Department of Energy

1
Assessing the Effectiveness of the Iraqi
Scientist Engagement Program
Official Use Only

• Department of Energy
• Human Subjects Working Group Meeting
• November 13 , 2009

Ann-Marie B. Dake John P. Knezovich William E.
Nebo
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P. O. Box
808, Livermore, CA 94551
This work performed under the auspices of the
U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory under Contract
DE-AC52-07NA27344
2
Background

• Iraqi Scientist Engagement Program (ISEP)
• Designed to redirect former WMD scientists toward
  civilian work as well as engage scientists,
  technicians, and engineers (STEs) with
  WMD-applicable skill sets
• By engaging former WMD scientists, as well as
  STEs with dual-use knowledge, ISEP is an
  essential part of the U.S. governments
  multi-layered approach to prevent the spread of
  WMD
• ISEP can help transform Iraqi science into a
  positive economic and political force upon which
  the Iraqi economy can thrive

3
Study Objectives and Goals

• Phase I Assess the effectiveness of the Iraqi
  Scientist Engagement Program (ISEP)
• Phase II Elucidate the professional, political,
  and economic beliefs of Iraqi scientists and
  advance the understanding of their views well
  beyond what we now know in the existing
  literature
• Long-term goal Provide policymakers with a more
  solid empirical basis to assess existing
  programs, devise new initiatives, and choose
  among different policy options in the immediate
  future

4
Study Description/Hypothesis Phase I

• Seek and understand the effectiveness of
  Department of State (DOS) nonproliferation
  program
• Ask program recipients questions about the
  program itself in order to assess the
  effectiveness of the program so that DOS can make
  programmatic improvements to ensure the programs
  success
• Test whether ISEP is helping to keep Iraqi
  scientists gainfully employed in Iraq so that
  they do not feel the need to sell their knowledge
  to terrorists or countries of concern to the US
• Employ a methodological approach that will
  provide an important baseline understanding of
  the program to date as well as help program
  managers develop a comprehensive exit strategy

5
Experimental Design Phase I

• Conduct in-depth interviews with approximately
  twelve (12) Iraqi scientists in order to explore
  the program participants views on a variety of
  issues
• Interviews will be conducted in the Green Zone
  at a U.S. military facility. Iraqi citizens who
  interact or work with the U.S. are frequently
  targeted by terrorists groups in Iraq. However,
  these Iraqis have willingly chosen to participate
  in this U.S. program. At the same time, ISEP has
  taken every precaution to protect the connection
  between these scientists and the US. ISEP will
  assist in setting up the interviews and will
  continue their practice of providing coverage
  regarding the relationship
• Prepare, using the in-depth interviews, a survey
  instrument to be administered to all ISEP program
  recipients and additional scientists
• Understanding the views of scientists outside
  the program may provide a baseline for evaluating
  the effectiveness of the program. This will
  form the basis for Phase II of the study

6
Experimental Design Phase II

• Third-party (Turkish) survey research firm will
  conduct interviews in Iraq using Iraqi citizens
• LLNL team with meet with and attend survey
  research teams training session, most likely in
  Istanbul
• Inclusion of up to 450 volunteers (non-ISEP
  scientists)
• By using trained Iraqis, the "connection with the
  US will not be apparent and there should be no
  additional risk to the human subjects

7
Informed Consent Phase II

• The subjects will be asked if they wish to
  participate in completing a questionnaire
• No written consent form
• IRB Consideration Should there be a waiver of
  documentation of informed consent?

8
Issues Raised at Board Meeting

• John and Ann-Marie to review Phase I action item
  issues on behalf of the Board
• PI to return to Board for Phase II (ad hoc IRB
  meeting will be convened, if necessary)
• Payment (incentive/coercive?)
• 50 to the twelve (12) scientists in Phase I for
  their participation in the study
• Monetary or other type of gift for Phase II
  participants
• Deception involving Phase II?
• How will subjects be recruited?
• Opt-out mechanisms?
• Board will need to review survey instruments
  prior to approval

9
Issues of Concern

• What is safety in a country currently engaged in
  a war?
• What role does the IRB have in protecting the
  subjects and protecting the investigators?
• Is the Green Zone safe?
• Does deception provide safety in this case?
• Is this study human terrain mapping?