Transcription
9/11 was, uh, something that the nation was, by all media outlets, caught completely off guard. But there was, uh, some insight that the institute had well before then. ICTS, International Center for Terrorism Studies, had been focused on understanding the motives behind the terrorist groups in the Middle East. Alexander and Mike Swetnam co-wrote a book together that was on the streets the summer of 2001. Almost immediately that afternoon and the next day, they were called to be on the news, the public news, about how did you know that this was going to happen? Obviously, they didn't know that it was going to happen, but they had predicted that technology was going to be used against the United States from people that had the motives and the opportunity to do so.
There are many more times that I could go and and talk about where we were ahead of our time in predicting those types of hopefully unlikely events that you would like to see never happen again here in the United States. Dr. Bus, thanks a bunch for, uh, joining us here on Micro Journeys. A pleasure to have you on here. It's a long time friendship and, uh, you know, a long time working relationship. So, thanks for, thanks for having me. I love this.
Well, I, I, uh, was joking with you earlier and, uh, I have to share a story that, uh, I think was one of the moments that really brought us together here. Um, one of the first times that, uh, we, uh, actually went out to dinner. Um, it was about maybe 8, 10 years ago, something like that. And you had recommended going to, uh, grab some, some good Thai food, and I was, uh, extremely excited. We sit down and, uh, the, uh, hostess comes over and says, "What would you guys like to eat?" And we both order our dishes and the question comes to me and said it was, uh, well, how, what level of spice would you like on this? And you corrected me. And I, I had gone with medium, for the record. Yeah. Like, you know, normal. Normal. And so with, uh, all of my arrogance, I decide to say, I want it as hot as possible, not thinking that, uh, Thai food was a lot different than our California Mexican food. And, correct me if I'm wrong, I was sweating bullets. We just even double-checked with you. You sure? And you're like, "Yeah, absolutely." I, I, I think at one moment my face actually turned red. Halfway through, you were tomato and you were dripping sweat. It was summer, uh, which was adding to the effect. It was beautiful. Yeah. I felt really bad for you, but it was beautiful. But it, it was that moment where I realized that, you know what, we have a good friendship, a good working relationship. If you can see me at my worst, then there's a long history of of stuff that we can work through. So this was that was exciting. But, uh, uh, it is a core memory. So thanks for that.
But enough about me. Jen, this is about you. We want to hear about your story and your journey. So, uh, you've been very influential in the, uh, the science and technology community for a number of years. Uh, and I'm very curious, where did that passion come from? Where did it all get started?
Yeah. Um, so thanks for having me. I'm excited to be here. I had a couple of internships at undergrad and I went straight into graduate school at University of Maryland, um, to get my PhD in in biochem, which I never used, uh, recovering academic. So, but during that time, I really wanted to be in a place that I could help the government make informed decisions. And so many of the grant applications that I had worked on in undergrad and through graduate school, uh, were on topics that didn't seem like they were, um, they were great and they paid for my time through graduate school. I really can't complain about an NIH choice of of funding opportunities. Um, but I really wanted to be part of that decision process and not part of, um, doing the research in the lab. So, uh, my entire goal was to go be a program manager in the government and be able to sift through the proposals that were coming through, um, and make those decisions on which proposals should be awarded to go and do the work. So through graduate school, I found this opportunity of a science and policy think tank and I was like, "Yeah, that, that, I mean, that, that sounds right. Let's, let's go try that." Um, so I interviewed at PTOIC Institute. I was hired the next day after my interview and I found home ever since.
So what is the PTOIC Institute? Uh, describe that for those that may not be familiar with, uh, what the institute is, what they do, etc.
Yeah, so we've been around for 30 years. We were formed out of the PTOIC Institute is a nonprofit, um, science and technology policy think tank here in the DC area. And, um, we were formed in 1994 out of what was the Office of Technology Assessment. And the responsibility of that office was to provide members who were putting bills forward with data to support the policies that they were, um, putting into legislation. People might or might not know and remember, it's a two-year bill cycle on the Hill. Um, and the timeline for getting these studies out out of the Office of Technology Assessment, OTAA, was 3 to 5 years. So, the timing of the work to provide the data once there was a request coming in, uh, was out of sync with the bill cycle and so the bills were getting pushed ahead without all of that data to support it. Um, politics happened, that office was politicized, it was defunded out of Congress in '94 and out came PTOIC Institute. So our mission from the very beginning has been to look three, five, 10 years ahead, predict, uh, what the policy issues will be at the time, start studying them now so that in 3 to 5 years, when the policy becomes an issue and it's going to be addressed in legislation, we've done our homework and we're ready to provide data to support the policies that are being put into legislation.
Interesting. Uh, what's the size of the PTOIC Institute right now? I know that there's, uh, quite a, uh, spectrum of expertise that supports this, everything, uh, from your senior advisors to the people that support your studies. Uh, I, I guess collectively, how many people, uh, are supporting the institute right now?
Yeah, so, um, we keep a really core small staff on purpose. It helps keep our overhead down and be competitive in the government contracting world. Um, but we've got about 200 people that are, um, that call PTOIC Institute home. Um, so they might not be full-time staff, but they are affiliated with us, they are consultants to us, all of that. Um, that we work with on a very regular basis.
Yeah, it's interesting because my, uh, my first interaction with the, uh, the institute, uh, as we mentioned with the, the Thai story, uh, was about 10 years ago and I had the fortunate opportunity of going there not really knowing much about it. Uh, and it was where I really saw a strength in, uh, the government portion of behind-the-scenes work influencing science and technology. Uh, I mean, seeing, uh, the former Commandant of the Marines walking right past you in concert with DARPA senior scientists walking, and this is just in the lobby, not even getting to the conference room. It really made me understand the power of what the PTOIC Institute was able to do and all of the different pieces that it touches, which I, which I really want to get into because I think that there's so many different areas that you guys have not only influenced and touched on that, uh, people may not be making the connection of just how big and, and, uh, how much strength the institute, uh, uh, provides.
