2008

FAS Releases Survey Results on the Attitudes of Scientists Toward Law Enforcement – FBI to use results to improve relations with the scientific community

A survey conducted by the Federation of American Scientists and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) revealed that while scientists are disposed to assist in criminal investigations, they often fear working with law enforcement agencies. The survey questions were designed to evaluate the working relationship between FBI field agents and scientists, and the results, published December 22, 2008 in Science Progress, indicate a reluctance to discuss research with law enforcement and other issues that are specific to the science community.

Anecdotal evidence suggested that some scientists held negative views of law enforcement. This survey is the first step in recognizing the scope of the problem and addressing it directly.

“The results suggest a larger percentage of scientists show cooler feelings towards the FBI than the general public, and often misunderstand why FBI agents might be contacting them,” said Michael Stebbins, Director of Biology Policy at the Federation of American Scientists. “FAS is now working with the FBI to develop specific solutions for alleviating the concerns of scientists and strengthening the relationship between law enforcement and the scientific community.”

“The FBI proactively initiated this outreach effort with FAS to engage the scientific community, seek their input, and gather useful information enabling us to improve the relationship. The results of this survey will go a long way to helping us better understand the challenges we face and to overcome some of the misconceptions that exist between law enforcement and scientists,” said Dr. Vahid Majidi, Assistant Director of the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate.  “This information will enable us to devise a strategic plan to address this matter and to continue working with the scientific community to enhance our relationship.”

FAS and the FBI will apply the lessons learned in this survey towards developing training materials for field agents to improve the relationship between scientists and law enforcement.

“Perhaps the most important step toward building a better working foundation is for law enforcement agencies, like the FBI, to establish procedures for contacting science experts,” said Stebbins. “Many of the scientists’ concerns would be alleviated if the specific goals the agent hoped to achieve were clarified. If clear boundaries are established then the cooperation of scientists and law enforcement agents will likely improve.”

The Survey:

FAS collaborated with the FBI, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research to develop the survey questions and distribute it to the scientific community. The survey contained a mix of multiple choice and open-ended questions and was distributed to 10,969 AAAS member scientists. 1,332 surveys were completed and the resulting data produced an average margin of error associated with the total data set of +/- 2.7%.

Key findings of the survey:

• Despite suspicions of the FBI and opposition to law agencies monitoring scientific research, scientists are willing to aid in certain situations.

• Scientists feel that the FBI does not work well with the scientific community, specifically that law enforcement officers don’t understand their work (76%), that these agencies are more interested in restricting research for security purposes than they are in the scientific value of the work (71%), that officers have an overzealous approach to security issues and an interest in censorship (63%), and that research will be restricted from publication (55%).

• Only 15% of surveyed scientists indicated any personal past contact in a professional capacity and these attitudes are likely based on stereotypes instead of actual experiences

• Relations with the FBI would improve if law enforcement agents approached scientists in a professional manner by setting up an appointment or initiating contact through official channels such as the scientist’s department head or supervisor.

Increasing scientific literacy among agents and officers will ensure clearer communication since scientists are most comfortable talking about their work with others familiar with scientific concepts, possibly because they are less concerned that the research will be misunderstood.

In August of 2008, UC Berkeley Professor Khalid Mosalam presented a paper coauthored by FAS’s Joe Hagerman and Henry Kelly at the 5th International Engineering and Construction Conference. The paper presents Mosalam’s findings from research into the seismic performance of structural insulated panels. There is a considerable lack of information available about the behavior of SIPs when subjected to seismic loads. The paper focuses on the characterization of the mechanical properties and seismic performance of SIPs using experimental techniques. Specimens studied include both OSB faced and cementitious SIPs, where panels were tested without panel-to-panel connections.

The full text pdf copy of the paper can be found here.

In mid-November, Joe Hagerman and I traveled to China to speak at the US China Green Energy Conference in Beijing, and to meet with officials from Sichuan University and the town of Mianzhu regarding rebuilding housing after the Sichuan Earthquake.

So its been quite a while since I’ve given this blog the attention it deserves. And that’s unfortunate, because we’ve been up to some quite exciting stuff in the past few months, including (among other things): a trip to china about building a demonstration there in the wake of the Sichuan Earthquake, some exciting talks about developing a home energy retrofit plan that would save energy and create jobs, some interesting meetings regarding indoor air quality in manufactured housing, exciting updates on FAS’s research on the seismic capacity of SIPs, as well as some very exciting news in the world of building research.

I’ll be making several posts in the coming weeks to catch things back up to speed, and you can expect more regular updates in the near year.

On Sept 23, 2008 the National Biodefense Science Board (NBSB) held an afternoon meeting to review the report and recommendations for the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) that had been prepared by the Disaster Medicine Working Group. The Working Group had assembled an assessment panel which evaluated previous reports done on the NDMS and put together their own report and specific recommendations which, with the approval of the NBSB, would be transmitted to the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.
Kevin Yeskey, Director of the Office of Preparedness and Response and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response began the meeting by giving an overview of NDMS and its capabilities. He also highlighted the recent response to hurricanes Gustav and Ike and contrasted NDMS participation to what occurred in response to hurricane Katrina. For Gustav and Ike they had been able to mobilize fully equipped teams, totaling 1100 response personnel rather than the 37 in the wake of Katrina.
Next, Dr. Stephen Cantrill, the Chair of the Working Group presented the assessment panel’s key recommendations and the NBSB had the chance to go over each and comment. Below is an outline of the recommendations, as the panel chose to organize them.
Recommendation 1: Envisioning the Future
1.1 Develop a clear strategic plan for the NDMS and integration of all other disaster medicine response mechanisms.
1.2 Develop a civilian advisory group for NDMS.
Recommendation 2: Integrating the Past
2.1 Establish a formal mechanism to track the implementation of lessons learned and recommendations from after-action reports.
Recommendation 3: Strengthen the team
3.1 Ensure teams are fully staffed and well-equipped
3.2 Improve and streamline application process for all personnel – *This point was removed during the discussion because based on Director Yeskey’s opening presentation, the NBSB determined that this has been done. Yeskey reported that the application and hiring process has been reduced from 8-12 months to 42 days.
3.3 Implement a uniform training program across NDMS.
3.4 Put into place a system to register non-overlapping personnel so that response capability can be precisely accounted.
Recommendation 4: Serving the patient
4.1 Determine who the patient is, consider patients that have been displaced across state lines NDMS patients even if they were not receiving NDMS care.
4.2 Expand reimbursement so that it is not limited to NDMS hospitals. Ensure that it is timely.
4.3 Define a concept of operations for patient moving and tracking.
4.4 Expand Electronic Medical Records for field use.
4.5 Examine barriers to patient care in emergency response and define criteria for temporary suspension of HIPPA or other requirements during an emergency.
Recommendation 5: Engaging Partners
5.1 Partner with state and local organizations.
5.2 Seek out public/private sector partnerships for patient transport and care.
Recommendation 6: Secure Funding
6.1 Funding is inadequate for the program. Seek out new sources for sustained funding.
Recommendation 7: Future
7.1 Request feedback from ASPR for the NBSB Spring/Summer 2009 meeting on which of the recommendations are complete, in progress or will not be undertaken.
7.2 Recommend that a longer term follow-up study be conducted to focus on the NDMS and these recommendations – * This point was added by the NBSB during the discussion.

The next NBSB meeting will take place Nov 18-19, 2008 and the Board is expecting to hear a presentation from the Disaster Mental Health Subcommittee, a report from the Medical Countermeasure Processes Working Group, a report from the Personal Preparedness Working Group and receive a white paper from the Education and Training Working Group.