Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress Marcy E Gallo Analyst in Science and Technology Policy February 2 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www crs gov R45088 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress Summary The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA established in 1958 is an agency within the Department of Defense DOD responsible for catalyzing the development of technologies that maintain and advance the capabilities and technical superiority of the United States military DARPA-funded research has made important science and technology contributions that have led to the development of both military and commercial technologies such as precision guided missiles stealth the Internet and personal electronics DARPA has a culture of risk-taking and tolerance for failure that has led experts some Members of Congress and others to view DARPA as a model for innovation both inside and outside of the federal government The “DARPA model” is characterized by a flat organization that empowers its tenure-limited program managers with trust autonomy and the ability to take risks on innovative ideas Congress has aided DARPA’s efforts by granting the agency certain flexible acquisition and personnel hiring authorities which have allowed DARPA to engage with people and entities that may have otherwise been reluctant to interact and do business with DOD The President’s FY2018 budget request proposed $3 17 billion for DARPA an increase of $281 million or 9% above FY2017 enacted levels The proposed request would continue the trend of increasing the proportion of DARPA funding allocated to basic and applied research The President’s request would also increase DARPA’s share of DOD’s science and technology Defense S T budget to 24% Since FY1999 DARPA’s share of the Defense S T budget has remained relatively steady averaging 23% Congress is currently debating funding levels for defense activities including research and development Some Members of Congress think tanks and other experts have expressed concern that the United States military is losing its technological advantage and have called for increased innovation within DOD to address the perceived decline in U S technical dominance In this context the 115th Congress may consider several related issues including the appropriate level of funding for DARPA the effectiveness of the agency in transitioning technologies to the military services and the commercial sector the role to be played by DARPA in any efforts by the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to increase innovation at DOD and the mechanism by which DARPA integrates ethical legal and social considerations into its research and development projects Congressional Research Service Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress Contents Introduction 1 Background 1 Organizational Structure 3 The DARPA Model 4 Trust and Autonomy 4 Limited Tenure 5 Sense of Mission 5 Risk-Taking and Tolerance for Failure 6 Other Factors 6 Hiring and Contracting Flexibilities 6 DARPA’s Role in DOD and Selection of R D Programs 7 DARPA Strategic Priorities 8 DARPA Appropriations Funding Trends and FY2018 Budget Request 9 Funding Trends for DARPA 11 DARPA FY2018 Budget Request 16 Potential Issues for Congressional Consideration 17 What Is the Appropriate Level of Funding for DARPA 17 Transitioning Technologies from DARPA 18 DARPA’s Role Under New DOD Under Secretary for Research and Engineering 19 Integration of Ethical Social and Legal Considerations 21 Figures Figure 1 Share of DARPA R D Obligations by Performer FY2016 11 Figure 2 DARPA Funding by Character of Work FY1996-FY2017 12 Figure 3 DARPA Funding by Character of Work FY1996-FY2017 13 Figure 4 Share of DARPA Funding by Character of Work FY1996-FY2017 14 Figure 5 DARPA Funding as a Share of DOD RDT E Funding 15 Figure 6 DARPA Funding as a Share of Defense S T Funding 15 Tables Table 1 DOD RDT E Budget Activity Codes 10 Table 2 DARPA Funding by Character of Work FY2017 and FY2018 Request 16 Contacts Author Contact Information 22 Congressional Research Service Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress Introduction The Department of Defense DOD created the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA in 1958 1 Originally called the Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA was established partly in response to the launch of the first Sputnik satellite by the former Soviet Union and partly in recognition of the need to invest resources toward promising concepts requiring a longer timeframe for development 2 In 1972 “defense” was added to the agency’s name to emphasize its mission of making “pivotal investments in breakthrough technologies for national security ”3 This report provides an overview of DARPA including the agency’s organizational structure characteristics i e the “DARPA model” and strategic priorities The report also describes funding trends at DARPA and the Administration’s FY2018 budget request Finally the report discusses select issues for possible congressional consideration including the appropriate level of funding for the agency technology transfer and the potential role of DARPA in maintaining the technological superiority of the U S military Background According to DARPA the agency is focused on research and development R D that is intended to achieve transformative change rather than incremental advances 4 “Transformative” R D—a term often used interchangeably with revolutionary or “high-risk high-reward” R D—is defined by the National Science Board as research driven by ideas that have the potential to radically change our understanding of an important existing scientific or engineering concept or leading to the creation of a new paradigm or field of science or engineering Such research is also characterized by its challenge to current understanding or its pathway to new frontiers 5 Since its establishment DARPA-funded research has made important scientific and technological contributions in computer science telecommunications and material sciences among other areas Specifically DARPA investments have resulted in a number of significant breakthroughs in military technology including precision guided munitions stealth technology unmanned aerial vehicles and infrared night vision technology 6 DARPA-sponsored R D has also led to the 1 The Advanced Research Projects Agency was initially created by Department of Defense Directive 5105 15 on February 7 1958 On February 12 1958 Congress under section 7 of P L 85-325 authorized the Secretary of Defense to “engage in such advanced projects essential to the Defense Department’s responsibilities in the field of basic and applied research and development ” On August 20 1958 Congress under section 401 of P L 85-625 authorized the Secretary of Defense to “establish or develop installations and facilities required for advanced research projects ” 2 U S Congress House Committee on Science and Technology Science Policy Study Background Report No 8 Science Supported by the Department of Defense committee print prepared by Congressional Research Service 99th Cong 2nd sess December 1986 H702-14 Washington GPO 1987 p 101 3 From 1993 to 1995 the Clinton Administration renamed the agency ARPA and pushed to broaden the mission of the agency to include development of dual-use technologies In 1996 Congress mandated that the agency be called DARPA under section 1073 e of P L 104-201 4 http www darpa mil about-us about-darpa 5 National Science Board Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the National Science Foundation National Science Foundation Arlington VA May 7 2007 p 4 6 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA Accomplishments Seminal Contributions to National Security Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Arlington VA October 2015 Congressional Research Service 1 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress development of notable commercial products and technologies such as the Internet global positioning system GPS automated voice recognition and personal electronics 7 The nature of the high-risk high-reward approach to funding taken by DARPA also results in a number of failed or less successful projects For example in the 1970s DARPA supported research into paranormal phenomena and the possibility of using telepathy and psychokinesis to conduct remote espionage 8 