In the aftermath of the GSA Las Vegas conference scandal, the White House issued restrictions on travel and conference spending (PDF) which we discussed here previously. Congress is once again wading into the issue with a House Government Oversight Committee hearing featuring three government witnesses: The Honorable Rush Holt, Representative for the 12th Congressional District of New Jersey, The Honorable Danny Werfel, Controller, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, and Ms. Cynthia Metzler, Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. General Services Administration.
While the overall hearing focused on overall government spending and GSA spending on travel and conferences, Congressman Holt specifically addressed scientific conferences. He noted that restrictions on government scientists attendance of conferences can hinder scientific collaboration and innovation. He stated that spending on research and scientists is not wasteful spending but rather that spending is an important investment.
Werfel noted that the restrictions had been increased to require agency spending on travel and conferences to be 30 percent below 2010 levels by 2013 and that agencies maintain that level through 2016. He noted that mission critical activities are protected from these required cuts so scientific collaboration should not be hindered.
Ranking Member Steve Lynch (D-MA) noted that in the House bill that would codify the OMB guidance, H.R. 313, agencies are limited to sending 50 people or less to a conference and that this is problematic for large scientific conferences such as the International AIDS Conference that sometimes has a thousand government scientists in attendance. He wondered if this type of limit was harming the efficacy and value of the conferences. Werfel stated that yes, that was a concern and allowing the agency heads to make the executive decision about how many people to send to maximize the agency mission would help alleviate that. He also noted that sometimes having higher numbers of employees attend one conference rather than having smaller numbers attend different conferences can create greater efficiencies of scale and cost savings.
Ranking Member Lynch also submitted a letter from AAAS and other science organizations with the scientific communities concerns for the record. CRA joined with other members of the computing community – USACM, IEEE-USA, and SIAM – in submitting a letter (PDF) to Congressional leaders and Administration officials last fall outlining concerns with the restrictions.
The video of the hearing and the written testimony of the three witnesses can be found here.
In a nod toward the need to increase STEM interest among K – 12 students, Congress has passed House Resolution 77, the Academic Competition Resolution of 2013. The resolution establishes an academic STEM competition for students in Congressional districts. The initial competition is an App Challenge – students must build an app for mobile, tablet, and computer platforms.
The “findings” of Congress listed in the resolution include:
STEM fields have been, and continue to be, vital to a healthy and thriving United States.
STEM fields are even more important in a world and nation of continuous and rapid technological advancements and needs.
STEM fields are necessary to ensure a qualified national workforce and growing American economy, and a recent study predicted that one-half of all STEM jobs in 2020 will be related to the field of computer science.” And “A recent study found that only 9 States allowed computer science courses to count toward high school students’ core graduation requirements.
…
The global economy demands that the United States continue to lead the world in innovation, creativity, and STEM-related research.
…
It is appropriate for the House of Representatives to institute a new and worthwhile competition to encourage students to participate in STEM studies and research.
Rapid technological change means the competition will evolve over time and will challenge students in specialized areas of science, technology, engineering and math to ensure maximum participation. Because of the importance of computer science it would be appropriate to initially challenge students to develop so-called `apps’ for mobile, tablet, and computer platforms.
Gaither testified first and spoke to the need for interdisciplinary research as computing is an integral piece of other research areas. She also talked about how research isn’t just about end products and discoveries but about the researchers that are supported and the opportunities researchers have because of federal funding.
McKinley testified about the fact that computing is reaching some fundamental limits and that research is needed to make breakthroughs to overcome those limits. She noted that while the US is still leading the world in computing research, other nations are investing more and if we do not keep up, we will lose our competitive advantage. McKinley also addressed the diversity problem in computing and noted that we need far more graduates than we currently have and that we will have to attract more women and minorities if we want to have enough people to fill the needs of the future in computing.
