Last Wednesday, President Biden unveiled the first details of his administration’s infrastructure investment plan. Named “the American Jobs Plan,” it is a proposal to invest $2 trillion over a decade in American infrastructure, “that will create millions of good jobs, rebuild our country’s infrastructure, and position the United States to out-compete China.” In a show of trust in the country’s research community, investments in scientific research and infrastructure are featured in the plan.
The most significant research piece of the plan is $50 billion to the National Science Foundation to create, “a technology directorate that will collaborate with and build on existing programs across the government.” If a “technology directorate” sounds familiar, that’s because it is the main feature of Senator Schumer’s (D-NY) Endless Frontier Act which was introduced a year ago. The idea behind such an addition to NSF is that a technology development effort is needed for the country to better capitalize on its fundamental research into key industries of the future, such as AI and quantum. There are no further details in the President’s plan for this new directorate but it’s likely this part of the AJP will be taken up by Senator Schumer, the Senate Majority Leader.
In addition to the new NSF directorate, President Biden’s plan also calls on Congress to provide $30 billion in additional funding for, “R&D that spurs innovation and job creation, including in rural areas.” As well, the proposal also calls to invest $40 billion more in, “upgrading research infrastructure in laboratories across the country, including brick-and-mortar facilities and computing capabilities and networks.”
This all sounds great, but what’s the catch? Unfortunately, the American Jobs Plan is no more than a Fact Sheet right now, with only top line numbers and no specifics. As well, these investments don’t have a timeframe attached to them; are they over ten years? Five years? One lump investment? While it’s likely over 10 years, we don’t know for sure yet because of the lack of details. We are expecting this infrastructure plan to be taken up by Congress over the summer, so we could see details in the May timeframe; but that is an educated guess at the moment.
The other issue of concern is the plan’s prospects in Congress. After the American Rescue Plan, the $1.9 trillion COVID relief legislation, it’s unclear if there is enough support in a closely divided Congress to spend even more money. Tempering expectations seems to be a wise course of action.
All the same, this is a great show of confidence in the nation’s research community. And it is grounds for some optimism that the country’s leadership sees the benefits of more investments in research. Hopefully, at a minimum, some of this plan will be passed into law. We will be keeping track of this, and other pieces of legislation, and will report back when we know more; please check back for updates.
Earlier today, the House of Representatives passed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the $1.9 trillion bill that is meant to provide additional relief to the country to address the impacts of the ongoing COVID pandemic. As the Senate approved the measure on Saturday, the bill now heads to President Biden for signing into law; he is expected to sign it on Friday (UPDATE: President Biden signed the bill on Thursday March 11th instead).
As we reported before, included in the bill are funds for the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards & Technology. These emergency, one-time, funds ($600 millions for NSF and $150 million for NIST) are for funding research, “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.”
The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, a congressionally-chartered committee charged with reviewing AI and related technologies and making recommendations to address U.S. national security and defense needs, today released its final report, endorsing significant new investments in AI research, strategies for building the AI workforce, and guidance for using AI in warfare while upholding U.S. democratic values. The report is likely to inform policy activity around defense-related AI issues in Congress and at the Department of Defense over the next months and years.
The report is organized around two themes: “Defending America in the AI Era,” with a focus on understanding current and future threats around AI; and “Winning the Technology Competition,” with a focus on how to optimize the research ecosystem to ensure U.S. leadership in AI and related technologies.
The report starts with the premise that AI is already ubiquitous, that it is a quintessentially “dual-use” technology with clear military applications, and that it will transform all aspects of military affairs and intelligence for the U.S. and for its allies and adversaries. The commissioners make the case for a Department of Defense led effort to develop AI-enabled autonomous weapons systems in part because they assert that our adversaries are likely to deploy them and “defending against AI-capable adversaries without employing AI is an invitation to disaster.” The commissioners believe DOD needs to have infrastructure to support AI in place by 2025, an admittedly ambitious goal, or risk losing its leadership position.
In considering the technology competition, the commissioners note that “AI will be leveraged to advance all dimensions of national power from healthcare to food production to environmental sustainability” and that the adoption of AI will “drive economies, shape societies, and determine which states exert influence and exercise power in the world.” The clear threat in this calculation, the report notes, is China, which it describes as “an AI peer” and more technologically advanced in some applications. The U.S. innovation ecosystem has been remarkably productive, the commissioners argue, but we are at a disadvantage in AI because we lack the large state-led investments and strategies we see in China. University research, the private sector, and an innovation culture that is bottom-up will still be key drivers of AI progress in the U.S. But the report argues that even the largest U.S. tech firms can’t compete with the resources provided by China and that the U.S. needs a better effort “meshing government and private sector efforts to win.” The report calls on DOD to commit to spending at least 3.4 percent of its budget on Science and Technology (it’s currently 2.3 percent), and “allocate at least $8 billion toward AI R&D annually.”
Besides significant new investments in fundamental research and AI development, the report also calls for the creation of a new agency — a National Technology Foundation — to help meet the goal of moving emerging technologies like AI from foundational research through the more applied “valley of death” to commercialization or deployment. This adds to the chorus of voices in DC, like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who introduced an act last Congress that would add $100 billion in funding over five years to the National Science Foundation to give it a new “technology development” mission and rename it the National Science and Technology Foundation; and the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which is considering proposals to add a new Technology Directorate to NSF’s Research and Related Activities account. The commitment to greater investment in these emerging areas of technology is welcome and laudable. But with it should come the caution that the details are incredibly important and that understanding the ways in which these new foci could skew our already extraordinarily productive research and innovation ecosystem is a necessity, particularly concerning open and unrestricted basic research.
