Applying Social and Behavioral Sciences to Human Security Needs

Issues challenging the safety and well-being of society are ever-present and complex. Are our military and national security organizations strong enough to keep enemies at bay? How will our future be affected if we do not act against the evolving consequences of climate change? What are the human and economic costs of dementia and are there ways to prevent or cure this and other diseases? Making progress on these questions and others like them requires a systematic and objective approach to information analysis while identifying any gaps in knowledge that need attention.

 We expect scientists to explain new data that they have collected as filtered through a particular intellectual or methodological lens, a well-developed school of thought, in which they were trained. However, when very complicated or expansive questions arise (such as those that affect the safety and health of the population), rather than relying on a single scientist’s or field’s school of thought for answers, the solutions usually lie in assessing knowledge across a variety of perspectives or bodies of work. Therefore, it is necessary to call upon an array of scientists from diverse disciplines and schools of thought in order to determine what they can agree upon. This base level of agreement, or consensus, is a valuable and necessary starting place in developing an answer to the really hard questions that face society.

This search for consensus is a hallmark method of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (hereafter, “National Academies”) and it may explain, in part, why the organization has provided independent, trusted advice to the research and policymaking community for more than 150 years.¹.Olson, S. (2014) The National Academy of Sciences at 150. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2014, 111 (Supplement 2) 9327-9364; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1406109111for an interesting, brief review of the history of the organization, and McNutt, M. and M. M. Crow (2020). Science institutions for a complex, fast-paced world. Issues in science and technology, 36(2): pp. 30-34. The National Academies convenes top scientists who donate their time and expert knowledge pro-bono in order to author consensus studies and contribute to workshops, symposia, and other activities. Importantly, the National Academies is not a government agency nor does it have a direct-line of funding from the government. Note that as a non-profit organization, it has limited capacity to fund studies entirely on its own, but it does seek funding from a variety of sources such as foundations, industry, and individuals in addition to the federal government. The National Academies also has declined funding from potential sponsors for reasons such as when a sponsor has a conflict of interest or a proposed topic is not sufficiently grounded in science. 

The National Academies offers an independent voice, is not influenced by what a government funder expects to hear on an issue that needs to be addressed, nor does it bend to the political wind in Washington, DC. This independence sets the National Academies apart from other DC-based organizations and groups who offer advice and support to legislators and the executive branch and who may receive a direct line of government funds. Additionally, all of its publications are available as free downloads on the National Academies Press website,²www.nap.edu a testament to its commitment to make information freely available to the public and all stakeholders.

Consensus studies produce policy reports that are as free from conflicts of interest as possible, have a balance of perspectives, and therefore are a trusted source of information.  A recent example of a consensus report involves reducing the impact of Alzheimer’s disease.³National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Reducing the Impact of Dementia in America: A Decadal Survey of the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26175. Caring for the more than 6 million people in the United States living with Alzheimer’s disease presents numerous and complex challenges for individuals, families, communities, health care systems, and the broader society.  Many of these challenges are related to human behavior in a social context and solutions are necessarily grounded in the social and behavioral sciences (hereafter, “SBS”).

SBS research has been an important contributor to the development of interventions that can prevent or slow the development of the disease and therefore these sciences play a necessary role in reducing the negative impact on society.  For this reason, several federal and private sponsors asked the National Academies to convene a committee with a broad range of expertise in sociology, epidemiology, biostatistics, public health, geriatric medicine, psychology, psychiatry, neurology, bioethics, and public policy to offer a research roadmap for SBS in addressing Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias over the next decade. For example, this roadmap offers modes of prevention of the disease, while acknowledging that more research is needed to better understand prevention.

Other examples of far-reaching societal concerns addressed by consensus reports that utilize SBS include understanding disasters;⁴e.g. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24935; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Promising Practices for Addressing the Underrepresentation of Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine: Opening Doors. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25585. addressing disparities and inequities in education,⁵National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303. health,⁶National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24624. health care,⁷Institute of Medicine. (2003). Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12875. and the workplace.⁸National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Promising Practices for Addressing the Underrepresentation of Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine: Opening Doors. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25585; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Transforming Trajectories for Women of Color in Tech. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26345.  