You know, one of the big outward-facing pieces that the institute has is, uh, your guys's, uh, STEPS journal. And, uh, I find it a very interesting read because it covers a spectrum of different topics. Can you describe what, what STEPS is?
Yeah, so STEPS is our, um, in-house journal that's published, um, by, as the editor-in-chief is our chief scientist, and STEPS stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, Policy Studies. I had to close my eyes and think really hard about that acronym, um, because we always refer to it as as STEPS. Then really, what the goal of it is, is to provide an alternative view of an issue, an ongoing policy or technology issue, and inform the policymakers, decision-makers, anywhere from the executive branch, um, legislative, et cetera, kind of across the board, to get them smart on an issue and understand the impacts of the policies to date or things that they're proposing in the future. Um, so we look at it, uh, in a similar way of, uh, would there be a journal of unpublished results, right? So null results or or negative, um, or no findings when you're in a lab, um, that this is an opportunity to put ideas out that wouldn't necessarily be peer-reviewed and and make it through other, um, other journal opportunities, right? Other magazines that are out there. So, um, we've got not just in-house authors, right? We accept submissions. It's all rolling submission and acceptance, and we put out about two or three issues a year.
And it's, uh, interesting, uh, uh, journal because there's not really topics you guys shy away from.
No. And so there's been a number of instances where I've seen, uh, questions or topics that are proposed that are on the tip of people's tongues and many are, uh, afraid to address those topics. Um, uh, our interface has mostly been in in microelectronics, which we'll cover on a on a later basis, but, uh, that's kind of been the core position of the institute.
Right. Absolutely. And that's one thing that, um, I, I found a draw at the institute for myself is we don't have to, um, tiptoe around an issue, right? I get to take on, we as an organization get to take on really thorny issues and hit them full force. Uh, I tell my staff and the people that are working on our projects all the time of, I don't pitch the easy projects. It's less fun. I want to go out and tackle the big problems.
Well, and, and not only tackling the big problems, you guys have also been apolitical, which, absolutely, which, as you know, living here in the DC area, you'll see people align one side or the other, but being able to be influential no matter, you know, who's in the White House, no matter who is, uh, you know, the predominant role in the House and the Senate, uh, keeping the, uh, apolitical, you know, viewpoint, but still being able to have a level of impact is, is, uh, quite, quite interesting. Uh, how have you been able to kind of tow that line?
So well, the institute was, was started, as I mentioned, OTAA became political at the time and so it was defunded. Um, but the, so the institute rolled out as a truly nonpartisan, not bipartisan, um, support to look and provide real data to, um, the, the issues at hand. The success of the institute over the last 30 years has been supported by both ad, both Democratic and Republican administrations. Um, and we've been successful in that we work with people that are not there for an agenda, political agenda. Um, not just the clients that we have, but the, that network of people that I talked about, those 200 people are really there for the good of the country. And if you're here for the good of the country, you're really not partisan at the end of the day. Um, you probably are registered one way or another, and you should be registered to vote, go do your civic duty. Um, but at the end of the day, if you really care about national security, it's not partisan. Um, so when you get to the heart of the issues, uh, it's really easy to cut through the partisan divide and get something done.
So, uh, with all of this, you know, kind of big picture related stuff, we're talking about, uh, being apolitical, uh, uh, the institute publishing things in, uh, the STEPS journal and having, kind of, a wide spread of things. How was it that you were able to go from, uh, you know, getting your PhD at the University of Maryland, I believe, uh, if I remember correctly, starting out as a researcher and then working your way up through the institute as vice president, then ultimately now as CEO? How was that progression and, and, uh, just kind of describe the lessons learned and, and, you know, what got you there?
Yeah, before I answer that, I'm going to take a half a step back and explain another facet that I didn't mention about the institute, but it played a huge role in my ability to, um, grow my career through the institute. One of the other kind of differentiating factors is that, um, we focus on science and technology policy at the intersection of business and government. And the importance there is that the policies that are good for business here in the United States, um, need to also be good for the federal government. And you and I have worked that issue a lot, especially in semiconductors. Um, but it's true across the board. Right? So if you don't have a thriving economy in the United States, you can't have total national security, you can't secure your nation, uh, without a thriving economy, which results in, or which is supported by, good policy for businesses. So that, as a tenant of the institute, is what actually gave a lot of energy to the projects that I worked on early on in my career that has carried me through to where I am today, and is at the core of a lot of the issues that we focus on.
I started working on a project, and this is, um, you'll tell your, you, you told your, your Thai story. I'll tell my probably most embarrassing PTOIC Institute story so to date. Um, I was brought in to work as a, on a small team of people supporting the CEO at the time. Um, and my first week, I had a one-week deadline, my first day, um, to brief the director of Defense Microelectronics Activity, who was coming in to hear an update on our program that we've been working on with them, um, for 5 years at the time. So, I had to catch up on 5 years worth of work, create my own story, my own briefing to go and tell this person who is the world's expert in defense microelectronics what PTOIC Institute can offer to him. And he was a, uh, a person that didn't really mess around with his. No, there's a, there's a, takes no crap from anybody. Yes. Mhm. Um, but he's fair but firm. I, I want to make sure that that is, I, I agree with that. And I fear set in. Yeah. I spent more hours, um, that first week than I did probably the rest of the year in a single week, trying to understand what I just walked into. Um, and I did my briefing and I tripped over every single word and I was telling him things that he already knew. And, but that was a formative experience of having to gather not just internal information very quickly, but what else has happened in the world that makes this so relevant? The context that I had to put to that, and nothing in my, my graduate time, my any schooling, any academic setting could have prepared me for. Uh, you go into that with the expectation that there's things that I've learned along the way that'll be applicable. Never did I expect biochem to be, um, applicable in what I was doing. Yeah. But it, the, the amount of information I had to amass and consolidate was akin to what I had to do in grad school over a 4-year period of time for a thesis. I had a week. Yeah.
