Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO2000250018-5
      RECOYNENDED AGENGA ITEMS
      1. Committee Composition:
      a. Bv Position, rather than by name.
      b. Include observers outside,,P-0,L.). (By name in this case; e.g., I?E Q
      Note: Several months ago she suggested the possibility of including individuals
      from the UaQ and perhaps CqZ2gress.)
      2. M2 @in @Er
      qquency: Essentially a clerical problem, but needs to be
      resolved. Possibility of semiannual or qu Should be fixed; e.g.,
      .@@nLerly
      second Thursday of each quarter.
      3. Should Comittee receive detailed updates from the DoD players? Be
      briefed only by the Chairman of the Working Group? (Note: Recommend
      our position be selpqtgq_J?r
      -,jQfipgs- by players. on rotational basis.
      Chairman has shown little inclination to stay an top of developments,
      or to get out and give briefings.)
           4. Desi orRittee leader once and,f (most
      1.1,gna@Q #w-,.5tqer,!Pg.,C I - , @ 11 .- -1- @ I I,--- -- .- --1-.-----_
      important issue.). Two basic factors at play:
           a. What is nature of evolving program -- looking out next few years?
      If essentially-aQ, logic calls for that line of leadership, starting
      with Dr LaBerg@d`.Tf it is in fact a proven case of utility,
      should lead. If it is policy, it is up for qrabs. @Note: Strongly
      reca-miend that f
               years-we_ bQw. to R&D leadershiP, as they tend
      ,qrjap,@,,t
      to pursue this issue in a more scientific, less cumbersome, vigorous
      way. We should content ourselves to adding "soft'' issues as needed;
      e.g., potential security problems, bad publicity, etc. Intelligence
      involvement should be constrained to compact, discreet pursuit of utility
      value.)
      b. At pres who has shown significant committment? Again, in
      terms of the major factor, scarce resources, it has been the R&D comnunity.
      Their levels, rightly so, are many times greater than anyone else.
      Intelli.gerice has been self--conktraine6 (righLly so) and policy organizations
      (if any exist) zero. Basic fact is that R&D seems to have charter -- plus
      extraordinary amount of raw power in terms of money, times to spend it,
      personnel, etc.
      5. Individual members of steering Conrnittee should take special,
      specific responsibilites regarding the progy-a-n. One person, probably the
      chosen leader, should keep SECDEF up to date. Another principal should
      do same for Congress. Other suitable responsibilites should be identified.
      6. In the near future, depending upon how the Steering Committee feels
      about the total analysis, including the scientific, some -Uiought might
      be given to developing a national, coordinated project. Application
      research could remain discreet, under control of individual agencies;
      Utility could remain discreet, under control of intelligence organizations;
      Basic research -- looking for the "mechanism" -- might be' openly conducted
      A p P'FO'Wd IP6 Of W-6 Oftft62MO i8bM-5

      

            Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO2000250018-5
            Foundation. The latter would lend credibility to the. project because it
            woull.Al allow for levels of peer review, criticism, etc, not presently
            possible.
            7. As now cons:,tituted, do.we really haxre a :.,oordinated venture, whereby
            equal resolve, if not conmittment of resources, is evident? At what point
            will the Steering Ccmittee decide whether or not the project should be
            pursued with true vigor, or be dropped. Another basic fact is that the
            current approach is of the "nickel and dime" variety. L y, almost alone,
            has carried the ball and Army staff has been the essential,driving force.
            'We-d66a716" S41,6 i 3 -con.sider handl-ing.thI 'bona fide R&D
            program -- appqin@'.q, manager, etc, etc -- at the OSD Ilev
            n6t'be balooned out 8fIproportion insofar as -1i s. Fact is,
            we are taking two steps back for each one forward by having DIA as
            focus for leadership. They have no resources -- like us on the Staff
            to drive the project. They are policy makers.
            8. When would Steering Committee like to hear from Gale? The plan now
            is to hav,e-him,and a representative *gr6up 6ri - ef @" '-di. scuss science
            findings. (Note: I think Dr Davis and Dr LaBerge informally discussed
            last suuuer, the question of when to give the, findings to DCI, NSC and
            Congress. We cannot avoid doing so, as each is knowledgeable that the
            evaluation is taking place.)
            rec-n44@ mc 7W
            Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO2000250018-5