Lazowska spoke about the NITRD program’s history and the role of computing in the US economy. He showed an NRC chart on research and IT sectors with billion dollar markets. Lazowska also talked about the need to integrate security into the building of systems and not added on at the end as a defensive measure when questioned about cybersecurity by Congressman Steven Stockman (R-TX). Stockman, who credits support from the fiscally-conservative Tea Party for his election, had the quote of the hearing, when after having pressed Lazowska for an order-of-magnitude estimate on how much additional investment in fundamental cyber security research would move the needle seemed surprised that the number PITAC requested back in 2005 was “only” $90 million. “Well, I’m interested in getting you billions, not millions,” he said, indicating he was very concerned about the U.S. vulnerability to cyber attack.
The Subcommittee members were very interested in how to tackle the education problem in computing as well as how they could help researchers address cybersecurity moving forward.
Written testimony and a webcast of the hearing can be found here. Additionally, a PDF of Lazowska’s oral testimony can be found here.
Templeton testified first and emphasized the historic role of research on America╒s industries while noting the needs of the future. He pointed out that scientific discovery and technological advances are responsible for half of America╒s economic growth over the last fifty years and that if we want to continue to lead the world economy, we will need to have the research platform for new and advanced industries over the next fifty years. Templeton pointed out that it’s not as easy for the US to lead as it used to be because other countries have watched our success and are seeking to recreate it with increased investments in R&D and education while the US has begun to decrease these investments. He also noted that the US ability to attract the best and brightest minds from around the world has been diminished, both by increased opportunities in other countries and by the US inability to retain highly educated immigrants after they finish a PhD at a US university.
Jackson spoke to the need to focus on strategic areas that will create game changing ideas and then providing the transitional support to cross the ╥valley of death╙ from research to product. She also spoke to the role of education and the need for stronger STEM instruction in K-12 as well as the need to attract a broader segment of the brightest minds into STEM fields at the undergraduate and graduate level.
Vest stated that if the US funds research we will be surprised by the new innovations in fifty years just like people in the early 1960s could not have predicted the rise of the information technology economy that we have today. He noted that America needs to fix K-12 STEM education including by using hands on learning to make STEM concepts fun and accessible to young minds, allow the brightest minds from around the world to study and stay in America, and to make the R&D tax credit for companies permanent.
In the Politico op-ed, Templeton and Jackson reiterated many of the points they made in testimony and also wrote:
Looming across-the-board budget cuts known as the sequester are set to significantly reduce vital federal investments in scientific research and development, and in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education. These indiscriminate cuts may save money in the short term.
But there will be a significant, long-term, irreparable price to pay if the U.S. government slashes its support for science and engineering and for those who pursue those fields. We urge Congress to approach this challenge in a thoughtful, strategic way, allocating scarce funds in a manner that creates economic growth and security both now and in the future. Good times or bad, one must manage for the future. Discovery and innovation is the pathway there.
Our friends over at the Computing Community Consortium (CCC) blog posted the below Call for Nominations today.
THE COMPUTING COMMUNITY CONSORTIUM SEEKS NOMINATIONS FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS
The CCC’s Nominating Committee invites nominations (including self-nominations) for members to serve on the CCC Council for the next three years. Please send nominations, together with the information below, to ccc-nominations@cra.org by 11:59pm EDT on Monday, March 11, 2013. The subcommittee’s recommendations will serve as input to the Computing Research Association (CRA) and National Science Foundation (NSF), who will make the final selection.
What is the CCC and why are these nominations important?
The Computing Community Consortium (CCC) is charged with catalyzing and empowering the U.S. computing research community to answer critical questions such as, “What questions shape our intellectual future?” “What attracts the best and brightest minds of a new generation?” “What are the next big computing ideas — the ones that will define the future of computing, galvanize the very best students, and catalyze research investment and public support?”
For complete details about the CCC, including a look at all of our current and ongoing activities, please visit https://cra.org/ccc and http://cccblog.org/.
Nominations must include the following information:
Name, affiliation, and email address of the nominee.