Uh, a little different, uh, talking nanometer this and, uh, dopant that and semiconductor this to what you were learning in biochem. Right. Nanometer this, angstrom that. What type of solution are you in? No, it's actually not too different. Um, I was part of my, my thesis was on, um, crystallography, and so being able to look at the distance between atoms and understand their connectivity and what type of bonding there was. Uh, so it actually, when I use a lot of those same words, it sounds very similar. It's not at all. Interesting. You know, you piqued my interest. We'll have to, uh, see if we can, uh, dig up your, uh, your thesis and maybe put that in the show notes. That would be fun.
All right. I have a copy. Um, it's not worth reading. But so the, that was the beginning of my, uh, as a researcher at the institute and within the first six months, um, I was promoted from a research analyst to a research fellow. And a research fellow in the think tank community means that you're really there as an independent contributor. You can have a team supporting you, but you are the person working on said topic. Um, and so I, I had some ownership and and opportunities. And a lot of that work that we were doing, uh, on semiconductors was looking at where else in the, the commercial ecosystem there were opportunities for engagement either from other companies or innovation from the, the research and development side, R&D. And that led into a project that I eventually became the program manager for of, um, it was the innovation outreach. Right. So where do we go find innovation in, um, the ecosystem? And at the time, Silicon Valley was the place. It has since grown across the nation, as many people know. Um, so we were bringing together venture capitalists that had an idea of the deal flow, um, of what type of companies were being funded and developed and how might they apply to the national security ecosystem. Um, there was, it's kind of hard to believe now, but looking back at the 2013, '14 timeline, um, there was a lot of pushback from Congress on that program because they were worried that there was additional insight being provided to these venture capitalists who would then go turn around and create a company that would be able to respond in time to a government solicitation. Interesting. Um, it, it was a, a misunderstanding on, on many levels, but the institute was able to get involved and help sort through a lot of those policy issues, help the, um, facilitate the, the some of the streamlining that you've seen today that that came in to AFWorks of being able to do one-day contracts, um, to work with these really small companies and get them into major defense programs. Interesting.
Uh, so I ran that program for a few years. There were two PMs before me, uh, that I learned so much from. Um, and then I was overzealous. Uh, surprise, right? And, um, we were having trouble executing a program for a really difficult client. And I looked at the leadership. I said, "Put me in, coach." And they looked at me, they're like, "You are not ready to run this program." And I said, "You're right. I'm probably not, but, you know what? Who else you got is going to go do it?" And they looked around and they said, "Guess you need a mentor." Um, and so we divided that program into three sections, and I was overseeing each of the three people that were working on their individual sections. So we were able to chunk it in a way that made it a learning experience and manageable for me, giving other people learning experiences, um, and getting to good with the client, which was really what mattered at the end of the day. And so that continued on for, um, a few years within a couple other iterations. So at this time, I don't exactly remember the year, but now I've gone from being this independent contributor as a research fellow to building out a portfolio of projects and being able to win the follow-on work with that, with those clients. And so then I'm on this, um, it's like this divergence at that point of, you go and you continue to be an independent contributor. Somebody comes and pays, kind of, just for you to go do that work, or you start to build out your team and you're creating a portfolio of things that you are managing and bringing in additional business to go and do. Um, and so I found myself in this business development role, which I had never anticipated. Like, I don't consider myself a salesperson, even to this day. Yeah. But you're a people's person, so that connection makes sense.
It, it does. I just never would have, if somebody had told me, you know, that you're going to go be a salesperson one day, I had laughed in their face. Uh, maybe sell shoes, but, um, so the, from there, the, um, leadership at the time said, "Okay, well, since you've proven that you can go and and continue follow, get follow-on work, now we're going to make it required for your job." And that's where the vice president position, um, I walked into the shoes of having the responsibility of bringing in, um, half of the portfolio at the institute and managing that. And so over time, as, um, organizations and people change over and and things happen, I found myself as the only person bringing in new business. Mh. Um, and found myself with the vision for the organization and working really closely with the CEO at the time. Um, and, uh, then one day, I'm now sitting as CEO. So, uh, the board, our, our board of directors has been, um, wonderful in supporting me through all of the turn and churn and through COVID and all of the changes. The CEO, uh, Mike Swetnam, who was a founder of the institute, passed away at the early days of COVID. So we, I was, you know, served a platter and said, "Ready, set, go, serve." And here we are. And it's been an amazing, wonderful, challenging experience every single day.
And it's been interesting because, uh, that growth in portfolio, uh, continues to this day. You know, one of the ones that I found really intriguing was some of the, uh, the work that you described to me about NASA and the stuff that you're, uh, you were able to influence, uh, uh, in that space. Why don't you describe that a little bit?
Yeah, I'm going to continue with where I was on that career growth. No, but and to bring in NASA. So, that's a great point. Um, I was at a conference for that innovation outreach program that I was running, and it was actually, even though it was funded by defense, we worked a program for NASA to go help them find some really, actually, really innovative technology that ended up on ISS over the years, which is pretty cool.
