army Research and Laboratory 

Management. Dr. Chait received his PhD in Solid State Science from Syracuse 

University and a BS degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

T.R. Govindan is the manager of the ARO Quantum Information Science Program, 

through which he co-manages several quantum information science programs for other 

agencies of the Federal Government. He also chairs a coordinating group of program 

managers involved in quantum information science programs. He holds a PhD in 

aerospace engineering from Penn State University.

Kelby Kizer is a medical/science writer employed by Performance Results Corporation. 

He supports the ARO Physical Sciences Directorate as a Program Specialist. He holds a 

PhD in biochemistry and biophysics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel 

Hill.

Douglas Kiserow is the Acting Director of the ARO Physical Sciences Directorate, and 

the Chemical Sciences Division Chief. He also serves as Adjunct Professor of Chemical 

Engineering at North Carolina State University. Dr. Kiserow's efforts in managing 

chemical science research programs at ARO over the past 17 years led to important 

advances in polymer chemistry that have positively impacted the Army and the research 

community. He holds a PhD in chemistry from the University of Texas, Austin. 

John W. Lyons is a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Center for Technology and 

National Security Policy (CTNSP), National Defense University. He was previously 

director of the Army Research Laboratory and director of the National Institute of 
iii

Standards and Technology. Dr. Lyons holds a BA from Harvard and received his PhD 

from Washington University.

Peter Reynolds is the Senior Research Scientist of the ARO Physical Sciences 

Directorate. In this role, Dr. Reynolds leads the direction of the directorate's scientific 

programs in physics, the life sciences, and the chemical sciences. He holds an A.B. in 

Physics from the University of California at Berkeley and a PhD in theoretical physics 

from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Albert Sciarretta is a Senior Research Fellow at CTNSP and president of CNS 

Technologies, Inc. He is a retired Army armor officer who served in operational and 

science and technology assignments. He holds a BS degree from the U.S. Military 

Academy and two MS degrees—Operations Research and Mechanical Engineering—

from Stanford University. 

Marc Ulrich is the Chief of the ARO Physics Division, where he oversees the division's 

research programs in quantum information science, atomic and molecular physics, and 

optical physics. He is also the manager of the condensed matter physics program, where 

through 7 years of program development he has promoted the discovery of new novel 

quantum phases of matter at oxide-oxide interfaces. Dr. Ulrich holds a PhD in physics 

from Auburn University. 

James J. Valdes is a Senior Research Fellow at the National Defense University’s Center 

for Technology and National Security Policy and the Army’s Scientific Advisor for 

Biotechnology. Dr. Valdes received a PhD in neuroscience from Texas Christian 

University and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutes. He has 

published more than 120 papers in scientific journals and was a 2009 Presidential Rank 

Award winner. 

Defense & Technology Papers are published by the National Defense University Center for Technology 

and National Security Policy, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, DC. CTNSP publications are available 

at http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/publications.html. 
iv
v

Contents 

I. Background and Perspective ........................................................................................... 1 

II. Historical Technology Convergence.............................................................................. 3 

III. The Army’s Future Capabilities—Warfighter Outcomes............................................. 5 

IV. Technological Convergence: Human Dimension−Biobehavior and Warfighter 

Resilience............................................................................................................................ 7 

V. Technological Convergence—Virtual Presence, Enhanced Sensing, and Augmented 

Autonomy ......................................................................................................................... 13

VI. Technological Convergence: Scientific Underpinnings ............................................. 20 

Mechanochemical Transduction ................................................................................. 21

Quantum Information Science .................................................................................... 25 

VII. The Army’s Next Study—Comments and Recommendations.................................. 28

VIII. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 31 

Appendix: Expanding on Human Warfighter Outcomes—Biobehavioral Response....... 32
vi
1

I. Background and Perspective 

An important challenge for the Department of Defense (DOD) science and technology 

(S&T) programs is to avoid technological surprise resulting from the exponential increase 

in the pace of discovery and change in S&T worldwide. The nature of the military threat 

is also changing, resulting in new military requirements, some of which can be met by 

technology. Proper shaping of the S&T portfolio requires predicting and matching these 

two factors well into the future. Some examples of technologies which have radically 

affected the battlefield include the Global Positioning System coupled with inexpensive 

hand held receivers, the microprocessor revolution which has placed the power of the 

Internet and satellite communications into the hands of soldiers in the field, new sensing 

capabilities such as night vision, the use of unmanned vehicles, and composite materials 

for armor and armaments. Some of these new technologies came from military S&T, 

some from commercial developments and still others from a synthesis of the two sectors; 

but all were based on advances in the underlying sciences. Clearly, leaders and planners 

in military S&T must keep abreast of such developments and look ahead as best they can. 

Since World War II, predictions of S&T for enabling military capabilities have occurred 

periodically. A study chartered by the Army Air Force1

 in 1947 predicted a broad range 

of developments in aeronautics and air power, and the study process has been a model for 

such forecasts ever since. Projections in S&T have been issued for many years by the 

National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies, and the NRC occasionally 

publishes decadal studies for specific disciplines. NRC committee reports for astronomy 

and astrophysics, for example, go back every 10 years to at least 1964. 

In DOD, the last series of forecast studies was done in the 1990s.2 The Center for 

Technology and National Security Policy (CTNSP) in 2008 assessed the Army-sponsored 

Strategic Technologies for the Army of the Twenty-First Century (STAR 21) study3 in 

which the basic and applied sciences were assessed and forecast as separate and discrete 

disciplines. Future capabilities were discussed in a separate set of STAR 21 volumes on 

systems and, in general, the technologies comprising individual systems were not 

 

1

 The publication of Toward New Horizons by the new Army Air Force Science Advisory Group chaired by 

Theodore Von Karman charted the way ahead for air power for the United States. The history of this study 

is in: H. Gorn (editor), Prophecy Fulfilled, ‘Toward New Horizons’ and its Legacy (Washington, DC: Air 

Force Historical Studies Office, 1994). Theodore von Karman, Toward New Horizons (Washington, DC: 

United States Army Air Force, 1945). Available at <http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/ 

authorindex.htm>. 

2

 Board on Army Science and Technology, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, and 

National Research Council, STAR 21—Strategic Technologies for the Army of the Twenty-First Century 

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992); Naval Studies Board and National Research Council, 

Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000–2035 (Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press, 1997); Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas, Air and Space Power for 

the 21st Century, (Washington, DC: The Department of the Air Force, The Pentagon, 1995). 3

 John Lyons, Richard Chait, and Jordan Willcox, An Assessment of the Science and Technology 

Predictions in the Army’s STAR 21 Report, Defense & Technology Paper 50 (Washington, DC: Center for 

Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University, July 2008). 
2

discussed with reference to the underlying sciences. This separation of future capabilities 

from the underlying S&T forecasts was similar for the studies of all three Services. 

As forecasting is not an exact science, follow-on analyses of such efforts are necessary to 

determine the accuracy of initial claims. Therefore, CTNSP undertook an assessment of 

the initial STAR 21 report3

 to evaluate the original predictions 15 years later, in 2008. It 

was found that approximately one quarter of the predictions were on target, while others 

fell in a wide range of error (both over and underestimating the impact of particular 

advances), including some that proved completely inaccurate. The most egregious 

anticipatory errors were noted in failing to predict the impact of proliferation of the 

Internet, wireless technological capabilities, and personal computing devices. However, 

even considering these shortfalls, the STAR 21 study served a significant underlying 

purpose: educating the Army’s leaders as to the nature and impact of S&T. 

In the follow-on to the STAR 21 report, we recommended new approaches to future 

studies4

 and made suggestions as to how to proceed with their implementation. We 

recommended approaches to these studies, including spreading them out over several 

years and dividing them into focused portions of the sciences and technologies of interest 

each year. We also urged that contractors with maximum credibility, such as the NRC, 

perform the studies jointly with the other Services. The recommendation for tri-Service 

studies is still under discussion; therefore, the present proposal is limited to the Army. 

Regarding approaches to new studies, we recommended technology convergence be 

emphasized. Here, the concept is two-fold: first, list the outcomes and associated 

capabilities desired by the Army at a future time point, and then look for confluences or 

convergences of individual sciences and technologies that would enable the realization of 

such capabilities. This would be achieved through forming clusters of sciences and 

technologies judged to be likely sources of such convergences and forecasting the 

evolution of these component topics on a common timeline. A resulting roadmap for each 

cluster would highlight where convergences of matured subjects were likely to occur and, 

therefore, where the capabilities and outcomes would be realized. 

