Most research and development for the United States government is con- ducted by contractors. However, within the science and technology portion of the federal R&D enter- prise, there is a network of laborato- ries that direct and conduct programs related to specific missions. The Department of Energy uses a system of contractor-operated laboratories, including Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Sandia, and Oak Ridge National Laboratories. The Depart- ment of Commerce operates the National Institute of Standards and Technology, whose program is car- ried out primarily by government sci- entists and engineers.

Within the military services, the lab- oratories function under a mixed sys- tem of contracted and in-house activity. The Army operates the Army Research Laboratory, a large science and tech- nology center in Maryland with a long history of in-house programs.

Additional development of devices or systems (labeled advanced and engineering development) is conduct- ed through other development centers. The Navy operates the Naval Research Laboratory, founded by Thomas Edi- son in Washington, DC, and renowned for research results and technical innovation.

The Air Force The Air Force currently uses a set

of four laboratories and a research management office to conduct and direct its aerospace science and tech- nology program. The largest of these laboratories, the Wright Laboratory at Dayton, Ohio, is centered on aircraft development, and emphasizes avion- ics, propulsion, flight dynamics, arma- ment, and materials. Within this laboratory are strong centers of

38

research on electronic devices, semi- conductors, electronic materials, elec- tro-optics, and digital systems.

The Phillips Laboratory in Albu- querque, New Mexico, is the space technology laboratory of the Air Force. Among the major technologies are rocket propulsion, space vehicle technology, geophysics (specializing

in the space and near-earth environ- ment), and lasers. This laboratory con- ducts leading-edge programs in adaptive optics and electromagnetic pulse generation.

The Armstrong Laboratory in San Antonio, Texas, covers human systems research and technology. Typical areas are aerospace medicine, crew systems,

0278-6648/97l$10.00 0 1997 IEEE IEEE POTENTIALS

biodynamics, and occupational and environmental R&D.

Located between Utica and Syra- cuse, New York, the Rome Laboratory has a mission to develop command, control, communications, and intelli- gence (C3I) technology. The areas of specialty include artificial intelligence, information fusion and display, radar, photonics, antennas and propagation, electromagnetics, solid state devices, and communications techniques.

Within these laboratories, there are groups that conduct basic research under the guidance of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, which manages all the Air Force’s basic research. Other groups-within this enterprise of about 6000 scientists and engineers and $1.3 billion of resources-focus on the early applica- tion of technology to new or existing Air Force systems. The Air Force is in the process of consolidating its labora- tories into a single organization.

The Air Force acquisition centers are further along on the R&D chain. They manage large contracts for new aircraft, space vehicles, and C31 sys- tems. Within these centers, there are engineering positions for the review and direction of the technical aspects of these projects.

An engineer in an acquisition divi- sion can have an enormous amount of responsibility for the success of a new technology application. He or she is often extensively involved in the devel- opmental and operational testing at one or more of the national test ranges.

Existing systems are maintained and modified at Air Force logistics centers, where engineers play key roles in the sustainment of current equipment. Non-destructive inspection techniques and efficient repair processes are two of the many challenges confronting the technical work force as they deal with an extensive inventory of equipment ranging from the pretty old to the radi- cally new.

Money The majority of IEEE members

working as engineers for the govern- ment do so at Engineer levels 4 through 6 (government grades GS-11 through GS-13). The median salary range in 1994 for this group was $57,000 to $71,000 (US dollars).

an salary ranges by employer type, the federal government hovers at the bot- tom along with state government jobs. The federal government (non-defense) median salary was $62,750 while the federal government (defense) median salary was $60,000. Non-profit institu- tions sported the highest median salaries-$75,413 (source: IEEE US Membership Salary & Fringe Benefit Survey 1995).

The other important money factor is the yearly jiggling of the Federal Bud- get. Money for projects can come and go with more of it going in these times of “balancing the budget” rhetoric. For instance, between 1994 and 1998’s projected budget, defense R&D fund- ing has decreased by 4% and civilian R&D funding by 3% in inflation- adjusted dollars (source: American Association for the Advancement of Science). However, within this bleak news, there are losers and winners. For instance in Clinton’s proposed budget, the Department of Energy’s National Ignition Facility and the Commerce’s Department ‘s National Institute of Standards and Technology are winners in 1998. However, funding for defense R&D would decrease by 2%.

Why go for it? Looking ahead, employment with

the federal government offers an opportunity for a surprisingly broad range of responsibilities. It is not uncommon for a young engineer to have cognizance over projects involv- ing tens of millions of dollars.

For those who choose a broader scope of work, opportunities exist to participate in an enterprise of amazing technical diversity, operating world- wide and beyond. From the meeting rooms of Congress to the runways at Misawa, there are enough technical challenges to make a career working for the government a series of exciting and significant adventures.

About the author After graduating from the coopera-

tive education program at MIT, Allan Schell was a Fulbright Scholar in Delft, Holland. As a civilian engineer in the US Air Force, his work topics ranged from the radio telescope in Arecibo, Puerto Rico and radars in Iran to congressional testimony on technol-

Roughly 11% have median incomes of $90,500 (Engineering level 8 or GS 15). However, when comparing medi-

ogy transfer and the creation of a new fellowship program for graduate sci- ence and engineering.

APRIUMAY 1997 39