Jane DOE (0:00.00): The following podcast was recorded in the Fall of 2022. Thought leadership, titles, current events, legislation, and technology may have changed and evolved since it was originally recorded.

Dr. Deb Pfaff (0:13.59): We literally need to be prepared to see a whole lot of technology that we didn't know existed until it's staring us in the face. And, whether that's from our adversaries, private individuals, some other countries’ programs that we weren't tracking, things are moving fast and furious, and the IC does not have the agility to keep up in most cases. We’re, we are still so much a Cold War entity, bureaucratic and lumbering, and not particularly keen on rapid revolutionary change. That's going to be a real challenge for us.

Jane DOE (0:45.43): The opinions and views expressed in the following podcast do not represent the views of NIU or any other U.S. government entity. They are solely the opinions and views of the speakers. Any mention of organizations, publications, or products not owned or operated by the U.S. Government is not a statement of support and does not constitute U.S. Government endorsement.

(Intelligence Jumpstart intro music)

Welcome back to the Intelligence Jumpstart podcast. I am your host, Jane DOE.

On this episode, I spoke with Dr. Deb Pfaff from NIU’s Office of Research. Dr. Pfaff is the co-director for the Center for Truth, Trust, and Transparency and Associate Professor of Research with the Ann Caracristi Institute. She arrived to NIU in 2015 from the Defense Intelligence Agency, where she began her career in the IC as an all-source intelligence analyst.

Dr. Pfaff holds a Doctorate in Justice, Law, and Criminology from American University, a master’s in forensic science from The George Washington University, and a bachelor’s in political science from Gettysburg College.

Jane DOE (2:24.83): Welcome back to the Intelligence Jumpstart, thank you so much for coming back, Deb.

Dr. Deb Pfaff (2:29.12): Absolutely. It's a pleasure.

Jane DOE (2:31.33): To kick things off, I kind of wanted to ask you about your interest in the privatization of space. Normally you do research on truth, trust, and transparency in the IC. You are one of the co-directors for the Truth Trust and Transparency or TR3 center under the Caracristi Institute. So, this is a departure from that a little bit. Why do you think we should pay attention to this issue now that, you know, the privatization of space? Because to some extent, there's always been some privatization … you know, in the 1960s, companies were contracted to build systems and components for our space missions. So why now and why on a subject matter that, you know, is traditionally thought of as … well you're not an astronaut or a physicist. Why is this relevant right now?

Dr. Deb Pfaff (3:13.72): Yeah, you know, before The Hill disabled the comment section beneath their articles, which I actually thought was it was an excellent move. Trolls. One of the comments about the article I published last year suggested that you know, Hey, she's a criminal justice Ph.D. what business does she have discussing space? But this is not about air propulsion or fluid mechanics, it's about policy. And what I feel is a very real threat to intelligence. And that, as you mentioned, is the privatization of the intelligence function. That is not going away.

And in fact, with the introduction of so many private corporations and individuals who are interested in and profiting from a space mission, that is only going to continue to increase, and I think it's incredibly important that the Intelligence Community pay attention, not only to the foreign threats that space and cyberspace pose, but also what is really an unwitting threat, most likely within our borders. And that are that is individuals and corporations that are kind of taking on this, this space mission without thinking about the possible implications for national security.

Jane DOE (4:15.00): Yeah, it's really phenomenal how this has all developed. To set us up for this conversation, can you to talk a little about the existing guidance regarding space activity?

Dr. Deb Pfaff (4:25.82): Yeah, absolutely. And some of it’s really quite recent. So, the, the first one that we have is the … was the Outer Space Treaty. And that, um, came into force in 1967, and that established kind of the basic legal framework for International Space Law. Today, all major spacefaring nations are a party to that particular treaty. And that includes a number of different principles … and I'll just touch on them really quickly here. One is that the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries. It should be free for exploration and use by all states and that it's not subject to national appropriation, um, by claims of sovereignty.

Basically, what that means is those people that are out there selling paper so that you can own, um, a piece of the moon are selling exactly that, a piece of paper. You cannot own any portion of the moon or any other special body … and also that, states shall not place nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction into orbit. And that anyone shall be, excuse me, the state shall be responsible for any of the activities. And it doesn't matter whether they're carried out by government or non-governmental entities.