As the Army considers its next comprehensive technology forecasting effort as a followon to STAR 21, it should not only take into account the concepts of technology 

convergence as explained in Section II, but also tie them together with the capabilities 

desired by the warfighter. These are known as warfighter outcomes and are discussed in 

Section III. Sections IV–VI then present examples of technology forecasting, applying 

the concepts of convergence and warfighter outcomes to areas of interest to the Army. 

 

4

John W. Lyons, Richard Chait, and James J. Valdes, Forecasting Science and Technology for the 

Department of Defense, Defense & Technology Paper 71 (Washington, DC: Center for Technology and 

National Security Policy, National Defense University, December 2009). 
3

II. Historical Technology Convergence 

Early convergences led to the invention of radar, which arose from the application of 

electromagnetic radiation (science) to how it interacts with materials, culminating in the 

development of microwave generators, transmitters, and power supplies among other 

devices (technology).5

 The technology so heavily employed today in wireless handheld 

devices coupled with Internet access dates back to technological advances in the science 

of telephony and advances in solid-state physics. These advances have provided 

processes for developing the fiber optics and computer technology enabling broadband 

network service throughout the world. 

Convergences in S&T also occurred within the life sciences disciplines. Most notably this 

occurred early on in 1953 via the discovery of DNA’s double helix structure by Watson 

and Crick.6

 A confluence of organic chemistry, physics, genomics, and information 

technology further provided the ability to amplify and replicate the DNA molecule in 

mass quantities, leading to advances in protein sequencing and synthesis in the 1980s. 

These initial convergences led to such advances as the sequencing of the human genome. 

Further innovations in information technology (IT) made possible a deeper understanding 

of the workings of human gene interactions, from which new fields of science have 

emerged such as genomics, proteomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics. Modern 

medicine bases many of its practices on information resulting from this process of 

continuous convergences, making a strong case for an emphasis on forecasting further 

S&T convergences. 

Forecasting S&T convergences requires care to avoid the stovepipe effect. It is 

imperative to assess capabilities derived from the conjunction of many systems. 

“Roadmapping” provides an effective method for tracking convergences and 

developments over time not only to detail historical convergences, but also, in turn, to 

effectively predict future convergences based on similar patterns. 

 

5

 Timothy Coffey, Jill Dahlburg, and Elihu Zimet, The S&T Innovation Conundrum, Defense & 

Technology Paper 17 (Washington, DC: Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National 

Defense University, August 2005). 

6

 James D. Watson and Francis Crick, “A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid,” Nature, 171 (1953), 

737. 
4
5

III. The Army’s Future Capabilities—Warfighter Outcomes 

To complement the idea of S&T convergence and assure that forecasting is relevant to 

DOD needs, it is important to consider the desired future capabilities and warfighter 

outcomes. As noted above, we recommend that future studies focus on clusters of 

particular sciences or technologies. Each cluster would be coupled with one or more 

desired capabilities necessary to achieve warfighter outcomes defined by the U.S. Army 

Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). Warfighter outcomes of high level 

importance are:7,8

1. Counter Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and Mine Integrated Warfighter 

Outcome. The Future Force must have the ability to detect and neutralize chemical, 

biological, radiological, nuclear, and high yield explosives (CBRNE) obstacles and/or 

their components from a standoff distance of 100 meters. 

2. Battle Command Network Integrated Warfighter Outcome. The Future Force must 

possess worldwide, beyond-line-of-sight network capabilities that are effective, 

layered, and protected. 

3. Training Integrated Warfighter Outcome. Provide Soldiers and leaders the ability 

to excel in a challenging and increasingly complex future operating environment by 

developing tools and technologies that enable more efficient training through live, 

virtual, immersive and adaptable venues. 

4. Power and Energy Integrated Warfighter Outcome. Provide enhanced agility to 

operate worldwide by reducing by half, the weight and volume of fuel associated with 

powering the force. 

5. Human Dimension Integrated Warfighter Outcome. The Army leverages enhanced 

means to identify, access, retain, and develop Soldiers with unsurpassed cognitive, 

physical, and social (moral and cultural) capabilities. Soldiers are enabled by 

technology and combinations of cognitive, medical and social sciences to achieve 

excellence in small unit competence and to dominate in increasingly complex 

operational environments. Soldiers are able to leverage technologies and processes 

that optimize and restore cognitive and physical performance. 

This paper offers several examples of clusters that could be the subject of study by an 

Army-chartered independent group. Each of the long-range forecasts would cover a 

period of from 15 to 25 years. To make the exercise manageable, we recommend that 

only a few clusters be started in any one year so that the entire forecasting effort would 

be completed over several cycles. Also presented are the capabilities and outcomes with 

which these example clusters are matched, the nature of the obstacles to be overcome and 

the likelihood of success. 

 

7

 Department of the Army, Military Operations Force Operating Capabilities, TRADOC Pamphlet 525–66 

(Fort Monroe, VA: Training and Doctrine Command, March 2008). 

8

 COL R.C. Effinger, “Warfighter Challenges/Warfighter Outcomes,” Presented at the Technology 

Planning Conference, Adelphi, MD, May 2010. 
6

Finally, we present examples of underpinning sciences, which may support several 

outcomes and hence are somewhat less focused on specific outcomes. These examples 

provide areas of interest we consider worthy of investigation as they reflect the current 

trends of science and technological development. 

We begin with some examples addressing the Human Dimension warfighter outcome and 

the accompanying technological convergences. 
7

IV. Technological Convergence: Human 

Dimension−Biobehavior and Warfighter Resilience 

Paul Bartone and James J. Valdes 

There is a growing recognition of the importance of human factors for national security in 

defense policy and planning circles. For example, as noted previously, a recent 

comprehensive analysis of warfighter outcomes led to the identification of the human 

dimension as one of the “Big 5” Integrated Warfighter Outcomes for attention in FY11. 

The human dimension is described as follows: 

The Army leverages enhanced means to identify, access, retain, and develop Soldiers 

with unsurpassed cognitive, physical, and social (moral and cultural) capabilities. 

Soldiers are enabled by technology, cognitive, medical and social sciences to achieve 

excellence in small unit competence and to dominate increasingly complex operational 

environments. Soldiers are able to leverage technologies and processes that optimize and 

restore cognitive and physical performance.7 

We can summarize the human dimension capability described here as “warfighter 

resilience and adaptability,” or the capability for soldiers and leaders to maintain a high 

level of physical health and performance even under increasingly complex and stressful 

operational environments. “Resilience” is shorthand for the ability to withstand 

operational demands and stressors without breaking down, and “adaptability” refers to 

the ability to adjust quickly to changing environments and circumstances. The two go 

hand-in-hand, and adaptable, resilient soldiers and leaders represent a critical capability 

for the future force. The absence of resilience and adaptability is expressed in a wide 

range of human dimension problems in the military, from degraded mental and physical 

performance to serious negative mental health outcomes including post-traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD) and suicide. In addition to long-term personal disability, the former 

may, negatively affect decisionmaking processes that directly impact mission success or 

failure and contribute, for example, to friendly-fire incidents and civilian combat 

casualties. 

The top leaders of the Army have focused considerable attention on trying to prevent 

PTSD and soldier suicides. For example, the Army Vice Chief of Staff has issued 

numerous press releases throughout 2009 voicing the Army’s concerns, with the goal of 

“trying every remedy and seeking help from outside agencies that are experts.”9

 These 

concerns, and solutions to goals set by senior leaders, relate directly to research within 

the Human Dimension outcome. 

TRADOC and senior military leaders (e.g., Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, Army Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff, and Deputy Chief of Staff 

for Personnel) have identified adaptable military personnel as a critical capability for the 

 

9

 U.S. Department of Defense, “Army Releases May Suicide Data,” U.S. Department of Defense, Available 

at <http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=12740>. 
8

future.10 In what follows, we briefly consider emerging trends and convergences in S&T 

that are likely to dramatically shift how we go about selecting, training and developing 

highly resilient and adaptable military personnel. 

As previously noted, S&T convergence forecasting requires a focus on key disciplines 

that will lead to future developments capable of aiding the military. Three broad 

functional areas of selection, training, and treatment are central in achieving the 

warfighter resilience and adaptability capabilities sought. As with any organization, the 

start point for building a capable workforce is with the selection process, selecting in 

those with the needed qualities and capacities, and selecting out those who lack the 

needed qualities, or who possess undesired qualities. Next is training, which includes 

everything that the organization does to train and develop its workforce. Finally, 

treatment refers broadly to all programs and systems that aim to restore optimal readiness 

and performance following exposure to potentially damaging operational stressors. 