CRA and its Computing Community Consortium — which has spent much of the last three years focused on AI research issues, both through the facilitation of a community-led 20 year AI Research Roadmap, and the production of a tranche of whitepapers on AI policy and research topics — engaged with the NSCAI on many occasions over the commissions 2+ years of work. The report, in general — and especially where it references research needs and articulates research as a priority for investment — clearly reflects that input, and we find it strong and commendable. The report rightly highlights the key importance of increased federal investments in fundamental research. In a focus on federal approaches to bringing emerging technologies closer to commercialization or deployment, we can’t afford to lose the support for the fundamental research enabling those technologies (and many others we don’t yet know about).
We also appreciate that the report does devote significant consideration to the importance of the DOD’s continued respect for and protection of civil liberties, privacy, and democratic values — and the importance of American leadership in advancing those values through the technologies we deploy. While the report does appropriately bring focus on ethical use of AI in context of autonomous weapons systems, it is vital that the focus persists in all implementations of the recommendations. Emphasis on ethical AI needs to persist in lifelong learning and research, transition, adoption, or innovation initiatives throughout all of national security interests — from enterprise software systems to platforms and intelligence. Also, we note that thoughtful, tech-savvy people inside and outside DOD, the Administration, and the Congress must be involved in the implementation of recommendations and the thinking, planning, and operationalizing of these deployments.
From the perspective of the research community, throughout the report there may also be an over-estimation of AI robustness and a lack of appreciation that much of AI doesn’t currently work or can’t be held accountable; quantification of uncertainty is still a very challenging technical problem. This theme is consistent across domains of warfare and intelligence.
The report does a commendable job of noting the importance of recruitment of strong AI talent. We agree that ensuring broad computing literacy and a healthy pipeline of K-12 students with solid STEM educations is at least as important. As Mignon Clyburn, an NSCAI Commissioner noted in a recent public plenary, “educate the workforce and the peopleforce to uplift all of us.” Additionally, an over-focus on “top AI talent” by funding agencies can be a detriment to national security — continued reliance on the same cohort of people can lead to blindspots. Ensuring a diversity of performers can help ensure a diversity of possible solutions to DOD problems. Broadening the definition of what “top AI talent” is and that it is not only limited to a few top tier research universities and could come from less traditional training (such as community college pathways or specialized military training) addresses this.
With the release of the report the commission has fulfilled its purpose and will expire October 1, 2021, unless Congress seeks to engage it in further work and extends its term. In the intervening months, we should expect Congress begin to act on some of the recommendations in the report through legislation (likely as part of the FY22 National Defense Authorization Act), and see the DOD begin to operationalize some of the guidance from the report. The report will serve as an excellent buttress for many of the policy goals CRA will be advocating for in the coming months and years — particularly in helping us argue the critical importance of the federal investment in fundamental research in computing. We’ll keep you updated on progress here….
In a piece written by Jeffrey Mervis at Science, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are expected to receive emergency funding as part of the COVID relief bill that is moving through Congress. Specifically, NSF would receive $650 million and NIST $150 million in a one-time budget allocations from the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Both agencies would be required to use the funds to help the nation, and specifically the science research community, recover from the impacts of the pandemic, as per the terms of the overall relief package. According to Mervis, the money for NSF is, “likely to be spent on more research on pandemic-related topics, as well as more support for educating the next generation of scientists and engineers,” while, “the funds for NIST…are expected to bolster its network of manufacturing research institutes.” While a far cry from the $26 billion that the higher education community is seeking in emergency relief, this money will be much needed help for the country’s research community. We’ll be watching the relief package as it makes its way through Congress; the expectation is that the bill will come up for a final vote some time in early-to-mid March. Please keep checking back for updates.
On Friday, the “Research Investment to Spark the Economy (RISE) Act” was reintroduced in both the House and Senate. The RISE Act authorizes nearly $25 billion in relief for research workforce and institutions at American institutes of higher education. As stated in Senator Markey’s press release, “the people who comprise the research workforce – graduate students, postdocs, principal investigators, and technical support staff – face financial and other hardships from the disruption of their research activities. The RISE Act will provide necessary relief to preserve the current scientific workforce and ensure that the United States is prepared to continue our global scientific leadership once this crisis ends”
The bills were reintroduced by Senators Markey (D-MA), Tillis (R-NC), Peters (D-MI), and Collins (R-ME) in the Senate; and Representatives DeGette (CO-01), Upton (MI-06), Johnson (TX-30), Eshoo (CA-18) and Gonzalez (OH-16) in the House of Representatives.
Originally introduced in the 116th Congress in the Fall of 2020, the bill never received a vote in the full Senate; however, it was marked up favorably by the Senate Commerce Committee. On the House side, the bill did not progress beyond the committee level. The RISE Act is the higher education community’s main effort to attain some form of federal relief for the research institutions that have been disrupted due to the pandemic. CRA endorsed the bill in 2020 and will endorse the reintroduced bill as well.
The Computing Research Association commends President-elect Biden for his announcement today that the Presidential Science Advisor will be a member of the Cabinet for the first time in history. We applaud his commitment that “science will always be at the forefront” of his administration, and we look forward to working with the highly talented and qualified team of advisors he named today. We are confident they will contribute a strong scientific voice to the myriad challenges facing our country.