The agency also supported the development of a “mechanical elephant” for transportation in the jungles of Vietnam that former DARPA Director Rechtin termed a “damn fool” project and terminated before it could come under scrutiny by Congress 9 In 2003 the Total Information Awareness TIA program did attract congressional attention The goal of the Total Information Awareness program was to “revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect classify and identify foreign terrorists—and decipher their plans” by creating a large database of information that could be “mined” using new tools and techniques to identify actionable intelligence 10 Some Members of Congress the American Civil Liberties Union and others criticized the program as an abuse of government authorities and an infringement on the privacy of Americans 11 In section 111 of the appropriations bill for FY2003 P L 108-7 Congress limited the use of funds for the TIA program and expressed the sense of Congress that the program “should not be used to develop technologies for use in conducting intelligence activities or law enforcement activities against United States persons without appropriate consultation with Congress or without clear adherence to principles to protect civil liberties and privacy ” There has been at least one more recent DARPA program that failed to meet expectations In 2011 the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 exploded 9 minutes into a 30 minute planned test flight when large portions of the vehicle’s outer shell peeled away 12 The program ended in 2011 These less successful and sometimes high-profile failures highlight DARPA’s willingness to invest in high-risk high-reward R D Despite such setbacks the agency is frequently cited as a model for innovation that other agencies outside groups and Congress have sought to replicate across the federal government For example both the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity IARPA within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy ARPA-E within the Department of Energy were modeled after DARPA with a focus on high-risk high-reward research in their respective areas The “DARPA model” is discussed in more detail later 7 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DARPA Creating Breakthrough Technologies for National Security Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Arlington VA July 2017 8 Charles Piller “Army of Extreme Thinkers ” Los Angeles Times August 14 2003 http articles latimes com print 2003 aug 14 science sci-darpa14 9 Richard J Barber Associates Inc The Advanced Research Projects Agency 1958-1974 Advanced Research Projects Agency Washington DC December 1975 pp VI-42 10 https web archive org web 20021003053651 http www darpa mil iao tiasystems htm 11 Jay Stanley Is the Threat from “Total Information Awareness” Overblown American Civil Liberties Union 2003 https www aclu org other threat-total-information-awareness-overblown 12 W J Hennigan “Pentagon Releases Results of 13 000-mph Test Flight over Pacific ” Los Angeles Times April 20 2012 Congressional Research Service 2 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress Organizational Structure DARPA is a defense agency located within the Office of the Secretary of Defense Currently the Director of DARPA reports through the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics USD AT L However as required by section 901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 P L 114-328 the position of USD AT L is being reorganized into two positions the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering USD R E and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment USD A S In a DOD report to Congress on the reorganization DARPA is depicted as reporting to the USD R E through the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Technology 13 However the report also states that DARPA’s final reporting relationship will be determined by the USD R E Additionally DOD reportedly has indicated that it will take two years for the reorganization to be fully implemented 14 DARPA has more than 200 government employees including almost 100 program managers who oversee the agency’s annual budget of roughly $3 billion DARPA does not directly perform research or operate any research laboratories but rather executes its R D programs mainly through contracts with industry universities nonprofit organizations and federal R D laboratories DARPA is a relatively flat organization consisting of the Director’s Office six technical program offices the Adaptive Execution Office the Aerospace Projects Office the Strategic Resources Office and the Mission Services Office 15 DARPA’s six technical program offices are the      Biological Technologies Office responsible for the development and use of biotechnology for technological advantage including neurotechnology humanmachine interface human performance infectious disease and synthetic biology R D programs Defense Sciences Office focused on mathematics and modeling the physical sciences human-machine systems and social systems Information Innovation Office responsible for basic and applied research in cyber analytics and human-machine interfaces Microsystems Technology Office focused on R D on the electromagnetic spectrum information microsystems and the security and reliability of microelectronics Strategic Technology Office responsible for developing technologies that enable fighting as a network i e the use of multiple platforms weapons sensors and systems simultaneously to improve military effectiveness cost and adaptability including battle management command and control and electronic warfare 13 Department of Defense Report to Congress Restructuring the Department of Defense Acquisition Technology and Logistics Organization and Chief Management Officer Organization August 2017 p 9 http www defense gov Portals 1 Documents pubs Section-901-FY-2017-NDAA-Report pdf 14 Aaron Mehta “AT L Reorganization Will Take Two Years to Complete ” Defense News December 4 2017 15 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency “DARPA Offices ” at http www darpa mil about-us offices Congressional Research Service 3 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress  Tactical Technology Office focused on developing and demonstrating new platforms in ground maritime surface and undersea air and space systems including advanced autonomous and unmanned platforms DARPA’s other offices are the    Adaptive Execution Office responsible for accelerating the transition of DARPA technologies to the private sector and the military services including through technology demonstrations and field trials Aerospace Projects Office a special projects office created in 2015 focused on the development of advanced aircraft technologies to ensure air dominance in future contested environments Strategic Resources Office and the Mission Services Office responsible for agency support activities including human resources services and business enterprise and operations support The DARPA Model The “DARPA model” is often cited by Congress and others when discussing how to improve the ability of the federal government to spur innovation through its R D investments DARPA officials contend that its organizational structure allows the agency to operate in a fashion that is unique within DOD as well as the entire federal government Specifically DARPA officials assert that the agency’s relatively small size and flat structure enable flexibility and allow the agency to avoid internal processes and rules that slow action in other federal agencies 16 Additionally in his 2007 testimony before the House Committee on Science and Technology Dr Richard Van Atta a defense policy analyst stated “a crucial element of what has made DARPA a special unique institution is its ability to re-invent itself to adapt and to avoid becoming wedded to the last problem it tried to solve ”17 DARPA attributes its long history of successful innovation to four factors 1 trust and autonomy 2 limited tenure and the urgency it promotes 3 a sense of mission and 4 risktaking and tolerance for failure 18 These factors generally manifest themselves through the agency’s approach to its program managers Some assert that the key to DARPA’s success “lies with its program managers ”19 Trust and Autonomy The level of trust and autonomy provided to DARPA program managers is unique across the