Research, diagnostic tools and instruments, and clinical trials are all important enablers 

that make it possible to improve selection, training and treatment. Figure 1 provides a 

representation of key scientific disciplines and technological themes that will impact the 

human dimension capability—warfighter resilience and adaptability— into the future. 

Figure 1. Key Disciplines influencing the Human Dimension

 

10 Robert M. Gates, “The National Defense Strategy: Striking the right balance,” Joint Force Quarterly, 52 

(2009), 2–7. 
9

As a more specific example of anticipated convergences in the Human Dimension area, 

Figure 2 displays how various S&T areas are interacting to create new knowledge and 

capabilities for a highly resilient and healthy defense workforce. 

Figure 2. Technology Convergence for the Human Dimension—Biobehavioral Resilience 

This figure displays how the parallel development of multiple disciplines and their likely 

convergences will lead to new and vastly more effective approaches to medical treatment 

and prevention that can be summarized as “personalized medicine”, as well as more 

precise and effective selection and training programs in the human dimension. The field 

of neuroscience has been elucidating the neuroanatomical and neurochemical substrates 

of the brain. This knowledge, when combined with imaging techniques derived from 

physics, has resulted in the development of brain imaging techniques that allow a 

functional assessment of the brain. When coupled with psychometric testing predictive of 

resilience and adaptation, determinations of pathology or of therapeutic effectiveness can 

be made. Following the elucidation of specific receptors associated with particular brain 

substrates, advances in pharmacology led to the development of drugs with specific 

agonistic or antagonistic effects on these receptors, hence predictable effects on neural 

function and behavior. The new diagnostic tools and drugs could then combine to yield 

tailored treatment regimens for a range of neurological and psychological syndromes 

including depression and PTSD. 
10

Meanwhile, the traditional field of biochemistry has branched into the “panomics”, 

including genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics, all being 

extraordinarily information intensive. The parallel development of mathematical tools to 

mine and interpret these enormous data sets, and the advances in materials science, 

particularly nanoscale fluidics, has led to the design of high throughput sample analysis 

and the identification of predictive biomarkers for an enormous range of clinical 

conditions. The combination of this ability to have a comprehensive, real-time 

assessment of panomics and treatment regimens based on defined physiological 

substrates will result in the new field of personal medicine with the potential for 

personnel selection, risk mitigation through training or preventive medicine, and tailored 

therapies as needed. These same tools and technologies have also made possible new 

studies clarifying how genes and environmental factors interact to determine mental 

illness,11 susceptibility to stress,12 and social behavior.13

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and Suicide Prevention 

To date, studies of resilience, and risk or vulnerability to stress-related problems such as 

PTSD have focused either on psychological qualities or neurobiological factors 

independently. For example, Charney14 summarizes evidence pointing to various 

neurotransmitters, neuropeptides, and hormones that appear to be linked to the 

psychobiological stress response and health outcomes, both good and bad. These include, 

but are not limited to, epinephrine, norepinephrine, neuropeptide Y, galanin, dopamine, 

serotonin, testosterone and estrogen—some of the very same markers biochemical assays 

can now efficiently and cost-effectively extract from very small tissue samples. 

Advances in the field of psychology and psychometrics in recent years have led to better 

conceptual understanding of individual differences, as well as more reliable and valid 

measurement tools for assessing basic psychological qualities in people.15,16 To take one 

relevant example, psychological hardiness, composed of commitment, control and 

challenge, has been identified in many studies as a consistent quality of individuals who 

display resilience under stress.17

Studies of resilience from a psychological standpoint have considered multiple variables, 

but generally have not attempted to assess what is going on at a biochemical level. To 

 

11 A. Caspi, K. Sugden, T.E. Moffitt, A. Taylor, I.W. Craig, H. Harrington et. al, “Influence of Life Stress 

on Depression: Moderation by a Polymorphism in the 5-HTT Gene,” Science, 301 (2003), 386–389. 12 F.A. Champagne and M.J. Meany, “Stress during Gestation Alters Postpartum Maternal Care and the 

Development of the Offspring in a Rodent Model,” Biological Psychiatry, 59 (2006), 1227–1235. 13 F.A. Champagne, “Genes in Context: Gene-Environment Interplay and the Origins of Individual 

Differences in Behavior,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18 (2009), 127–131. 14 D.S. Charney, “Psychobiological Mechanisms of Resilience and Vulnerability: Implications for 

successful adaptation to Extreme Stress,” American Journal of Psychiatry, 161 (2004), 195–216. 15 P.T. Costa and R.R. McCrae, NEO PI-R. Professional manual. (Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment 

Resources, Inc., 1992). 

16 Timothy Judge and Joyce Bono, “Five-factor Model of Personality and Transformational Leadership,” 

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (2000), 751–765. 17 S.C. Kobasa, S.R. Maddi, and S. Kahn, “Hardiness and Health: A Prospective Study,” Journal of 

Personality & Social Psychology, 42 (1982), 168–177.
11

continue with the example of psychological hardiness, studies with a variety of 

occupational groups have found that hardiness operates as a significant moderator or 

buffer of stress when the outcome is some measure of health or illness.11,18 In addition, 

some studies have shown that low hardiness is associated with negative or destructive 

coping behaviors (e.g., substance abuse) under stressful situations.19 Hardiness has also 

been identified as a moderator of combat exposure stress in Gulf War soldiers20 and 

emerged as a stress buffer in other military groups as well, including U.S. Army casualty 

assistance workers,21 peacekeeping soldiers,22 Israeli soldiers in combat training,23 Israeli 

officer candidates, and Norwegian Navy cadets.24 Further, studies have found that troops 

who develop PTSD symptoms following exposure to combat stressors are significantly 

lower in hardiness compared to those who do not develop PTSD.25 Under low-stress 

conditions, troops high in hardiness report about the same level of PTSD symptoms as 

those low in hardiness. However, under high-stress conditions, those high in hardiness 

report significantly fewer PTSD symptoms than those low in mental hardiness. Other 

studies have found similar stress and hardiness interaction effects among combat-exposed 

veterans. These results suggest that those who are high in the qualities of hardiness are 

more resistant to the ill effects of operational stress. But the underlying biological and 

physiological processes associated with this type of stress resilience are just starting to be 

systematically addressed. 

For example, a recent study conducted at NDU found that psychological hardiness is 

associated with significantly higher levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL).26 It is 

known that higher levels of HDL are protective against coronary heart disease, in part by 

more efficiently disposing of excess lipids that can contribute to a range of cardiovascular 

disorders.27,28 It may be that the kinds of positive coping expectations and behaviors that 

 

18 R.J. Contrada, “Type A Behavior, Personality Hardiness, and Cardiovascular Responses to Stress,” 

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (1989), 895–903. 19 S.R. Maddi, P. Wadhwa, and R.J. Haier, “Relationship of Hardiness to Alcohol and Drug Use in 

Adolescents,” American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 22 (1996), 247–257. 20 P.T. Bartone, “Hardiness as a Resiliency Factor for United States Forces in the Gulf War,” in 

Posttraumatic Stress Intervention: Challenges, Issues, and Perspectives, edited by J.M. Violanti, D. Paton, 

and C. Dunning, 115–133. Thomas: Springfield, IL, 2000. 

21 P.T. Bartone, R.J. Ursano, K.M. Wright and L.H. Ingraham, “The Impact of a Military Air Disaster on 

the Health of Assistance Workers: A Prospective Study,” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 177 

(1989), 317–328. 

22 T.W. Britt, A.B. Adler and P.T. Bartone, “Deriving Benefits from stressful Events: The Role of 

Engagement in Meaningful Work and Hardiness,” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6 (2001), 

53–63. 

23 V. Florian, M. Mikulincer and O. Taubman, “Does Hardiness Contribute to Mental Health During a 

Stressful Real Life Situation? The Role of Appraisal and Coping,” Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, 68 (1995), 687–695. 24 P.T. Bartone, B.H. Johnsen, J. Eid, W. Brun, and J.C. Laberg, “Factors Influencing Small Unit Cohesion 

in Norwegian Navy Officer Cadets,” Military Psychology, 14 (2002), 1–22. 25 P.T. Bartone, “Hardiness Protects Against War-Related Stress in Army Reserve Forces,” Consulting 

Psychology Journal, 51 (1999), 72–82. 26 Paul T. Bartone, Tony Spinosa and Joel Robb, “Psychological Hardiness is Related to Baseline HighDensity Lipoprotein (HDL) Cholesterol Levels,” (presentation, annual convention of the Association for 

Psychological Science, San Francisco, May 24 2009). 