And then, finally that a state shall be liable for any damage caused by space objects. And now we think of things like, you know, space debris and satellites, and collisions and things like that. What's really important about this is that it does not expressly ban military activities in space, or obviously, the establishment of military Space Forces because now we've got one … or the placement of conventional weapons in space.

And next, we have the Space Act of 2015. And that went so far as to give individuals and corporations ownership over the resources that they extract from space. So, you still can't, um, stake your claim but you can mine asteroids and the moon and that sort of thing for minerals, gases, and water.

So now fast forward through a few additional, like just policy documents, various regard, and you get to the National Space Policy. And that was released by the Trump administration in December of 2020. And this was a pretty sweeping addition, and that it was intended to help establish international law norms of behavior. And it also established the US-led Artemis Accords. We’re going to leave that out of this discussion for brevity’s sake. But I'd like to read a quote about the intent of this policy from the Office of Space commerce because I think it's really, really important to capture precisely.

The National Space Policy recognizes that a robust, innovative, and competitive commercial space sector is foundational to economic development, continued progress, and sustained American leadership in space. It commits the United States to facilitating growth of an American commercial space sector that supports the nation's interests, is globally competitive, and advances American leadership in the generation of new markets and innovation-driven entrepreneurship.

This is really the first time the integration of the private space industry with the federal government was elucidated quite so bluntly. It promises not only to provide this robust commercial space capability by purchasing and using United States commercial space capabilities and services to the maximum extent under the law, but it also talks about developing government space systems only when there is no suitable or cost-effective commercial or international capability. And it goes one step further. And it says we should refrain from conducting space activities that preclude, discourage, or compete with United States commercial space activities. And that's huge.

So, basically, what I see from this policy is U.S. Government get thee out of the way the commercial industry has this. And, you know, in terms of capabilities, I've no doubt they can, and they have run circles around the government. NASA does not have Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk's budget.

Jane DOE (8:19.37): Yeah, no.

Dr. Deb Pfaff (8:20.50): Nobody does, right? What we're missing here is an acknowledgment or recognition of the secondary and tertiary consequences that might arise if private industries edge off the foreign government.

Now we do start to see a little bit of recognition of that in the Biden administration's release of the United States Space Priorities Framework, and that came about in December of 2021. And here again, um, I'd like to quote directly from the document because the exact language is really important.

The United States will foster a policy and regulatory environment that enables a competitive and burgeoning U.S. commercial space sector. U.S. commercial space activities are on the cutting edge of space technology, space applications, and space-enabled services. To facilitate the growth of U.S. industry and support the creation of American jobs, the United States will clarify government and private sector roles and responsibilities and support a timely and responsive regulatory environment. U.S. regulations must provide clarity and certainty for the authorization and continuing supervision, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

So, so that just kind of begins to touch on the concern that we're getting here. But I think there's much more legislation that we're going to need in order to close some of those gaps.

Jane DOE (9:39.80): Right. It seems so. It’s very interesting how those documents kind of, like, lead to more questions than they give answers … especially when we're talking about … some of the critics … they say there is a lack of accountability … and, you know, labor issues and environmental issues … these are all things that haven't been thought through. And what is his name? The astrophysicist? Um. Neil deGrasse Tyson … he was like, well, you know, think about when planes were invented, and there was no infrastructure to regulate how planes would fly. And there were no policies for safety and whatnot. But it's really interesting how this has all evolved in the last decade.

Going back a few years to the 2014 NATO Summit. They put out notes about their meetings on space. And they said that outer space benefits must not be allowed to widen the gap between economic and social inequality, which, you know, the socio-economic and geopolitical issues aside, also create national security issues. But I am wondering about what role you believe private companies should have in international discussions and negotiation agreements … like these NATO summits, to regulate activities on the international stage. I mean, these discussions have usually generally been between governments. So, you know, what level of involvement should they have at this point?

Dr. Deb Pfaff (10:51.05): Yeah, yeah, definitely. That's a great question. So, um, at least in terms of government contractors, I think inherently governmental functions applies here … just as it does to all government contractors, although, you know, I'll be quite honest. And I'll say that I'm not really 100 percent certain that we have a great definition of inherently governmental functions.