federal government DARPA expects its program managers to play a key role in the technical direction of each project Specifically unlike most program managers in federal R D agencies DARPA program managers are charged with creating new programs and projects and quickly funding innovative ideas Although DARPA program managers can use peer review to help them 16 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency “Innovation at DARPA ” July 2016 pp 22-23 at http www darpa mil attachments DARPA_Innovation_2016 pdf 17 U S Congress House Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Establishing the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ARPA-E - H R 364 110th Cong 1st sess April 26 2007 H Hrg 110-22 Washington GPO 2007 p 45 18 Ibid p 2 19 Erica R H Fuchs “Cloning DARPA Successfully ” Issues in Science and Technology Fall 2009 p 67 Congressional Research Service 4 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress evaluate the merit of an R D proposal they are not required to do so and are in effect responsible for the selection and if necessary the termination of a project 20 This is in contrast to program managers at the National Science Foundation who in general inherit existing programs are required to use peer review panels to determine the quality of a proposal and select projects based primarily on the rankings provided by the review panel 21 Limited Tenure Another key feature of DARPA’s approach to program management is that program managers are hired for a limited tenure generally three to five years DARPA believes that the continued influx of new program managers infuses the agency with new ideas and personnel who have a passion for turning those ideas into reality as quickly as possible DARPA estimates that 25% of its program mangers turn over annually 22 According to the agency “in most organizations that would be considered a problem at DARPA it is intentional and invigorating A short tenure means that people come to the agency to get something done not build a career ”23 However some contend that the high turnover rate of program managers can result in duplicative efforts due to a lack of institutional memory 24 Concerns have also been raised that the recruitment process used by DARPA—existing or previous program managers identify new program managers—might contribute to a gender imbalance DARPA program managers are typically men and the selection of individuals from the same network of researchers which could lead to a stagnation of new ideas and perspectives 25 Limited tenure and urgency is also reflected in how DARPA funds its projects In general DARPA funds an idea or project just long enough to determine its feasibility typically three to five years If a program manager believes a new idea is not working out the program manager can terminate the project quickly and funds can be redirected to a new project or an existing project with more potential Specifically DARPA projects are evaluated on the basis of milestones established by program managers in advance of the start of the program progress toward these milestones is used to evaluate whether continued funding is merited Sense of Mission DARPA asserts its mission “to prevent and create technological surprise” is an important factor in reinforcing and driving the innovative culture of the agency 26 Specifically DARPA contends The importance and ambition of the mission help fuel the drive toward innovation People are inspired and energized by the effort to do something that affects the wellbeing and even the survival of their fellow citizen 27 20 DARPA leadership—the technical office director and the DARPA director—must agree to support or terminate a project but the program manager plays an outsized role in the agency’s approval process compared to other federal R D agencies 21 Jeffrey Mervis “What Makes DARPA Tick ” Science vol 351 no 6273 February 5 2016 p 551 22 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency “Innovation at DARPA ” July 2016 at http www darpa mil attachments DARPA_Innovation_2016 pdf 23 Ibid p 3 24 Jeffrey Mervis “What Makes DARPA Tick ” Science vol 351 no 6273 February 5 2016 p 551 25 Ibid 26 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency “Innovation at DARPA ” July 2016 at http www darpa mil attachments DARPA_Innovation_2016 pdf Congressional Research Service 5 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress Risk-Taking and Tolerance for Failure DARPA’s approach to risk is also unusual and is a well characterized element of the agency’s success 28 DARPA asserts that its program managers often reject projects for not being sufficiently ambitious and views failure as the cost of supporting potentially transformative or revolutionary R D To mitigate the costs of failed projects DARPA funds projects for a limited time and is willing to reallocate funds from underperforming projects 29 DARPA’s culture of risktaking and tolerance for failure are among the most cited attributes some in Congress and others seek to replicate in other federal agencies supporting R D Other Factors Some experts have noted additional factors as important contributors to the DARPA model and its success These factors include multigenerational technology thrusts i e support for a suite of technologies and ideas in a given area over an extended period of time connection to the larger innovation ecosystem the agency’s ties to leadership at DOD and its role as an initial market creator or first adopter 30 Hiring and Contracting Flexibilities Congress has provided DARPA with additional authorities that many believe are key contributors to the agency’s record of successful innovation and essential to the DARPA model These include flexibility in the hiring of personnel and the mechanisms it can use for acquiring goods and services and providing financial assistance For example in response to a question on the authorities Congress needed to grant DARPA to maintain a culture of innovation former DARPA Director Dr Arati Prabhakar stated The tools that this committee has already helped us with I think are critically essential— number one bringing in people from all different parts of the technical community Not just those who already live in the DOD Science and Technology world but people who come with backgrounds in commercial companies or having done startups or people out of universities—those different perspectives are very helpful Our ability to contract with entities that aren’t normally in the business of doing business with the Federal Government through other transactions authority that is another way that allows us to reach farther in terms of technology and get access to some of these bleeding edge technologies 31 continued 27 Ibid 28 William B Bonvillian and Richard Van Atta “ARPA-E and DARPA Applying the DARPA Model to Energy Innovation ” Journal of Technology Transfer vol 36 October 2011 pp 469-513 29 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency “Innovation at DARPA ” July 2016 at http www darpa mil attachments DARPA_Innovation_2016 pdf 30 William B Bonvillian and Richard Van Atta “ARPA-E and DARPA Applying the DARPA Model to Energy Innovation ” Journal of Technology Transfer vol 36 October 2011 pp 469-513 31 U S Congress House Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2016 Science and Technology Programs Laying the Groundwork to Maintain Technological Superiority 114th Cong 1st sess March 26 2015 H A S C No 114-33 Washington GPO 2015 p 22 Congressional Research Service 6 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress In 1998 Congress established an experimental program for hiring scientific and technical personnel at DARPA P L 105-261 Specifically the program granted DARPA the authority to directly hire experts in science and engineering from outside the federal government for limited term appointments up to six years It also exempted the agency from complying with traditional civilian personnel requirements thereby allowing DARPA to streamline its hiring process and increase the level of compensation it could offer scientists and engineers Many in Congress viewed this flexibility in hiring as improving DARPA’s ability to recruit and retain eminent scientific and technical experts Congress routinely extended the duration of the experimental personnel program between 1998 and 2015 Congress made the hiring authority permanent in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 