The Process of Consensus Building

Key features of the National Academies’ consensus report process include establishing a formal “statement of task,” a scoping of the work that guides the selection of experts and conduct of the study; careful balancing of expertise on committees; thoroughly vetting for conflicts of interest; and, once the statement of task is finalized, ensuring independence from the sponsors with regard to committee deliberations.  The committee appointment process also includes a public comment period of at least 20 days, enabling the public to offer thoughts on the experts selected to serve on the committee and to make suggestions. This public comment period is most relevant for high profile projects with watchful constituents. 

The statement of task for any given project can derive from a National Academies’ standing unit(s) such as a board, which identifies the opportunity for a particular body of work to inform a policy or research direction and presents that idea to potential sponsor(s), or it can come directly from a sponsor to address a problem they have, provide program direction, or inform future research. ⁹In a relatively small number of cases, an agency is directed by Congress through targeted legislation to conduct a particular study; in some cases, this directive comes with appropriated funds and in others the agency is expected to identify funding.   An example of this is the replicability study referenced later in this paper. In all cases, the statement of task is agreed to by the sponsor(s) before a committee is appointed, often after an iterative exchange with National Academies staff to ensure that the questions are clear and focused.

Appointed consensus committees undertake an ongoing phase of information gathering that is transparent but importantly, committee deliberations are confidential to ensure that its members are free from outside influence. Once a draft report is prepared, it is reviewed by experts independent of, and anonymous to, the committee who authors the report. Finally, the requesting agency or sponsor(s) of the study does not see the draft report before it is final. While the sponsor(s) is briefed prior to the report’s public release, the content of the report is final.

These elements of the National Academies’ consensus process allow the institution to issue reports that are objective, balanced, evidence-based, and fully responsive to the statement of task that guided the committee’s work.¹⁰If a committee cannot reach consensus, they are encouraged to present competing evidence or to include minority or dissenting views, as appropriate. They are considered reliable, authoritative, and trusted because all recommendations must be evidence-based in accordance with review standards, and those recommendations are derived in an environment that is free from outside political or other influence. Sponsors can therefore use the resultant reports to guide policy decisions, inform programmatic directions, and/or prioritize research agendas, knowing they have received solid, empirical grounding.

While consensus studies are the gold standard of advice and recommendations offered by the National Academies, Peter Blair notes that new and evolving types of convening activities have developed in the last 20+ years in order to provide advice more quickly when necessary.¹¹Blair, P.D. (2016). The evolving role of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in providing science and technology policy advice to the US government. Palgrave Communications. pp. 1-7. In some cases, a sponsor may be interested in being more actively engaged with scientific experts than the consensus process allows, or highlighting an open dialogue about a given scientific area, but without the need for recommendations.  While only consensus reports provide recommendations, that level of synthesis is not always required to meet a sponsor’s needs and other types of activities can provide critically important forums for dialogue, debate, and sometimes, written synthesis. These activities utilize the National Academies’ unprecedented access to leading scientific experts.

Moving Beyond Consensus Reports

While most known for its consensus process and reports, the National Academies has created, and for years utilized, additional project formats to broaden its ability to provide timely and responsive input and advice.  For example, workshops, typically one-time events, invite a carefully curated range of experts to discuss a specified set of topics in a public forum. While brief workshops can be constructed as part of the consensus study process to provide important input to a committee’s deliberations, they also can be stand-alone, several-day events with published proceedings that summarize the presentations and discussions.  Standing committees are assembled to meet on an ongoing basis to address specific areas of need to provide continuous guidance for a sponsor, with no written reports.  Expert meetings, which are typically one- or two-day events, allow technical experts to engage in dialogue with sponsors in closed sessions to address topics identified by that sponsor.  Roundtables and forums provide a neutral venue where representatives from a range of organizations, including government, industry, private businesses, academia, and other stakeholder groups can gather periodically to identify and discuss issues of mutual interest and concern on an ongoing basis.  These four types of activities, particularly standing committees and expert meetings, allow experts recruited by the National Academies to introduce topics for discussion that sponsors may not have originally considered when asking for advice.  Because recommendations are not issued in line with the prescribed statement of task (and there are no written products from standing committees or expert meetings), there can be free-ranging dialogue about research and emerging ideas.  Experts try to best meet the sponsor’s need in real time.