27 P. Barter, “The role of HDL cholesterol in preventing atherosclerotic disease,” European Heart Journal, 

Supplement 7 (2005), F4–F8. 
12

mark high hardy persons have a direct effect on HDL production by moderating the 

excretion rate of stress hormones that also influence cholesterol production, which serves 

to protect against cardiovascular disease.29 These identified biochemical correlates of 

hardiness are also suggestive of an underlying genomic basis for resilience, which might 

be assessed via the proteins for which these genes code. 

Although such studies indicate that hardiness has identifiable biological correlates, most 

of the potential biomarker candidates have not yet been examined. Beyond cardiovascular 

and basic blood chemistry (e.g., cholesterol) markers associated with stress response, a 

growing body of research points to a number of neurochemical substances and processes 

related to response to stress and healthy or unhealthy outcomes. (Further information on 

biochemical and neurological correlates is given in the appendix.) 

Advances in technologies for assessing both psychological qualities and neurochemical 

processes are leading toward convergence across these domains, which should result in 

new cross-disciplinary studies and more complete understanding of the stress resilience 

and adaptation process. These advances will in turn make possible more precise and 

effective strategies for treatment, as well as for training and selection. 

However, the range of S&T convergences within the human dimension extends far 

beyond genetic and biological spheres. Warfighter outcomes can also be achieved 

through the enhancement of soldiers’ situational awareness through a combination of 

physical, mechanical, and materials sciences and technologies. These are brought to light 

through such advancements as virtual presence and enhanced sensing. 

 28 P.M. Ridker, M.J. Stampfer and N. Rifai, “Novel Risk Factors for Systemic Atherosclerosis,” JAMA, 285 

(2001), 2481–2485. 

29 R. Fraser et al, “Cortisol Effects on Body Mass, Blood Pressure, and Cholesterol in the General 

Population,” Hypertension, 33 (1999), 1364–1368. 
13

V. Technological Convergence—Virtual Presence, Enhanced 

Sensing, and Augmented Autonomy 

Albert Sciarretta 

It should be noted that in addition to 6.1 (basic research), convergence includes the tiered 

fusion of technologies within the 6.2 (applied research) or 6.3 (advanced technology 

development) levels of S&T. For example, microelectromechanical system (MEMS) 

technology is the integration of mechanical, sensor, electronics, software, and materials 

science technologies. These technologies provide the sensing, processing, and actuator 

functions as well as the platform/case for the MEMS. Then, inertial measurement unit 

(IMU) technology may be a combination of MEMS accelerometers, MEMS gyroscopes 

(for measuring changes in rotational attributes such as roll, pitch, and yaw), and 

additional sensors (via an intelligent fusion algorithm) used to reset the IMU (to reduce 

drift). At the next higher level, 3-D location/tracking technology for a ground robotic 

system may be a combination of MEMS-based Global Positioning System (GPS) sensors, 

IMUs, and an intelligent fusion algorithm (e.g., includes some intelligent processing in 

addition to a Kalman Filter). The intelligent fusion algorithm may select the GPS sensors 

as the primary data source when out in the open, the IMUs while inside buildings, and a 

combination when transitioning from outdoors to indoors and vice versa. The intelligent 

fusion algorithm may also provide feedback to reset an IMU. This can be depicted as 

follows: 

Location/Tracking 

Technology

GPS Sensors

Intelligent Fusion 

Algorithm

IMUs

MEMS 

( accelerometers

and gyroscopes )

Mechanical

Sensors

Electronics

Software

Materials

Sensors 

( for reset )

Level I Level II Level III Level IV

Feedback

for

Reset

Figure 3. Roadmap of S&T Convergence in Materiel—Location and Tracking Technology 

One should note that sensor technology is depicted twice in the Level I technologies and 

once each in the Level II and Level III technologies. This redundant occurrence of a 
14

technology, may be an indication that it is a critical technology, and also that its 

development will support broad applications. It is also an indication that there is most 

likely a convergence of technologies (electro-optical, magnetic, acoustic, electronics, 

materials, etc.) within the sensor technology area. 

The above example provides a "bottom up" approach for describing convergence. To 

continue on to a Level V technology, say "robotics," may prove to be a difficult task 

(e.g., identify other Level IV technologies converging with "location/tracking 

technology.") In addition, there may be one or more intermediate levels between Level 

IV technology and the targeted "robotics" technology level. Thus, a better approach may 

be to use a "top down" or "decomposition" analysis to identify the various levels of 

converging technologies. 

Virtual Presence and Enhanced Sensing Capabilities 

For the human dimension integrated warfighter outcome, the Army should leverage 

enhanced means to identify, access, retain, and develop soldiers with unsurpassed 

cognitive, physical, and social (moral and cultural) capabilities. Soldiers should be 

enabled by technology, cognitive, medical, and social sciences to achieve excellence in 

small unit competence and to dominate in increasingly complex operational 

environments. Soldiers should be able to take advantage of technologies and processes 

that optimize and restore cognitive and physical performance. 

To provide these characteristics, disparate S&T efforts might converge to provide two 

capabilities that enhance a warfighter's situational awareness and a third capability that 

will enhance the autonomy of robotic systems. The two capabilities that enhance a 

warfighter's situational awareness are virtual presence and enhanced sensing capabilities. 

These capabilities are based on the wireless linkage of a warfighter's mind to the 

intelligence and sensing capabilities of one or more robotic systems. 

Virtual presence for a warfighter is the ability of a warfighter to experience critical 

information in the context of an environment/situation that is not immediately 

surrounding the warfighter. More specifically, for this paper, it is the full immersion of 

the warfighter's mind into the environment/situation being experienced by a robotic 

system that is not in the warfighter’s line of sight. A warfighter will have the sensation 

that he can virtually be in the same room as and in the same position and orientation of 

the robotic system. This virtual presence would provide a vivid feeling of being detached 

from one's body; so much so, that if the robotic system were to position itself to look 

back at the warfighter, the warfighter would have the sensation of an "out of body" 

experience. 

As opposed to a mental detachment from one's body, enhanced sensing capabilities are an 

expansion of the warfighter's physical sensing capabilities. For example, a warfighter will 

sense (at least see and hear, perhaps smell and feel) what a remote, non line-of-sight 

robot system (e.g., in another room of a building) is sensing. Seeing something in the 

"corner of one's eye" will have new meaning, in that the warfighter will not only sense 
15

his immediate surroundings but also the surroundings of the robotic system. It is unclear, 

at this point, how these enhanced sensing capabilities will be interpreted by the 

warfighter. Perhaps, for sight, it will be similar to a screen within a screen. Perhaps for 

hearing, it will be similar to "Superman-like" hearing. 

Augmented Autonomy 

The third capability created by the convergence of science and technology is the 

enhancement of the autonomy of a robotic system—augmented autonomy. This 

convergence primarily benefits a robotic system, but indirectly benefits the two 

warfighter enhancements above—by making robotic systems more intelligent. It may be 

many decades before the development of fully autonomous robotic systems, especially 

those that can learn and adapt their behaviors to changing situations. Regardless, there are 

many technical challenges that will hamper researchers from developing fully 

autonomous robotic systems in the near future. 

To make up for shortcomings in reaching full autonomy, a robotic system's "brain" might 

be connected to its human controller's brain, so that some of the robotic system's 

"thinking" is being accomplished by the human. Thus, the robotic system's artificial 

intelligence (AI) is made up of a combination of the AI programmed into its processor 

and the intelligence of the human mind connected to the robotic system—a sort of 

"distributed intelligence" capability. The robotic system's autonomy (AI) is augmented by 

its human partner's brain. This augmented autonomy may simply assist the robotic system 

in better understanding which direction to move next; or it may assist the robotic system 

in making sense of complex, ambiguous information, such as the military status of a child 

aiming a toy gun at the robotic system. 

For this paper, convergence of S&T is being considered in a similar manner as previously 

described in the beginning of this section for location and tracking technologies. Figure 4 

is a depiction of S&T that might converge to provide the three capabilities described 

above. In addition to the convergence of the S&T, Figure 4 also depicts how the 

enhancement of the behavior of robotic systems—through augmented autonomy—will 

improve autonomous robotic behavior, and thus the capabilities of semi-autonomous and 

autonomous robotic systems. This enhancement will, in turn, further improve the two 

warfighter enhancements. 