President-elect Joe Biden announced today he intends to nominate Dr. Eric Lander, biologist and former leader of the Human Genome Project, to lead the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and serve as the Presidential Science Advisor. Biden also announced that he was designating the Presidential Science Advisor a cabinet level position for the first time in history, illustrating the importance the new administration will place on the guidance of science in policymaking. Also named today as Deputy Director of OSTP is Dr. Alondra Nelson, who is the president of the Social Science Research Council and a distinguished scholar of science, technology, social inequality and race.
Biden also named two external C0-Chairs of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Dr. Frances H. Arnold and Dr. Maria Zuber will chair the committee tasked with reviewing elements of the nation’s science enterprise and providing guidance on problems facing the nation. Dr. Arnold is an expert in protein engineering and the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Dr. Zuber is an expert in geophysics and planetary science, an astronaut who was the first woman to lead a NASA spacecraft mission, and a former chair of the National Science Board.
Biden’s team will also include Kei Koizumi, who will serve OSTP’s Chief of Staff, and Narda Jones, who will be OSTP’s Legislative Affairs Director. Koizumi was a member of President Obama’s OSTP staff, as well as an expert on science budgets for AAAS. He’s also well known to CRA for his frequent appearances at our Leadership in Science Policy Institutes leading discussions on the Federal Budget process. Jones was the Senior Tech Policy advisor and Counsel for the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.
Biden’s announcement, five days before his January 20th inauguration, is in marked contrast to the timing President Trump’s naming of Kelvin Droegemeier to head OSTP, which came nearly two years into Trump’s term. Also the naming of Lander as Presidential Science Advisor in addition to Director of OSTP, and the elevation of that position to the President’s Cabinet, places Lander in a potentially much more influential policy role within the administration.
Lander and Nelson both require confirmation by the Senate before they can take their new positions. It’s unclear how quick the Senate will take up that process. But we’ll have all the details for you here.
Update: CRA released a statement on today’s announcement:
The Computing Research Association commends President-elect Biden for his announcement today that the Presidential Science Advisor will be a member of the Cabinet for the first time in history. We applaud his commitment that “science will always be at the forefront” of his administration, and we look forward to working with the highly talented and qualified team of advisors he named today. We are confident they will contribute a strong scientific voice to the myriad challenges facing our country.
Original Post: When last we left the Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) budget process, we were waiting for Congress to get the final bill across the finish line. It took them two additional continuing resolutions (one set for 48 hours; a second one for 24 hours), but Congressional leaders finally hammered out an agreement. The numbers are mostly positive for the federal research accounts, though there are lots of ups and downs in there.
CJS: NSF, NIST, and NASA
NSF would receive $8.49 billion for FY21 overall, an increase of $210 million over last year (or +2.5 percent). The Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account, which hosts NSF’s research portfolio, would receive a similar 2.5 percent increase, up from $6.74 billion in FY20 to $6.91 billion for FY21. As well, the Education and Human Resources (EHR) account would also see an increase of 3.0 percent, going from $940 million in FY20 to $968 million in FY21. These numbers are mostly between the House mark and the Senate numbers released in November, though they are much closer to the Senate numbers.
FY20
FY21 PBR
FY21 House
FY21 Senate
FY21 Final
$ Change
% Change
NSF Total
$8.28B
$7.74B
$8.55B
$8.48B
$8.49B
+$210M
+2.5%
R&RA
$6.74B
$6.21B
$6.97B
$6.91B
$6.91B
+$170M
+2.5%
EHR
$940M
$931M
$970M
$963M
$968M
+$28M
+3.0%
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) numbers are more mixed. The top line for the agency would be flat funded, receiving the same $1.03 billion in FY21 that it received last year. However, the institutes’ Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, where the majority of the agency’s research is housed, would see a healthy increase for FY21: $788 million, which is $34 million more (4.4 percent) than it received for FY20; that’s right between the House and Senate marks.
FY20
FY21 PBR
FY21 House
FY21 Senate
FY21 Final
$ Change
% Change
NIST Total
$1.03B
$738M
$1.04B
$1.05B
$1.03B
0
0
STRS
$754M
$652M
$789M
$787M
$788M
+$34M
+4.5%
NASA’s budget is very much a compromise between the House (which was bad) and Senate (which was pretty good). The top line for the agency gets an increase, going from $22.63 billion in FY20 to $23.27 billion (an increase of $640 million or 2.8 percent). The NASA Science account would do nearly as well, as it would receive a 2.2 percent increase. The account would go from $7.14 billion in FY20 to $7.30 billion in FY21.
FY20
FY21 PBR
FY21 House
FY21 Senate
FY21 Final
$ Change
% Change
NASA Total
$22.63B
$25.25B
$22.63B
$23.50B
$23.27B
+$640M
+2.8%
Science
$7.14B
$6.31B
$7.10B
$7.27B
$7.30B
+$160M
+2.2%
Energy: Dept of Energy, ASCR, and ARPA-E
The Department of Energy’s Office of Science would receive only a slight increase (less than 1 percent) over FY20 levels; bringing the agency’s budget to $7.03 billion for FY21, an increase of only $30 million. Within the Office of Science, the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program, which houses the majority of the computing research at DOE, would see a more generous increase of 4.1 percent – going from $980 million in FY20 to $1.02 billion in FY21. These numbers are basically the House passed numbers from over the summer.
In an interesting change, the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy, or ARPA-E, would not fare as well in the final compromise bill than it had in either chamber’s bills. The agency would be flat funded, receiving a slight increase of less than 1 percent ($427 million for FY21, rather than $425 million in FY20). While not an increase it is still significantly better than being eliminated, as it was under the administration’s plan.
