Forecasting Science and 

Technology for the 

Department of Defense

John W. Lyons, Richard Chait, and James J. Valdes 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy 

National Defense University 

December 2009 
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. 

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 

Standards and Technology. Dr. Lyons received his PhD from Washington University. He 

holds a BA from Harvard. 

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. 

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. 

Acknowledgments 

The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. Thomas Killion, Army S&T Executive, for his 

continuous support and interest in this area, and Ms. Cheryl Loeb and Ms. Ewelina Tunia 

for their astute assistance in preparation of the manuscript. 

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. 
iii

Contents 

Introduction......................................................................................................................................1 

Background......................................................................................................................................4 

Convergences...................................................................................................................................5 

Forecasting.......................................................................................................................................8 

Options for New Studies................................................................................................................10 

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................15 
iv
1

Introduction

Since World War II, predictions of science and technology for military applications have 

occurred periodically. A study chartered by the Army Air Force1 predicted in 1947 a 

broad range of developments in aeronautics and air power and has been a model for such 

forecasts ever since. Projections in science and technology have been issued for many 

years by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies, which 

publishes decadal studies for specific disciplines. Such studies for astronomy and 

astrophysics, for example, go back to at least 1964. 

An important task of 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, with 

the result being new military requirements, some of which can be met by technology. 

Shaping the S&T portfolio requires predicting and matching these two factors well into 

the future. Some examples of technologies that have radically affected the battlefield 

include the Global Positioning System coupled with inexpensive, handheld receivers; the 

microprocessor revolution, which has placed the power of the Internet and satellite 

communications in the hands of soldiers in the field; new sensing capabilities such as 

night vision; and composite materials for armor and armaments. Some of these 

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. 

In the Department of Defense (DOD), the last series of forecast studies was done in the 

1990s.2 In 2008, National Defense University’s Center for Technology and National 

Security Policy (CTNSP) assessed the Army’s STAR 21 (Strategic Technologies for the 

Army of the Twenty-First Century) study,3 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. In general, the technologies 

of individual systems were not discussed with reference to the underlying sciences. This 

 

1

 Theodore von Karman, Toward New Horizons (Washington, D.C.: United States Army Air Force, 1945). 

The study, performed by the new Army Air Force Science Advisory Group, chaired by Von Karman, 

charted the way ahead for air power for the United States. The history of this study is in: Michael H. Gorn, 

editor, Prophecy Fulfilled, ‘Toward New Horizons’ and its Legacy (Washington, DC: Air Force Historical 

Studies Office, 1994), available at <http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/authorindex.htm. 2

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

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

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992); Naval Studies Board, 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: Department of the Air Force, 1995). 3

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

Predictions in the Army’s STAR21 Report, Defense & Technology Paper 50 (Washington, DC: Center for 

Technology and National Security Policy, July 2008). 
2

separation of future capabilities from the underlying S&T forecasts was true for the 

studies of all three services. 

Forecasting the future 25 or 30 years out is a chancy business at best, and one should not 

expect perfection. The CTNSP assessment of the Army’s STAR 21 predictions revealed 

that, after 15 years, about a quarter of the predictions were right on target as of 2008, 

some were overly optimistic, some were too conservative, some were wrong, and some 

important developments were missed completely, as illustrated by the following 

examples:4

Correctly predicted: 

• The information explosion 

• Speed of computer operations 

• Biosensors 

• Organic and resin matrix composites 

• Diesel turbo compounding 

Progress overestimated: 

• Information saturation 

• Automated target recognition 

• Metal matrix composites 

• Electromagnetic gun technology 

Progress underestimated: 

• Distributed processing 

• Computer memories 

• Functional materials 

• Manufacturing at nanoscale 

Some wrong predictions: 

• Development of a battle control language 

• Free electron lasers for destroying missiles 

• Tungsten to replace depleted uranium in armor and penetrators 

Significantly, the STAR 21 study did not anticipate the impact of the Internet and the 