Right now, it's something like a function that is so intimately related to the public interest that it requires performance by employees of the federal government. And some of those can include, you know, judgments related to monetary transactions, resources, entitlements, developing IC policies. To me that that's a little bit nonspecific, but that's what we have. But if a private entity is going to, you know, it's going on the record, so to speak, they shouldn't be involved in international discussions or, you know, for that matter, domestic discussions that involve setting policy or discussing resources. But you know, again, here we run into one of the sand traps of having a few individual people holding the purse strings of a very influential industry.

Elon Musk is worth what, like 250 billion … Bezos, maybe 150 160. These guys, whether we like it or not, are the people having the most influence on the space industry now and probably for the foreseeable future. So, they run companies that can and do partner internationally on space-related ventures. The first privately funded liquid-fueled rocket … it placed a satellite into orbit was a Malaysian remote-sensing satellite, and guess who launched it? SpaceX.

And it was just pretty recently, I think in August, it was just announced that SpaceX is going to launch a Japanese satellite into orbit next year, and these companies are going to partner with people who pay them. And those customers may be very well those customers may very well be international customers. And, of course, that's true for a lot of companies and corporations. Many have large and very influential international partnerships or clients. But the difference here is the magnitude of control concentrated in the very few. There's a tremendous amount of real estate … it literally and figuratively, being controlled by a very small number, and that can easily result in informal influence and outcomes that exist outside the scope of the government.

Jane DOE (13:03.55): Yeah, it's kind of scary. I think I was reading that if they start mining asteroids … that the considerable wealth that these billionaires will build is unfathomable, you know. They talked about billionaires buying islands and football teams and all that stuff. But if they start mining those resources, and there's nothing to prevent them from keeping those resources … these individuals … this group of men and women are going to be able to buy countries. So that in and of itself is different because you have a new government order in that way. And, you know, a lot of the content, when you google privatization of space, is kind of dystopic, in a way. And I hate to go down that rabbit hole because it's easy to do because you start thinking about all these crazy scenarios. But yeah, going back to …

Dr. Deb Pfaff: No, I mean, I joked about the United States of Amazon in my article, but that is a troubling intersection between economic and political power.

(Manolis Minutes intro music)
Manolis Priniotakis (14:00.68): I’m Manolis Priniotakis, NIU’s Vice President for Research & Infrastructure and this is this episode’s Manolis Minute.

We’ll be hearing from Dr. David Charney on the psychology of insider spies in our next episode.
In his biography, Dr. Charney notes that he completed part of his medical education at the medical school at Stony Brook University in Suffolk County on New York’s Long Island.

Stony Brook is just up the road from and is a partner in the group that manages the Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Although perhaps less known than some of DOE’s other national labs associated with the Manhattan Project and later national security work, such as Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore, Brookhaven has a remarkable history of scientific achievement since its founding in 1947, to include the awarding of seven Nobel prizes for work conducted at the lab.

Among its many illustrious alumni, one stands out for his contributions to intelligence history.
From 1948-1970, physicist Samuel Goudsmit served as senior scientist at Brookhaven. A Dutch immigrant, Goudsmit was a vital contributor to the ALSOS mission, the World War II effort connected to the Manhattan Project aimed at understanding the German progress on a nuclear weapon.
A well-known physicist before the war, Goudsmit served as the ALSOS scientific head, partnering with Army Colonel Boris Pash … who is worthy of his own future minute … in what is considered to be among the earliest, if not the first, scientific intelligence missions in U.S. history.

This small group of intel officers and scientists traveled across Europe with and sometimes ahead of U.S. expeditionary forces to find Italian, French, German, and other scientists, examine documents, and inspect sites, eventually determining that the Nazis were not nearly as far along on their atomic bomb efforts as was feared.

For security reasons, the ALSOS members were not aware of the progress being made by the Manhattan Project. The story of the German program and its aftermath is fascinating and available through a variety of books, to include the now public secret transcript of the recorded discussions among several German scientists in a manor house in the English countryside shortly after the war, referred to as the Farm Hall Transcripts.

After the war, Goudsmit wrote his own account of his activities in ALSOS, a remarkable book about his wartime experience. It is a fantastic and really quite straightforward read, written with the emotion of a Jewish immigrant to the United States confronting Nazi-ism but also with the insights of a scientist observing the insidious impact of authoritarianism on discovery.