FY20
FY21 PBR
FY21 House
FY21 Senate
FY21 Final
$ Change
% Change
DOE SC Total
$7.00B
$5.84B
$7.05B
$7.03B
$7.03B
+$30M
+<1%
ASCR
$980M
$988M
$1.02B
$1.03B
$1.02B
+$22M
+4.1%
ARPA-E
$425M
$0
$435M
$430M
$427M
+$2M
+<1%
Defense: DOD and DARPA
In another change, though this time good, the Defense Department’s research accounts fared much better in the final agreement. Regular readers will recall that the House numbers were not objectively good, while the Senate numbers were pretty bad (though not as bad as the administration’s request)
Basic Research (6.1) gets a good increase, going from $2.60 billion in FY20 to $2.67 billion in FY21, an increase of 2.7 percent or $70 million. Both the House and Senate numbers were below this mark.
The Applied Research (6.2) account fares even better. The account would see an increase of 6.3 percent compared to last year’s budget, going from $6.07 billion in FY20 to $6.45 billion (+$380 million). Again, better than both the House and Senate, who both recommended cuts.
The Advanced Technology Development (6.3) account would also receive an increase, going from $7.40 billion in FY20 to $7.76 billion in FY21; an increase of $360 million or 4.9 percent. This is better than both the House and Senate, who, again, both recommended cuts.
Finally, DARPA would see an increase over FY20 but only a slight one. The agency would go from $3.46 billion in FY20 to $3.50 billion under the FY21 plan, an increase of just 1.2 percent (or $40 million). This is between the House and Senate marks.
FY20
FY21 PBR
FY21 House
FY21 Senate
FY21 Final
$ Change
% Change
DOD 6.1
$2.60B
$2.32B
$2.62B
$2.41B
$2.67B
+$70M
+2.7%
DOD 6.2
$6.07B
$5.39B
$5.92B
$6.00B
$6.45B
+$380M
+6.3%
DOD 6.3
$7.40B
$6.33B
$7.08B
$6.75B
$7.76B
+$360M
+4.9%
DARPA
$3.46B
$3.57B
$3.51B
$3.49B
$3.50
+$40M
+1.2%
Where do things head from here? Trump has until Dec. 28 to sign the bills, after Congress passed, and he approved, an additional seven-day continuing resolution. The stopgap legislation is being used as a backstop to make sure there isn’t a shutdown while Congress delivers the final appropriation bills to the White House heading into the holidays. Once he signs the final bills, this budget will be put to rest for the year. It’s been a long year, but it’s nice to see the finish line in sight. Next year will bring a new administration and hopefully a new approach to research policy and funding. Be sure to check back in the new year, when this whole process starts back up.
The calendar year of 2020 is quickly ending, but Congress hasn’t finished its work on the Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) budget, which technically started back on October 1st. Our last update back in November was about the Senate publicly releasing their budget bills, with an eye to wrapping up the process on December 11th (AKA: today). Unfortunately, not much has happened since November.
Congressional leaders are now trying to buy themselves another week to work, pushing a continuing resolution (CR) until next Friday, December 18th. Both the House and Senate have approved the measure and the President should sign it shortly.
While that CR is for all purposes taken care of, it’s increasingly unclear which will happen first: a final FY21 budget is approved into law or the end of the current session of Congress (which ends on January 3rd). If Congress can’t get things together, then they will need to punt the decision into the next calendar year and the new 117th Congress. If that comes to pass, the expectation is another, longer CR, which will go to a date in March 2021. This all assumes a normally functioning Executive Branch, which is not a given.
Things are still very fluid, we’ll update things when we know more, so please keep checking back.
Original post: Last week the long awaited conferenced National Defense Authorization Act (or NDAA; the defense policy bill) was publicly released. Regular readers will recall that earlier in the year that the House Science Committee’s National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act (HR 6216) was included in the House version of the NDAA. At that time, there was no equivalent in the Senate NDAA and it was unclear if it would survive the conference negotiations. Fortunately, the AI Initiative Act was included in the conference agreement released last week.
The bill is not significantly different than the version passed by the House in July, but there are some changes. The federal agencies and departments that are involved in the Initiative were broadened, but in a way that makes sense, given that the bill crosses jurisdictional boundaries (think the Department of Defense was insert in place of DARPA and the Department of Commerce was included instead of just NIST). Plus, the agencies can be added at this stage without much difficulty. Additionally, language that involved the creation of “voluntary standards” was removed. We’re not sure why this occurred; our running theory is that it could mean the Senate Commerce Committee has an AI standards bill in mind for the future. Finally, the language requiring PIs to include an ethics statement in their proposals seems to be less prescriptive in this version, potentially giving agencies more say in what will need to be included.
The good news is that the authorized funding levels are as they were in the original Science Committee bill, including all five years for each of the three agencies’ institutes. The bill authorizes nearly $5 billion in funding for AI research at NSF over the next five years ($4.796 billion), $1.15 billion at the Department of Energy, and $390 million at NIST. Also, there’s a new section in the NIST Institutes title that includes $10 million for a NOAA institute; it only has one year of funding authorized though. Also, much of the wording within the institute sections are not significantly different than what passed in the House NDAA (though the NIST section got a couple of additions, including the NOAA section).