More recently, the National Academies has become increasingly innovative in order to contribute to the needs of a fast-moving world where information is utilized in different ways and needed in an even quicker manner. Analytic frameworks, a new type of product recently developed specifically for the analytic arm of the Intelligence Community (hereafter, “IC”), allow experts and sponsors to collaboratively develop written materials that help intelligence analysts understand the latest research in specific areas within SBS science fields and apply those concepts to their work. 

Analytic frameworks historically have been developed and used within the IC. The National Academies has drawn upon the IC approach to establish internal structures and processes (including a creative application of the expert meeting model) that enabled the institution to produce a similar, but more robust, product.  It brings to the process its vast network of SBS experts, who might not be known or otherwise accessible to the IC, and a process for enabling clarity and new ways of understanding current problems.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Academies developed a new product, Rapid Expert Consultations, to provide brief, rapid, and expert guidance on a host of topics from the effectiveness of fabric masks to crisis standards of care, and social distancing,¹²National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Rapid Expert Consultations on the COVID-19 Pandemic March 14, 2020 – April 18, 2020.  https://www.nap.edu/read/25784/; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Based on Science. https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science. all emerging issues of relevance to human and national security.  Produced within a few weeks to a couple of months, they are designed to provide narrowly targeted and easily digested advice to the federal government, state and local decision-makers, public health officials, employers, and the public.  Experts are quickly identified by an appointed, standing advisory body.  The experts identify emerging literature and help draft written guidance, with oversight by the advisory body. Communication experts help determine the best ways to present the information, with established channels to disseminate these rapid expert consultations to the intended audiences.

The range of activities offered by the National Academies fill a multitude of needs not only for the scientific, policymaking, and stakeholder communities, but also for the science-interested public. For consensus studies, products derived from the original reports are created that distill key concepts into four-to-six-page summaries that are targeted to lay audiences.  Other derivative products from consensus reports include short videos and info-graphics with content from the original report. Like the reports from which they are developed, these derivatives are provided free of charge to the public (via the nap.edu site) because the cost of production is included in the original contract negotiated with the sponsor(s). Creating content to help the public understand the ways in which science can improve the lives of people is an important service and can help the public understand and support legislative and other action. 

The SBS Sciences Play a Key Role in the National Academies’ Work

The National Academies draws on many areas of science, from SBS to life sciences and physical sciences, seeking to ensure that the whole of the scientific endeavor is leveraged to bring about a strong and compelling outcome. For example, psychologists, computer scientists, physicists, and geologists among others recently came together to tackle questions around improving reproducibility and replicability in science.¹³National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303. Some in the scientific community, enhanced by press coverage, set in motion a fear that science was “broken” because a number of important studies could not be reproduced or replicated. While there were issues of reproducibility and replicability across a number of the sciences in differing degrees, psychology was a target for media coverage, probably because the subject matter seems more understandable and accessible to the public.

The report made a clear case that reproducibility and replicability, or lack thereof, is part of the process of normal science. It is through efforts to replicate or reproduce other labs’ findings that we can feel confident in scientific findings. The report also energized the scientific community to review its methods, for example incorporating the use of  “badges” on published articles indicating a hypothesis was registered before a study began has become a source of pride to the authors and a sign of quality to the stakeholders.

The power of the kind of inter-disciplinary intellectual exchange, made possible by the National Academies is critically important in reaching such conclusions. As a side note, this study was funded by the federal government and a private foundation, and provides an example of a public-private partnership to address an important societal issue.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Societal Experts Action Network (SEAN) was developed to provide rapid expert consultations such as those referenced above, with actionable responses to questions faced by decision-makers, answerable specifically with evidence from SBS.¹⁴National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Societal Experts Action Network (SEAN). https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/societal-experts-action-network. SEAN identifies topics of particular concern to local, state, and national decision-makers, and identifies SBS experts to provide actionable advice.  Topics addressed have included, for example, vulnerability of homeless populations, communicating about vaccine effectiveness and equity, and encouraging COVID-19 protective behaviors.  Future work may focus on actionable guidance from the SBS related to pressing societal issues such as climate change, economic inequality, or workplace protections.