World Wide Web, the advent of international fiber optic links, the proliferation of 

personal computational devices, nor the spread of wireless technology. Revolutions are 

difficult to predict; evolutionary changes are easier. The imperfections of the STAR 21 

study did not, however, lessen its usefulness. It served to educate the senior leadership in 

the Army about the exciting nature of S&T. A copy of the summary report was sent to all 

 

4

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

Technology Predictions in the Army’s STAR21 Report, Defense & Technology Paper 50 (Washington, DC: 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy, July 2008). 
3

general officers.5

 The study gave additional credibility to budget proposals for S&T and 

broadened the horizons and challenged the thinking about the future of those Army 

scientists and engineers who sat in on the deliberations of the NRC study committee. 

The CTNSP report ended with recommendations to update the Army study, combine 

forecasts of the sciences with the technologies, and conduct at least a portion of such 

studies jointly with the Navy and the Air Force. 

 

This paper begins with a discussion of recent trends in S&T, particularly how various 

disciplines have converged to produce new capabilities. There follows consideration of 

how a new series of studies might be conducted with an eye to taking into account such 

convergences. We offer a detailed set of recommendations on the organization and 

management of a series of tri-service studies. 

 

5

 Private communication from LTG Mal O’Neill (US Army ret.), December 3, 2007. 

RISK FACTORS 

There are many reasons why a forecast may go astray. One is the quality of the expertise 

on the study committees. Included in this may be a too-strong bias or even conflict of 

interest on the committees. For example, some members may try to sway the group to 

emphasize their particular areas It is important to appoint people with broad experience 

and perspective, and it would be helpful to include some futurists to stimulate imaginative 

thinking. Another reason may be attempting to cover too many areas in too short a time. 

In STAR 21, long-term basic research was separated from shorter-term technology 

forecasts. The CTNSP retrospective analysis suggests that the two should be studied 

together in order to reduce redundancies and to improve the understanding of how the 

basic and applied studies reinforce each other. Finally, some things, especially those with 

truly disruptive potential, often just cannot be anticipated, either in S&T itself or in the 

changing environment. 
4

Background

In many cases, forecasting is an implicit part of near-term program planning, defined as 

the direction a program will take over 5 years (the Federal budget is supposed to cover 

the next budget year plus 4 additional years). In planning the work of a laboratory, one 

has to take into account the mission of the organization and the expressed and anticipated 

needs of the users of the results. Planners also have to assess the laboratory’s strengths 

and ability to mount new programs in a timely way, while taking into account a vision of 

what the trends in S&T portend. These trends have to be assessed and then predictions 

made for the future,6

 but formal, long-range S&T forecasting has not often been 

attempted within DOD. On occasion, technology leaders may sponsor detailed studies of 

advances in S&T many years into the future. The three studies, STAR 21 and the Navy 

and Air Force studies, in the 1990s were done by outside experts. Two were done on 

contract to the National Academies’ NRC; the third was done by an advisory board 

consisting of outside experts but convened by the service secretary and chief of staff. 

In past studies there has been a tendency to make projections in the sciences in 

“stovepipes,” restricting the subject matter analysis to one scientific discipline. Thus, the 

NRC has been conducting decadal studies in such areas as astronomy, atmospheric 

sciences, and chemical engineering. Because the trend in research is toward 

multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary subjects, forecasts will have to follow suit. 

 

6

 John W. Lyons, Assessing and Predicting for Army Science and Technology, Defense & Technology 

Paper12, (Washington, DC: Center for Technology and National Security Policy, March 2005). 
5

Convergences

Assessments may begin by looking back in time to chart the development of the 

disciplines of interest leading up to an evaluation of the current state of the art. One 

example of assessing the evolution of science and technology is our series of papers on 

the development of four successful Army systems as the products of a study called 

Project Hindsight Revisited.7

 In each of the four systems, new technologies came 

together to enable new capabilities. The improved armor of the Abrams main battle tank 

arose from developments in processing depleted uranium, in design of the tank silhouette, 

in new or improved materials such as composites, and new welding technology for 

fastening the plates that surround the hull and the turret. Similar developments occurred 

for the tank’s 120mm gun, the 120mm kinetic energy round (M829A3), and gun accuracy 

technologies The same picture emerged from studies of the Apache attack helicopter and 

the Stinger and Javelin man-portable missile systems. 