In the book, he argues that the German program was doomed to failure due to the Nazi Germany’s unwillingness to be open to dissenting views – even in its scientific efforts.

Thanks again for listening to Intelligence Jumpstart. For more information on NIU, please visit our website, www.NI-U.edu.

(Manolis Minutes exit music)

Jane DOE (17:01.25): You know if you look at the People’s Republic of China right now, their, their national security policy says that any innovation is owned by the government. So, we can't do that, as you know. So, I'm wondering, what should the IC or maybe broader U.S. Government consider for these … to prepare for these geopolitical conflicts that may not just involve what we consider traditional foreign actors … but may in the future actually consider like individuals who are American citizens, but now they own, you know, territory. Yeah. I mean, this whole private citizen … the assets and all of that … it's really complicated.

Dr. Deb Pfaff (17:41.07): It’s incredibly complicated, it's a wicked problem, and things are moving so rapidly. We literally need to be prepared to see a whole lot of technology that we didn't know existed until it's staring us in the face. And, whether that's from our adversaries, private individuals, or some other countries’ program that we weren't tracking on, things are moving fast and furious, and the IC does not have the agility to keep up in most cases. We’re, we are still so much a Cold War entity, bureaucratic and lumbering, and not particularly keen on rapid or revolutionary change. That's going to be a real challenge for us.

Jane DOE (18:17.00): Yeah, it’s true. Very, very true.

Dr. Deb Pfaff (18:19.07): Yeah, yeah. And I think everybody in the Intelligence Community says it's true, but we're not necessarily doing anything about it. We're now in a situation where we have to keep pace with an industry that thrives and even exists on revolutionary developments. And we're also going to have to learn to be more imaginative, to take risks, and that the latter that taking risks is really something we're adverse to, because that means there's a chance that something terrible is going to happen, that we're going to be wrong. And that is not something that our culture supports.

Jane DOE (18:53.41): Yeah, I see us as very risk averse in adopting new technologies … even AI, something so … somewhat seemingly benign at this point, and I put that in air quotes, you know, the IC has just not gotten onboard, really. So, I mean, where does that put us in the space race? And I guess that’s a bit of a rhetorical question …

Dr. Deb Pfaff (19:17.00): Yeah, I mean, we're gonna have to consider innovating, removing stovepipes, streamlining decision-making, and who hasn't heard of this before? These are all things we've talked about, at length, incremental steps to it, that's that is not going to cut it.

Jane DOE (19:29.96): Yeah. It’s interesting. So, I guess that brings me to kind of the next question, and it's kind of a two-part question … what the government … you know, NASA, NRO, and DoD need to do to sustain its decision-making role for national security? Because as private companies, they don't own space, but as their real estate is expanding in space, more and more, you know, how are we going to maintain that, that government function of you know … this is national security now, we need to step in and actually take responsibility for our country's safety.

Dr. Deb Pfaff (20:02.12): Yeah, yeah …

Jane DOE (20:03.47): Does that make sense?

Dr. Deb Pfaff (20:03.82): Yeah. Yeah, let me see if, if this answers it … so we … I mean both the federal government and the IC … we need to be collaborating with private industry else, we are going to quickly be overtaken by foreign government capabilities. And to date absolutely supports that intention. But I think we're writing private industry a bit of a blank check right now.

They're using government contracts to advance their own capabilities. And they're often … often those capabilities are being used for their own projects. We actually saw this with, with a somewhat public disagreement between NASA Director Jim Bridenstine and Elon Musk over a project known as commercial crew.

Musk tweeted something about the SpaceX starship probe project, which was SpaceX’s solo effort to try to send people to the moon and Mars, and Bridenstine responded that he expected to see the same level of effort directed toward NASA and the American taxpayer. And what he was referencing was …

Jane DOE (21:00.04): Wow (laughs)

Dr. Deb Pfaff (21:00.08): (laughs) A little bit of snark going on there. Yeah, so there was a lot of difficulties and delays with that particular project. So, the Twitter war was on between Musk and Bridenstine at that point in time. And you know, private industry, they're not waiting around for us to put the checks and balances on them. They're taking government funding and running with it. So, we really need to look at what we have built up so far and think about what we need to do with legislation to close some of those, those gaps.