International Space Station, by the way. Thanks. Yeah, sorry, I forget. Uh, I speak in acronyms and I forget to slow down sometimes. So, I was down and I was talking to a lot of people in the human performance offices at Johnson Space Center in Houston. And I came back and I was out briefing the work that we had done and some of the technology that they were looking, that the PMs there were looking for, the program managers were looking for. And I kind of haphazardly said to my leadership team of, Yeah. And I was talking to these people and they were really interested in what we were doing. So I described PTOIC Institute. I've got a follow-up call with them. Uh, they were looking for some kind of data-driven support for some of the frameworks that they're talking about for for astronaut healthcare. I wasn't thinking anything of it and they went, "You what?" And I was like, "Oh." And this was that moment, that pivotal moment of them realizing that I'm not just executing on the projects and continuing to build the follow-on work, that I'm being an ambassador of the institute and I was going and looking for additional opportunities to continue work. And to me, it was just second nature, as you said, I'm a people person. Like I'm going to go talk to people and we're going to have conversations. Uh, so the work that we started, it was 2016 by the time we got on contract, just to put things in timeline perspective, was looking at the pharmaceutical capabilities, um, that could be brought on a three-year mission to Mars. What can you take with you that you don't have to package now, but you could be making it along the way? And what technologies exist? What technologies, uh, could exist in the future? And can you put a ranking system associated with those? Can you make a quantitative assessment of the technology that exists today and what you would predict into the future?
So like almost like a mobile pharma, it sounds like.
Oh, yeah, absolutely. Okay. And so we started down this path. I don't remember how many, it was a week's timeline that they gave us to do this work. And again, my leadership was like, "Okay, so we see that you went out and got some new business, but how much are they paying you for? How much work?" I, we got 50k. I mean, it was relatively embarrassing the amount of work that we did for, but it was absolutely incredible. And that got us in in working with Johnson Space Center and and the human performance work at at NASA, which we still have a contract with. It's just not currently funded at the moment. Thank you. Uh, government funding cycles. But that work, one of the coolest parts for me and the research team, was not just putting a quantitative assessment together for things that are not so quantitative, um, especially as you're predicting the availability of some technology 5, 10, 15 years out, whenever that that mission to Mars was supposed to happen at the time. I'm not going to try to predict it today. Yeah. Uh, the research and the technologies that we found were actually DARPA programs, either current or previous DARPA programs. And so I was able to make this introduction to your point of seeing DARPA PMs and scientists walking around, I was able to make interaction, introductions from the NASA team to the DARPA team, and they ended up co-funding some of those companies to continue to pilot and prototype those projects, but they never would have connected. So our government, as much as we work on, on, we collective government work on projects that are so vital, not just for space flight, not just for military use, but have a real true civilian population application, they don't know each other. They're very siloed.
They're very siloed, and, and some are actually much, much more tight-knit than I, um, expected. But I have a similar story with the innovation outreach program doing work for the Navy and Army, people saying, "Oh, no. We have a solution." And we gathered all of these people. I mean, 300 people for a two-day event to find the right tech and have these companies come in and present. And meanwhile, over here, the Army's like, "No, we bought this a few years ago." And the Navy's like, "We've been dying for this." Interesting. It's really cool stories. Yeah. Bridging that gap between, not only inter-agency but, uh, uh, different, you know, facets or departments of the government is something, and that's a rare thing to find that the institute, you know, does on a regular basis with your guys' network of people and knowledge of the space. It's allowed for this to be one of many examples that that kind of resonate in this space.
Right. So it's, um, you know, speaking about an understanding of, you know, the space, one of the areas that you guys have been very influential on is, uh, geopolitics and understanding, you know, how the world is looking and the such. And there have been many times that you guys have been, uh, way ahead of not only the thought process but actual events that have happened. Um, uh, can you describe some of the, the different times where the institute has been, uh, ahead of its time?
How many times? How much time do we have? Um, so a couple of key things that I want to start with before I dig into those examples. The first is that we are not a foreign policy think tank. Uh, we are not really focused on geopolitical events. Um, at the heart of PTOIC Institute is, we are a science and technology policy think tank at the intersection of business and government. And why does that bubble that I just talked about? You talk about a Venn diagram. Um, how does that align with the geopolitics? Right. Well, business today is not siloed in any one country. You're not just an American business anymore. You, by nature, by globalization, by, uh, the sheer fact that we can pick up our cell phones and call across the world and instantaneously talk to anybody, means we are constantly a global society. Um, so despite the fact that we are focused on US national security and we are a science and technology organization, uh, that we have to touch and understand the world around us, right? Um, so we have a couple of of centers at the institute that focus on, um, global affairs. One is the Global Competition Project, and we commonly refer to that as GCP, and the second is our International Center for Terrorism Studies, ICTS. And the two of those have very explicit examples to the question that you asked of how we've been ahead of our time. But we've also have, I've got three other NASA studies that I could talk about that were we were ahead of our time, and it's part of the nature of who we are, right? Present these bold ideas, look three to five to 10 years ahead, and you're able to think about what that environment is going to look like. Really assess how, um, comfortable you are with the range of predictions that you've come up with to that forecast. And if you take that as your future state, and you are able to identify what the technology developments might be or are likely to happen for this, any of these states to occur, you can kind of predict which types of technologies are going to be required to get to this future state. That's almost inevitable somewhere along this curve of where we will be as a country, where we will be as a society 10 years from now.
So, uh, if I'm going to reinterpret this, a lot of times people will say, "Hey, if you want to know what the government's doing, follow the money." In this instance, you're saying follow the technology. The technology will lead you to what could eventually happen.
Correct. Interesting. So technology in today's society dictates how we interact with each other and how we interact with the world. Um, it's not so much of a, the nature of people individually, which I can get into the whole neuroscience aspect of that. I'm not going to. Um, but that's been a really, uh, key point in the work that we do at the institute is you follow where that technology is going. You understand how people are using that technology, and that will give you a different lens to look about for the future. Not saying it's always right. I mean, nothing's always right. Um, so there's, it's, it's a different picture that you can then overlay other perspectives onto.
