Earlier Integration of Nuclear Science and Security Policy Training Could Bridge the Gap between Nuclear Security Professionals

Training nuclear security professionals revolves around a central question: What is the best way to equip future security leaders to address global challenges, in both the policy and technology realms? Despite an increasing emphasis on the need of policymakers and scientists to work more closely together, there is little opportunity to ‘crossover’ through traditional educational or professional avenues. An absence of effective ‘hybrid’ opportunities in the education of nuclear issues is rooted in the historically fundamentally different structure of training policymakers and scientists, with varying metrics of success. Five broadly divergent areas have been identified as contributing barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration. A Relationship Gap develops as incongruent professional timelines result in a dearth of interdisciplinary networking opportunities. A Training Gap exists because students are often trained to focus on either a technical or policy-oriented field, with little formal support for development of both. A Culture Gap develops as policy professionals and scientists cultivate different professional languages, values, and products. These three gaps combine to facilitate two overarching gaps. Under the Expectation Gap, traditional expectations of Masters or PhD candidates confine career options within academia or national labs. The Career Gap arises because employers often do not adequately value a hybrid approach to training in both science and policy. The result of these gaps is that the formal educational and career development framework in nuclear security is now out of step with the emerging need for interdisciplinary specialists spanning the private sector, public sector, think tanks, and international organizations and more, dealing with issues ranging from public health and biotechnology to cyber security and more. There is a strong need for increased collaboration between technical and policy fields in the nuclear security arena. Moreover, there should be clear advocacy for an integrated nuclear security education pipeline through the early and mid-career stages. While attempts have been made to bridge the aforementioned gaps, progress remains slow. In this paper, proposals to address this divide are discussed: harmonization of technical and policy fields through interdisciplinary internship and research experiences, requirements for training outside the main field of study, promotion of certificate programs, expansion of hybrid career opportunities, establishment of crossover opportunities or introduction of a foreign service-like program that extends beyond the short term. These measures could improve understanding and communication on both sides of the technical-policy divide, leading to more integrated approaches to addressing nuclear security issues