New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

wrcooper - 08:50am Oct 10, 2003 EST (# 14766 of 14770)

LOUX CONCLUDED

The Justice Department and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service looked into Schwartz’s allegations. During this time, the DCIS appointed two contractors to examine the TRW findings: the Nichols’ Research Corporation and POET.

According to the GAO report, POET consisted of two scientists from Lincoln Labs, two from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and one from the Aerospace Corporation. POET was used, according to the report, for fear that Nichols could not generate an objective scientific report alone.

The GAO report summarized that “[POET], which was responsible for completing an assessment of TRW’s software performance within two months using available data, found that although the software had weaknesses, it was well designed and worked properly, with only some changes needed to increase the robustness of the discrimination function.”

Based on the reports, the Justice Department said it would not help Schwartz pursue her lawsuit in March of 1999.

This story was published on Wednesday, January 8, 2003. Volume 122, Number 63

This article originally appeared in The Tech, issue 63 volume 122. It may be freely distributed electronically as long as it includes this notice but cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details.

wrcooper - 08:55am Oct 10, 2003 EST (# 14767 of 14770)

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2003

MIT releases statement on Postol allegations to Congress

MIT recently issued a statement about allegations by Professor Theodore Postol regarding the results of a June 1997 test above the Earth's atmosphere of a Boeing ballistic missile sensor and a TRW software program which are no longer part of the planned U.S. ballistic missile defense program.

The object was to test their "capability to distinguish the mock warhead from decoys," according to a February 2002 General Accounting Office report (GAO 02-125).

The National Missile Defense Joint Program Office asked an existing advisory group, known as the Phase One Engineeering Team (POET), to conduct an assessment. The POET organization, the GAO report said, was established in 1988 to provide the missile defense office "access to a continuous, independent and objective source of technical and engineering expertise" from the nation's federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs).

The director of POET determined there were three established FFRDCs best suited to analyze the results: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and Aerospace Research. Two scientists from Lincoln Lab, two from Livermore and one from Aerospace Research performed the study. Their study, which was classified, was submitted to the government in 1998.

In response to Postol's Dec. 5, 2002 letter to Congressman Howard Berman, D-Calif., alleging that MIT is attempting to conceal evidence of "criminal violations" in research work done at Lincoln Lab, MIT issued the following statement to news media:

"MIT asked a senior faculty member to conduct an inquiry into Professor Postol's allegations. This process is complete, and a report on the inquiry was delivered to the provost this week. After reviewing the report, the provost will determine what additional steps to take.

"The bedrock principle for all research done at MIT is scientific integrity. Any allegation that there has been any deviation from that principle must be taken seriously, and that is what MIT has done in this case. MIT's longstanding policies on reviewing such allegations call for a two-step process: an inquiry, to see if an investigation is warranted; and if it is, the investigation itself.

"Professor Postol's letter to Congressman Berman claims that a letter to Professor Postol from MIT dated Nov. 25 shows that MIT is attempting to conceal evidence of supposedly criminal activity. Anyone who reads that Nov. 25 letter, which MIT understands Professor Postol has sent to the news media, can see that Professor Postol has misunderstood what the letter says. The letter simply reminds Professor Postol of the steps in MIT's inquiry and investigation process. The fact that the inquiry is now complete does not mean that the review is over, but only that a decision about the next phase, based on the inquiry report, will be made. That decision is the one that the provost, who received the inquiry report two days before Christmas, will make.

"Reviews of this nature are time consuming because of their thoroughness and their complexity. They are also confidential for the simple reason that the reputations of the individuals are at stake. Unless and until it is determined that the allegations are justified, it would be unfair to comment on any aspect of the review. Furthermore, public comments before the facts are known might damage the review itself.

"MIT will continue to honor the confidentiality of the inquiry because of our commitment to due process and fundamental fairness."

wrcooper - 08:56am Oct 10, 2003 EST (# 14768 of 14770)

Does anybody know what has transpired since MIT undertook to investigate Postol's claims?

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense