SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP83B00140R000100040027-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 8, 2007
• Sequence Number: 27
• Publication Date: October 5, 1981
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2007/03/08: CIA-RDP83BOO14OR000100040027-2
0
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA
This is the letter I promised you at the last DSB meeting,
where your comments reminded me how much we all depend upon
intelligence as a stabilizing factor in this miserable
world. Allow me a couple of (hopefully helpful) remarks,
stimulated by your talk. Did I tell you what Aldous Huxley
said about the definition of intelligence?
The first point was your comment about the possible
establishment of an NIO for technology, which is an old
subject. We all know that the intelligence product in areas
affected by technology suffers, at times dreadfully, from
lack of sufficient contact with the Blue community. (he
most egregious example I know is of a Service intelligence
agency that made a mistake of sixteen orders of magnitude in
an estimate, and has not, to this day, acknowledged it.) My
problem is that this kind of weakness is not a weakness in
assessing foreign technology, but rather in the
technological underpinnings of other assessments. There are
many examples. This suggests that what is needed is not so
much an NIO as a scientific and technological editor or
ombudsman, to keep the "system" clean.
Some years ago, T" recall that we had a small panel that
worked with a particular part of the Agency, simply
listening with interest to what was going on. Though there
were hardly ever any reports (to the dismay of the
auditors), we were told that the whole operation justified
itself through the opportunity for management to watch the
troops perform in front of a critical but friendly audience.
Obviously, that is not an ideal format, but some such
service is needed, simply because the Agency can't have the
finest scientists and engineers in the country.
I'm aware that there are people who find what is loosely
called "peer review" objectionable, for two reasons. One is
the perceived affront to the ego, and that can be dismissed
in deference to the greater good. The other is a genuine
November 2, 1981
?
STAT
Approved For Release 2007/03/08: CIA-RDP83BOO14OR000100040027-2
 Approved For Release 2007/03/08: CIA-RDP83BOO14OR000100040027-2
?
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA
G
concern, particularly on sensitive matters, about trusting
the outside world. I guess that I have trouble giving that
one too much credit, since I know of very few security
breaches attributable to scientists, and all too many
attributable to people in the security system. Nonetheless,
we are all concerned about security, and I know that Is for
one, would be perfectly willing to be polygraphed, if that's
what it took to improve interplay.
In fact, I know that I mentioned to you that, up to a few
years ago, I used to carry an Agency badge, which was
extremely useful. I used to make a point of dropping in for
an hour or so when the opportunity arose, or on the way to
the airport, or whatever. Alas, Admiral Turner lifted the
badges of such as me, by setting a very high visit rate as
the criterion for issuance. The result is that it is now a
bit of a fuss to make a visit, especially to visit a few
people, and it isn't worth it for a short exchange. I
recognize that that was precisely the intent, but believe
(with all due respect) that the Admiral didn't understand
the value of peer interchange in assuring quality control.
The upshot is that, in my view, there has long been a need
for some mechanism for enhancing the technological quality
of the product, and this is likely to come best from a more
comfortable format for interaction with the (trustworthy)
outside world. Where this has been done ad hoc it has often
been quite successful (the A Team/B Team exercise, and some
that Bobby Inman knows jump to mind), but issues important
enough to rate that kind of attention are the exception.
On a completely different subject, you mentioned the magic
word "proliferation". You may not know that I am on the
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, was on the
President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee (which
vanished with the fiscal year), have chaired several
non-defense nuclear-related studies, am deeply involved in
matters of nuclear power, and care mightily about
proliferation. In short, have knowledge, will travel.
I know I mentioned to you that I had threatened to drop in
on Adm. Inman, to try to make a constructive input on some
of these matters, and the threat is still alive. If it
works out, I'll also try to visit you.
Approved For Release 2007/03/08: CIA-RDP83BOO14OR000100040027-2
 Approved For Release 2007/03/08: CIA-RDP83BOO14OR00010A0040 2 -281
0 i
National Intelligence Council
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence
I
SUBJECT : Senior Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology
1. Harold Agnew is coming in to see you on Wednesday, 7 October,
at 10:30 a.m. I did not suggest any specific job to him but merely a
desire to explore mutual interests. Since he was going to be in the
building anyway, this was convenient for him.
2. I think we can defer the question of instrumentality until
we have had a talk with him.
STAT
STA
Approved For Release 2007/03/08: CIA-RDP83BOO14OR000100040027-2
Chairman, National Intelligence Council
 UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL, I ~ ,SECRET
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT
Routing Slip
ACTION
INFO
DATE
INITIAL
1
DCI
2
DD
3
D/ICS
4
DD/NFA
5
DD/A
6
DD/O
7
DD/S&T
8
GC
9
LC
10
IG
11
Compt
12
D/PA
13
D/EEO
14
D/Pers
15
D/ExStf
1
A0/DCI
17
C NIC
X w/
tt.
18
D 0PP
X W
o att.)
19
X w
att.
20
21
22
To 17: Please provide a
response to DCI's question in
paragraph 2. F -
D/Executive Secretary
1 October 1981
 Approved For Release 2007/03/08: CIA-RDP83B0O14OR0001OOO4O027-2
0 i,
30 September 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman, National Intelligence Council
FROM: Director of Central Intelligence
SUBJECT: Senior Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology
1. Harold A new seems to me to be the best of those listed
in memo of 28 September.
2. I think we should move on the subjects in the paper of
24 September but haven't decided what instrumentality would be
best. What are your views?
William J. Casey
1~k
ST
ST
 Approved For Release 2007/03/08: CIA-RDP83BOO14OR000100040027-2
THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
National Intelligence Council
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence
FROM
5 October 1981
Chairman, National Intelligence Council
SUBJECT : Senior Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology
1.. Harold Agnew is coming in to see you on Wednesday, 7 October,
at 10:30 a.m. I did not suggest any specific job to him but merely a
desire to explore mutual interests. Since he was going to be in the
building anyway, this.was convenient for him.
2. I think we can defer the question of instrumentality until
we have had a talk with him.
STAT
STAT
Distribution:
1 _ Addressee
1 - DDCI
1 - ER
1 - D/OPP
1 - ES
C11- C/NIC Chrono
1 - NFAC Registry
.Approved For Release 2007/03/08: CIA-RDP83BOO14OR000100040027-2
 Approved For Release 2007/03/08: CIA-RDP83BOO14OR000100040027-2
STAT
Approved For Release 2007/03/08: CIA-RDP83BOO14OR000100040027-2