The advent of radar can be traced back to the convergence of the science of 

electromagnetic radiation and its behavior in interacting with materials, the development 

of microwave generators, antennae, transmitters, power supplies, and displays.8

 The 

various technologies converged only in 1936. 

More recently, advances in solid-state physics, processes for making microelectronics, 

fiber optics, and computer technology made possible the technologies that have produced 

worldwide, broadband digital networks. Progress in telephony led to handheld wireless 

devices that are both telephones and computers, and access to the Internet is now 

available through telephone networks, bringing this particular technology convergence 

full circle.9

Two examples of convergence in the life sciences are especially illustrative. In the early 

1980s, scientists began to think about designing sensors that did not require a priori 

 

7

 Richard Chait, John Lyons, and Duncan Long, Critical Technology Events in the Development of the 

Abrams Tank, Defense & Technology Paper 22 (Washington, DC: Center for Technology and National 

Security Policy, 2005); Richard Chait, John Lyons, and Duncan Long, Critical Technology Events in the 

Development of the Apache Helicopter, Defense & Technology Paper 26 (Washington, DC: Center for 

Technology and National Security Policy, 2006); John Lyons, Richard Chait, and Duncan Long, Critical 

Technology Events in the Development of the Stinger and Javelin Missile Systems, Defense & Technology 

Paper 33 (Washington, DC: Center for Technology and National Security Policy, 2006); John Lyons, 

Richard Chait, and Duncan Long, Critical Technology Events in the Development of Selected Army 

Weapons Systems, Defense & Technology Paper 35 (Washington, DC: Center for Technology and National 

Security Policy, 2006); Richard Chait, John Lyons, Duncan Long, and A. Sciarretta, Enhancing Army 

S&T—Lessons from Project Hindsight Revisited, (Washington, DC: Center for Technology and National 

Security Policy, 2007). 

8

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

Technology Paper 17, (Washington, D.C.: Center for Technology and National Security Policy, August 

2005). 

9

 The impact of these innovations on, for example, the world of business is described in Thomas L. 

Friedman, The World is Flat, A brief History of the Twenty-First Century, Release 2.0, (New York: Farmer, 

Strauss and Giroux, 2006).
6

knowledge of the substance to be detected and could in fact be trained to mimic 

physiology in an artificial system. Since the most sensitive natural detectors were the 

olfactory systems of animal species, such as pigs and dogs, it was clear that an 

understanding of the molecular physiology of ligand-receptor interactions, as well as the 

integrative properties of neuronal systems, would offer a solution to this challenge. An 

early concept for the design of such sensors involved coupling physiological receptors 

with physical optical and electronic sensors to create what is now called a “biosensor.” 

The technological bottlenecks to achieving a true biosensor were many. Receptor 

biochemistry was in its infancy; a number of receptors had been purified, but most could 

not function outside their native membranes and were very labile. A few receptors had 

been cloned and produced in small quantities, but biomanufacturing technology was 

essentially nonexistent. Studies therefore focused on isolating receptors from animal 

tissues and coating crude homogenates onto microsensor platforms. A second major 

barrier was a lack of understanding at the molecular level of the interactions between 

organic receptors and their nonbiological, microsensor supports. Third, there was very 

limited ability for the de novo design of novel receptors that could be tailored to have 

specific functional properties, nor was there much success with artificial receptors, such 

as molecularly imprinted polymers or bioengineered antibodies. Finally, the materials, 

micromachining techniques, and computational software required to design and assemble 

an integrated biosensor were nonexistent or, at best, inadequate. 

