Facing heat on the right for excessive spending, President Bush has apparently indicated he will provide a “very tough” spending blueprint to Congress for FY 2006. In a commentary posted today, the Washington Times quotes members of the Administration saying the President will exert “very, very strong discipline” on next year’s spending.

“That discipline will be there big time,” [White House Chief of Staff Andrew] Card told business leaders.”

The Times is pretty specific in predicting the cuts:

Among the budget-cutting targets: the bloated Agriculture Department, corporate welfare, scientific research, housing, state and local giveaway grants, and other low-priority and no-priority programs that will be slashed or eliminated altogether.

The National Science Foundation’s social research grants, long criticized as wasteful, will be cut and NSF’s overall spending is expected to be flatlined. So will the National Institutes of Health, which has seen its budget skyrocket over the past decade, especially in the past four years.
[emphasis added]

This is very disturbing news, not just because of the cuts it portends, but because the attitude on display in the article is a far cry from the very supportive language we’ve seen this Administration use in reference to the National Science Foundation and the rest of the federal basic research effort. My hope is that the article is more reflective of the Heritage Foundation position on the budget than the President’s, but we’ll know for sure on February 7th.
In the meantime, let’s reflect on the President’s feelings about the federal role in R&D as they were expressed in last year’s budget request. Surely the situation hasn’t changed so much in the intervening 12 months that he no longer believes this, has it?

The eminent 19th Century American scientist Joseph Henry once asserted, “Modern civilization depends on science.” This still holds true. Indeed, investments in science and technology have resulted in much of the unparalleled economic growth in the United States over the last 50 years, as well as the standard of living and quality of life we now enjoy. Advances have been possible only with the support of both public and private investment in research and development (R&D).
And we continue to invest. The R&D investments of the United States are unmatched. However, unlike 40 years ago, when Federal R&D expenditures doubled those of the private sector, industry R&D spending now exceeds that of the Federal Government. Still, by a wide margin, the U.S. Government continues to lead the world in R&D spending.
Investments in technological advancement are vital to strengthening our capabilities to combat terrorism and defend our country. The President’s 2005 Budget continues to focus R&D on winning the war against terrorism, while moderating the growth in overall spending. But the benefits of innovation and discovery are not limited to national security. They are just as critical to economic security. The Administration, recognizing that fundamental research is the fuel for future innovation and technology development, has maintained the highest levels of support for priority R&D areas such as nanotechnology, information technology, hydrogen energy, and space exploration. The non-defense R&D share of the discretionary budget is at a near record high over the last 30 years.
-Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States of America, FY 2005 (p. 47) – (pdf)

Sigh.

 

New Defense R&D Blog Worth Checking Out

The Coalition for National Security Research has begun a blog to note and comment on the latest news in Defense R&D.
CNSR is “a broadly-based coalition united by a commitment to a stronger defense science and technology base. Participants include scientific, engineering, mathematical and behavioral societies, academic institutions, and industrial associations.” And CRA.
Anyway, it’s definitely worth taking a look. Tom Jones, CNSR’s co-chair, has been blogging up a storm already.
Full Disclosure: Any ugly HTML/PHP coding on the CNSR blog is my fault.

 

The President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) achieved consensus yesterday on the final draft of its report on the status of the federal cyber security R&D effort, finding that support for civilian-oriented, fundamental cyber security research is seriously inadequate, the pool of researchers is insufficient, and that coordination between funding agencies is lacking.
Judging by yesterday’s presentation (delivered by Tom Leighton, the Chair of PITAC’s Subcommittee on Cyber Security), the report will lay out in stark terms the magnitude of the threat posed by vulnerabilities in the information infrastructure. It will also spell out in some detail the difficulties faced by researchers, especially in academic institutions, in finding federal support for the fundamental cyber security research that will address the vulnerabilities long-term. The report will note problems in all three agencies one would expect to be funding critical long-term cyber security R&D: NSF, DARPA and the Department of Homeland Security. I’ve covered these issues before in this space, but here are the key points:

  • DHS sees itself as a supporter of short-term research, funding very near-term technologies in an effort to address the current threat. Of a more than $1 billion science and technology budget for FY05, it will spend less than $18 million on cyber security research, of which only $1.5 million might be called “basic.” DHS says it’s dependent upon DARPA and NSF to provide the long-term research it will need in the future.
  • Two policies at DARPA have made it very difficult for academic researchers to participate in DARPA-supported research: a short-term focus with an emphasis on weeding out projects that can’t demonstrate measurable results in 12- to 18-month timeframes; and, a move towards classification of a larger percentage of the DARPA research budget, especially in cyber security. As a result, university participation in DARPA-led IT research appears to have dropped significantly.
  • NSF’s CyberTrust program (its research in cyber security) is heavily over-subscribed as a result. Proposal success rates are 8 percent, vs. a Foundation-wide average of about 25 percent. Proposal success rates that low are damaging to the discipline and to the nation that depends on that research. The Foundation believes about 40 percent of those proposals as good enough to warrant funding, were funding available.
    As a quick fix, the committee will recommend an immediate $90 million infusion of funding into NSF’s cyber security research efforts to alleviate some of these funding pressures, while leaving the door open to future funding increases should the situation warrant it.
    Rather than summarize Leighton’s whole presentation, I’ll just link to the slides...once they’ve been posted (should be soon). When they appear, they’ll be here. They’re here (pdf).
    I’ll recommend again CRA’s own contribution to the report: our testimony (pdf) submitted to PITAC back in July, which mirrors much of what will be in the final report. In fact, it appears that the only major concern we raised which doesn’t get some mention in the report is the chilling effect of various copyright legislation efforts on research in information security and assurance.
    CRA’s testimony is here (pdf).
    The committee is putting its final touches on the report, which should be ready for final approval at the next meeting of PITAC, which I believe will be in March. We’ll have all the details here.

  •