P L 114-328 In 1989 Congress granted DARPA “other transactions OT authority ”32 There is no statutory or regulatory definition of “other transaction ” An OT is an acquisition mechanism that does not fit into any of the traditional mechanisms used by the federal government for acquiring goods or services—contracts grants or cooperative agreements OTs do not have to comply with the government’s procurement regulations Only those agencies that have been provided OT authority may engage in other transactions Generally the reason for creating OT authority is that the government needs to obtain leading edge R D or prototypes from commercial sources that are unwilling or unable to navigate the government’s procurement regulations OT authority is generally viewed as giving federal agencies additional flexibility to develop agreements tailored to the needs of the project and its participants 33 In 1991 Congress made DARPA’s OT authority permanent and extended it to DOD broadly 34 In 1993 Congress provided DARPA with authority to use OTs for prototypes this authority was subsequently extended to the entire department in 1996 and made permanent in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 P L 114-92 35 DARPA’s Role in DOD and Selection of R D Programs DARPA’s R D efforts are generally long-term in character and often in areas where the national security or defense need is initially unclear 36 As such DARPA-supported research does not generally produce immediate tangible results In his 2017 testimony before Congress Dr Steven Walker who was then Acting Director of DARPA described the agency’s role as in large part to change what’s possible—to do the fundamental research the proof of principle and the early stages of technology development that take impossible ideas to the point of implausible but surprisingly possible No other agency within the Defense 32 P L 101-189 §251 For more information on other transactions see U S Government Accountability Office Federal Acquisitions Use of ‘Other Transaction’ Agreements Limited and Mostly for Research and Development Activities GAO-16-209 January 7 2016 34 P L 102-190 §826 35 P L 103-160 §845 P L 114-92 §815 36 Richard H Van Atta Michael J Lippitz and Jasper C Lupo et al Transformation and Transition DARPA’s Role in Fostering and Emerging Revolution in Military Affairs Volume I—Overall Assessment Institute for Defense Analysis Alexandria VA April 2003 pp 60-61 33 Congressional Research Service 7 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress Department has the mission of working on projects with such a high possibility of failure—or such a high possibility of producing truly revolutionary new capabilities 37 When DARPA was established in 1958 it was created as an independent R D agency explicitly separate from the R D organizations of the military services This construct has allowed DARPA to support R D and technology efforts that are not tied to formal military requirements or to the specific roles or missions of the military services 38 Instead DARPA’s role in the DOD R D enterprise has been to cut across the traditional jurisdictions of the military services and to explore new and unconventional concepts that have the possibility of leading to revolutionary advances in the technological capabilities of the military—potentially revising the traditional roles and missions of the military services Overall DARPA takes a portfolio approach to its R D investments and program activities i e it addresses a wide range of technical opportunities and national security challenges simultaneously However the agency’s program managers play a major role in selecting the R D supported by the agency This “bottom-up” approach is deemed effective by DARPA because its program managers who are university faculty entrepreneurs and industry leaders are seen as the individuals closest to the technical challenges and potential solutions and opportunities in a given field DARPA considers this connection to the R D and entrepreneurial community critical to driving innovation and risk-taking within the agency’s activities 39 Additionally DARPA often holds conferences sponsors workshops and supports travel by its program managers and its leadership to ensure the agency is fully informed of current and cutting-edge technologies and research Ideas or R D areas addressed through the agency’s programs also come from the “top-down ” including from DARPA leadership and from the military services who articulate the needs and challenges of the warfighter to the agency Ultimately DARPA leadership is responsible for setting agency-wide priorities and ensuring a balanced investment portfolio DARPA Strategic Priorities In 2015 DARPA released a document outlining the agency’s current areas of focus 40 Specifically as described by DARPA the agency is focusing its investments in four main areas Rethink Complex Military Systems To help enable faster development and integration of breakthrough military capabilities in today’s rapidly shifting landscape DARPA is working to make weapons systems more modular and easily upgraded and improved assure superiority in the air maritime ground space and cyber domains improve position navigation and timing PNT without depending on the satellite-based Global Positioning System and augment defenses against terrorism Master the Information Explosion DARPA is developing novel approaches to deriving insights from massive datasets with powerful big-data tools The Agency is also developing technologies to ensure that the data and systems with which critical decisions 37 Testimony of Dr Steven Walker Acting Director Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency before the U S Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense Defense Innovation and Research May 3 2017 p 2 On November 13 2017 Dr Walker was appointed as the 21st Director of DARPA 38 Formal military requirements are detailed operational capabilities and technical specifications that must be met for the acquisition of a weapons system or other military technology 39 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency “Innovation at DARPA ” July 2016 pp 22-23 at http www darpa mil attachments DARPA_Innovation_2016 pdf 40 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency “Breakthrough Technologies for National Security ” March 2015 at http www darpa mil attachments DARPA2015 pdf Congressional Research Service 8 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress are made are trustworthy such as automated cyber defense capabilities and methods to create fundamentally more secure systems And DARPA is addressing the growing need to ensure privacy at various levels of need without losing the national security value that comes from appropriate access to networked data Harness Biology as Technology To leverage recent breakthroughs in neuroscience immunology genetics and related fields DARPA in 2014 created its Biological Technologies Office which has enabled a new level of momentum for the Agency’s portfolio of innovative bio-based programs DARPA’s work in this area includes programs to accelerate progress in synthetic biology outpace the spread of infectious diseases and master new neurotechnologies Expand the Technological Frontier DARPA’s core work has always involved overcoming seemingly insurmountable physics and engineering barriers and once showing those daunting problems to be tractable after all applying new capabilities made possible by these breakthroughs directly to national security needs Maintaining momentum in this essential specialty DARPA is working to achieve new capabilities by applying deep mathematics inventing new chemistries processes and materials and harnessing quantum physics 41 Additionally on May 3 2017 in testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee Dr Steven Walker then Acting DARPA Director discussed a few overarching research areas— artificial intelligence autonomous systems and human-machine interfaces—which are “increasingly relevant to many DARPA programs and that give a strong hint about where the future of technology is going ”42 In 2015 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 P L 114-92 Congress repealed a provision requiring DARPA to prepare and submit a biennial strategic plan to Congress describing the agency’s long-term strategic goals the research programs developed in support of those goals