Over the course of two decades, a series of technological convergences occurred that 

radically reshaped the nascent field of biosensing in a nonlinear manner. These 

technological convergences represented a transdisciplinary approach to science, one in 

which basic concepts in one discipline would fundamentally alter approaches to a 

seemingly unrelated discipline. First, molecular biological techniques allowed the cloning 

of receptor proteins and their production in large quantities, which in turn permitted 

detailed studies of their structure and function. Driven by developments in prosthetics 

and tissue engineering of artificial organs, the interface between receptors and their 

artificial supports became the object of intense study. Further, detailed studies of the 

receptors coupled with new computational methods resulted in the design of protein 

motifs with specific functional characteristics, and ultimately to de novo design of 

artificial receptors. Finally, nanotechnology and its offshoots provided unprecedented 

control over material properties using both directed and self-assembly techniques. 

The coincident maturation of many seemingly unrelated disciplines such as protein 

chemistry, molecular biology, nanomaterials, metabolic engineering, biomanufacturing, 

systems engineering, informatics, micromachining, and neurobiology was equal parts 

serendipity and design. The result of that maturation was an accelerated leap forward of 

biosensor technology and opportunities in such areas as industrial process control, 

biological computing, and personal medicine that could not have been imagined in the 

absence of technological convergence. 

Another, more famous, example of scientific and technological convergence was the 

confluence of organic chemistry, physics, genomics, and information technology that has 
7

transformed our understanding of living systems. In 1953, James Watson and Francis 

Crick announced that they had elucidated the structure of DNA and had therefore 

“discovered the secret of life.” While this was a monumental intellectual achievement, 

the available technology at the time severely limited progress in applying this knowledge. 

In 1984, Kary Mullis, an organic chemist, figured out a process by which very small 

quantities of DNA could be amplified with high fidelity. This process, known as 

polymerase chain reaction (PCR), for the first time, allowed scientists to produce DNA in 

large quantities. Roughly during this period, Leroy Hood and colleagues at the California 

Institute of Technology developed four important technologies, DNA and protein 

sequencers and synthesizers, that automated these processes and led to sequencing of the 

entire human genome and a discipline now called genomics. 

It was at this time that information technology (IT), with its ability to archive, selectively 

access, and analyze enormous quantities of data, converged with genomics, and its ability 

to generate the enormous amount of information represented by DNA. The combination 

of technologies produced an exponential leap in our understanding of genes and what 

they do that could not have been achieved with the one-gene-at-a-time approach that 

preceded this convergence. Genomics has led to other “omics,” such as proteomics, 

transcriptomics, and metabolomics (collectively known as panomics), and the application 

of more sophisticated IT techniques has created the field of systems biology, which, for 

the first time, considers biological organisms as integrated systems or ecologies. These 

developments will revolutionize the field of medicine, as the practice of personal 

medicine—health technologies tailored to the individual—is now possible. Thus, the 

convergence of organic chemistry, panomics, IT, and medical technology has 

fundamentally changed modern medical practice, which previously was based on group 

norms rather than individual differences at the molecular level. 

Retrospective studies of convergence are relatively easy to do, and the conclusions from 

them are fairly clear. It is a different story when looking into the future. 
8

Forecasting 

It would be desirable in forecasting to avoid the stovepipe effect. As we have seen, some 

remarkable advances in technical knowledge and capability have come from the 

conjunction of developments in two or more disciplines. So, rather than simply projecting 

each individual discipline, it should be more useful to forecast convergences of disparate 

areas of S&T. An example is given in figure 1. 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Nano/Bio Bricks

Complex Abiotic 

Systems

Dynamic 

Biotic/Abiotic 

Interfaces

Energy at Small 

Scales

Non-electronic/Nonoptical Signaling

Standard synthetic components will allow all laboratories to create new molecular devices, doing for synthetic biology what computer chip did for information technology.

Rational design of metabolic pathways and devices will enable the creation of new capabilities not found in nature. 

Complete parts libraries will permit mass manufacture of abiotic systems. 

Materials capable of modulating the biotic/abiotic interface will permit hybrid device design as well as the interaction between abiotic devices and the environment.

Click chemistries will make use of new emergent molecules other than ATP and provide power at the microscale. Unnatural amino acids will allow construction of an unlimited number of new protein-like structures.