The development of virtual presence technologies will most likely depend on 

advances in four major technology areas: gaming technologies, immersive 

technologies, semi-autonomous and autonomous robotic systems, and mindmachine interfaces. Enhanced sensing capabilities will depend primarily on the 

latter three, while augmented autonomy will benefit from advances in the latter 

two. The technologies contributing to S&T convergences (far left of figure 4) 

converging to these four major technology areas are described below. 
16

Enhanced Warfighter

Performance

(Situational Awareness)

Enhanced Sensing 

Capabilities for the 

Warfighter

Virtual Presence for the 

Warfighter

Immersive

Technologies

Modeling & 

Simulation

Mental Immersion

Physical 

Immersion

Gaming Technology

Human-Game 

Interfaces

Semi-Autonomous & 

Autonomous Robotic 

Systems

Autonomous Behavior

Supporting Functions

Mission Packages

Mind-Machine 

Interface

Army Test Center 

(APG) Skull Cap

Prosthetics Research

(e.g., robotic arm for 

monkeys)

Mind Control over 

Objects

Enhanced Autonomous 

Behavior of Robotic 

Systems Augmented Autonomy 

for Robotic Systems

Figure 4. S&T convergence (from left to right) to enhance warfighter situational awareness 

and the autonomous behavior of robotic systems 

Human-game interfaces can provide insights for both physical and mental 

immersion of warfighters with the robotic systems. For example, the most popular 

games very successfully immerse the cognitive processes of the player with the 

game itself —especially those associated with massive multi-player online games 

using virtual worlds. Gamers also have access to physically immersive tools (e.g., 

tactile vests that provide thuds when kicked in a kick boxing game, helmet 

mounted displays, data gloves that provide positive feedback when one grabs 

something in a virtual world). 

Physical immersion uses technologies that immerse a human into a virtual, yet almost 

realistic, environment. These technologies exploit recent breakthroughs in: 

• Miniaturization/advancement of immersive multi-sensory, multi-mode 

technologies (gesture/body motion recognition, occlusion visualization) 

• Advances in annotation filters, view management, context models, and 

learning/reasoning agents 

Work on physical immersive systems is being pursued by the Army’s Human Research 

and Engineering Directorate (HRED) Field Office at Fort Benning, GA. For example, 

HRED has experimented with a tactile land navigation system. 

Mental immersion uses technologies that stimulate a brain to believing it is in a realistic 

environment. Dreams are a good example of mental immersion. Though not as realistic in 
17

sensation, on-line games may stimulate players so much that the players believe they 

have a "second life" within the game—they are immersed in an alternative world. 

Modeling and simulation, with the use of physical immersion technologies, can 

contribute greatly to the creation and rendering of virtual worlds. This area indirectly 

supports the functional capabilities of a robotic system and supports its development 

along with systems engineering. 

Autonomous behavior, supporting functions, and missions packages are components of 

unmanned and autonomous systems. The subcomponents of each are listed below. 

• Autonomous behavior can be broken down into:

o Perception—a robot’s ability to sense and observe its surroundings by relating 

features in sensor data to those in the real world 

o Planning—(path and mission) Path planning, deliberate or reactive, includes 

the development of a movement trajectory from current to next position(s). 

Mission planning provides the best course of military action; given situational 

awareness of environment, enemy situation, friendly situation, weather, time 

available, etc.; assessment of assigned mission order; doctrine and tactics; 

standard operating procedures; and other related military planning 

information. 

o Navigation—situational awareness of the movement space, knowing current 

location and direction of movement, knowing directions to desired location(s), 

ability to map and find a way through immediate surroundings, and ability to 

detect nearby hazards to mobility 

o Behavior and Skills—the combination of AI with inputs from perception, 

planning, and navigation to support cooperative behavior and develop motor 

commands. These motor commands may include mobility commands for 

flying, walking, jumping, etc.; military-related commands for communicating 

information, maneuvering with other forces, firing weapons, accomplishing 

assigned missions (e.g., surveillance, reconnaissance, explosive ordnance 

detection, etc.); commands for interacting with human controllers (including 

commanders), other humans (friendly military, enemy, and non-combatants), 

and other robotic systems; control of mission packages (see below); and for 

the accomplishment of related skills (e.g., control actuators to pick up a 

Styrofoam cup of coffee without crushing it, and later control the same 

actuators to crush a weapon to make it inoperable). 

o Learning and Adaptation—the ability of a robotic system to enhance or 

modify its artificial intelligence as well as its behavior. For example, the 

ability of a robotic system to learn new military roles when transitioning from 

conventional to irregular warfare, including learning new rules of engagement 

and adapting to changing enemy tactics. 

• Supporting functions include: 

o Mobility—ability of a robotic system to traverse through space, air, land 

(natural and manmade terrain), and water (on and under) environments; 

including combinations of those environments (e.g., systems that operate in 
18

littoral regions; systems that operate on the ground but also fly to traverse 

obstacles or large distances). 

o Robot-Human, Robot-Robot, and Robot-C4ISR30 System Interactions— 

ability to interact with other humans, robots, and C4ISR systems, which 

includes teamwork (e.g., organize into teams and allocate tasks); ability to 

communicate with others; and ability to understand "commander's intent." 

o Communications—ability to convey and receive concepts with voice, 

communications systems including military and non-military communications 

links), nonverbal communications (e.g., hand-and-arm signals, gestures), and 

graphical user interfaces. 

o Power and Energy— includes power sources (e.g., rechargeable and nonrechargeable batteries, fuel cells, engines) and energy management to support 

the robotic system and its mission package. 

o Health Maintenance— ability to make the robotic system more robust and to 

provide maintenance capabilities for self-monitoring, diagnostics, and 

recovering from component failures. 

• Mission packages include: 

o Modular physical components—(e.g., lethal weapon, non-lethal weapon, 

surveillance system) that are attached to a common robotic platform to 

provide it a unique capability 

o Modular software components—(e.g., complex "decision-focused" software, 

simplistic "decision focused" software, less complex "follow orders" software) 

to delineate higher echelon "leader" robotic systems, lower echelon leaders, 

"follower" robotic systems, or even one-of-a-kind task (e.g., robotic sensor) 

robotic systems 

Prosthetics research has made great strides because of the miniaturization of supporting 

technologies and power systems, as well as enhancements in processing and control. 

Increased DOD interest has also provided needed focus in this area. Of particular interest 

for this convergence is the linking of the brain to a robotic arm.31 A current example of 

success in this area is the demonstration of a monkey mentally controlling a robotic arm 

to feed itself a banana. This mental control results from a brain-machine interface in 

which tiny electrodes are implanted into the motor cortex of the monkey’s brain. A 61% 

task completion rate was noted in a mere two days of training, during which the 

monkey’s neuronal signals are transferred into directional signals for the robotic arm. It is 

assumed that similar mind-over-robot control can be developed with wireless 

connections. 

Mind control over objects has been demonstrated in the form of a game with a wireless 

headset. Electrical activity in the brain translates to signals understood by a computer 

 

30 Command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 31 “Monkeys control robots with their minds,” CNN, available at <http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/ 

29/monkey.robots/index.html>. 
19

controlling a fan that blows a small ball up into the air.32 The harder an individual 

concentrates, the more electrical activity generated, translating to faster propulsion of the 

fan which blows the ball higher. Obviously, this is very primitive control. However, 

given the advancements in prosthetics research and this demonstration, wireless mindmachine interfaces seem achievable. 

Interestingly, the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center (the ATC at the Aberdeen Proving 

Ground) has demonstrated the ability to tap into the workings of a warfighter's brain in an 

operational test environment.33 The ATC’s skull cap utilizes advances in electric potential 

sensors to detect bioelectric signals (electro-encephalograms [EEG] and electrocardiograms [EKG]) in atypical environments (e.g., through clothing and hair, in the 

presence of water-based fluids like sweat) without requiring skin contact or conductive 

gels. Advanced algorithms process the signals to estimate the warfighter’s cognitive 

workload, engagement, and fatigue levels. 

 

32 Joel Garreau. “What If You Could Move Objects With Your Mind? Well, That Time Has Come,” 

Washington Post Report, available at <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/04/22/ 

AR2009042204036.html>. 