the agency’s technology transition strategy the policies governing the agency’s management organization and personnel and the connection between DARPA’s activities and the missions of the military services DARPA Appropriations Funding Trends and FY2018 Budget Request DARPA funding is appropriated through the Defense-wide Research Development Test and Evaluation RDT E account which generally falls under Title IV of the annual defense appropriations act 43 The 2018 Defense-wide RDT E account includes 17 other DOD organizations Program elements within the account provide support for particular RDT E activities within each DOD R D organization including DARPA The program elements also describe DOD’s R D funding by the character of work to be performed e g basic research The character of work consists of a budget activity code 6 1 through 6 7 and a description see Table 1 41 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency “Our Research ” at http www darpa mil program our-research more Testimony of Dr Steven Walker Acting Director Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency before U S Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense Defense Innovation and Research May 3 2017 p 7 43 For more information on DOD RDT E appropriations see CRS Report R44711 Department of Defense Research Development Test and Evaluation RDT E Appropriations Structure by John F Sargent Jr 42 Congressional Research Service 9 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress Nearly all of DARPA’s funding falls under the categories of basic research 6 1 applied research 6 2 and advanced technology development 6 3 Funding for the 6 1 to 6 3 program elements is referred to by DOD as the science and technology S T budget DOD’s S T budget is often singled out by analysts and others for additional scrutiny as it is viewed as an investment in the foundational knowledge needed to develop future military systems DARPA’s remaining funding falls within the 6 6 budget activity code for management support which includes personnel salaries and benefits as well as costs associated with travel supplies equipment and office space Table 1 DOD RDT E Budget Activity Codes Code Description 6 1 Basic Research 6 2 Applied Research 6 3 Advanced Technology Development 6 4 Advanced Component Development and Prototypes 6 5 System Development and Demonstration 6 6 RDT E Management Support 6 7 Operational System Development Source Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation DoD 7000 14-R Volume 2B March 2016 Notes For a more detailed description of the types of activities supported within each budget activity code see CRS Report R44711 Department of Defense Research Development Test and Evaluation RDT E Appropriations Structure by John F Sargent Jr As stated previously DARPA does not directly perform R D but supports R D through contracts with various R D performers which include universities and industry As illustrated by Figure 1 DARPA primarily supports R D performed by industry Specifically in FY2016 nearly 70% $2 21 billion of DARPA’s R D was performed by industry universities and colleges performed 13 6% $428 2 million of DARPA’s R D followed by intramural R D performers e g federal laboratories at 7 7% $244 2 million other nonprofits 4 9% $154 9 million Federally Funded Research and Development Centers FFRDCs 3 0% $95 1 million and foreign entities 0 9% $27 3 million Congressional Research Service 10 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress Figure 1 Share of DARPA R D Obligations by Performer FY2016 Source CRS analysis of data from National Science Foundation NSF Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development Fiscal Years 2015–17 Table 8 Notes According to NSF FY2016 data are estimates of congressional appropriation actions and apportionment and reprogramming decisions FFRDC Federally Funded Research and Development Center Funding Trends for DARPA Figure 2 and Figure 3 show DARPA funding trends from FY1996 to FY2017 by character of work i e basic research applied research advanced technology development and management support in current and constant FY2016 dollars adjusted for inflation respectively In current dollars overall funding for DARPA has increased by 22% from $2 3 billion in FY1996 to $2 9 billion in FY2017 a compound annual growth rate CAGR of 1 2% Figure 2 In FY2016 constant dollars DARPA funding has decreased by 16% from $3 3 billion in FY1996 to $2 8 billion in FY2017 a CAGR of -0 7% While fluctuating over time the overall trend line for DARPA funding has remained relatively steady in constant dollars Figure 3 Specifically in constant dollars between FY1996 and FY2000 funding for the agency decreased by 30 6% but then increased by 29 6% to its highest level in FY2005 Since FY2005 DARPA funding has declined by 26 4% Figure 3 Congressional Research Service 11 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress Figure 2 DARPA Funding by Character of Work FY1996-FY2017 Obligational authority in millions of current dollars Source CRS analysis of data from Department of Defense Research Development Test and Evaluation Programs R-1 FY1998-2018 Notes CRS used the earliest of the three fiscal years of data actual expenditures provided in each R-1 except for FY2017 which represents the enacted level Congressional Research Service 12 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress Figure 3 DARPA Funding by Character of Work FY1996-FY2017 Obligational authority in millions of constant FY2016 dollars Source CRS analysis of data from Department of Defense Research Development Test and Evaluation Programs R-1 FY1998-2018 Notes CRS used the earliest of the three fiscal years of data actual expenditures provided in each R-1 except for FY2017 which represents the enacted level For purposes of this chart CRS used the GDP Chained Price Index from Table 10 1 of the Historical Tables in the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2018 to adjust for “inflation ” this index is used by the Office of Management and Budget to convert federal research and development outlays from current dollars to constant dollars https www whitehouse gov sites whitehouse gov files omb budget fy2018 hist10z1 xls The proportion of DARPA funding supporting basic research has increased steadily over time Figure 4 In FY2017 basic research accounted for 14 3% of DARPA funding up from 3 4% in FY1996 The proportion of DARPA funding to applied research has fluctuated over time increasing rapidly from 33 2% in FY1996 to 51 8% in FY2001 dropping to 42 3% in FY2004 and then holding relatively steady from FY2005 to FY2017 The proportion of DARPA funding supporting advanced technology development has also fluctuated over time decreasing rapidly from 59 9% in FY1996 to 39 0% in FY2001 rising to 48 9% in FY2004 and then holding relatively steady from FY2005 to FY2017 The proportion of DARPA funding to management support remained steady until FY2008 increased to 7 0% in FY2009 and has decreased to 2 5% in FY2017 Congressional Research Service 13 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress Figure 4 Share of DARPA Funding by Character of Work FY1996-FY2017 Percentage of obligational authorities Source CRS analysis of data from Department of Defense Research Development Test and Evaluation Programs R-1 FY1998-2018 Notes CRS used the earliest of the three fiscal years of data actual expenditures provided in each R-1 except for FY2017 which represents the enacted level DARPA’s goal is to ensure the U S military is “the initiator and not the victim of technological surprises ”44 As such DARPA’s R D investments are often examined as a surrogate for high-risk high-reward R D within DOD i e R D focused on revolutionary advances rather than incremental advances Figure 5 and Figure 6 depict DARPA funding as a share of DOD RDT E funding 6 1 to 6 7 budget activity codes and Defense S T funding 6 1 to 6 3 over time Between FY1996 and FY2017 DARPA’s share of DOD RDT E funding has declined by close to one half from 6 6% in FY1996 to 3 8% in FY2017 Figure 5 After a decline between FY1996 and FY1999—from 30% to 24 9%—DARPA’s share of Defense S T funding has remained relatively steady between 22% and 25% from FY2000 to FY2016 Figure 6 However in FY2017 DARPA’s share of Defense S T funding reached its lowest level at 21% 44 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency “About DARPA ” https