Self-programming materials will use the libraries to enable repair and adaptive mechanisms. 

Regenerable power will eliminate use of batteries or other power sources with limited lifespan.

Amorphous computing will inform emergent behaviors.

 Key for S&T Convergences:

Strategic Science Roadmap 

Development Begins: *Investment:

Technology Source: Impact of Technology:

Initial key components

Materials development

Lead Partner Disruptive Differentiating

On-demand design

Hybrid structures Smart abiotic structures

Comms and self power

Adaptive autonomous systems

Regenerable power at the micro-scale

Click chemistry, unnatural amino acids

1

2

4

Rules for rational design

5

6

3

*L

*M

*M

*M

*H

7

Self-programming materials

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

( H > $8M) (M - $2M-$8M) (L < $2M)

Non-optical, non-electronic signaling

Amorphous and decentralized computing

8

Figure 1. A Roadmap Showing Convergences. 

Figure 1 illustrates an example of the projected convergence of technologies which could 

result in adaptive, autonomous systems possessing some of the characteristics of living 

organisms. In the left column are four major topic areas. In the rows are critical stages of 

development within each area, beginning with the year 2010. The vertical arrows 

connecting various stages of two or more broad areas indicate convergence. For example, 
9

in the year 2013, developments in nano/bio bricks (biological building blocks at the 

atomic or molecular level) join with advances in materials research on biotic/abiotic 

interfaces. The top of the chart indicates a prediction of convergences from arrows 1 and 

4 to enable the creation in abiotic systems of new molecular devices producing hybrids 

between biological and nonbiological materials. 

Farther along on the chart, developments indicated by vertical arrows 2, 6, and 8 are 

predicted to enable constructing adaptive autonomous systems. The footnotes give the 

predictions of new capabilities created by combining developments in the separate 

scientific areas. 

Another example is the field of metamaterials. Metamaterials are synthetic composites 

consisting of a well-ordered, dispersed phase in a matrix; the phases are made of 

materials of differing properties, such as electromagnetic behavior.10 First discovered in 

the 1940s, they became of great interest in the discovery of negative refractive indices for 

a composite structure comprising a dispersed phase of nanometer dimensions in a matrix. 

To affect the refractive index, “its features [of the dispersed phase] must be much smaller 

than the electromagnetic waves utilized. For visible light the composite’s structures are of 

the order of 280nm or less.”11 Such structures are now readily available through the 

techniques of nanotechnology. Applications may be suggested by the observation in the 

laboratory of effects known as super lensing and cloaking phenomena. The super lenses 

are reported to have resolution of as much as three times the diffraction limit. The 

cloaking devices have the potential to render objects made of certain metamaterials 

invisible by bending the incoming light wave around the object and then reconstituting 

the wave on the other side. DARPA has had a program investigating such materials since 

2001. While metamaterials and nanotechnology have come together, we should ask what 

other disciplines will add to the mix to enable new knowledge and new capabilities. Such 

questions should be addressed in any new forecasting effort. 

Finally, the Global Positioning System (GPS) is the result of discoveries in atomic 

spectroscopy leading to atomic clocks. This precision alone would not have been 

sufficient to enable creation of the GPS. Also required was the ability to place satellites in 

desired orbits, which in turn required advances in microelectronics. 

Forecasts need to look at discoveries at the frontiers that may give rise to unanticipated 

new technologies. A review of recent Nobel prizes for science and technology would 

provide one list of topics. 

 

10 For a current example of the making of such a composite see K.J. Stebe, E. Lewandowski, M. Ghosh, 

“Oriented Assembly of Metamaterials,” Science, July 10, 2009, 159–160. 11 See Wikipedia entry for “Metamaterials,” available at <http://en.wikipedia/wiki/Metamaterial>. 
10

Options for New Studies

There are a number of ways to approach organizing and managing forecasts for DOD 

science and technology. The approaches used in the 1990s studies represent two options. 