Research interests.
Previous significant service to the research community and other relevant experience, with years it occurred (no more than *five* items).
A brief biography or curriculum vitae of the nominee.
A statement from the nominee of less than one page, supporting his or her nomination by describing his or her ideas for, and commitment to, advancing the work of the CCC in engaging broader communities, finding wider funding sources, and encouraging new research directions. Recall that the CCC needs truly visionary leaders — people with lots of great ideas, sound judgment, and the willingness to work hard to see things to completion.
CSEdWeek is in full swing and one of the many events being held was a lunch briefing today on Capitol Hill. A full committee room of attendees and two Congressmen came to hear about the importance of computer science education in the K – 12 classroom.
CSEdWeek Chair Ruthe Farmer from NCWIT spoke about the need to differentiate between the use of technology and the creation of technology. It is still difficult in many areas in the US to explain that just because children are using computers in their classrooms that does not mean they are learning computer science.
Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) and Representative Dan Lipinski (D-IL) spoke about the need for more computer science education in order for the jobs of the future to be filled in the US instead of outsourced to countries that are teaching computing to their students. Polis noted that a bill he sponsored, the CS Education Act, would place computer science in the core subjects of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that is the overarching federal law affecting K – 12 education.
Douglas Rushkoff, author of “Program or Be Programmed”, spoke to the need for digital fluency among the populace and that we should be teaching students how to create the technology of tomorrow rather than how to use the technology of today. Brenda Wilkerson from the Chicago Public Schools noted that it is with partnerships between local K – 12 schools, colleges, and companies that necessary changes to teaching and curriculum can be made. The panel also featured a computer science major from UMBC who spoke to her journey into CS in college. Alison Derbenwick Miller of Oracle Academy rounded out the panel with the call to action that the US needs a rigorous, continuous computer science education from elementary to post-secondary school to remain competitive.
There is still time to pledge your support for CSEdWeek and to see all the materials and information available on the website.
Chairman Paul Broun (R-GA) started the hearing with the fact that many business people were unwilling to testify on the topic because of a fear of retaliation against their businesses by foreign governments and noted that technology transfer may not be optional if a company wants access to a market – a directly opposing business climate to the one that we have in the US.
Atkinson gave an overview of the big picture surrounding technology transfer from the US to other countries. IP theft, weak IP protections, IP laws that are not enforced, foreign state owned companies purchasing US companies, and countries with large markets requiring local joint ventures, compulsory licensing, and other measures in order to access the markets are all drains on the research and development of science and technology of US companies. He said raising awareness of this issue with policy makers is important as well as increasing enforcement via USTR. Additionally, making joint agreements with other countries such as the EU and Japan to act as one against such policies using trade agreements would be helpful.
Shea noted that the US China Economic and Security Review Commission released its 2012 report to Congress in November and that most of his testimony was based on the report. He noted that China is completely honest about its goals of gaining expertise in high tech areas to transition away from a manufacturing economy and that the fastest, easiest way for China to do this is to get the technological foundation from other countries. China’s policies require a joint venture with a Chinese company, often a state owned company, to do business in China and that the technology transfer must be made before such a venture can be made. Such policies are, in the US view, a violation of the WTO compliance that China agreed to when it was accepted. Shea agreed with Atkinson about the need to use trade agreements to band together with other countries to push back against such policies and he also stated that the US should demand reciprocity from China and Chinese companies.
Both witnesses noted that this kind of tech transfer is not voluntary but is required in order to access the markets of countries such as China, India, and Brazil – markets so large that they are not optional in today’s globally competitive environment. However, policy and legislative solutions are not straightforward or easy. Blanket policies forbidding tech transfer to foreign countries would give a significant competitive advantage to companies from outside the US. One possible solution that both stated might be helpful is to create industry antitrust exemptions so that all the companies in a specific industry can agree to keep the technology and research in the US and not be threatened by a competitor gaining market advantage by going to a large foreign market. Atkinson also recommended having research funding agencies monitor where the commercialization of technology they have funded happens in order to see if tax payer investments are staying in the US.