So in this predictive space, uh, you guys were ahead of your time for, uh, one particular event that jumps out to my, in my head. Um, 9/11. 9/11 was, uh, something that the nation, uh, was, uh, by all media outlets, caught completely off guard. Um, but there was, uh, some insight that the institute had well before then. Can you describe that a little bit?
Yeah, absolutely. So, um, ICTS, International Center for Terrorism Studies, uh, had been focused on understanding the motives behind the terrorist groups in the Middle East. Um, and that work had started with Professor Alexander, um, probably 30 years before that time. And he and Professor Alexander and Mike Swetnam, the CEO of PTOAC Institute, co-wrote a book together that was on the streets the summer of 2001. And almost immediately that afternoon and the next day, they were called to be on the news, the public news, about how did you know that this was going to happen? Um, obviously, they didn't know that it was going to happen, but they had predicted that technology was going to be used against the United States from people that had the motives and the opportunity to do so. Um, that their underground silent networks had been, um, inside the US and had been, there was all of this evidence to support everything that happened on 9/11 prior to, um, it, it happening and uncovering all of the details in the months to come. So, uh, yes, we have, there are many more times that I could go and and talk about where we were ahead of our time in, uh, predicting those types of hopefully unlikely events, um, that you would like to see never happen again here in the United States.
Yeah. And, uh, uh, for those that are listening, we'll, uh, we'll make sure to put the, uh, the hyperlink for the book, absolutely, in the, uh, in the show notes. Uh, uh, great read. Uh, it's something that, uh, uh, really puts into perspective what you're describing here with what the institute does and the such, and, and how following the technology, uh, can open a world that is really in front of you that is kind of masked off if you're not looking in the right direction.
So, you know, our interaction, uh, really fell in with, uh, the overlap of microelectronics, right? Uh, we did a number of different things that covered a gamut of items, everything from, uh, the diminishing supply of electronic components, hence the relationship with DMEA, and, you know, overall microelectronic sustainment, the, uh, the necessity for acquiring electronic components, and the, and the great support that PTOIC Institute, who gave for programs like the TAPO office, which is the Trusted Access Program Office. And then to, things like, uh, secure electronics. Uh, but that one bridged well beyond just a relationship with DMEA. That one bridged into, uh, work that happened at DARPA, that happened at IARPA, supporting OSD R&E, which is the Office of Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. Uh, uh, OSD ANS, I mean, I can go through the litany of different offices, Department of Energy, outside of, of defense completely. Yeah. And within that space, uh, not only have you guys, uh, you know, made an impact historically, maintain relevance, but also in that predictive nature, helped to describe some of the needs that the United States, uh, has for the future. So, you know, what I'd like to kind of, uh, talk with you about a little bit here and, and understand is, uh, two parts. The first is, uh, uh, the secure electronics realm. You guys are still, not only, uh, helping to refine but influence direction in that space, but also, uh, the, uh, necessity for, you know, acquisition and sustainment of electronic components. I'd love to get a snapshot of how the industry, or how the institute is looking at that.
Yeah. Um, so a couple of things that I would, um, start with is that something as technical as semiconductors is only, for, for the institute to work on, it is only possible by bringing in the right people to work on it. Um, and the right people can come in a lot of from a lot of different backgrounds and from a lot of different perspectives, but it takes that group to stay relevant, to stay, um, uh, affiliated with the their replacements as government jobs change over and to stay focused on the, in quotes, right issues, right?
And you guys have done a great job with that. Uh, government, uh, experts, but also industry experts. I mean, with names that should not be, uh, uncommon to those that are listening, like Samsung, Intel, Micron, have not only shown a presence at the institute but have openly talked about topics that are, you know, near and dear to their heart, concerns that they have, objectives that they have, in a way that I have not seen in a public forum, outside of where the institute is. But, go ahead.
You were, you were. No, thanks. So, um, that's a lot of what we do. We make sure that those business leaders, their voices are heard, and they have an audience with the right policymakers, or at least the staff from those policy offices, uh, to have an influence on the policies that will be put on them. And so a couple of things about the semiconductor industry is that semiconductor companies by themselves wouldn't exist without additional technology, right? Um, if they don't have a buyer at the end of the day, there's no reason for them to exist. So that's what's really unique about our focus on semiconductors as compared to, we're focusing on, uh, AI, right? So AI as a technology development, one requires semiconductors and servers that are being operated. But two, AI doesn't really need people so much once it's operating, right? To know what, what it needs to do and how it needs to go act. Today, it does, and that's a different story, but the, um, so that's really a, a differentiator in the microelectronics or semiconductor world, and having not just the government people and the big names from the semiconductor industry companies, but also the end users, right? So, in involving Amazon and Microsoft and Oracle and whoever other companies are going to be buyers of those chips, they're the ones that are driving the specs for those chips, and they're the ones that are, uh, driving the demand for the, that the kind of the price value of what we're going to pay for these. And they also, when it comes to trust, and do we, um, for the federal government and the national security side, if there's no commercial need for something out of a chip, be it trust or it to pick your favorite zero-day example, um, from COVID was one of them that that impacted the semiconductor, Absolutely. Um, community quite a bit. Um, but yeah, you said big, no, pick one. Good. You picked one. Thank you. Um, the, if you don't have those end users to go and buy them at the time, and they're not driving that demand, then the companies just aren't going to make it, right? And so in today's world, where there's this, uh, bifurcation of the industry between Asia Pacific and the United States for the most part, or Asia Pacific and the rest of the world in the semiconductor markets, competition in those companies is a very different marketplace than it has been in the past. And this ability to trust what's coming on those chips from whoever is producing them is something only driven by a consumer. And it doesn't have to be by individual citizen consumers. It can be by the companies that are saying, "I'm providing this trust to you. Don't you want that in your new shiny technology?" And I'd be like, "Yeah, I do, but I might be the only one." And so if I want it just for me, I'm going to have to pay a premium for that. Right. That's how markets go. Yeah. Because there's a margin, right? There's a profit margin that every company has to make. And these industry, uh, uh, companies, their quarterly earnings are their driving force. And if the, if they don't meet the certain, you know, goals that they have for each quarter, then that diminishes shareholder value. Yep. Shareholder value then will dictate the decisions of how they change this for the next quarterly cycle. So if you're influencing something new, right, a secure chip or some kind of high reliability or some other kind of additional requirement, Yep. Then those margins cannot be impacted, uh, so that it starts turning away clients and customers, because then unless they become the norm. Exactly. Right. Yep. Um, I don't want to see a world that we're living in that everything needs to be radiation hardened here on Earth, on terrestrially. Um, but should that become the day, then these companies would produce everything with the capability to, uh, prevent radiation from disrupting the ongoings of the chip. Yeah.