The Army and Navy studies were done on contract to the NRC, while the Air Force study 

was done by its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), two very different processes. Studies 

at the NRC are conducted at arm’s length; the process is managed by the NRC, and the 

services may only offer suggestions. Conversely, the SAB is established by the Air Force 

and reports to the Chief of Staff and the Secretary, and is thus very close to its sponsor. 

Consider now two approaches to a study that could be used. One begins with the basic 

sciences and related technologies, projects them into the future, and then analyzes the 

resulting trend lines to see what synergies might occur and what new capabilities might 

be possible. This has been the traditional approach in forecasting. The other approach is 

to list future needs for capabilities, and infer from each what technologies and underlying 

basic scientific advances would be required. In fact, a combination of the two approaches 

would be the ideal strategy, with the result being a set of charts showing the pathways 

from the present state of the art out to the new capabilities of the future. The displays may 

take various forms, two examples being an arrow diagram and a roadmap. 

An arrow diagram is easy to develop if one is looking back in time. An example is shown 

in figure 2, wherein the threads of basic and applied research, advanced development, 

and engineering development come together to supply the 120mm kinetic energy round 

known as the A829A1. This is a convergence chart without details for the individual 

threads that contribute to it. Another way to display the results is to make a roadmap (for 

an example see figure 1) charting the routes taken by each contributing science or 

technology as a function of time. This map can be built forward from the present or 

backward from the future. The map will show when each piece will be ready and which 

is the rate-limiting step before convergence can occur. A set of research projects can then 

be designed to mature each thread and funded so as to address the most difficult 

challenges. The idea of convergences can not only improve forecasting but also be a 

guide for investing limited S&T funds in key points of leverage. 
11

Figure 2. From Basic Research to Final Product – the M829A1 Kinetic Energy Round for 

the 120mm Gun.12

The Need for a Tri-Service Study 

The Army’s STAR 21 study at the NRC was chartered to identify advances in S&T 

projected a quarter of a century and more into the future, advances that would be 

important for ground warfare, and to suggest strategies for developing their full 

potential.13 CTNSP, some 16 years later, did an assessment of the predictions made in 

that study.14 CTNSP recommended that the Army continue to conduct periodic reviews 

of critical areas in S&T, making predictions well into the future. The results would help 

shape the S&T portfolio in those areas as well as give basic information to the senior 

leadership of the Army and stakeholders elsewhere in the government. 

The CTNSP report recommended that such assessments be made every 10 years, that the 

topics be grouped together, and that the groups be studied on a rolling schedule so that 

 

12 The figure was drawn by the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and 

Technology for use in various presentations. 

13 See ref. 14. STAR 21-Strategic Technologies for the Army of the Twenty-First Century (Washington, 

D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992). 

14 See ref. 15. 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, 

D.C.: Center for Technology and National Security Policy, July 2008). 
12

only a portion is studied each year. The report recommended that the three armed 

services carry out the studies jointly, as this would not only provide efficiencies but also 

draw the services’ S&T efforts closer together and help support the needs of the joint 

operations commands. The report made a number of other suggestions to improve the 

study process. 

Given that the three services will have needs for different end-state capabilities, a triservice study will need to predict progress for an agreed upon set of underlying sciences, 

and to predict along the timelines, emerging technologies, devices, and components 

where applicable. The results from the study would be displayed as roadmaps for clusters 

of related sciences. Each service would then gather up the threads and convergences for 

their own purposes and plan technology R&D leading finally to their individual desired 

capabilities. 

The recommended approach is the following: 

Each service separately sets forth the capabilities it would like to have 25 (or 15, or 20) 

years in the future. For example, the Army might have a target for a battlespace where 

the potential for serious injury to soldiers is nil. Advances in robotics and robotic 

vehicles, advances in soldier protection, in remote detection and remote fires—all would 

be applicable. 

The three services agree on a list of critical underlying sciences for the study and group 

them 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. 

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. 

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. At this point the interests of 

the three services will likely begin to diverge. 