More traditional issues in national security e.g., intelligence analysis, have also been the focus of National Academies’ consensus work in the reports A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis¹⁵National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019). A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25335. and Intelligence Analysis for Tomorrow.¹⁶National Research Council (2011). Intelligence Analysis for Tomorrow: Advances from the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13040. Questions posed by sponsors for these projects involved topics that SBS can readily inform; for example, areas such as judgment and decision making, ways to predict conflict in other countries, and determining how analysts might better see the underlying SBS factors that influence how populations might be swayed by leaders.  Of course, these are topics that SBS is particularly well poised to address because there are a number of sub-disciplines whose foci are exactly on work in areas such as judgment and decision-making.

For policymakers and the informed public who may be trying to understand the world of the United States IC, the Decadal Survey noted above describes the work and perspective of the analytic community and also describes the differing culture and expectations of the “two communities,” i.e., the SBS academic community and the intelligence analytic community.¹⁷National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019). A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25335. An important part of this project from the start was to appreciate the context of different stakeholder thoughts and how those influence the issues.

Another report, Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis was developed in response to recognition that the intelligence mission requires the consideration of activities and processes anywhere in the world that might lead, directly or indirectly, to threats to U.S. national security.¹⁸National Research Council. 2013. Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/14682. The socio-political disruptions that might result from climate change is one such threat. While focused on events outside the United States, the report recommends a number of actions, both new research and potential policy actions, to create a whole-of-government approach aimed at increasing understanding of complex and contingent connections between climate and national security, and to inform choices about adapting to and reducing vulnerability to climate change.  The report was a primary driver in the creation of a new Climate Security Roundtable¹⁹See https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/climate-security-roundtable that will draw on social and behavioral science experts, as well as experts in other disciplines, including experts from academia, the private sector, and civil society to provide support to the Climate Security Advisory Council (CSAC).  The CSAC is a joint partnership between the U.S. IC and the Federal Science Community to better understand and anticipate the ways climate change affects U.S. national security interests.

The National Academies also evaluates existing US government programs to help agencies maintain (or exceed) quality as needs change or evolve.  The sponsoring agency may have ideas about how to improve a given program or can identify what seems challenging as they attempt to carry out their tasks, but an independent, authoritative review by the National Academies can reinforce or refute existing ideas, and strengthen existing government programs.

The Minerva Research Initiative (hereafter “Minerva”) within the Department of Defense, which funds unclassified basic SBS research relevant to national security, requested an evaluation of their program after about 10 years of operation. By that time, their awards totaled approximately 100, grantees primarily hailed from academia, and some sub-awards had been made to non-university entities.

The consensus study report, Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative, concluded that Minerva had made important contributions to national security in its first 10 years.²⁰National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25482. The committee described the steps taken by Minerva staff to broaden their base of awardees to provide a more inclusive general outreach to the academic community, and recommended strengthening the infrastructure of the office. For example, the report recommended that the director of the Minerva Research Initiative be a full-time civil servant with relevant SBS credentials and that the program maintain a centralized database. 

The committee worked for almost two years and during that time, they reviewed similar funding programs, invited expert speakers to address committee questions in public sessions, encouraged input from DoD and Minerva staff as well as the broader community in order to understand internal and external challenges, and collected and analyzed data from grantees. 

The report has made an impact on the future of Minerva.  Upon release, the committee chair was invited to brief Congress and to present at the National Intelligence Science and Technology Committee, which is a meeting of the science and technology chiefs of the 17 national security intelligence agencies and associates.  Most significantly, the Senate Armed Services Committee recommended a budget increase for Minerva in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, citing the Academies’ Minerva evaluation report.  The report was also mentioned in the draft text of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats, and Capabilities for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, where DOD was urged to implement the recommendations of the National Academies to strengthen ties between grantees and potential users of their research and increase visibility, tracking, and dissemination of the research results to the broader national security community. Further, the House report recommended that “all military services should participate in the program and highlight their specific plans and outcomes in annual budget documentation, further increasing visibility of Minerva-funded research to the user community.” 