Unfortunately, it is not a definite that this bill will become law. Outgoing President Trump has threatened to veto the NDAA unless it includes repeal of the Section 230 protections for internet providers and online companies. This is in addition to his veto threat from the summer over stipulations about renaming military bases (those have also survived the conference negotiations). Both chambers seem to have no stomach for attaching repeal of Section 230 protections in this piece of must pass legislation, and it appears Congress will test Trump’s threat. Seeing as both the House and Senate versions passed their chambers with large majorities, this veto appears doomed to be overridden. But stranger things have happened this year. The House is expected to vote in the next day or two, as the bill must pass this year.
Let’s hope this gets over the goal posts! If so, it will cap over two years of work with CCC and the community to get the AI Research Roadmap written and then translated into legislation and policy. We’ll keep watching what happens and report when we know more, so please check back.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
National Science Foundation & Research Featured in President Biden’s Infrastructure Plan
/In: Policy, Research /by Brian MosleyLast Wednesday, President Biden unveiled the first details of his administration’s infrastructure investment plan. Named “the American Jobs Plan,” it is a proposal to invest $2 trillion over a decade in American infrastructure, “that will create millions of good jobs, rebuild our country’s infrastructure, and position the United States to out-compete China.” In a show of trust in the country’s research community, investments in scientific research and infrastructure are featured in the plan.
The most significant research piece of the plan is $50 billion to the National Science Foundation to create, “a technology directorate that will collaborate with and build on existing programs across the government.” If a “technology directorate” sounds familiar, that’s because it is the main feature of Senator Schumer’s (D-NY) Endless Frontier Act which was introduced a year ago. The idea behind such an addition to NSF is that a technology development effort is needed for the country to better capitalize on its fundamental research into key industries of the future, such as AI and quantum. There are no further details in the President’s plan for this new directorate but it’s likely this part of the AJP will be taken up by Senator Schumer, the Senate Majority Leader.
In addition to the new NSF directorate, President Biden’s plan also calls on Congress to provide $30 billion in additional funding for, “R&D that spurs innovation and job creation, including in rural areas.” As well, the proposal also calls to invest $40 billion more in, “upgrading research infrastructure in laboratories across the country, including brick-and-mortar facilities and computing capabilities and networks.”
This all sounds great, but what’s the catch? Unfortunately, the American Jobs Plan is no more than a Fact Sheet right now, with only top line numbers and no specifics. As well, these investments don’t have a timeframe attached to them; are they over ten years? Five years? One lump investment? While it’s likely over 10 years, we don’t know for sure yet because of the lack of details. We are expecting this infrastructure plan to be taken up by Congress over the summer, so we could see details in the May timeframe; but that is an educated guess at the moment.
The other issue of concern is the plan’s prospects in Congress. After the American Rescue Plan, the $1.9 trillion COVID relief legislation, it’s unclear if there is enough support in a closely divided Congress to spend even more money. Tempering expectations seems to be a wise course of action.
All the same, this is a great show of confidence in the nation’s research community. And it is grounds for some optimism that the country’s leadership sees the benefits of more investments in research. Hopefully, at a minimum, some of this plan will be passed into law. We will be keeping track of this, and other pieces of legislation, and will report back when we know more; please check back for updates.
Research Funds Included in Emergency Legislation; Heads to President for Signing Into Law
/In: Funding, R&D in the Press, Research /by Brian MosleyEarlier today, the House of Representatives passed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the $1.9 trillion bill that is meant to provide additional relief to the country to address the impacts of the ongoing COVID pandemic. As the Senate approved the measure on Saturday, the bill now heads to President Biden for signing into law; he is expected to sign it on Friday (UPDATE: President Biden signed the bill on Thursday March 11th instead).
As we reported before, included in the bill are funds for the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards & Technology. These emergency, one-time, funds ($600 millions for NSF and $150 million for NIST) are for funding research, “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.”
Artificial Intelligence is Critical to National Security, Defense, U.S. Economy, and Worthy of Significant New Investment, Congressionally-chartered Commission Argues in Final Report
/In: Artificial Intelligence, Funding, Policy /by Peter Harsha[Nadya T. Bliss, Executive Director of ASU’s Global Security Initiative and CCC Council member, contributed to this post]
The commission, led by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and vice chair former Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, spent two years producing the report after being chartered in August 2018 as part of the FY 2019 National Defense Authorization Act.
The report is organized around two themes: “Defending America in the AI Era,” with a focus on understanding current and future threats around AI; and “Winning the Technology Competition,” with a focus on how to optimize the research ecosystem to ensure U.S. leadership in AI and related technologies.
The report starts with the premise that AI is already ubiquitous, that it is a quintessentially “dual-use” technology with clear military applications, and that it will transform all aspects of military affairs and intelligence for the U.S. and for its allies and adversaries. The commissioners make the case for a Department of Defense led effort to develop AI-enabled autonomous weapons systems in part because they assert that our adversaries are likely to deploy them and “defending against AI-capable adversaries without employing AI is an invitation to disaster.” The commissioners believe DOD needs to have infrastructure to support AI in place by 2025, an admittedly ambitious goal, or risk losing its leadership position.
In considering the technology competition, the commissioners note that “AI will be leveraged to advance all dimensions of national power from healthcare to food production to environmental sustainability” and that the adoption of AI will “drive economies, shape societies, and determine which states exert influence and exercise power in the world.” The clear threat in this calculation, the report notes, is China, which it describes as “an AI peer” and more technologically advanced in some applications. The U.S. innovation ecosystem has been remarkably productive, the commissioners argue, but we are at a disadvantage in AI because we lack the large state-led investments and strategies we see in China. University research, the private sector, and an innovation culture that is bottom-up will still be key drivers of AI progress in the U.S. But the report argues that even the largest U.S. tech firms can’t compete with the resources provided by China and that the U.S. needs a better effort “meshing government and private sector efforts to win.” The report calls on DOD to commit to spending at least 3.4 percent of its budget on Science and Technology (it’s currently 2.3 percent), and “allocate at least $8 billion toward AI R&D annually.”