www darpa mil about-us about-darpa Congressional Research Service 14 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress Figure 5 DARPA Funding as a Share of DOD RDT E Funding Percentage of obligational authorities Source CRS analysis of data from Department of Defense Research Development Test and Evaluation Programs R-1 FY1998-2018 Notes CRS used the earliest of the three fiscal years of data actual expenditures provided in each R-1 except for FY2017 which represents the enacted level Figure 6 DARPA Funding as a Share of Defense S T Funding Percentage of obligational authorities Source CRS analysis of data from Department of Defense Research Development Test and Evaluation Programs R-1 FY1998-2018 Notes CRS used the earliest of the three fiscal years of data actual expenditures provided in each R-1 except for FY2017 which represents the enacted level Congressional Research Service 15 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress DARPA FY2018 Budget Request The President’s FY2018 budget request proposes $3 170 billion for DARPA an increase of $281 million or 9% above FY2017 enacted levels Table 2 shows the FY2018 request for DARPA by character of work to be performed The request would continue the trend of increasing the proportion of DARPA funding allocated to basic research 15% and applied research 43 5% and decreasing the proportion supporting advanced technology development 39 1% and management support 2 5% The level of funding proposed in the request would lower DARPA’s share of DOD RDT E funding slightly to 3 7% compared to the FY2017 share of 3 8% due to faster growth in DOD RDT E funding The President’s request would increase DOD RDT E funding overall to $84 9 billion 11% above FY2017 In contrast the proposed level of funding would increase DARPA’s share of Defense S T funding to 24% compared to 21% in FY2017 The overall Defense S T budget proposed by the President would be 5 4% or $755 million below FY2017 levels On July 27 2017 the House passed H R 3219 the Make America Secure Appropriations Act 2018 which included appropriations for the Department of Defense in division A of the bill H R 3219 would provide DARPA with $3 173 billion or $2 4 million above the President’s request Table 2 The slight increase would be to DARPA’s management support activities On September 14 2017 and January 30 2017 the House passed H R 3354 and H R 695 respectively Both bills included appropriations for the Department of Defense for FY2018 and would provide DARPA with $3 173 billion On November 21 2017 the Senate Appropriations Committee released the chairman’s recommendations and explanatory statement for DOD’s FY2018 budget In the explanatory statement the chairman proposed $3 033 billion for DARPA a decrease of $137 6 million or 4 5% below the President’s request Table 2 DARPA Funding by Character of Work FY2017 and FY2018 Request Obligational authority in millions of dollars Character of Work FY2017 Enacted FY2018 Request FY2018 House FY2018 Senate FY2018 Enacted 420 1 475 5 475 5 TBD TBD Applied Research 6 2 1 236 3 1 378 8 1 378 8 TBD TBD Advanced Technology Development 6 3 1 208 6 1 238 3 1 238 3 TBD TBD 74 0 77 8 80 2 TBD TBD $2 889 0 $3 170 4 $3 172 8 TBD TBD Basic Research 6 1 Management Support 6 6 DARPA Total Source CRS analysis of data from Department of Defense Research Development Test and Evaluation Programs R-1 FY2018 and H Rept 115-219 Notes Total DARPA funding for FY2017 includes an undistributed reduction of $50 million and therefore does not equal the sum of “Basic Research ” “Applied Research ” “Advanced Technology Development ” and “Management Support ” TBD to be determined Congressional Research Service 16 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress Potential Issues for Congressional Consideration The following sections describe potential issues for congressional consideration including the level of funding DARPA should receive the agency’s technology transfer activities the role DARPA can or should play under the new DOD Under Secretary for Research and Engineering and in DOD’s efforts to maintain technological superiority and how DARPA incorporates ethical legal and societal considerations into the research it supports What Is the Appropriate Level of Funding for DARPA Support for high-risk high-reward research is considered by some as essential to maintaining the economic competitiveness of the United States 45 In the context of national security high-risk high-reward R D could lead to the development of technologies that advance or maintain the technological superiority of the U S military In this report CRS examined DARPA funding as a surrogate for the level of support for high-risk high-reward disruptive or revolutionary R D conducted within DOD 46 A 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences recommended that federal research agencies allocate 8% of an agency’s budget toward high-risk high-reward research that the National Academy stated “suffers in today’s increasingly risk-averse environment ”47 As shown in Figure 5 DARPA’s share of DOD RDT E funding has been below 7% since FY1996 Between FY1996 and FY2017 DARPA’s share of DOD RDT E funding averaged 4 6% and in FY2017 it was 3 8% of the agency’s RDT E funding It is unclear the extent to which R D investments by other DOD research organizations could be characterized as high-risk high-reward bringing DOD closer to the 8% spending level for high-risk high-reward research recommended by the National Academy Regardless DARPA’s share of DOD RDT E funding has been on a downward trend since FY1996 A 2017 report examining the best practices of innovative companies by the U S Government Accountability Office GAO found that innovative companies invest about 80% of their R D spending on research that is designed to make incremental improvements to their products and 20% of their R D budget on research in support of disruptive or high-risk high-reward R D Additionally GAO found that this disruptive R D is typically conducted by a corporate research organization that is independent from the company’s business units According to GAO DARPA resembles a corporate research organization in that it is independent from the military services and supports research that is generally not tied to existing weapons systems or specific military department requirements 48 As shown in Figure 6 DARPA’s share of Defense S T funding has remained relatively steady at between 21% and 25% from FY2000 to FY2017 and is comparable to the percentage of R D devoted to disruptive projects at leading innovative companies 45 American Academy of Arts and Sciences Committee on Alternative Models for the Federal Funding of Science ARISE Investing in Early-Career Scientists and High-Risk High-Reward Research American Academy of Arts and Sciences Cambridge MA 2008 p 7 46 DOD does not request report or characterize its RDT E funding in terms of “high-risk high-reward ” CRS used DARPA funding as a proxy for high-risk high-reward research based on the mission of the agency to “to make pivotal investments in breakthrough technologies for national security ” 47 National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine Rising Above the Gathering Storm Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future The National Academies Press Washington DC 2007 48 U S Government Accountability Office Defense Science and Technology Adopting Best Practices Can Improve Innovation Investments and Management GAO-17-499 June 29 2017 Congressional Research Service 17 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress As shown by the above analyses the answer to the question “what is the appropriate level of funding for DARPA ” is dependent on the frame one uses when examining the data In using DARPA’s share of the overall DOD RDT E budget one may determine that DARPA funding should increase however in using DARPA’s share of the Defense S T budget one may conclude that current DARPA funding levels are sufficient Additionally it is dependent on the goals and objectives of Congress For example Congress and others have expressed concern that the United States is at risk of losing its technological advantage and have called for increased innovation within DOD to address the narrowing of the United States’ advantage over its adversaries 49 If Congress believes that DARPA should play a larger role in ensuring the technological superiority of the U S