33 James Buxton, “Aberdeen Test Center Warfighter Assessment,” (provided by email to the author, 

Aberdeen Test Center, March 1, 2010). 
20

VI. Technological Convergence: Scientific Underpinnings 

Prior to implementing such efforts, however, it is important to remain aware of and to 

understand the scientific underpinnings that could provide the foundation for the 

technology convergence discussed above. Two examples of scientific underpinnings 

worthy of note are mechanochemical transduction and quantum information science, both 

areas that suggest convergences of chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology, and 

materials science. 
21

Mechanochemical Transduction 

Douglas Kiserow and Kelby Kizer 

The applications of heat, pressure, or electrical energy are typical approaches used for 

activating and controlling chemical reactions. A chemist uses these energies to activate 

chemical reactions, thereby providing the common methods used to generate polymers, 

ceramics, and other modern materials.34,35 However, once materials are created they are 

susceptible to damage from other forces, such as the energy released from a physical 

impact. Despite the variety of techniques available to chemists, the response of materials 

to mechanical energy (e.g., physical damage) is the undesired breaking of chemical 

bonds, resulting in cracking and structural failure.34,36,37,38 

A revolutionary step in engineering would be possible if materials could be constructed 

such that the energy released from mechanical damage could be harnessed for useful 

chemical reactions, such as rebuilding broken bonds.34 Surprisingly, a student of Aristotle 

over 2,300 years ago made the first recorded empirical observation that mechanical 

energy applied with a mortar and pestle to certain compounds produced a unique 

chemical change.34,39 Although it was not understood at the time, chemists later identified 

this as the first recorded use of mechanical energy (in this case, grinding) to activate a 

chemical reaction.34 In addition to simple grinding, mechanical energy can include the 

relatively modest forces released by scratching, hitting, and shaking, as well as the more 

dramatic forces released by earthquakes, explosions, and projectile impacts. Polymer 

chemists hypothesized as early as the 1950s that mechanical energy provided by 

damaging forces such as a projectile impact could be harnessed to provide the necessary 

energy to activate predefined chemical reactions of choice, rather than causing the 

undesired breaking of carbon-carbon bonds in a polymer backbone.34,40 Unfortunately, 

this initial hypothesis could not be tested effectively until the past decade. 

The idea of harnessing the use of mechanical energy to activate chemical reactions, 

termed “mechanochemistry” or “mechanochemical transduction,” has come to the 

forefront of research efforts in chemical and materials science.34,41 The recent crossdisciplinary bridging of research efforts in materials science and chemistry have been 

essential in bringing this field to life, as is clear when one considers the following 

summary of the fundamental discoveries in mechanochemistry described here. 

 

34 M.K. Beyer and H. Clausen-Schaumann, “Mechanochemistry: The Mechanical Activation of Covalent 

Bonds,” Chemical Reviews, 105 (2005), 2921–2948. 35 B.M. Rosen and V. Percec, “Mechanochemistry: A Reaction to Stress,” Nature, 446 (2007), 381–382. 36 C.R Hickenboth, J.S. Moore, S.R. White, N.R. Sottos, J. Baudry, S.R. Wilson, “Biasing Reaction 

Pathways with Mechanical Force,” Nature, 446 (2007), 423–427. 37 C. Weder, “Mechanochemistry: Polymers React to Stress,” Nature, 459 (2009), 45–46. 38V.V. Boldyrev, K. Tkácová, “Mechanochemistry of Solids: Past, Present, and Prospects,” Journal of 

Materials Synthesis and Processing, 8 (2000), 1064–7562. 39 H. Staudinger and H.F. Bondy, “Über Isopren und Kautschuk,” Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen 

Gesellschaft, 63 (1930), 734–736. 40 W.F. Watson, “Die Makromolekulare Chemie,” Makromoekulare Chemie, 34 (1959), 240–252. 41M.M. Caruso, D.A. Davis, Q. Shen, S.A. Odom, N.R. Sottos, S.R White, and J.S. Moore, “MechanicallyInduced Chemical Changes in Polymeric Materials,” Chemical Reviews, 109, (2009), 5755–5798. 
22

An early piece of the mechanochemistry puzzle was reported by chemists in 2001, when 

a multi-ringed compound (spiropyran) was found to exhibit a color change from yellow 

to blue when mechanical force (again, grinding) was applied.34 This color change was 

due to the breaking of a carbon-oxygen bond within the compound. However, this 

discovery involved an isolated compound that could be probed in powdered form within 

a mortar and pestle, and was a long way from demonstrating that mechanical force can be 

harnessed to activate specific chemical reactions in a bulk material. A further limitation 

of this initial finding was that the chemical change could also be due in part to heat 

released during grinding (caused by friction), rather than directly through mechanical 

force. It was only through the convergence of research efforts in chemistry and materials 

science that the discovery, synthesis, and necessary modifications of novel chemical 

species could be combined with the expertise required to fabricate and characterize 

responsive materials.34,36,41 This confluence of disciplines directly led to the development 

of the first mechanically-responsive solid material and the multitude of new research 

efforts that followed. 

A study led at the University of Illinois, including leading chemists and materials 

scientists at a variety of universities, has been bridging research in materials and 

chemicals sciences to better understand mechanochemical transduction.36,41 In 2007, 

these investigators devised a coordinated approach for predicting, assembling, and testing 

new mechanochemical reaction pathways.35,36 Chemists from the research group 

successfully simulated a new reaction pathway, predicting a mechanism whereby 

mechanical energy would activate a reaction and generate a chemical product that neither 

heat nor light could produce. Chemists then synthesized the compounds and incorporated 

the chemicals into a monomer. Materials scientists then took a lead role by characterizing 

the sample and found that mechanical energy (and not heat) activated the covalent bonds 

of the reactants, as predicted from the simulations.35,36 Using this newfound knowledge, 

chemists then designed and synthesized mechanochemically active compounds, termed 

“mechanophores,” and incorporated these compounds into solid, polymeric materials. 

The first mechanophore to be tested in polymeric “bulk” materials was derived from 

spiropyran, the compound previously found to display a color change after mechanical 

force was applied.34,36 This solid-state bulk material was assessed in 2009 using the 

characterization methods common in materials science. The results revealed that the solid 

material displayed mechanochemical activity. When a mechanical force (stretching) was 

applied to the solid, releasing energy, a chemical change in the spiropyran mechanophore 

resulted in a visible color change. The damage-sensing polymers provided the first proofof-concept that solid materials could indeed be designed to harness energy from 

mechanical damage to activate preprogrammed chemical reactions.37,42 Based on this 

revolutionary discovery, chemists and material scientists could design these reactions to 

convert mechanical damage to anything from self-repairing the materials to reconnecting 

broken circuits. 

 

42 D.A. Davis, A. Hamilton, J. Yang, L.D. Cremar, D. Van Gough, S.L. Potisek, M.T. Ong, P.V. Braun, 

T.J. Martínez, S.R. White, J.S. Moore, and N.R. Sottos, “Force-Induced Activation of Covalent Bonds in 

Mechanoresponsive Polymeric Materials,” Nature, 459 (2009): 68–72. 
23

Following these important observations, the team of chemical and materials science 

researchers began synthesizing a wide variety of mechanophores predesigned to exhibit a 

verity of responses, including self-sensing and self-healing activities.43 A team of 

chemists and materials scientists led by the Moore group recently published results that 

demonstrated a new mechanophore released cyanoacrylate, the active ingredient of Super 

Glue®, when it was subjected to mechanical stress. Future research by this group of 

multidisciplinary investigators will involve the incorporation of this and other new 

mechanophores into polymeric materials, followed by evaluations of the corresponding 

responses to mechanical stress. If researchers can demonstrate that the new 

mechanophore-containing polymers respond to damage as designed, they will then 

investigate how the chemical structures respond when integrated into complex materials, 

such as polymer composites, metals, and/or ceramics.41,43 These mechanically-responsive 

polymers may be the first stage in the development of a new field bridging the chemical 

and material sciences. The entire mapping of such possible technology convergences is 

shown in figure 5. 