The full written testimony of both witnesses can be found here.
PCAST released a new report on Friday called “Transformation and Opportunity: The Future of the Research Enterprise” at the National Academy of Sciences. While acknowledging America’s continued success in scientific and technological research and development, the report warns that we must not be complacent in our position as the world leader. Global competition in scientific research continues to increase and corporate focus is more and more on near term development and less on basic and longer term applied research.
“We need to strengthen basic research at our great universities—that’s the primary platform on which new industries are built. And we need policies that encourage industry to keep the commercially directed parts of research and development in the United States. If we do both, then we can continue to create new industries and new jobs here at home,” said William Press, PCAST member and co-chair of the working group that wrote the report.
At the release event, Subra Suresh, NSF Director, spoke about the importance of increasing the funding for basic research and the need for more interdisciplinary research. “Risk taking interdisciplinary research leads to a change in culture at institutions” and a break down of stove pipes, Suresh said.
The report recommends:
Increased R&D spending to 3 percent of GDP from the current rate of 2.9 percent of GDP
Increased stability and predictability of federal research funding, including funding for research infrastructure and facilities
Make the research and experimentation tax credit permanent and increase the rate of the alternative simplified credit to 20 percent
Eliminate regulations and policies that do not add value or enhance accountability—especially those that decrease the productivity of the Nation’s research universities
Improve undergraduate STEM education by adopting empirically validated best practices to attract and retain the most talented and motivated STEM students, as described in more detail in PCAST’s recent “Engage to Excel” report
Attract and retain the world’s best researchers and students from abroad by, for example, giving STEM graduates from accredited U.S. universities a fast-tracked, long-term visa
On the last recommendation, the House of Representatives passed the STEM Jobs Act of 2012 on Friday. It would abolish the current visa lottery system and implement 55,000 visas for doctorate and masters level STEM graduates.
The full report can be found here and an archived webcast is available here.
Today was the last PCAST meeting of 2012 and it focused on computing and STEM education. The meeting opened with the NITRD study update report from David Shaw, Susan Graham, and Peter Lee. The update was more of a review of the recommendations from the 2010 report. Graham went quickly through each recommendation from the 2010 report and gave a concise summary of what has happened and what still needs to be done. For instance, in the area of big data, an area called out for focus in the 2010 report, has led to a government initiative but privacy has not been addressed because “it’s important to everyone but it’s no one’s mission.” The NITRD update was unanimously passed by PCAST.
The rest of the meeting was devoted to STEM education – first with a panel on massively open online courses (MOOCs) and then two speakers on STEM education. Four speakers discussed their experience with MOOCs and how they fit in the education system. Sebastian Thrun, CEO of Udacity, spoke to the growing popularity of MOOCs and their ability to innovate in the education space. Daphne Koller, co-founder of Coursera, spoke to the three piers of MOOCs – content, assessment, and interaction. Koller noted that because of the sheer amount of data coming out of MOOCs, it allows for more quantitative assessments of learning than are possible with standard classes. Anant Agarwal, president of edX, spoke to the fact that the concepts incorporated in MOOCs are not new but that MOOCs offer new delivery options and implementation. Frank DiGiovanni, director of Training Readiness and Strategy at the Department of Defense, discussed the use of MOOCs by the Veterans Administration in bringing returning veterans’ skills up to speed for the civilian workforce and a DARPA program called “Education Dominance” that allows high school students to use digital tutors to learn computing skills. The CCC will be holding a visioning activity regarding MOOCs called Multidisciplinary Research for Online Education in February.