Jane DOE (21:32.28): Yeah. It's funny because proponents of the privatization of space, you know, cite lower costs, as being one of the positives. And if we're not monitoring what is happening, you know, we, we don’t have those checks and balances. How do we actually know? Is it really costing less for us to go through private companies … especially when we don't know how they're using the funds?

Dr. Deb Pfaff (21:53.78): Or how they're using their data, for that matter. I mean, we saw this with Facebook and Meta and, you know, talk about buying the United States. (laughs) We have no idea where we're all of that data is going. I mean, if you use space for so many things … everything from, you know, your dating profile to running major corporations, and it's, it's really just kind of quite scary what can exist out there? If, if it's, if it's not handled properly, at the outset, and that outset, is very rapidly passing us by?

Jane DOE (22:25.34): Yeah. Yeah, talk about dystopic (laughs) … this rabbit hole is just opening up. You talked a little bit about … you know our economy is about 25 percent space related. Like you just said, our dating profiles … everything is related to the satellites. And as you said at the onset of this conversation … this isn't going away. This is never going to go away. I mean, it could have some catastrophic implications for our economy … you gave us little bit of back on existing guidance … like the Space Treaty is inadequate. And although it prohibits the use of WMD, it doesn't ban the militarization of space. And we've seen cyber warfare and, you know, with, with, Russia and Chinese investment in the anti-satellite weapons … these are becoming real on another, like, playing field that you mentioned, we're not really prepared … we’re not really prepared for. But is there anything that you can think of or that you believe the U.S. Government … should the U.S. Government be doing anything additional to make sure that these private companies are protecting the US public’s interest?

Dr. Deb Pfaff (23.29.22): Yeah, yeah. This is a really challenging question, right, because we have … the U.S. has a free-market economy and that depends upon the laws of supply and demand, providing the basis for an economic system without government intervention. And space is obviously highly, highly in demand right now. And that demand just going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. So, we have to really be careful of the way in which we regulate the private space industry because so, so much of our lives, not to mention national security, depends on it. If we've got too strong of a hand, then foreign adversaries will … they'll get to jump on us with advanced technologies. If we're too weak, then private industry exceeds controls. And, you know, as the article mentions, they're not beholden to the public interest. And I think the bottom line for Musk and Bezos and Branson isn't the welfare of the American public, no matter how much, you know, they might try to convince us otherwise. It's money.

And there’s surprisingly few commercial space activities that are actually being regulated today. The FAA does launch and reentry, NOAA does remote sensing satellites. Licensing of commercial satellite communications is done by the FCC. The Department of Commerce and State do the license exports of space technology. And while the 1976 outer space treaty requires signatories, like the U.S., to authorize and continually supervise the activities of non-governmental activities, the U.S. regulatory system has not … it's just not kept pace with the expansion of commercial space activities into businesses like satellite servicing, in-space manufacturing, lunar exploration, we're really missing a clear mechanism for new space applications that aren't already subject to kind of what we've built up so far.

And actually, I'll go back to two policies or councils, I suppose … because the space policy involves so many agencies, the National Space Council was established in 1989. Its job was to provide this coordinated process for developing policy and strategy and for monitoring its implementation. Well, it met for the first time in 25 years … in 2017.

It's met three times at least recently, they've … they're catching up … once in April of this last year, 2022, and once in August of 2022, and once actually, quite recently, on September 9 … we're recording this podcast on September 15. So, I haven't been able to get a transcript of the latest meeting. But at least the first two meetings focused on regulating the international norms and rules of the space industry to mitigate national, um, security threats. They also looked at developing a new rules framework to ensure clarity and consistency needed to attract investors. So yeah, not regulating the activities of our own commercial space industry. So I'm taking a very long time to answer your question. Sorry …

Jane DOE (26:10.34): No, this is such great stuff …

Dr. Deb Pfaff (26:11.87): Getting back to your question … oh, thank you … is, you know, is there anything we can do? We need to recognize that the threats aren't going to come only from the outside of the borders of the U.S. They may come from the commercial space industry. When they sign that blank check and exceed what are right now unspecified, broad or non-existent regulations on their activities. And I think this is an effort that the National Reconnaissance Office, the NRO, needs to lead.