Figure 5. Technology Convergence for Mechanochemical Transduction

A report in the prestigious journal Nature commented on the first molecules developed 

through these collaborations, stating that “scientists from many disciplines will be 

 

43 M.J. Kryger, M.T. Ong, S.A. Odom, N.R. Sottos, S.R. White, T.J. Martinez, J.S. Moore, “Masked 

Cyanoacrylates Unveiled by Mechanical Force,” Journal of American Chemical Society, 132 (2010), 4558–

5799. 
24

restricted only by their imaginations when it comes to finding ways of using 

mechanically-responsive polymers....”37 Most importantly, the collaboration between 

these disciplines have opened the door to the conception of the new material designs. A 

close coordination between these disciplines in the future is essential to the success of 

this research, as each responsive molecule must be conceptually designed based on the 

desired material properties, chemically synthesized, and then carefully evaluated in a 

material system to determine whether it responds to a given force as designed.41 The 

scientific opportunities provided by these ongoing, coordinated efforts could ultimately 

lead to i) applications in vehicles, including self-repairing armor, rubber, and coatings 

resistant to chemical agents, ii) aerospace applications, whereby aircraft and even 

satellites could be equipped with responsive coatings that self-repair when exposed to 

extreme temperatures or flight stresses, iii) circuit boards that can restore lost connections 

after physical or electronic interference, and iv) materials that generate energy from 

normal wear or stress, possibly even using energy from enemy attacks to power 

equipment. 
25

Quantum Information Science 

Peter Reynolds, Marc Ulrich, and TR Govindan 

In the 1980’s and early 1990’s, a small group of theoretical physicists and information 

scientists explored the idea of utilizing fundamental features of quantum systems for 

information processing.44,45,46 The notion of a quantum bit of information (a qubit) was 

developed and a few algorithms proposed. In parallel, protocols for ultrasecure 

communications were proposed using the notion of a qubit and the potential capability of 

quantum systems to generate single and entangled photons.47,48 Much of this research 

remained niche during this period, driven by novelty and constrained by the lack of 

experimental support that could point to physical implementations. 

This picture changed dramatically in the mid-1990’s by the publication of two algorithms 

that clearly showed the power of quantum systems to solve hard computational problems, 

thought beyond the capability of classical computers.43,49 These algorithms along with the 

prior work on ultrasecure communications altered the foundations of information 

security. These developments were rapidly followed by a publication that showed that 

computational errors caused by inevitable environmental effects on a quantum system 

could be corrected.50,51 Quantum error correction pointed to the feasibility of building 

quantum information processing systems and contending with the formidable task of 

isolating the quantum system from errors caused by the environment. During this period, 

atomic physicists recognized that the techniques they had developed to control and 

manipulate atomic systems (especially for atomic clocks) could be mapped to the notion 

of a quantum bit and logical operations on quantum bits.52,53 The confluence of these 

 

44 Richard Feynman, “Simulating Physics with Computers,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 

21 (1982), 467–488. 

45 D. Deutsch, “Quantum Theory, the Church-Turing Principle and the Universal Quantum Computer,” 

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 400 (1985), 97–117. 46 D. Deutsch, “Quantum Computational Networks,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 1868 (1989), 73–90. 47 C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, “Quantum Cryptography: Public Key Distribution and Coin Tossing,” 

(presented at the International IEEE Conference on Computers, Systems & Signal Processing, Bangalore, 

India, December 10–12, 1984). 

48 P.W. Shor, “Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a 

Quantum Computer, (presented at the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 

November 20–22, 1994). 

49 L.K. Grover, “A Fast Quantum Mechanical Algorithm for Database Search,” (proceedings of the 28th 

Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 1996). 

50 P.W. Shor, “Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation,” (presented at the 37th Annual Symposium 

Foundations of Computer Science, 1996). 

51 A.M. Steane, “Efficient Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing,” Nature, 399 (1999), 124–126. 52 J. Cirac and P. Zoller, “Quantum Computation with Cold Trapped Ions,” Physical Review Letters, 74 

(1995), 4091–4094. 

53 C. Monroe, D.M. Meekhof, B.E. King, W.M. Itano, and D.J. Wineland, “Demonstration of a 

Fundamental Quantum Logic Gate,” Physical Review Letters, 75 (1995) 4714. 
26

events and convergence of research in physics, mathematics, and computer science led to 

conceptual ideas for a quantum computer.54,55 

During the last decade, QIS research has largely focused, with much success, on 

exploring physical implementations of qubits and qubit operations and new applications 

of quantum information processing. Several physical systems are being explored for the 

suitability as qubits. Qubit operations have been demonstrated in several of these 

systems, including trapped ions, photons, cold atoms, superconductors, and 

semiconductors.56 Materials and fabrication techniques for qubits have been improved to 

obtain better performance. Testbeds for quantum communications operating in 

telecommunication networks have been demonstrated.57 Additional new algorithms have 

been discovered. The last few years have also seen a widening of the field beyond 

computing and communication. Parallel research in atomic systems combined with 

progress in QIS has led to the rapidly growing field of quantum simulations. Similarly, 

new techniques for sensing, imaging, and precision measurement with potential 

capabilities beyond those of classical systems are being explored.58,59 The entire mapping 

of these, as well as additional, technological convergences is shown in Figure 6. 

The current capability to control a few qubits, combined with developed implementations 

and new algorithms, has provided new insights into the role of quantum resources 

(superposition and entangled) in overcoming limitations of classical systems. These have 

led to a broad, unified, multidisciplinary view of the field of quantum information science 

with potential revolutionary impact on a broad range of applications. In all cases, 

capabilities that overcome the limitations of classical systems are envisaged and cover 

applications in computing, communications, simulation, sensing, imaging, and 

metrology. All these capabilities are core to the Army mission, with potential 

revolutionary impact on performing the mission. 

 

54 Nielsen MA, Chuang IL. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, UK, (2000). 

55 DiVincenzo DP. “The physical implementation of quantum computation,” Fortschritte der Physik, 48 

(2000), 771–783. 

56 T.D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, J.L. O’Brien, “Quantum Computers,” 

Nature, 464 (2010), 45–53. 57 SwissQuantum. “Swiss Quantum,” SwissQuantum, available at <http://www.swissquantum.com>. 58 Ignacio Cirac, Peter Zoller, “New Frontiers in Quantum Information with Atoms and Ions,” Physics 

Today, 57 (2004), 38–44. 59 T. Rosenband, D.B. Hume, P.O. Schmidt, C.W. Chou, A. Brusch, L. Lorini, W.H. Oskay, R.E. 

Drullinger, T.M. Fortier, J.E. Stalnaker, S.A. Diddams, W.C. Swann, N.R. Newbury, W.M. Itano, D.J. 

Wineland, J.C. Bergquist, “Frequency Ratio of Al+ and Hg+ Single-Ion Optical Clocks; Metrology at the 

17th Decimal Place,” Science, 319 (2008), 1808–1812. 
27

Figure 6. Technology Convergence for Quantum Information Science
28

VII. The Army’s Next Study—Comments and 

Recommendations 

Forecasting Methodology 

The main focus of this paper has been on concepts of technological convergence and 

forecasting future developments in S&T. Forecasting is difficult due to the unpredictable 

nature of technology and often exponential technological advances. These often result 

from convergences. While it is difficult to predict when, where, and how S&T 

convergences will occur, it is possible to create an atmosphere within the Army’s 

research planning and investment activities that enhances the probability that such 

convergences can be predicted. 

Whether in industry or the military, the processes of research, development, and 

engineering are driven by mission requirement “pull” and S&T “push.” Both must be 

incorporated in a dynamic manner in S&T forecasting. Within the Army, several 

TRADOC documents describe required Force Operating Capabilities, which are tied to 

the previously discussed warfighter outcomes.7,8 The task is that of defining an end state 

for the Army. This end state is not an arbitrary point in time, but should be a continuum 

of near, mid-, and far-term capabilities responsive to the changing tactical and strategic 

demands of the Army’s missions. 

The methodology we recommend should produce a formal strategic roadmapping process 

that provides a timeline of three (near, mid, far) 5-year segments. The process can begin 

at either end (e.g., the S&T push or the mission pull); in an organization such as the 

Army, the latter is usually the starting point. The end state capabilities required to 

successfully prosecute the mission are first defined and generally based on the ultimate 

far-term requirements. The next step is to identify the actual operational capabilities, 

without regard to the current maturity of S&T, which would be required to achieve those 

end states. Simply put, what abilities must the warfighter have to accomplish his tasks? 

Following this, one identifies the science that enables operational capabilities by 

assessing current state-of-the-art developments and projecting likely advances given 

levels of investment. This process is iterative and requires a combination of independent 

subject matter experts (SMEs), Service laboratory S&T personnel, and warfighters. 