Each service plans and budgets in its S&T program accordingly. Each service would 

then assess the potential of following up the most promising leads from the predictions 

for the sciences and the clusters of sciences. 
13

Organizing and Managing the Studies

There are several different ways to conduct a tri-service study of this kind. The questions 

to be answered include: What is the scope of the study? Who should sponsor the study? 

Who should set the agenda? Who should manage the study? Who should serve on the 

expert panel(s), and how should they be selected? What should be the role of DOD inhouse experts? Each of these questions is addressed below. 

The first decision is whether to restrict the tri-service study to the prediction of 

developments in basic science. Going beyond basic science to more applied work to 

explore new devices and components could be done jointly if the work stops short of 

considering complete systems, since such systems will differ from service to service. The 

study should be funded jointly by the three services or by the DDR&E office working 

with the services. DDR&E participation would add impact on senior-level 

decisionmaking once the results are available. The agenda for the study would consist of 

an assessment and projection into the future of a set of scientific disciplines. These would 

be done in clusters of disciplines thought likely to produce synergies. The agenda would 

be set by senior DOD scientists selected by the Defense S&T Advisory Group (DSTAG) 

working with staff from the DDR&E office and the services. 

Next is the decision as to who should manage the study. One option is to do the study inhouse using in-house experts. Another possibility is to contract the project to an outside 

group. Two of the three studies done in the 1990s were conducted by the NRC; the third 

was done by the Air Force SAB, a formal advisory committee under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. Other options include such analytical organizations as RAND 

and MITRE. Contracting for the study would give the results more credibility than if it is 

done solely in-house, the latter tending to be criticized as being too limited and too 

parochial. Maximum credibility would be obtained by using the NRC. 

The study should be made by a set of expert panels, perhaps one for each cluster of 

sciences. It would be possible to have a panel for each science, but this would be 

unwieldy and would increase the chance of missing possible convergences. Using a panel 

per cluster is a more economical approach and would get at the objective of finding 

convergences more effectively. For assessing clusters of sciences, the panels should have 

experts from each science in the cluster. Additionally, one or more generalists and 

futurists would be useful. These panelists should not be too focused on their own 

subdisciplines but rather should have broad knowledge of their parent disciplines. 

Experience shows that if a panel member has too strong a bias toward his or her own 

work, the work of the panel can be skewed. Pains should be taken to avoid or manage 

conflicts of interest. This should be done by requiring a statement of potential issues by 

the nominees, thereby enabling the contractor either to disqualify the nominee or to make 

appointments to balance the conflicts. In the latter procedure, the nominees should 

publicly identify their biases. This disclosure should also indentify sources of sponsored 

funds to each panelist for his or her own research. 
14

Finally, the study should make use of in-house DOD subject matter experts (SMEs). In 

past NRC studies, SMEs from the government sponsor have been relegated to observer 

status with the possibility of answering questions only to clarify some aspect of the 

sponsor’s work. A more active role of DOD SMEs would give the panels a fuller 

appreciation of the military’s interest and needs. Certainly the military’s most senior 

technical staff—especially the people holding ST rank (a non-administrative rank for 

Senior Technical professionals equivalent to members of the Senior Executive Service 

and flag officers)—would add strength and perspective to panel deliberations. Their 

participation would also help them to educate the DOD staff who must deal with the 

results of the study, and would provide corporate memory as the recommendations are 

implemented. 
15

Conclusion

Forecasting science and technology is a worthwhile exercise in that it sharpens planning 

in the shorter term for, among other things, aligning the research program with the 

TRADOC list of needed capabilities, selectively strengthen some areas while reducing 

others, and adjusting the research and development budget. We believe forecasting 

should be done by panels of leading experts in the fields to be studied and that selected 

disciplines should be studied together to look for potential convergences or serendipities. 

We also believe and strongly recommend that DOD conduct tri-service studies of 

underlying sciences important to the military, and that such studies be done in a rolling 

fashion so that the scope not be overly ambitious for any one year. We conclude that any 

given area should be the subject of a forecast every 10 years. Such studies will result in 

more convincing program rationales and should engender more support from senior DOD 

leaders and the Congress.