“In this third essay of my series, “When Efficiency Harms the Mission,” I delve into the hidden costs of prioritizing efficiency above all else. While efficiency often provides tidy, short-term gains, it can undermine the resilience and adaptability needed to respond successfully in when our strengths are rendered less effective.
The essay challenges us to rethink our obsession with centralized control and quantifiable outcomes, proposing a shift toward a decentralized, competitive approach that embraces longstanding American strengths of diversity, tension, and creativity. Drawing from lessons in war, innovation, and policy, I argue that focusing on mission over function is key to true national security.
This series continues to discuss the idea that we are in a moment of transition and our current emerging problems resist our old solutions. It’s critical that we spend some time reflecting on what frameworks we need to foster resilience in an uncertain world rather that jumping straight to solutions.”
“The scientific community, including funders across sectors of government, philanthropy, and industry, seem to focus on two versions of success: novelty or scale. They bestow awards and grants on those who show either “revolutionary” new ideas or those who purport to solve a problem for millions that can make someone rich. Anything else falls into this category of incremental and it is dismissed. Somehow harvesting the science we have already invested in to solve individual, local, or regional problems that don’t necessarily lend themselves to market rewards is not incentivized. We owe it to American communities to address longstanding and emerging goals and concerns that may not have clear market drivers and may require diverse approaches, such as challenges of clean water and sanitation; drought, flooding, and wildfires; crumbling infrastructure; preventable chronic diseases; opioid addiction—the list is long. The details of these concerns differ across communities, so solutions need to be localized….”
“The policy innovations that emerged from Bush’s recommendations in 1945 have been very successful in many ways. His prescriptions were ideal for a post-WWII era America, and it is important that sustained funding for foundational science continues. Nevertheless, endlessly perpetuating solutions that were correct at the time does not follow Bush’s true legacy, which was to analyze the current national context, specifically focusing on the U.S. science and technology (S&T) system, create a new institutional landscape that filled gaps in that system, and ultimately provide a global model for others. If Bush were alive today, I believe he would expect the country to analyze this moment, not abide by his advice for the problems of his day. An entirely new contextual assessment is required to develop the framework needed for the social, technological, and security concerns of the 21st century. Following his legacy begins with honestly confronting the contemporary context, as difficult as that may be.”
Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET)
June 2023
“This brief provides a framework for a systems-oriented approach to technology and national security strategy. It identifies and discusses the tensions among three strategic goals of technology and national security policy — driving technological innovation, impeding adversaries’ progress, and promoting safe, values-driven technology deployment — and highlights various levers of power that policymakers can use to pursue those goals. This adaptable framework, suitable for any country or international body, emphasizes the importance of creative problem-solving and maintaining a comprehensive understanding of the policy landscape.”
“Too many countries have built a research pipeline that venerates prizes and papers above all else. People and their problems get left out as scientists chase novelty and the prestige it brings. For many years, I was complicit. I oversaw basic research programmes across the US Department of Defense, determined to make sure that the United States led in science. Eventually, I realized it was equally important that research programmes lead towards tangible benefits: better national security, regional floodplain management, or a product or practice that results in better, safer lives.
Too often, in my experience, the more applied a proposal is, the less likely it is to be funded. Once a researcher finishes a project and publishes the paper, they simply go on to the next proposal — the next big, new idea, constantly chasing novelty, the bleeding edge of science. What a waste.”
“Dr. Melissa Flagg calls for an end to innovation tourism in order to regain thought leadership and systematically adopt new innovations as national security becomes fixated on technical superiority.”
On Tuesday, December 14, 2021, the Andrew W. Marshall Foundation (AWMF) and advisors met to reflect on 2021 activities and offer thoughts on experimentation, intellectual courage, and mentorship.
Jaymie Durnan, Co-Founder and Chairman of AWMF, welcomed the audience and gave opening remarks. Mr. Durnan discussed how AWMF is fulfilling its mission through the experiments it has launched in 2021and noted that, “we really are keeping our promise to Andy by focusing on people and ideas, and how people are applying these ideas to the future of the United States.”
Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at the Rockefeller University, spoke about experimentation and its merits. He stated that, “change is the only truly predictable attribute of most systems” and spoke to the importance of play as a form of experimentation and invention. “The youthful Marshall Foundation understands the need to play, to experiment, and then to grow while retaining that spirit of play. The good news about 2021 is that the Foundation did numerous things for the first time.”
Dr. Melissa Flagg of Flagg Consulting LLC spoke about how we can encourage people to think boldly and imagine possible futures. She described Andrew Marshall as “not in a hurry” and said that she believed “he felt a deep urgency, but it was an urgency to understand – not simply to act.” Dr. Flagg advised that “we have a responsibility to inspire and support those who want to think beyond simply what they have learned.”
Dr. Dan Patt discussed mentorship and what AWMF can do to foster new voices. Mentorship “has nothing to do with having the answers and everything to do with asking the questions,” he stated. He went on to remark, “in the way that Andy lived his life and conducted his career and mentored a good many souls, we can find inspiration and we can find some answers, but probably the greatest lesson for us was in how Andy approached questions, how he approached being a mentor.”
The event concluded with a question-and-answer session with the audience, focusing on identifying good research questions, group creativity, and considerations one should make when looking at future possibilities.
