There is “an astonishing number of groups and activities concurrently pursuing the subject” of information sharing, according to a newly disclosed 2004 report (pdf) of the Intelligence Science Board (ISB). But those activities are not well coordinated. “In effect, we aren’t even sharing information about information sharing.”
The ISB is a little-known advisory panel that addresses intelligence science and technology issues at the direction of the Director of National Intelligence. Almost all of its products are classified, but a few are not.
It’s hard to say whether the ISB is influential. But it has performed important and interesting work, most notably on the science of interrogation. Its 2006 report on “Educing Information” (pdf), concluded that there was no scientific evidence to support a belief in the efficacy of coercive interrogation. (“Intelligence Science Board Views Interrogation,” Secrecy News, January 15, 2007.)
Now the only other unclassified ISB reports have been released by ODNI under the Freedom of Information Act: “Concept Paper on Trusted Information Sharing” (November 2004) and “What Makes for a Great Analytic Team?: Individual versus Team Approaches to Intelligence Analysis” (February 2005). All of the unclassified ISB reports are available here.
By structuring licensing-and-talent deals that replicate mergers while avoiding antitrust scrutiny, dominant technology firms are reshaping AI labor markets, venture financing, and the future of U.S. innovation.
For International Year of the Woman Farmer and International Women’s Month, we spoke to five women farmers in America about planting the next generation.
It’s a busy time and you have things to do. Here are three things worth tracking in science policy as Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) wraps and we head into FY27.
We’re asking the U.S. government to release holds on Congressionally-appropriated funding for scientific research, education, and critical activities at the earliest possible time.