The final speakers spoke to the changing nature of STEM education programs. Linda Rosen, CEO of Change the Equation, talked about STEMtistics, data that Change the Equation uses to measure and advise on STEM education. She also pointed out that only one out of five households have a student who is in an outside STEM program such as Girl Scouts or FIRST. Mark Rosenberg, president of Florida International University, discussed the movement from lecture halls to “learning laboratories”. He noted that the best thing about education is that one size doesn’t fit all and that we need to continue our commitment to allowing students access to learning in whatever way works best for them.
House Oversight Hearing on Conference Travel
/In: Policy, Research /by MelissaNorrIn the aftermath of the GSA Las Vegas conference scandal, the White House issued restrictions on travel and conference spending (PDF) which we discussed here previously. Congress is once again wading into the issue with a House Government Oversight Committee hearing featuring three government witnesses: The Honorable Rush Holt, Representative for the 12th Congressional District of New Jersey, The Honorable Danny Werfel, Controller, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, and Ms. Cynthia Metzler, Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. General Services Administration.
While the overall hearing focused on overall government spending and GSA spending on travel and conferences, Congressman Holt specifically addressed scientific conferences. He noted that restrictions on government scientists attendance of conferences can hinder scientific collaboration and innovation. He stated that spending on research and scientists is not wasteful spending but rather that spending is an important investment.
Werfel noted that the restrictions had been increased to require agency spending on travel and conferences to be 30 percent below 2010 levels by 2013 and that agencies maintain that level through 2016. He noted that mission critical activities are protected from these required cuts so scientific collaboration should not be hindered.
Ranking Member Steve Lynch (D-MA) noted that in the House bill that would codify the OMB guidance, H.R. 313, agencies are limited to sending 50 people or less to a conference and that this is problematic for large scientific conferences such as the International AIDS Conference that sometimes has a thousand government scientists in attendance. He wondered if this type of limit was harming the efficacy and value of the conferences. Werfel stated that yes, that was a concern and allowing the agency heads to make the executive decision about how many people to send to maximize the agency mission would help alleviate that. He also noted that sometimes having higher numbers of employees attend one conference rather than having smaller numbers attend different conferences can create greater efficiencies of scale and cost savings.
Ranking Member Lynch also submitted a letter from AAAS and other science organizations with the scientific communities concerns for the record. CRA joined with other members of the computing community – USACM, IEEE-USA, and SIAM – in submitting a letter (PDF) to Congressional leaders and Administration officials last fall outlining concerns with the restrictions.
The video of the hearing and the written testimony of the three witnesses can be found here.
Congressional Resolution – App Challenge
/In: Computing Education, Policy /by MelissaNorrIn a nod toward the need to increase STEM interest among K – 12 students, Congress has passed House Resolution 77, the Academic Competition Resolution of 2013. The resolution establishes an academic STEM competition for students in Congressional districts. The initial competition is an App Challenge – students must build an app for mobile, tablet, and computer platforms.
The “findings” of Congress listed in the resolution include:
IT Research Hearing Focuses on Security, Education
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC), Computing Education, Diversity in Computing, Events, Funding, People, Policy /by MelissaNorrAs noted in a previous post, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee’s Subcommittee on Research held a hearing on Applications for Information Technology Research and Development.
CCC Chair and former CRA Board Chair Ed Lazowska, CRA-W Chair and current CRA Board Member Kathryn McKinley, representing Microsoft, and Kelly Gaither of the University of Texas at Austin testified on behalf of the computing community and articulated the importance of federal funding for computing research.
Gaither testified first and spoke to the need for interdisciplinary research as computing is an integral piece of other research areas. She also talked about how research isn’t just about end products and discoveries but about the researchers that are supported and the opportunities researchers have because of federal funding.
McKinley testified about the fact that computing is reaching some fundamental limits and that research is needed to make breakthroughs to overcome those limits. She noted that while the US is still leading the world in computing research, other nations are investing more and if we do not keep up, we will lose our competitive advantage. McKinley also addressed the diversity problem in computing and noted that we need far more graduates than we currently have and that we will have to attract more women and minorities if we want to have enough people to fill the needs of the future in computing.