The development of the initial strategic roadmap can be viewed in three, bidirectional 

steps: know why, know what, and know how. These steps correspond to the mission, the 

operational capabilities, and the S&T. A fourth step consisting of program planning; 

execution completes the process. During the roadmapping process, key S&T areas are 

defined and assessed, and likely temporal trajectories are binned according to 5-year 

segments. Some of the specific issues this process addresses are gating and risk factors, 

current investments both within and outside of the Army S&T community, opportunities 

to leverage such investments, key S&T performers, Army S&T infrastructure (both labs 

and people), the Army’s role (e.g., lead, leverage, maintain cognizance) and potential for 

S&T convergences. 
29

This formal roadmapping process directly overlays the S&T challenges to the mission 

(e.g., the push to the pull), can be viewed in either direction, and can be mapped to 

current S&T investments. The detailed analyses described in the previous paragraphs 

provide robust criteria with which to defend current investments, justify requests for 

additional funding, and (most important) provide a dynamic framework for forecasting 

S&T developments. 

Perhaps, an additional check can be provided by proposed methodologies and use-case 

analyses to assess military benefits of S&T investments.60,61

Recommendations 

To achieve this dynamic framework for forecasting S&T developments, certain criteria 

must be met. As highlighted in the previous examples, our recommendations for 

efficiently and effectively developing a workable roadmap for such studies must include 

the following:

1. A list of critical underlying sciences for a study should be grouped into clusters 

based on the list of capabilities from the first stage. The clusters may be of closely 

related sciences, or they may be a mixture of rather different disciplines that 

might be synergistic. An example of the former could be chemistry, nanoscience, 

surface science, and material science. An example of the latter is the 

aforementioned study of nanoscience, biotechnology, information technology, and 

cognitive science. 

2. Each individual science in a cluster is first projected into the future. Each science 

would be laid out on a timeline with significant likely advances noted at the 

projected times. The projections for each member of the cluster would then be 

plotted at the same scale. 

3. Fast-moving technologies should be studied together. This can be done if the 

technologies are related. This is the case today for electronics, computers, and 

communications. 

4. The plots for each cluster are assessed to see where convergences may occur. The 

convergences are assessed for their potential for something new and unexpected. 

At some point it becomes clear that the sciences are morphing into technologies 

with the possibility of conceiving prototype devices and components. 

5. The membership of the study committees should be balanced among the various 

disciplines or sub-disciplines involved. The composition of the study committee 

can have a major effect on the results. Inevitably, the committee report will reflect 

in some measure the opinions, often strongly held, of the members. Care should 

be taken to avoid allowing any one viewpoint or personality to dominate through 

public identification of biases. Separate expert panels representing each cluster of 

 

60 Albert Sciarretta, Richard Chait, Joseph Mait, and Jordan Willcox, A Methodology for Assessing the 

Military Benefits of Science and Technology Investments, Defense & Technology Paper 55 (Washington, 

DC: Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University, September 2008). 61 Albert Sciarretta, Richard Chait, Joseph Mait, and Jordan Willcox, Assessing Military Benefits of S&T 

Investments Utilizing Use-Case Analyses, Defense & Technology Paper (Washington, DC: Center for 

Technology and National Security policy, National Defense University, to be published). 
30

science serves as an economical and effective approach to highlighting 

convergences. 

6. SMEs from the Army should be allowed to participate beyond liaison roles. One 

possibility is to require that some number of SMEs, perhaps drawn from the 

Army’s senior scientists (STs) or division chiefs in the laboratories, make 

presentations at the outset of the committee deliberations and be allowed to attend 

the meetings as observers and resource providers. (They should not, however, 

play any part in the committee’s operations nor should they participate in the 

writing of the report.) 
31

VIII. Conclusion 

This paper makes the case for approaches to be pursued when the Army conducts its next 

comprehensive S&T forecasting effort. A worthwhile exercise, forecasting can sharpen 

planning in the short term for aligning the research S&T programs with TRADOC’s list 

of needed capabilities, selectively strengthening some areas and adjusting the research 

and development budget accordingly. Focusing upon human-centric and disciplines 

related to situational awareness, as well as the scientific underpinnings of new fields, 

provides a greater possibility to identify potential convergences that can lead to desired 

capabilities and outcomes. We have provided recommendations on how to prepare 

roadmaps and implement such efforts. Through clustering and mapping each scientific 

area, we believe such studies will result in convincing rationales, and that these rationales 

should engender a better understanding of the S&T program on the part of the Army 

leadership and Congress. 

Finally, in the previous sections, we offered examples of clusters of sciences or 

technologies. These are meant to give a more detailed idea of what is meant by clusters 

and to further explain the concepts of convergence in technology forecasting. This paper 

did not carry out technology forecasting per se but rather provided examples that were 

intended to illustrate how the Army Science and Technology Executive should include 

the concept of technology convergence in a statement-of-task for the next comprehensive 

technology forecasting study conducted by the NRC or similar organizations. 
32

Appendix: Expanding on Human Warfighter Outcomes—

Biobehavioral Response 

In other relevant research, psychological hardiness has been shown to be related to a 

number of HPA (hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal) axis stress response hormones, notably 

cortisol and b-endorphin.62 These authors suggest that high hardy persons are less stressreactive and that, while basal levels of HPA hormones were somewhat elevated, hardy 

persons are less volatile in reacting to stressors. In short, hardy individuals are more 

likely to remain emotionally stable during stressful situations. 

In support of this interpretation is the observation that, for people generally, stress 

responsiveness is lowest at the circadian peak of glucocorticoid levels and highest at the 

circadian nadir. Looking at immune system functioning, significant differences between 

high and low hardy persons were identified, with the high hardy group showing more 

robust lymphocyte proliferation (T and B cells) in response to several infectious agents.63

Neurological correlates of hardy individuals and their stress response have been 

addressed in recent studies as well. A common glucocorticoid investigated in human 

stress interactions is cortisol. Increased cortisol levels are generally considered useful or 

adaptive for stress responding within limits, as cortisol affects multiple systems to 

increase energy and arousal allowing the organism to address acute threats more 

effectively. But, if these increases in cortisol and glucocorticoids should continue 

unabated, they can have a range of damaging effects on the organism, including on brain 

cells, particularly in the hippocampus.64 Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA—an adrenal 

hormone) helps to modulate or restrain the effects of cortisol.65 Summarizing results from 

several studies on DHEA and mental health and performance suggests that DHEA is a 

potentially important marker for stress resilience.66 Some indirect support for this notion 

comes from two separate studies conducted by Morgan and colleagues, both with military 

groups. In the first, positive stress response (e.g., few dissociation symptoms) was 

associated with higher DHEA-S (DHEA-sulfate)/cortisol ratios for students in military 

survival school.67 In the second study, positive stress response (few dissociation 

symptoms) was associated with higher hardiness (challenge) levels in Norwegian officer 

 

62 E.P. Zorrilla, R.J. DeRubeis, and E. Redei, “High Self-Esteem, Hardiness and Affective Stability are 

Associated with Higher Basal Pituitary Adrenal Hormone Levels,” Psychoneuroendocrinology, 20 (1995), 

591–601. 

63 C.L. Dolbier, R.R. Cocke, J.A. Leiferman, M.A. Steinhardt, et. al, “Differences in Immune Responses of 

High vs. Low Hardy Healthy Individuals,” Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 24 (2001), 219–229. 64 R. Sapolsky, “Stress and Plasticity in the Limbic System,” Neurochemical Research, 28 (2003), 1735–

1742. 

65 E.S. Browne, B.E. Wright, J.R. Porter and F. Svec, “Dehydroepiandrosterone: An Antiglucocorticoid 

Action in Mice,” American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 303 (1992), 366–371. 66 D.S. Charney, “Psychobiological Mechanisms of Resilience and Vulnerability: Implications for 

Successful Adaptation to Extreme Stress,” American Journal of Psychiatry,161 (2004), 195–2216. 67 C. A. Morgan, S. Southwick, G. Hazlett, A. Rasmusson, G. Hoyt, Z. Zimolo and D. Charnery, 

“Relationships Among Plasma Dehydroepiandrosterone Sulfate and Cortisol Levels, Symptoms of 

Dissociation, and Objective Performance in Humans Exposed to Acute Stress,” Archives of General 

Psychiatry ̧ 61 (2004), 819–825.
33

cadets undergoing a stressful military exercise.68 The same measure of dissociative 

symptoms was used in both studies. This suggests there may also be a correlation 

between hardiness and DHEA-S/cortisol ratio, but to date this possibility has not been 

fully explored. 

 

68 Eid and Morgan, “Dissociation, Hardiness, and Performance in Military Cadets Participating in Survival 

Training,” Military Medicine, 171 (2006), 436–442.