Besides significant new investments in fundamental research and AI development, the report also calls for the creation of a new agency — a National Technology Foundation — to help meet the goal of moving emerging technologies like AI from foundational research through the more applied “valley of death” to commercialization or deployment. This adds to the chorus of voices in DC, like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who introduced an act last Congress that would add $100 billion in funding over five years to the National Science Foundation to give it a new “technology development” mission and rename it the National Science and Technology Foundation; and the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which is considering proposals to add a new Technology Directorate to NSF’s Research and Related Activities account. The commitment to greater investment in these emerging areas of technology is welcome and laudable. But with it should come the caution that the details are incredibly important and that understanding the ways in which these new foci could skew our already extraordinarily productive research and innovation ecosystem is a necessity, particularly concerning open and unrestricted basic research.
CRA and its Computing Community Consortium — which has spent much of the last three years focused on AI research issues, both through the facilitation of a community-led 20 year AI Research Roadmap, and the production of a tranche of whitepapers on AI policy and research topics — engaged with the NSCAI on many occasions over the commissions 2+ years of work. The report, in general — and especially where it references research needs and articulates research as a priority for investment — clearly reflects that input, and we find it strong and commendable. The report rightly highlights the key importance of increased federal investments in fundamental research. In a focus on federal approaches to bringing emerging technologies closer to commercialization or deployment, we can’t afford to lose the support for the fundamental research enabling those technologies (and many others we don’t yet know about).
We also appreciate that the report does devote significant consideration to the importance of the DOD’s continued respect for and protection of civil liberties, privacy, and democratic values — and the importance of American leadership in advancing those values through the technologies we deploy. While the report does appropriately bring focus on ethical use of AI in context of autonomous weapons systems, it is vital that the focus persists in all implementations of the recommendations. Emphasis on ethical AI needs to persist in lifelong learning and research, transition, adoption, or innovation initiatives throughout all of national security interests — from enterprise software systems to platforms and intelligence. Also, we note that thoughtful, tech-savvy people inside and outside DOD, the Administration, and the Congress must be involved in the implementation of recommendations and the thinking, planning, and operationalizing of these deployments.
From the perspective of the research community, throughout the report there may also be an over-estimation of AI robustness and a lack of appreciation that much of AI doesn’t currently work or can’t be held accountable; quantification of uncertainty is still a very challenging technical problem. This theme is consistent across domains of warfare and intelligence.
The report does a commendable job of noting the importance of recruitment of strong AI talent. We agree that ensuring broad computing literacy and a healthy pipeline of K-12 students with solid STEM educations is at least as important. As Mignon Clyburn, an NSCAI Commissioner noted in a recent public plenary, “educate the workforce and the peopleforce to uplift all of us.” Additionally, an over-focus on “top AI talent” by funding agencies can be a detriment to national security — continued reliance on the same cohort of people can lead to blindspots. Ensuring a diversity of performers can help ensure a diversity of possible solutions to DOD problems. Broadening the definition of what “top AI talent” is and that it is not only limited to a few top tier research universities and could come from less traditional training (such as community college pathways or specialized military training) addresses this.
With the release of the report the commission has fulfilled its purpose and will expire October 1, 2021, unless Congress seeks to engage it in further work and extends its term. In the intervening months, we should expect Congress begin to act on some of the recommendations in the report through legislation (likely as part of the FY22 National Defense Authorization Act), and see the DOD begin to operationalize some of the guidance from the report. The report will serve as an excellent buttress for many of the policy goals CRA will be advocating for in the coming months and years — particularly in helping us argue the critical importance of the federal investment in fundamental research in computing. We’ll keep you updated on progress here….
NSF and NIST Likely to Receive Emergency Funding in Latest Pandemic Relief Legislation
/In: Funding, R&D in the Press, Research /by Brian MosleyIn a piece written by Jeffrey Mervis at Science, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are expected to receive emergency funding as part of the COVID relief bill that is moving through Congress. Specifically, NSF would receive $650 million and NIST $150 million in a one-time budget allocations from the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Both agencies would be required to use the funds to help the nation, and specifically the science research community, recover from the impacts of the pandemic, as per the terms of the overall relief package. According to Mervis, the money for NSF is, “likely to be spent on more research on pandemic-related topics, as well as more support for educating the next generation of scientists and engineers,” while, “the funds for NIST…are expected to bolster its network of manufacturing research institutes.” While a far cry from the $26 billion that the higher education community is seeking in emergency relief, this money will be much needed help for the country’s research community. We’ll be watching the relief package as it makes its way through Congress; the expectation is that the bill will come up for a final vote some time in early-to-mid March. Please keep checking back for updates.
Bill to Support U.S. Research Communities Impacted by the Pandemic Reintroduced in the House and Senate
/In: Funding, Policy, Research /by Brian MosleyOn Friday, the “Research Investment to Spark the Economy (RISE) Act” was reintroduced in both the House and Senate. The RISE Act authorizes nearly $25 billion in relief for research workforce and institutions at American institutes of higher education. As stated in Senator Markey’s press release, “the people who comprise the research workforce – graduate students, postdocs, principal investigators, and technical support staff – face financial and other hardships from the disruption of their research activities. The RISE Act will provide necessary relief to preserve the current scientific workforce and ensure that the United States is prepared to continue our global scientific leadership once this crisis ends”
The bills were reintroduced by Senators Markey (D-MA), Tillis (R-NC), Peters (D-MI), and Collins (R-ME) in the Senate; and Representatives DeGette (CO-01), Upton (MI-06), Johnson (TX-30), Eshoo (CA-18) and Gonzalez (OH-16) in the House of Representatives.