The IC and Academia since the Manhattan Project

The National Academies is uniquely able to bridge one particular divide that still exists to some extent between the IC and academia writ large. There exists a history of controversy between the government and academia, starting with the World War II era, regarding collaborations on national security.²¹Solovey, M. (2001). Project Camelot and the 1960’s Epistemological Revolution: Rethinking the Politics-patronage-social Science Nexus. Social Studies of Science. 31(2): 171-206. doi:10.1177/0306312701031002003 Notably, the Manhattan Project (1942-1946) engaged physicists in the development of the atomic bomb.  After the war, the Office of Naval Research funded universities (such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) to work on “political warfare” in which the SBS studies were mostly classified. Distrust in the government, and particularly the “spy” agencies, became a major roadblock for cross talk and collaboration of academia and the IC.²²Wellerstein A, “Manhattan Project,” Encyclopedia of the History of Science (October 2019). https://doi.org/10.34758/9aaa-ne35.  

In the 1960’s, Project Camelot, begun by the Army and executed by the Special Operations Research Office (SORO) at American University, stirred up a serious controversy about the possible misuse of science.²³Solovey, M. (2001). Project Camelot and the 1960’s Epistemological Revolution: Rethinking the Politics-patronage-social Science Nexus. Social Studies of Science. 31(2): 171-206. doi:10.1177/0306312701031002003; Wax, M.L., & Cassell, J. (Eds.) (1979) Federation Regulations: Ethical Issues and Social Research (1st ed.). Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780429051098  SORO convened a variety of scientific leaders in psychology, sociology, economics, and anthropology, among others, in order to understand and analyze the culture of targeted countries with a focus on Latin America. Because scientists in Latin America learned of the details of the plan and complained about the motives of the project, Project Camelot was purportedly “disbanded” within two years of its inception; however, apparently the government continued the work more clandestinely.²⁴See Goolsby, R. (2005). Ethics and defense agency funding: Some considerations. In Social Networks, Vol 27 (2), pp 95-106. Elsevier, Amsterdam.     

Tensions from the academic community toward the IC have continued, for example, a somewhat recent controversy regarding anthropologists who were involved in Human Terrain Teams, and psychologists’ roles in interrogation techniques.²⁵See Forte, M.C. (2011). The human terrain system and anthropology: A review of ongoing public debates. American Anthropologist. 113(1), 149-153. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1433.2010.01315.x Some scientific societies have developed ethical codes and some express reservations to their membership about working with the government.  However, there is also acknowledgment that SBS is important to meeting national security goals.  Notably, the United States Institute for Peace (USIP) partners with the Department of Defense (Note that the Minerva research initiative, within DOD, is not part of the IC.) The goal of the partnership is to leverage SBS to help address and resolve real-world concerns. This kind of relationship is quite unique and shows a path forward for useful and even necessary collaboration for the security and peace of all.

The US government security-related agencies have made some positive strides to reduce tension and distrust with academia over the decades. Repeatedly we have heard from sponsors from within the IC that academia is not as responsive when they ask for help unless a relationship already exists. This leads them to rely upon the same academicians who have worked with them in the past while the IC would naturally prefer to expand their pool of experts.

As already noted, the National Academies has significant access to experts within academia. The majority of experts who serve (pro-bono) are either academicians, hold emeritus status, or have an administrative post with university affiliation. Honorific members of the National Academies²⁶NASEM includes three organizations whose members are elected by their peers: the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), expect to be approached about important work and are frequent participants in consensus studies and other activities.  Additionally, there are thousands of volunteers who, while not honorific members, respond to National Academies’ requests based on the imprimatur of the institution; therefore, when they are approached for assistance, they typically agree to help, with enthusiasm. The National Academies also has access to experts in industry, medicine, and other fields who bring applied expertise. 

This all goes to show that the National Academies engages a vast array of scientists, many with cutting-edge ideas and research underway, to provide evidence-based advice on national security matters in a way that government officials inside the IC are sometimes not able to accomplish.  The National Academies’ independence from any particular federal agency and reputation in the science community facilitates discussion across academic, government, and other communities. 

It is not difficult to understand why academicians may be justified in their concerns with working with the IC but decisions will be made with or without academia, so it is in the interest of our educated elite to try to work with the IC in some way that would be more comfortable. The National Academies is trusted by most academics and can leverage a useful relationship with academia when engaged by the IC.