military then it may consider increased funding for the agency Transitioning Technologies from DARPA The transition of technologies—often referred to as technology transfer—from R D supported by DARPA to acquisition programs within the military services or other end users is a challenge long recognized by Congress 50 For example a 2014 committee report from the U S Senate Committee on Armed Services stated the committee is concerned that some technology projects may be successfully completed but fail to transition into acquisition programs of record or directly into operational use This may be because of administrative funding cultural and or programmatic barriers that make it difficult to bridge the gap from science and technology programs to acquisition programs as well to the expected users of the technology 51 Barriers to technology transfer include DARPA’s goal of creating disruptive or revolutionary technologies Such technologies often by design challenge the status quo and can meet resistance from the military services For example according to GAO the Air Force was initially resistant to investments in stealth technologies for aircraft 52 Risk aversion and resistance within the military services often can only be overcome with sufficient maturation and demonstration of the technologies prior to transition However DARPA’s funding only supports budget activities from 6 1 to 6 3—basic research applied research and advanced technology development—and not the further levels of technology maturation in 6 4 and 6 5—advanced component development and prototypes and system development and demonstration—which could be used to overcome a military service’s resistance In a 2017 report comparing the best practices and management of science and technology programs at leading companies to DOD GAO noted that companies recognize the difficulty associated with transitioning disruptive technologies and fund their disruptive technology projects through demonstration to help obtain a customer 53 Recent 49 Ben FitzGerald Alexandra Sander and Jacqueline Parziale Future Foundry A New Strategic Approach to MilitaryTechnical Advantage Center for a New American Security Washington DC December 2016 50 The transition of a specific technology from one organization to another for additional development deployment or commercialization is one definition of technology transfer Technology transfer can also be defined as the transfer of knowledge and capabilities from one organization to another 51 U S Congress Senate Committee on Armed Services Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 report to accompany S 2410 113th Cong 2nd sess June 2 2014 S Rept 113-176 Washington GPO 2014 pp 60-61 52 U S Government Accountability Office Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Key Factors Drive Transition of Technologies but Better Training and Data Dissemination Can Increase Success GAO-16-5 November 18 2015 pp 18-21 53 U S Government Accountability Office Defense Science and Technology Adopting Best Practices Can Improve Innovation Investments and Management GAO-17-499 June 29 2017 pp 37-40 Congressional Research Service 18 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress prototyping initiatives such as the Air Force Experimentation Initiative or the Army Technology Maturation Initiative within DOD may help to overcome the gap in technology maturation funding between DARPA and the department’s acquisition programs Other barriers to technology transfer also exist including the development of technologies that do not fall clearly within the mission of a particular service and the lack of a clear “customer ” Case studies by GAO and others however do indicate that DARPA has succeeded in transitioning some of its technologies to the military services and the private sector According to GAO the four factors that contribute to a successful technology transition are     military or commercial demand for the technology linkage to a research area where DARPA has had a sustained interest active collaboration with the potential transition partner and achievement of clearly defined technical goals 54 As noted by GAO and others technology transfer is not a primary emphasis of DARPA 55 GAO has found that inconsistencies in the reporting and collection of technology transfer information by the agency make it difficult to reliably report on the overall success of DARPA’s transition efforts GAO first stated its concern regarding the lack of documentation for DARPA’s technology transfer activities in 1974 56 More recently GAO has concluded that DARPA leadership “foregoes opportunities to assess and thus potentially improve technology transition strategies” and that technology transition responsibilities fall to individual program managers that GAO believes are not sufficiently trained to achieve successful outcomes 57 Congress may examine the effectiveness of DARPA’s Adaptive Execution Office which is responsible for reviewing and implementing the agency’s technology transition strategies including assisting individual program managers DARPA’s Role Under New DOD Under Secretary for Research and Engineering Over the last several years some Members of Congress think tanks and others have expressed concern that the U S military is losing its technical superiority due in part to the proliferation of technologies outside the defense sector and the inability of DOD to effectively incorporate and exploit commercial innovations 58 To address this concern Congress established an Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering USD R E that “would take risks press the 54 Ibid U S Government Accountability Office Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Key Factors Drive Transition of Technologies but Better Training and Data Dissemination Can Increase Success GAO-16-5 November 18 2015 James J Richarson Diane L Larriva and Stephanie L Tennyson Transitioning DARPA Technology Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Arlington VA May 2001 Ronald G Havelock and David S Bushnell Technology Transfer at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency A Diagnostic Analysis Technology Transfer Study Center George Mason University Fairfax VA December 1985 56 U S General Accounting Office Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Approach to the Management of Technology Transfer to the Military Services B-167034 March 14 1974 http www gao gov products 095962 57 U S Government Accountability Office Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Key Factors Drive Transition of Technologies but Better Training and Data Dissemination Can Increase Success GAO-16-5 November 18 2015 58 Ben FitzGerald and Kelley Sayler Creative Disruption Technology Strategy and the Future of the Global Defense Industry Center for New American Security Washington DC June 2014 Dr Victoria Coleman and Lieutenant General Thomas Spoehr Reclaiming U S Defense Leadership on Innovation Three Priorities for the New USD R E The Heritage Foundation Washington DC April 28 2017 55 Congressional Research Service 19 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress technology envelope test and experiment and have the latitude to fail as appropriate ”59 In describing the role of the new Under Secretary the Senate Committee on Armed Services stated the USD R E will be a unifying force to focus the efforts of the defense laboratories as well as agencies with critical innovation missions such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Missile Defense Agency on achieving and maintaining U S defense technological dominance 60 How the USD R E will “focus the efforts” of DARPA is unclear and an area that Congress may consider defining In determining the appropriate role of DARPA in DOD’s efforts to maintain technological superiority it may be useful to examine some of the roles DARPA has played in its past According to the Institute for Defense Analyses IDA DARPA has at various times through its history been the        focus for large-scale nationally important technology application areas principal supporter of major areas of basic research and generic technologies with both military and commercial potential developer of specific large-scale system concepts and prototypes supporter of highly experimental and extremely advanced concepts for weapons systems and capabilities developer of operational systems and capabilities for direct