So, so with regards to the, uh, you know, secure electronics, right? There's been a ton of, uh, initiatives. I mean, we lived through a number of them with, uh, everything from, uh, trusted electronics that started out of the NSA, came over to DMEA through, uh, a variety of different inspectors. One was the noation of a of a contract that ultimately moved, uh, a program over to, uh, to DMEA. Then there was, uh, the initiatives, uh, that the last, uh, I think under Mike Griffin, there was the zero trust related aspects. There was, uh, assurance aspects of of how that kind of falls into the, uh, the, uh, security ecosystem. We can go on and on. There's been a lot of the Chips Act, and then now people are talking about secure enclave and what's next. And so that's, that's where my, my question is going to come in, right? There's a, a spectrum of of ideas that are, uh, good for conversational piece, and then there's the reality piece, like you were just describing. There's this, uh, shareholder value, how much is industry going to actually integrate in here so it doesn't change their margins and ultimately turn away, you know, their consumers and the such, unless someone's willing to pay a premium. Where do you see the direction of industry going in this space, knowing that security is on the tip of the tongue for a lot of different people, yet they don't want to pay the premium, so there's a little bit of a of a gap at times?
Yeah. And so I'm going to take it back to my, um, original premise that national security is based on economic security, right? And so if the general consumer isn't going to demand security out of their chips, but the, the defense organizations and military systems should and, and will. Um, it's probably time to look at things like critical infrastructure that we've, you and I have talked about a lot, to understand what is the value or what's the risk of that critical infrastructure by not having, um, reliable chips, and what is the risk to our banking infrastructure, and what is the risk to, right? Like, you can start to name other industries, industries that haven't had that trust requirement in the past. Um, and so I, I start to see the embedded trust, if you will. I don't have a better term for it, the Genbus term. Um, which might be adopted because they, I think they've ran out of describing ways of, uh, securing electronics. So maybe embedded trust is the next. I'll take it. Yeah. Um, by embedding trust at the, for everybody across the board, right? Um, where you're able to increase the, not just the fidelity of the chip, which happens, the higher yield you get out of these foundries, less ability for somebody to to mess with it, right? Or to put an additional antenna inside my iPhone. Um, so it's not just coming from the chip, but it's a total manufacturing process that I want to be able to trust and validate and verify.
Would you go down all the way to rare earths? Is the manufacturing? Would it be something at the design phase? Where do you cut that off when you say all the way down?
That's a great question. Um, I have really solid data examples of why we should go down to the critical minerals and rare earths. I don't really think this society that we have today in the United States would be able to swallow that as a pill. Um, if the chemist in me, the biochemist in me says, "Yes, absolutely. You want to know the purity of everything you're putting into every single one of, uh, your systems, everything, every single thing that you're manufacturing." Ask my husband what purity levels of the water that he's using for the hydroponics garden that we have in the house, and we can nerd out for a minute, but, um, so I, my thought process is yes, absolutely. Uh, but that's not a, a practical solution today.
So, I do want to reference one piece because, uh, uh, for those that don't know you like I do, yeah, you choose your words very wisely and with intent. Uh, so, you did mention the term critical infrastructure. Uh, so, I, I feel like it's important to, to make sure that we quantify what that is. Uh, Department of Homeland Security has a list of sectors that are known as the critical infrastructure. I don't know if it's 14 or 16. It's skipping my mind right now. Um, but, uh, uh, each, but it's well-defined. Yes. Yes. Each of those different industries are the ones that you're referencing here as the collective whole of the United States and all the different sectors that electronic components, you know, touch. So, uh, this is the beauty of, of having known you for so long that, uh, you pick your words very strategically, yet there's intent behind them, and the critical infrastructure is an example of that. Yeah. Um, so, you know, it, it will be interesting to see to what level and extent the, the secure electronic, maybe embedded trust could be the, the way to go, uh, here. But, I think that there is more of an appetite for security, uh, as time has progressed with a number
of different vulnerabilities that continue to pop up on the media. Uh, for uh industry to not only understand that there is now a commercial need, not just the defense need, um, that people are willing to take on to ensure that their phones aren't hacked or their computers or whatever it may be. Yeah.
What we're learning is that, um, companies are now realizing that cybersecurity measures, software measures are insufficient to prevent their IP from being stolen. And when it comes to money for those companies, and it comes to those quarterly earnings calls, uh, that's everything, right? Right? If their IP is stolen, Sony's my go-to example where password was password, and the amount of money Sony lost because of that cybersecurity risk that they took, um, is now not just at the software level where most people have better cyber hygiene, but it's at the hardware level. And so to do it at the hardware level means you need to change your manufacturing process, and that's difficult, and it's expensive, and it's time-consuming because you can't just do that overnight, and it takes a lot of justification going back to what you were saying with the quarterly earnings. Um, well, you have to be willing to invest 100%. I mean, that's what it comes to.