How can the commercial space industry … our own commercial space industry, pose a threat to our own national security. And again, I'm not implying intent here … think collisions of satellites, space debris, hacking into systems … but I'm I am suggesting there is a very real national security threat to the privatization of space that we're not closely considering.

Jane DOE (27:01.85): Hmm … It's really fascinating. Just step aside for a little tangent, I read that, you know, one of the reasons why privatization of space, you know, it's such a great thing allows NASA to use their budgets for … to further the exploration. But right now, they can barely see through all of the satellites. There's so much noise up there and like visual noise that is blocking any kind of advancements. So, it's kind of … it seems like we’re kind of shooting ourselves in the foot … and then …

Dr. Deb Pfaff (27:32.28): Absolutely, I mean, all you have to do is look up in the sky and you're going to one day with the naked eye, be able to see more satellites than stars. And I think …

Jane DOE (27:41.31): That’s so sad

Dr. Deb Pfaff (27:43.00): Yeah

Jane DOE (27:43.57): It’s incredibly sad, especially for people that love nature I mean …

Dr. Deb Pfaff (27:46.19): Absolutely.

Jane DOE (27:47.20): So, as we're winding down, thank you again for taking the time to talk about this really fascinating issue … in that you know the IC needs to get its head wrapped around. Are there any further considerations we should be thinking about?

Dr. Deb Pfaff (27:58.91): Yeah, and this is, this is kind of a shameless plug for my center, the Center for Truth, Trust, and Transparency, which I co-direct with Dr. Bowman … And we're really looking at transparency and openness. And this here, this is the Intelligence Community's opportunity to start building stronger relationships with the U.S. public. So, the public understands what it is that we really do, why, and how they can play their role in protecting our national security. I mean, national security is the U.S. Government's most basic responsibility, but it is no longer the exclusive domain of the public sector. It depends upon individuals, corporations, so forth, a whole range of actors. And again, those people are not beholden to the public interest.

So, for most Americans, the Intelligence Community presents itself as a work of fiction. They experience it through Hollywood, books, the media, just dozens of highly sensationalized and really greatly inaccurate sources. And this has created this perception of the Intelligence Community that simply … it's not based in reality. And what's more, it's really generated a lot of suspicion about our methods and intent.

There was a recent polling that was done by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that was very interesting. It suggested that a majority of Americans do believe the Intelligence Community is effective and necessary. But if you stratify that down by age, you'll find that it's carried very heavily by the silent generation. So, 78 percent of the silent generation approves of the IC, compared with just 47 percent of millennials.

Jane DOE (29:29.72): Oh wow. Insane.

Dr. Deb Pfaff (29:31.26): Yeah. Yeah. And in three short years, by 2025, millennials are going to make up 75 percent of the workforce. So we've got 75 percent of the workforce, and less than half of them trust the Intelligence Community. That's a problem. And I think that alone could very well lead to the privatization of the intelligence function. And I think, you know, the IC isn't open and transparent about the things that it can be open and transparent about. Where we're seeing governments rely on data from private individuals and from commercial corporations already. Commercial images have played a huge role in the war in Ukraine … commercial satellites capture troop movements, the location of missile attacks, destruction, so forth. And that imagery has been so vital that the Government of Ukraine issued a plea for help asking satellite companies to share their data with the Ukrainian military. That's unprecedented.

Jane DOE (30:21.69): Yeah, that's, that's amazing … that we that we've come that far. And also scary.

Dr. Deb Pfaff (30:26.46): It is. It's terrifying. And you know, what's next? We have so many different collection capabilities out there. The public has so many different collection capabilities out there that I think there's a very real danger that the Intelligence Community's mission can be privatized. So again, I would really like to see the NRO lead the discussion on space privatization within the Intelligence Community.

Jane DOE (30:47.94): Excellent. Dear Dr. Scolese, thank you in advance for your consideration.
Well, thank you again for coming on Intelligence Jumpstart.

Dr. Deb Pfaff (30:57.62): Thank you very much. I appreciate the time.
(Intelligence Jumpstart exit music)

Jane DOE (31:01.80): Thank you for listening to the Intelligence Jumpstart podcast. We'd love to hear from you about what you liked and what you'd like to hear more of. If you would like to hear more about a specific topic or issue, send us a note at NIPress@niu.odni.gov. To learn more about NIU visit our website at NI-U.edu.