Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
•
Long-term professional participation of Air Force personnel as active
partners with the external micro- and nanotechnology community.
•
Strong leadership and technical evaluation at the highest levels of AFRL
technical leadership, as has already begun.
•
Both fundamental research and focused, interdisciplinary development
efforts. Fundamental research efforts are required to sustain a cadre of
scientists with a deep understanding of both micro- and nanotechnology
developments and of Air Force requirements. Interdisciplinary develop-
ment efforts put an essential Air-Force-specific overlay on this funda-
mental research and force multidisciplinary teams to confront real sys-
tem- and subsystem-level problems, which is essential for bringing any
technology from the laboratory bench to practical application.
REFERENCES
1. National Science Foundation. 2000. Science and Engineering Indicators 2000. Available online
at <http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind00/start.htm> [July 9, 2002].
2. National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and
Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, D.C.: Na-
tional Academy Press.
3. Air Force Association. 2000. Shortchanging the Future January: Air Force Research and Devel-
opment Demands Investment. Arlington, Va.: Air Force Association.
4. National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and
Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, D.C.: Na-
tional Academy Press.
5. National Research Council. 2001. Review of the U.S. Department of Defense Air, Space, and
Supporting Information Systems Science and Technology Program. Washington, D.C.: Na-
tional Academy Press.
6. U.S. House of Representatives. 2001. Blue-Ribbon Panel Warns of Dangers of Reduced Invest-
ment in Defense Science and Technology, Committee on Science Press Release, July 27. Avail-
able online at <http://www.house.gov/science/press/107pr/107-66.htm> [July 10, 2002].
7. Meeks, R.L. 2002. Changing Composition of Federal Funding for Research and Development
and R&D Plant Since 1990, National Science Foundation InfoBrief NSF 02-315, April. Avail-
able online at <http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/infbrief/nsf02315/nsf02315.pdf> [July 10, 2002].
8. U.S. House of Representatives. 2001. Pentagon Advisory Panel Criticizes Science Budget,
Press Release, March 19. Available online at <http://www.house.gov/tonyhall/pr214.html>
[July 10, 2002].
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2002. Trends in Federal R&D, FY
1990-2003. Available online at <http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/rd/cht9003a.pdf> [July 10, 2002].
10. U.S. House of Representatives. 2001. Pentagon Advisory Panel Criticizes Science Budget,
Press Release, March 19. Available online at <http://www.house.gov/tonyhall/pr214.html>
[July 10, 2002].
11. U.S. House of Representatives. 2001. Pentagon Advisory Panel Criticizes Science Budget,
Press Release, March 19. Available online at <http://www.house.gov/tonyhall/pr214.html>
[July 10, 2002].
Search WWH ::
Custom Search