Um, you know, so continuing to follow the technology as, uh, the PTOIC Institute for Policy Studies has done, um, you know, one of the things that, uh, uh, I'd love for you to comment on is, is, you know, the world right now has a landscape of, uh, either conflicts or tensions, right? Uh, you have the tensions, uh, between China and Taiwan, you have the, uh, conflicts that are going on with Ukraine, you have, uh, you know, uh, Israel that is, uh, you know, uh, continuing to, uh, you know, fight their battles and the such, and these are just a subset of examples that are happening across the, uh, the world here. Um, give a little insight into how you guys are looking at today's, uh, you know, worldwide set of, you know, things going on, and how the technology is helping you guys look for, you know, your next prediction of 9/11 and the such.
Dan always asks the heavy questions. Let's start with from a military perspective where we spend a lot of our time, not only but, uh, a lot of our time focused on national security military problems. Um, they like to start the conversation with the threat. What's the threat? I'll get to the technology part, but the threat today is being able to have the American dream and have a democracy and a, uh, source of truth that we can trust. Is our government functioning for us as citizens? Is, do we trust the information that we're hearing from our community, our peers? Um, are we being, um, is there a, a Gen AI out there somewhere that is making and looking and speaking like me? I promise I'm real. You can pinch me. Um, but, but those are the threats that are emerging from, from today.
And so what, so what does the world look like when those things are happening? Um, and if you can think about that world where you're kind of living in this virtual reality more than you are in the physical real life, um, then you can tie the entire value chain or supply chain back to the conversation we just had about semiconductors. And if you draw that picture, right, of this future state where everything is, and everything is today, but everything really is on the internet and connected, and there's sensors everywhere and recorded history and nothing goes off camera, then, and there's, there's sensors in places that you can measure and quantitatively understand all of the different things. I mean, we would know the humidity in the room at any given point, and that would have had some impact on the way I was thinking about something. I don't know. I'm making this up. Um, but you draw that, you know, bit by bit back on the, the backcasting of the technology, and you can really look at, well, who owns that technology today? Where is that being manufactured? And where does that then draw out the impact that that company, organization, person, country owns and will have then at the, in the future.
So, if you do that and you use the examples that you just brought up, Asia Pacific, Ukraine and Russia, uh, Israel, Iran, Gaza, um, all of those have really strong indicators to a financial backing that's not the United States. Interesting. And the amount of money and the flow of that technology from major powerhouses in the world today, China, um, is staggering when you look across every single sector, every single sector. So, Made in China 2025, uh, was their plan 10 years ago to increase their in industry capacity. They started in the '90s. We fed into it in the '90s. We helped them. We thought it was a great industrial policy move on the United States to go help out China. Um, at the time, it was absolutely in our best interest to go and do that. It has since backfired a bit. Um, and we no longer have a lot of the core capability that we've so come to so heavily rely on China to provide. And the ties that China has had because of their ability to be a, uh, sole manufacturer of so many of these products and industry areas. Uh, critical minerals just being one of them. Uh, drones being a major one that's, uh, prevalent today in the Ukraine-Russia war, and, um, purchasing of oil from those, from where that is a financial contribution to those countries, um, there's so many other facets. And I'll give you one more example, education here in the United States, K through 12 public or private school, um, off to graduate school and the university ecosystem. There is more Chinese money funding universities, um, than people realize and recognize. It is not a mandatory reporting requirement. Um, there are sources that those universities do report into, and so that data is publicly available, uh, when they have foreign money coming to the university, but it doesn't include all of the tuition that's paid for by all of the students that are sent. Um, and then you look at the private schools around the nation. There's examples of, um, preschools that are mostly, um, uh, paid for or created in these tight-knit communities by individuals. I'm not saying that all of it's nefarious, right? But you look at where, um, there's adversarial capital versus foreign investment, and those two can be very different things.
Well, and you know, I'm, I'm starting to connect some of the dots here of what you're describing. Uh, you, you look at some of the test cases that, uh, you know, come out on the, on the news and the such, for example, uh, you know, the, uh, the monitoring of communication via WeChat that, you know, the Chinese have, uh, as one example, how they've, you know, segregated off what their community has from a TikTok perspective, and what the United States has, uh, as a way to influence, you know, uh, how just an overall mind capability is here in the United States. Uh, you're looking for that, uh, you know, the sugar high of, you know, getting on your phone. I need something quick to look at, and you death scroll on on your phone, right? You just sit there and you go, go. Where TikTok in China is extremely different. It's educational. It's, uh, something that is, it's regulated self-growth. And now that regulation gives you a set of test cases that help to separate portions of the world. And that's just, you know, the, uh, that's the tip of the iceberg.
Exactly. So, I mean, my neurons are firing here as it relates to what you're describing. Following the technology really takes you down almost a pretty scary rabbit hole as you start seeing who the ones that are playing us like little marionettes from a financial institution perspective really have a hole across every single sector. They've played the long game from the beginning, right? But it's not, I, I've mentioned two, maybe three if you want to parse it out that way. It's everywhere. And the fear that, to that, that future state, right? That, that threat is what is the next thing that we're, I wouldn't say that we're looking to predict it. I, I wouldn't want to be so unfortunate. Um, but the, like, what is that moment that we're going to look up and realize that that plane is hitting the tower today? Yeah. And, and it could even be a metaphorical.