Tangible Impact

The National Academies has impacted the national security realm in some tangible ways.  For example, the standing up of the Department of Homeland Security was strongly endorsed by the expert community via a National Academies’ consensus study.²⁷e.g., Malakoff, D. (2002). Academies weigh in on homeland defense. Science, 296(5577): p. 2311; and Dawson, J. (2002). Science and technology are a focus of debate on new Homeland Security Department. Physics Today, 55(8): 22-24.    This shows the direct impact that studies can have on guiding ground breaking government strategy. Brian Vastag noted:

            A sweeping report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) places a new Homeland Security Institute at the nexus of antiterrorism research, responsible for making sense of rivers of data flowing from 188 federal agencies whose work involves some aspect of terrorism. The proposed institute would operate like a “more technical, more focused” NAS.²⁸Vastag, B. (2002). NAS recommends creating Homeland Security Institute. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 288(5): pp. 568-570.  

Also, the National Academies is periodically called out in the Congressional Record and in legislative language.²⁹see https://www.nationalacademies.org/ocga The imprimatur and high quality of its reports are unique within the large sphere of entities that provide scientific analysis that is available to make policy decisions.  Throughout the years, federal legislation and executive orders have been issued by Congress and the White House asking the National Academies to weigh in on complex and controversial topics. These concrete acknowledgments offer a clear and obvious record of impact, but important impacts are also often informal.

Former sponsors have shared that particular reports relevant to their missions sit on everyone’s desk in the office as a resource and/or that they have several National Academies’ reports on their shelves for reference. Others have indicated that they hold “book club” meetings with internal staff on various reports. (Additionally, some reports are used as textbooks in university courses.) We hear sponsors boast about funding a given report in public meetings. Sponsors have spoken about the value that they have found by just engaging in our processes, no matter the goal or outcome of the project. (As noted earlier, the National Academies provides access to cutting-edge scientists that the sponsor(s) may not be familiar with.) This appreciation of the National Academies’ work shows its authoritative stance in the world of science and its value to the stakeholders.

Additionally, and in particular as related to intelligence analysts, we have been told that the mere exposure to new ways of thinking is important.  That is, while a given analyst may or may not immediately use the new tools or ideas shared via the expert dialogue and the final reports, just the exposure to new data and methods can make a big impact. Meetings with experts can bring about new ways of thinking and new sources of information.

While sponsors benefit from the outcomes or products of National Academies’ activities, the dialogue during meetings, and exposure to different perspectives, the experience is also of value to the scientific experts recruited for these activities.  Scientists’ interactions with government personnel and experts from a variety of disciplines expand their own thinking about concepts and topics.  Some volunteers have commented that the involvement in National Academies’ work was one of the highlights of their careers and that they now see government employees and their work in a new light.  

Conclusions

The National Academies brings clarity to complex problems that inform public policy decisions.  It has influenced matters of national security over many decades because of its imprimatur, its reputation of providing independent, clear, and useful information.³⁰Blair. P.D. (2021). Toward More Effective Science and Technology Advice for Congress: The Historical Roots and Pathways Forward. Annals of Science and Technology Policy: Vol. 5: No. 2, pp 91-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/110.00000022

    There are other groups who also offer useful advice including the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that are within government, but the National Academies is not a government agency and so enjoys a unique independence and status as a non-profit organization.

Social and behavioral scientists have partnered on a number of studies and projects at the National Academies that cut across various areas of science and have also worked independently depending on the issue at hand. These sciences are integral to a full understanding of most issues facing the nation today and should be relied upon in ongoing work addressing issues of national security.

About the Authors

Barbara A. Wanchisen is former senior advisor for behavioral sciences and previously served as senior board director at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Prior to those roles, she was executive director of a multi-organizational advocacy group, housed within the American Psychological Association, focused on promoting the behavioral sciences. Before moving to Washington, DC, Wanchisen was full professor of psychology at Baldwin-Wallace University.

Adrienne Stith Butler is Deputy Chief Science Officer at the American Psychological Association (APA).  She previously enjoyed a 22-year career at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, where she directed numerous studies and other convening activities and served as a board director in the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education just prior to joining the APA.

