NAS counterterror study due in June

WASHINGTON, May 29 (UPI) -- A study by the National Academies of Science of how the science and technology community can best respond against terrorism should be ready for White House review by June 19, the study's co-chair said Wednesday.

Lewis Branscomb, professor emeritus at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, along with John Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, discussed the study and the administration's plans for it at a news conference.

Before the session began, Branscomb told Marburger the study should get through its peer-review process in time for a June 19 briefing with OSTP personnel. Administration officials would have a day or so to remove items deemed too sensitive for public dissemination, Branscomb told Marburger.

The academies launched the study with their own funds shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks and convened their first meeting in December, Branscomb told reporters. The final version should be available to the public June 25, he said.

"We've been trying to do what usually takes two years in four months," Branscom said. "We've thought hard about how the government can deploy (technology) in a useful form. We're not going to sit back and say, 'Here's a wonderful agenda for keeping scientists busy for the next 10 years.' We're not about that at all."

The study focuses on key risks and research needs in such vulnerable areas as nuclear and radiological hazards, critical infrastructure and human, animal and agricultural health. The study does not attempt to identify the greatest risk the country faces, Branscomb said, because that involves current intelligence to which the group does not have access. Both prevention and response capabilities will be addressed, but not equally, he said.

"Different sectors are very different in this respect," Branscomb continued. "In the nuclear case, you really have to prevent. In the bio case, it's very hard to prevent but there's a lot you can do to respond and mitigate the damage."

The NAS study will also provide guidance on how the counterterror effort could affect open scientific communication and foreign students' involvement in U.S. research.

The study arrives as the Office of Homeland Security assembles a strategic plan for the domestic front in the war against terrorism, Marburger told reporters. The plan should be finalized by mid-summer, giving federal agencies enough lead time to incorporate its priorities into their fiscal year 2004 budget requests, he said.

A key segment of that plan will be centralizing the methods for evaluating private-sector technology suggestions, Marburger said. A technical support working group, created after the anthrax incidents to filter a flood of biodefense projects, gives some idea of how the Federal government will interface with inventors and small businesses, he said.

"This applies really to only a fraction of the ideas out there," Marburger said. "It's going to take some additional planning and strategizing before the parameters for procurement of anything more sophisticated can be achieved."

Both men acknowledged the counterterror effort could lead to the government creating entire industries in much the same way the Cold War did. Branscomb noted such efforts have largely been privatized successfully.

A more challenging problem will be finding the proper method for the government to coax existing industries, such as computer- and Internet-related companies, into hardening their products against terrorism threats, Branscomb said. The lack of market forces involved would make current regulatory or subsidy-type programs ineffective, he said, suggesting voluntary agreements among competitors could be the answer.

Branscomb would not discuss the study's possible technology R&D suggestions because the review process is ongoing. Marburger pointed out database-fusion software as one promising avenue of study. Companies already have products enabling users to gather information from a variety of databases regardless of their format.

Both speakers said the government must include ongoing evaluations of whatever projects are chosen in order to ensure the technologies deliver on their promises. Given the war on terror's uncertain end point, planners must give special attention to the possible privacy and civil liberties aspects of selected solutions, they said.