Oh, yeah. No, it's going to be much slower and from the ground up and ingrained, and then all of a sudden something's going to snap. Interesting. And maybe it's not. Maybe we're just going to be slowly overcome by the weeds, right? Yeah. And then we're just going to be strangled out. And maybe we'll be too dumb to realize it. And, and, you know, I, I'm not as ingrained in, you know, this thought process here, but the first thing that jumps out to me is, uh, you know, some of the, uh, the, uh, Asian culture teachings, like, for example, death by a thousand cuts, and that's something that, uh, you know, it doesn't kill you immediately, but over the course of time, it slowly, you know, will take over. This is why, you know, countries like China will have long-term plans, hundred-year plans, which we, as a, you know, Western society, are thinking of, what's my next, you know, you know, sugar high that I'm going to get, or how do I make a viral moment? Or that is what we are accustomed to. So, it's the nearsighted piece, not the longevity piece, and that's systemic across a lot of the things that are, uh, uh, budgetary cycles and the such. For example, uh, we hear a lot of people, you know, pontificating on how bad the workforce is diminishing here in the United States and the such, but what's the long-term plan? What's our 100-year plan?
Wouldn't that be great? It would. So, so I brought that up. Just a side story. I was invited to dinner one night, um, and had the opportunity to talk about, uh, China's long-term plan. And I brought it up to the table of people, a couple of two and three-star generals there, a couple of other, um, more senior to me in the think tank space of, of other think tank think tanks here in, in the DC area. And I said, "Well, you know, why doesn't the United States have a 10, 15, 20, 50, 100-year plan?" I, I mean, I know the answer why, but like, shouldn't that be our goal to do long-term strategic planning?" And it silenced the table. "In order to do that, we'd have to have a dictatorship and this, that, and we, there's no way." I was, I'm not talking practically, right? Like, I asked a real question. Shouldn't that be our goal? I mean, that's what that the founding fathers and creation of the, the Constitution and here in the United States, like, that was their goal. Let's create something that we think is going to last and continue to revise it as needed, but create the foundation. So, here we are almost 250 years later with people that are thinking in two-year cycles, you know, when's that next election? And, and there's ways to do this with, you know, kind of the, yeah, that's obvious kind of goals, but I mean, things like eradicating, uh, homelessness, making sure that there's not one single person that does not have a roof over their head. Uh, that can be a 50-year goal, 20-year goal, 5-year goal, but it's a long-term plan. And that's something that is obvious to people that we don't want people out on the street living underneath bridges, uh, you know, asking for some change. We, we want none of that. We want to get rid of the opioid crisis across the United States. And, and China, by the way. Yeah. But, but I'm saying there's, there's these long-term goals that are obvious. We just don't want them as a country, as a nation. So why not just plant our flag and say, "Look, this is what we want from a long-term perspective and then work backwards." Yeah. And it would be, it would put us in a better position as a nation. It's a, a, a political but example nonetheless. And I stay out of politics, but I, I use it because it's a great one to talk about. Immigration. It's not that people in the United States don't want immigrants here. It's that they just want it to be a legal process, right? Like that's a really easy kind of obvious, um, solution. And how do you speed up that process so you don't have people that want to be here in the United States, that want to be US citizens, that want to be US taxpayers, that want to be doing the the good thing the rest of us that the rest of us are here for, and make it legal, right? Or give them a pathway to show them how to make that possible. It's a long-term thing. It doesn't happen overnight, but set that as a goal.
There, there is, uh, a number of takeaways that, uh, you know, this, this goal-setting conversation should have for those that are, uh, uh, decision-makers, uh, uh, people that are, uh, in positions to, uh, you know, help, uh, establish this, and also for those that are, are listening here that just would like a voice in this space to advocate for, for what you're describing. You know, there's, there's a lot of good work that you are doing in your leadership role, uh, at the institute. Uh, the PTOIC Institute has had, uh, such a strong, you know, uh, 30 years, uh, in, in its presence, but the, I guess the parting question I would have for you, Jen, is what's the future of the institute? Where do you see, you know, the institute going as your leadership continues forward, and this vision for a long-term plan?
Yeah. So, um, you know, the institute's in this caught up in a lot of the political, uh, motivations happening right now where think tanks are somewhat banned by, uh, the, the Department of Defense. Um, there's been a total recall of consulting services. While we're not consultants, we are lumped in that group. Um, and because we're not political, it drives us out a lot of the times in today's conversation. But, uh, to all that impact thing, I will say that we're, let me, let me give the butt to that story. Um, the way that we've been able to be successful over our 30-year history has to has been in creating the right relationships with people that are the influential and have the ability to do the right thing regardless of political party. Um, and so we keep this network of people current and active and working to make sure that no matter what's happening in the news cycle today isn't actually what's going to happen in the future. It might be the action for the for the moment, but as we've seen over the last six months, um, the legal in our court system will recall those announcements and set things on a, a, a better track forward. Um, or things that happened through any administration. I'm just using examples, recent examples for people to pull into their minds. Um, and so the future of the institute, where do we sit, is very much in our roots of being nonpartisan, being able to support and drive the conversations of what really matters at the end of the day. Um, and be there as a sounding board and almost a safe haven to think crazy what-if thoughts. And when people think about PTOAC Institute, um, we continue to hear, you guys were, um, ahead of your time, right? And I, we want to continue to be ahead of our time, even though it doesn't really pay the bills. Um, we want to be ahead of our time in being ready to help people through people, decision-makers, Congress, the administration, whoever, through those really tough uncertainty spots. And make them feel ready to tackle the next challenge.
That is well said, and I'm looking forward to, uh, seeing how the institute continues to, uh, uh, keep pace with, you know, what's ahead, following the technology as you described it, uh, and seeing, uh, you know, how, uh, not only the landscape is influenced in the near term, but for out years. So, Jen, it was a pleasure having you here. We will have to do Thai food again, although, uh, I don't think I'm going to change my order. I think I will keep it exactly the same. I just have to increase my tolerance here. So, better work on it. Hey, thanks, Jenny. Thanks, Dan. Appreciate it. [Music]