Mary Ellen O’Connell is a senior advisor with the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (DBASSE) at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. She retired as DBASSE Executive Director in early 2022. Prior to her 21-year DBASSE career, which also included serving as Deputy Executive Director as well as Acting Director and Deputy Director for several boards, and leading numerous studies, she led a variety of policy and program initiatives at the federal and state levels.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Anne Marie Houppert, NASEM Senior Librarian, and Bianca Markovich for their help in library research and data collection for this essay. The views expressed in this essay are exclusively those of the authors.

Notes

• 1
  .Olson, S. (2014) The National Academy of Sciences at 150. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2014, 111 (Supplement 2) 9327-9364; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1406109111for an interesting, brief review of the history of the organization, and McNutt, M. and M. M. Crow (2020). Science institutions for a complex, fast-paced world. Issues in science and technology, 36(2): pp. 30-34.
• 2
  www.nap.edu
• 3
  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Reducing the Impact of Dementia in America: A Decadal Survey of the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26175.
• 4
  e.g. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24935; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Promising Practices for Addressing the Underrepresentation of Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine: Opening Doors. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25585.
• 5
  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303.
• 6
  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24624.
• 7
  Institute of Medicine. (2003). Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12875.
• 8
  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Promising Practices for Addressing the Underrepresentation of Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine: Opening Doors. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25585; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Transforming Trajectories for Women of Color in Tech. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26345.  
• 9
  In a relatively small number of cases, an agency is directed by Congress through targeted legislation to conduct a particular study; in some cases, this directive comes with appropriated funds and in others the agency is expected to identify funding.   An example of this is the replicability study referenced later in this paper.
• 10
  If a committee cannot reach consensus, they are encouraged to present competing evidence or to include minority or dissenting views, as appropriate.
• 11
  Blair, P.D. (2016). The evolving role of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in providing science and technology policy advice to the US government. Palgrave Communications. pp. 1-7.
• 12
  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Rapid Expert Consultations on the COVID-19 Pandemic March 14, 2020 – April 18, 2020.  https://www.nap.edu/read/25784/; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Based on Science. https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science.
• 13
  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303.
• 14
  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Societal Experts Action Network (SEAN). https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/societal-experts-action-network.
• 15
  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019). A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25335.
• 16
  National Research Council (2011). Intelligence Analysis for Tomorrow: Advances from the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13040.
• 17
  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019). A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25335.
• 18
  National Research Council. 2013. Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/14682.
• 19
  See https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/climate-security-roundtable
• 20
  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Evaluation of the Minerva Research Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25482.
• 21
  Solovey, M. (2001). Project Camelot and the 1960’s Epistemological Revolution: Rethinking the Politics-patronage-social Science Nexus. Social Studies of Science. 31(2): 171-206. doi:10.1177/0306312701031002003
• 22
  Wellerstein A, “Manhattan Project,” Encyclopedia of the History of Science (October 2019). https://doi.org/10.34758/9aaa-ne35.
• 23
  Solovey, M. (2001). Project Camelot and the 1960’s Epistemological Revolution: Rethinking the Politics-patronage-social Science Nexus. Social Studies of Science. 31(2): 171-206. doi:10.1177/0306312701031002003; Wax, M.L., & Cassell, J. (Eds.) (1979) Federation Regulations: Ethical Issues and Social Research (1st ed.). Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780429051098 
• 24
  See Goolsby, R. (2005). Ethics and defense agency funding: Some considerations. In Social Networks, Vol 27 (2), pp 95-106. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
• 25
  See Forte, M.C. (2011). The human terrain system and anthropology: A review of ongoing public debates. American Anthropologist. 113(1), 149-153. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1433.2010.01315.x
• 26
  NASEM includes three organizations whose members are elected by their peers: the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM),
• 27
  e.g., Malakoff, D. (2002). Academies weigh in on homeland defense. Science, 296(5577): p. 2311; and Dawson, J. (2002). Science and technology are a focus of debate on new Homeland Security Department. Physics Today, 55(8): 22-24.
• 28
  Vastag, B. (2002). NAS recommends creating Homeland Security Institute. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 288(5): pp. 568-570.
• 29
  see https://www.nationalacademies.org/ocga
• 30
  Blair. P.D. (2021). Toward More Effective Science and Technology Advice for Congress: The Historical Roots and Pathways Forward. Annals of Science and Technology Policy: Vol. 5: No. 2, pp 91-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/110.00000022