Lazowska spoke about the NITRD program’s history and the role of computing in the US economy. He showed an NRC chart on research and IT sectors with billion dollar markets. Lazowska also talked about the need to integrate security into the building of systems and not added on at the end as a defensive measure when questioned about cybersecurity by Congressman Steven Stockman (R-TX). Stockman, who credits support from the fiscally-conservative Tea Party for his election, had the quote of the hearing, when after having pressed Lazowska for an order-of-magnitude estimate on how much additional investment in fundamental cyber security research would move the needle seemed surprised that the number PITAC requested back in 2005 was “only” $90 million. “Well, I’m interested in getting you billions, not millions,” he said, indicating he was very concerned about the U.S. vulnerability to cyber attack.
The Subcommittee members were very interested in how to tackle the education problem in computing as well as how they could help researchers address cybersecurity moving forward.
Written testimony and a webcast of the hearing can be found here. Additionally, a PDF of Lazowska’s oral testimony can be found here.
IT Research Hearing
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC), Diversity in Computing, People, Policy, Research /by MelissaNorrThe House Science, Space, and Technology Committee’s Subcommittee on Research will hold a hearing this afternoon at 2:00pm on Applications for Information Technology Research and Development.
CCC Chair Ed Lazowska, CRA-W Co-chair Kathryn McKinley, and Kelly Gaither of the University of Texas at Austin will make the case for computing research before the subcommittee. Written testimony and a webcast of the hearing will be available here beginning at 2:00pm for those interested in watching the hearing.
House Science Holds R&D Competitiveness Hearing
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Events, Policy /by MelissaNorrThe House Science, Space, and Technology Committee held the first full committee hearing of the 113th Congress yesterday and it was focused on research and development for competitiveness. President and CEO of Texas Instruments Richard Templeton, PCAST member and RPI president Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, and National Academy of Engineering president Dr. Charles Vest testified and Templeton and Jackson co-authored an op-ed in Politico on the importance of R&D.
Templeton testified first and emphasized the historic role of research on America╒s industries while noting the needs of the future. He pointed out that scientific discovery and technological advances are responsible for half of America╒s economic growth over the last fifty years and that if we want to continue to lead the world economy, we will need to have the research platform for new and advanced industries over the next fifty years. Templeton pointed out that it’s not as easy for the US to lead as it used to be because other countries have watched our success and are seeking to recreate it with increased investments in R&D and education while the US has begun to decrease these investments. He also noted that the US ability to attract the best and brightest minds from around the world has been diminished, both by increased opportunities in other countries and by the US inability to retain highly educated immigrants after they finish a PhD at a US university.
Jackson spoke to the need to focus on strategic areas that will create game changing ideas and then providing the transitional support to cross the ╥valley of death╙ from research to product. She also spoke to the role of education and the need for stronger STEM instruction in K-12 as well as the need to attract a broader segment of the brightest minds into STEM fields at the undergraduate and graduate level.
Vest stated that if the US funds research we will be surprised by the new innovations in fifty years just like people in the early 1960s could not have predicted the rise of the information technology economy that we have today. He noted that America needs to fix K-12 STEM education including by using hands on learning to make STEM concepts fun and accessible to young minds, allow the brightest minds from around the world to study and stay in America, and to make the R&D tax credit for companies permanent.
In the Politico op-ed, Templeton and Jackson reiterated many of the points they made in testimony and also wrote:
The full op-ed and the written and verbal testimony of all three witnesses are available online.
CCC Seeking Board Nominations
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC) /by MelissaNorrOur friends over at the Computing Community Consortium (CCC) blog posted the below Call for Nominations today.
CSEdWeek 2012 Hill Briefing
/In: Computing Education, Diversity in Computing, Events, People, Policy /by MelissaNorrCSEdWeek is in full swing and one of the many events being held was a lunch briefing today on Capitol Hill. A full committee room of attendees and two Congressmen came to hear about the importance of computer science education in the K – 12 classroom.
