The battlefield and economic advantages provided by research and technology development efforts are as relevant today as they were in previous historical periods. Just as the first people to harness the knowledge of making bronze weapons or splitting the atom gained an advantage, the research conducted in our laboratories enables the United States to continue to be a viable superpower on the world stage. In addition, as pointed out in a recent Global R&D Funding Forecast, GDP growth has been closely tied to R&D growth, highlighting the national importance of technological innovation in these economic times. Developing new technologies ensures we remain competitive in modern economic and military arenas, but only if we protect the fruits of our labor.
Throughout history, major military engagements have spurred research and technology developments. When a nation is at war it becomes vitally important to develop technology that provides a battlefield advantage. The slightest edge can mean victory or defeat and save countless soldiers’ lives. Developing new technology requires an investment in R&D, not only to gain and preserve the military edge, but to also contribute to job growth. In April 2009, President Obama proposed a goal of investing 3% or more of the U.S. annual gross domestic product in R&D activities for 2010. This would be quite an investment considering the federal 2009 budget for R&D exceeded $147.1 billion. This would represent the largest investment in U.S. history—vastly more than during the space race of the 1950s and 60s.
While the United States government and commercial industries dedicate increasingly more resources to research and technology development, the Defense Security Service estimates that more than 100 countries are actively involved in economic espionage activities targeting our innovations. In fact, these countries are alarmingly successful. The Department of Justice estimates intellectual property losses cost U.S. companies as much as $250 billion last year and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates losses of 750,000 jobs as a result of intellectual property theft. Losses of this magnitude can dramatically reduce any gains achieved by investing in R&D activities.
With billions of dollars invested in R&D and soldier lives on the line, some of these research breakthroughs are logically worth protecting from our adversaries. However, at the same time we must seriously consider with whom we should share these breakthroughs that may benefit the greater good. Atomic and nuclear research yielded weapons with unprecedented destructive power, but also the ability to provide energy at unmatched levels. Weighing the costs of rogue entities having this destructive capability versus the energy benefits nations could receive are pinnacle examples of research that is controlled as opposed to open for free collaboration. The potential costs of freely sharing nuclear research poses an ultimate threat to humanity in the wrong hands, and as such is logically controlled.
When determining which aspects of R&D may be shared, protected or logically controlled, a similar cost and benefit analysis is performed. Scientific breakthroughs are best achieved by collaboration, but at what cost? That is often the unpredictable and difficult part of the equation to solve. The essential question becomes what knowledge can be gained by sharing, and what competitive economic or battlefield advantages could then potentially be lost?
When considering the advantages and disadvantages of independent research versus collaborative research, the essential question of whether to safeguard or share only becomes more complicated. If a company or nation achieves a scientific breakthrough independently, they have a competitive advantage. Working with partners and allies could enable collaboration to benefit the team and reduce R&D costs. However, it could also expose the knowledge gained to a potential wider range of exploitation because of the involvement of multiple members, possibly with varying levels of security and protection.
Between industry and DoD different yet synonymous terms may be applied to protecting an organization’s competitive advantage. Whereas a company may label research that should be safeguarded proprietary information, within DoD the information requiring protection is termed Critical Program Information (CPI). Likewise in industry the CIO, CSO, and CISO are chartered to protect proprietary information, their counterparts in DoD are research and technology protection (RTP) professionals. These personnel, known as Technology Protection Officers (TPOs) and Technology Protection Engineers (TPEs), provide subject matter expertise to DoD’s research, development and acquisition activities with a goal of shielding certain aspects of military research from inadvertent or inappropriate disclosure.
While scientists and engineers do their level best to expand the boundaries of knowledge, RTP professionals strive to appropriately protect the fruits of their labor. Their duty…safeguard the national technological edge. As articulated in DoDI 5200.39, RTP professionals strive to provide “uncompromised and secure military systems to the warfighter by performing comprehensive protection of CPI through the integrated and synchronized application of Counterintelligence, Intelligence, Security, Systems Engineering, and other defensive countermeasures to mitigate risk. Failure to apply consistent protection of CPI may result in the loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability of CPI, resulting in the impairment of the warfighter’s capability and DoD’s technological superiority”.
Devoting time and resources to protect our national competitiveness is more important than ever in light of the current economic crisis and our military engaged in combat operations overseas. Technology protection professionals working hand in hand with our scientists and engineers to appropriately safeguard and share research is a crucial step in maintaining our national advantages. They are one team in one fight: preserving our technological advantage for generations to come.
About the authors:
Ryan Averbeck is the Chief of the Research and Technology Protection (RTP) Branch for the US Army Materiel Command G2. He was previously the Program Manager for the NASA RTP program and an Assistant Director at the Army RTP Center at the Pentagon. He is currently a Ph.D. Candidate at Northcentral University.
Jeffrey R. Jones currently serves as the lead for the Cyber Threat Intelligence Program and is the Chief of the Information Protection Branch for the US Army Materiel Command G2. He holds a Master of Science in Computer Science – Information Security from James Madison University, as well as the Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP), Certified Ethical Hacker (C|EH), NSTISSI 4011 and CNSSI 4014 certifications.