Originally introduced in the 116th Congress in the Fall of 2020, the bill never received a vote in the full Senate; however, it was marked up favorably by the Senate Commerce Committee. On the House side, the bill did not progress beyond the committee level. The RISE Act is the higher education community’s main effort to attain some form of federal relief for the research institutions that have been disrupted due to the pandemic. CRA endorsed the bill in 2020 and will endorse the reintroduced bill as well.
CRA Statement Applauding President-elect Biden’s Announcement of His Science Team
/In: People, Policy, Statements /by Peter HarshaThe Computing Research Association commends President-elect Biden for his announcement today that the Presidential Science Advisor will be a member of the Cabinet for the first time in history. We applaud his commitment that “science will always be at the forefront” of his administration, and we look forward to working with the highly talented and qualified team of advisors he named today. We are confident they will contribute a strong scientific voice to the myriad challenges facing our country.
Biden Names Science Team; Eric Lander as Science Advisor; Elevates Position to Cabinet-level
/In: People, Policy, R&D in the Press /by Peter HarshaBiden also named two external C0-Chairs of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Dr. Frances H. Arnold and Dr. Maria Zuber will chair the committee tasked with reviewing elements of the nation’s science enterprise and providing guidance on problems facing the nation. Dr. Arnold is an expert in protein engineering and the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Dr. Zuber is an expert in geophysics and planetary science, an astronaut who was the first woman to lead a NASA spacecraft mission, and a former chair of the National Science Board.
Biden’s team will also include Kei Koizumi, who will serve OSTP’s Chief of Staff, and Narda Jones, who will be OSTP’s Legislative Affairs Director. Koizumi was a member of President Obama’s OSTP staff, as well as an expert on science budgets for AAAS. He’s also well known to CRA for his frequent appearances at our Leadership in Science Policy Institutes leading discussions on the Federal Budget process. Jones was the Senior Tech Policy advisor and Counsel for the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.
Biden’s announcement, five days before his January 20th inauguration, is in marked contrast to the timing President Trump’s naming of Kelvin Droegemeier to head OSTP, which came nearly two years into Trump’s term. Also the naming of Lander as Presidential Science Advisor in addition to Director of OSTP, and the elevation of that position to the President’s Cabinet, places Lander in a potentially much more influential policy role within the administration.
Lander and Nelson both require confirmation by the Senate before they can take their new positions. It’s unclear how quick the Senate will take up that process. But we’ll have all the details for you here.
The President-elect’s announcement is here.
Update: CRA released a statement on today’s announcement:
FY21 Update: Final Budget Numbers Released; Research Fares Well
/In: Funding, FY21 Appropriations, Research /by Brian MosleyUPDATE (12/28/20): After threatening a veto, and risking a government shutdown, Trump signed the budget into law Sunday night. Fiscal Year 2021 is complete.
Original Post: When last we left the Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) budget process, we were waiting for Congress to get the final bill across the finish line. It took them two additional continuing resolutions (one set for 48 hours; a second one for 24 hours), but Congressional leaders finally hammered out an agreement. The numbers are mostly positive for the federal research accounts, though there are lots of ups and downs in there.
CJS: NSF, NIST, and NASA
NSF would receive $8.49 billion for FY21 overall, an increase of $210 million over last year (or +2.5 percent). The Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account, which hosts NSF’s research portfolio, would receive a similar 2.5 percent increase, up from $6.74 billion in FY20 to $6.91 billion for FY21. As well, the Education and Human Resources (EHR) account would also see an increase of 3.0 percent, going from $940 million in FY20 to $968 million in FY21. These numbers are mostly between the House mark and the Senate numbers released in November, though they are much closer to the Senate numbers.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) numbers are more mixed. The top line for the agency would be flat funded, receiving the same $1.03 billion in FY21 that it received last year. However, the institutes’ Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, where the majority of the agency’s research is housed, would see a healthy increase for FY21: $788 million, which is $34 million more (4.4 percent) than it received for FY20; that’s right between the House and Senate marks.
NASA’s budget is very much a compromise between the House (which was bad) and Senate (which was pretty good). The top line for the agency gets an increase, going from $22.63 billion in FY20 to $23.27 billion (an increase of $640 million or 2.8 percent). The NASA Science account would do nearly as well, as it would receive a 2.2 percent increase. The account would go from $7.14 billion in FY20 to $7.30 billion in FY21.
Energy: Dept of Energy, ASCR, and ARPA-E
The Department of Energy’s Office of Science would receive only a slight increase (less than 1 percent) over FY20 levels; bringing the agency’s budget to $7.03 billion for FY21, an increase of only $30 million. Within the Office of Science, the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program, which houses the majority of the computing research at DOE, would see a more generous increase of 4.1 percent – going from $980 million in FY20 to $1.02 billion in FY21. These numbers are basically the House passed numbers from over the summer.
In an interesting change, the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy, or ARPA-E, would not fare as well in the final compromise bill than it had in either chamber’s bills. The agency would be flat funded, receiving a slight increase of less than 1 percent ($427 million for FY21, rather than $425 million in FY20). While not an increase it is still significantly better than being eliminated, as it was under the administration’s plan.