application to existing military conflicts funder of research to improve the capabilities of industry to produce defenserelated technologies and supporter of fundamental knowledge needed to better understand a phenomena related to a potential defense application 61 It may be appropriate to have DARPA pursue some or all of these roles simultaneously with varying degrees of emphasis However IDA has stated that historically “DARPA efforts had their greatest success when there was a clearly defined sense of mission and direction in the agency and DOD ”62 On December 18 2017 the Trump Administration released the National Security Strategy which stated that “the United States will prioritize emerging technologies critical to economic growth and security such as data science encryption autonomous technologies gene editing new materials nanotechnology advanced computing technologies and artificial intelligence ”63 Currently it is unclear how DOD will implement this strategic vision across its R D organizations including DARPA Some of the questions posed by IDA in its 1991 report on the future of DARPA still hold today and may be considered by the new USD R E DARPA and Congress including the following  What military needs and threats should DARPA’s work be focused on 59 U S Congress National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 report to accompany S 2943 114th Cong 2nd sess November 30 2016 H Rept 114-840 Washington GPO 2016 p 1130 60 U S Congress Senate Committee on Armed Services National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 report to accompany S 2943 114th Cong 2nd sess May 18 2016 S Rept 114-255 Washington GPO 2016 p 238 61 Richard H Van Atta Seymour J Deitchman and Sidney G Reed Institute for Defense Analyses DARPA Technical Accomplishments Volume III An Overall Perspective and Assessment of the Technical Accomplishments of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 1958-1990 Alexandria VA July 1991 62 Ibid 63 The White House National Security Strategy of the United States of America Washington DC December 18 2017 p 20 Congressional Research Service 20 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress     What technologies have the potential to make the largest impact in the future How should DARPA interact with the commercial sector and civilian technologies How does DARPA determine the scale and scope of its investment in a given area How does DARPA appropriately balance investment risk and the pursuit of ambitious potentially high-payoff programs 64 A 2003 report by IDA stated that “DARPA’s success depends not only on strong support from OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense but also on clear guidance from it on strategic needs ”65 Integration of Ethical Social and Legal Considerations Developments in R D and technology can raise ethical legal and societal ELS concerns For example some groups have expressed concern about the impact artificial intelligence and neurotechnologies could have on privacy consent and an individual’s identity and agency i e a person’s bodily and mental integrity and their ability to choose their own actions 66 The application of these technologies in a military context has the potential to further elevate ELS concerns For example how would a neurotechnology that enhances a soldier’s senses stamina or dexterity affect the ability of an individual to integrate into civilian life upon completion of their service In 2013 DARPA initiated a number of neurotechnology programs as part of the Obama Administration’s Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies BRAIN Initiative including R D on implantable brain-computer interfaces that could restore neural and behavioral function or improve training and performance 67 The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues recommended that institutions supporting neuroscience research integrate ethical considerations early on and explicitly throughout a research endeavor DARPA addressed the integration of ethical considerations into its work by requiring neuroscience research program managers to engage an independent Ethical Legal and Social Implications panel at the inception of an R D project 68 DARPA is also planning to host a national ethics 64 Richard H Van Atta Seymour J Deitchman and Sidney G Reed Institute for Defense Analyses DARPA Technical Accomplishments Volume III An Overall Perspective and Assessment of the Technical Accomplishments of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 1958-1990 Alexandria VA July 1991 65 Richard H Van Atta Michael J Lippitz and Jasper C Lupo et al Transformation and Transition DARPA’s Role in Fostering an Emerging Revolution in Military Affairs Volume 1—Overall Assessment Institute for Defense Analyses Alexandria VA April 2003 p 64 66 Rafael Yuste Sara Goering and Blaise Aguera y Arcas et al “Four Ethical Priorities for Neurotechnologies and AI ” Nature vol 551 no 7679 November 8 2017 pp 159-163 67 DARPA has supported research and development on neurotechnologies since the 1970s For more information on DARPA-funded neuroscience projects see Robbin A Miranda William D Casebeer and Amy M Hein et al “DARPA-Funded Efforts in the Development of Novel Brain-Computer Interface Technologies ” Journal of Neuroscience Methods vol 244 2015 pp 52-67 and https www darpa mil program our-research darpa-and-thebrain-initiative 68 Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues Gray Matters Integrative Approaches for Neuroscience Ethics and Society Volume 1 Washington DC May 2014 pp 18-19 Congressional Research Service 21 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Overview and Issues for Congress workshop 69 However some critics assert that DARPA does not adequately examine the moral and ethical implications of the research it supports 70 According to a 2014 report by the National Academy of Sciences NAS knowledge regarding ethical legal and societal issues associated with R D for technology intended for military purposes is not nearly as well developed as that for the sciences especially the life sciences in the civilian sector more generally 71 In its 2014 report the NAS recommended the development and deployment of five specific processes to ensure the consideration of ELS issues in an agency’s R D portfolio These include 1 initial screening of proposed R D projects 2 review of proposals that raise ELS concerns 3 monitoring of R D projects for the emergence of ELS issues and making midcourse corrections when necessary 4 engaging with various segments of the pubic as needed and 5 periodically reviewing the ELS-related processes in an agency 72 According to DARPA officials the agency has implemented a strategy—informed by the 2014 NAS report—for addressing ELS concerns early on during the program formulation stage and throughout the lifespan of a program Additionally according to DARPA the Director conducted a review of the agency’s ELS strategy and its implementation in partnership with the Biological Technologies Office and three external ELS experts in the summer of 2017 DARPA asserts that the implementation of the strategy has been effective based in part on the “positive feedback” the agency has received from the ELS community 73 Congress may consider conducting oversight on the processes and mechanisms used by DARPA to integrate ethical legal and societal considerations into its R D portfolio Author Contact Information Marcy E Gallo Analyst in Science and Technology Policy mgallo@crs loc gov 7-0518 69 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency “TNT Researchers Set Out to Advance Pace and Effectiveness of Cognitive Skills Training ” press release April 26 2017 https www darpa mil news-events 2017-04-26 70 Jeffrey Mervis “What Makes DARPA Tick ” Science vol 351 no 6273 February 5 2016 p 551 71 National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering Emerging and Readily Available Technologies and National Security A Framework for Addressing Ethical Legal and Societal Issues The National Academies Press Washington DC 2014 p 2 72 National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering Emerging and Readily Available Technologies and National Security A Framework for Addressing Ethical Legal and Societal Issues The National Academies Press Washington DC 2014 pp 8-12 73 Based on email communications from DARPA on January 2 2018 and January 17 2018 Congressional Research Service 22