Defense: DOD and DARPA
In another change, though this time good, the Defense Department’s research accounts fared much better in the final agreement. Regular readers will recall that the House numbers were not objectively good, while the Senate numbers were pretty bad (though not as bad as the administration’s request)
Basic Research (6.1) gets a good increase, going from $2.60 billion in FY20 to $2.67 billion in FY21, an increase of 2.7 percent or $70 million. Both the House and Senate numbers were below this mark.
The Applied Research (6.2) account fares even better. The account would see an increase of 6.3 percent compared to last year’s budget, going from $6.07 billion in FY20 to $6.45 billion (+$380 million). Again, better than both the House and Senate, who both recommended cuts.
The Advanced Technology Development (6.3) account would also receive an increase, going from $7.40 billion in FY20 to $7.76 billion in FY21; an increase of $360 million or 4.9 percent. This is better than both the House and Senate, who, again, both recommended cuts.
Finally, DARPA would see an increase over FY20 but only a slight one. The agency would go from $3.46 billion in FY20 to $3.50 billion under the FY21 plan, an increase of just 1.2 percent (or $40 million). This is between the House and Senate marks.
Where do things head from here? Trump has until Dec. 28 to sign the bills, after Congress passed, and he approved, an additional seven-day continuing resolution. The stopgap legislation is being used as a backstop to make sure there isn’t a shutdown while Congress delivers the final appropriation bills to the White House heading into the holidays. Once he signs the final bills, this budget will be put to rest for the year. It’s been a long year, but it’s nice to see the finish line in sight. Next year will bring a new administration and hopefully a new approach to research policy and funding. Be sure to check back in the new year, when this whole process starts back up.
FY21 Update: Still Waiting for a Final Budget & Will Have to Wait Another Week (at least)
/In: Funding, FY21 Appropriations /by Brian MosleyThe calendar year of 2020 is quickly ending, but Congress hasn’t finished its work on the Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) budget, which technically started back on October 1st. Our last update back in November was about the Senate publicly releasing their budget bills, with an eye to wrapping up the process on December 11th (AKA: today). Unfortunately, not much has happened since November.
Congressional leaders are now trying to buy themselves another week to work, pushing a continuing resolution (CR) until next Friday, December 18th. Both the House and Senate have approved the measure and the President should sign it shortly.
While that CR is for all purposes taken care of, it’s increasingly unclear which will happen first: a final FY21 budget is approved into law or the end of the current session of Congress (which ends on January 3rd). If Congress can’t get things together, then they will need to punt the decision into the next calendar year and the new 117th Congress. If that comes to pass, the expectation is another, longer CR, which will go to a date in March 2021. This all assumes a normally functioning Executive Branch, which is not a given.
Things are still very fluid, we’ll update things when we know more, so please keep checking back.
National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act Inches Closer to Passage
/In: Artificial Intelligence, Computing Community Consortium (CCC), Policy, Research /by Brian MosleyUPDATE (1/5/21): On New Year’s Day, and in one of it’s last acts, the 116th Congress overrode President Trump’s veto and passed the National Defense Authorization Act into law. That means the National Artificial Intelligence Act is law.
Original post: Last week the long awaited conferenced National Defense Authorization Act (or NDAA; the defense policy bill) was publicly released. Regular readers will recall that earlier in the year that the House Science Committee’s National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act (HR 6216) was included in the House version of the NDAA. At that time, there was no equivalent in the Senate NDAA and it was unclear if it would survive the conference negotiations. Fortunately, the AI Initiative Act was included in the conference agreement released last week.
The bill is not significantly different than the version passed by the House in July, but there are some changes. The federal agencies and departments that are involved in the Initiative were broadened, but in a way that makes sense, given that the bill crosses jurisdictional boundaries (think the Department of Defense was insert in place of DARPA and the Department of Commerce was included instead of just NIST). Plus, the agencies can be added at this stage without much difficulty. Additionally, language that involved the creation of “voluntary standards” was removed. We’re not sure why this occurred; our running theory is that it could mean the Senate Commerce Committee has an AI standards bill in mind for the future. Finally, the language requiring PIs to include an ethics statement in their proposals seems to be less prescriptive in this version, potentially giving agencies more say in what will need to be included.
The good news is that the authorized funding levels are as they were in the original Science Committee bill, including all five years for each of the three agencies’ institutes. The bill authorizes nearly $5 billion in funding for AI research at NSF over the next five years ($4.796 billion), $1.15 billion at the Department of Energy, and $390 million at NIST. Also, there’s a new section in the NIST Institutes title that includes $10 million for a NOAA institute; it only has one year of funding authorized though. Also, much of the wording within the institute sections are not significantly different than what passed in the House NDAA (though the NIST section got a couple of additions, including the NOAA section).
Unfortunately, it is not a definite that this bill will become law. Outgoing President Trump has threatened to veto the NDAA unless it includes repeal of the Section 230 protections for internet providers and online companies. This is in addition to his veto threat from the summer over stipulations about renaming military bases (those have also survived the conference negotiations). Both chambers seem to have no stomach for attaching repeal of Section 230 protections in this piece of must pass legislation, and it appears Congress will test Trump’s threat. Seeing as both the House and Senate versions passed their chambers with large majorities, this veto appears doomed to be overridden. But stranger things have happened this year. The House is expected to vote in the next day or two, as the bill must pass this year.
Let’s hope this gets over the goal posts! If so, it will cap over two years of work with CCC and the community to get the AI Research Roadmap written and then translated into legislation and policy. We’ll keep watching what happens and report when we know more, so please check back.