CSEdWeek Chair Ruthe Farmer from NCWIT spoke about the need to differentiate between the use of technology and the creation of technology. It is still difficult in many areas in the US to explain that just because children are using computers in their classrooms that does not mean they are learning computer science.
Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) and Representative Dan Lipinski (D-IL) spoke about the need for more computer science education in order for the jobs of the future to be filled in the US instead of outsourced to countries that are teaching computing to their students. Polis noted that a bill he sponsored, the CS Education Act, would place computer science in the core subjects of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that is the overarching federal law affecting K – 12 education.
Douglas Rushkoff, author of “Program or Be Programmed”, spoke to the need for digital fluency among the populace and that we should be teaching students how to create the technology of tomorrow rather than how to use the technology of today. Brenda Wilkerson from the Chicago Public Schools noted that it is with partnerships between local K – 12 schools, colleges, and companies that necessary changes to teaching and curriculum can be made. The panel also featured a computer science major from UMBC who spoke to her journey into CS in college. Alison Derbenwick Miller of Oracle Academy rounded out the panel with the call to action that the US needs a rigorous, continuous computer science education from elementary to post-secondary school to remain competitive.
There is still time to pledge your support for CSEdWeek and to see all the materials and information available on the website.
House Tech Transfer Hearing
/In: Events, Policy, Research, Security /by MelissaNorrRobert Atkinson, president of ITIF, and Dennis Shea, chair of the U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission, testified today before the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight hearing on “The Impact of International Technology Transfer on American Research and Development”.
Chairman Paul Broun (R-GA) started the hearing with the fact that many business people were unwilling to testify on the topic because of a fear of retaliation against their businesses by foreign governments and noted that technology transfer may not be optional if a company wants access to a market – a directly opposing business climate to the one that we have in the US.
Atkinson gave an overview of the big picture surrounding technology transfer from the US to other countries. IP theft, weak IP protections, IP laws that are not enforced, foreign state owned companies purchasing US companies, and countries with large markets requiring local joint ventures, compulsory licensing, and other measures in order to access the markets are all drains on the research and development of science and technology of US companies. He said raising awareness of this issue with policy makers is important as well as increasing enforcement via USTR. Additionally, making joint agreements with other countries such as the EU and Japan to act as one against such policies using trade agreements would be helpful.
Shea noted that the US China Economic and Security Review Commission released its 2012 report to Congress in November and that most of his testimony was based on the report. He noted that China is completely honest about its goals of gaining expertise in high tech areas to transition away from a manufacturing economy and that the fastest, easiest way for China to do this is to get the technological foundation from other countries. China’s policies require a joint venture with a Chinese company, often a state owned company, to do business in China and that the technology transfer must be made before such a venture can be made. Such policies are, in the US view, a violation of the WTO compliance that China agreed to when it was accepted. Shea agreed with Atkinson about the need to use trade agreements to band together with other countries to push back against such policies and he also stated that the US should demand reciprocity from China and Chinese companies.
Both witnesses noted that this kind of tech transfer is not voluntary but is required in order to access the markets of countries such as China, India, and Brazil – markets so large that they are not optional in today’s globally competitive environment. However, policy and legislative solutions are not straightforward or easy. Blanket policies forbidding tech transfer to foreign countries would give a significant competitive advantage to companies from outside the US. One possible solution that both stated might be helpful is to create industry antitrust exemptions so that all the companies in a specific industry can agree to keep the technology and research in the US and not be threatened by a competitor gaining market advantage by going to a large foreign market. Atkinson also recommended having research funding agencies monitor where the commercialization of technology they have funded happens in order to see if tax payer investments are staying in the US.
The full written testimony of both witnesses can be found here.
PCAST Report on Research Enterprise Released
/In: Events, Funding, Policy, Research /by MelissaNorrPCAST released a new report on Friday called “Transformation and Opportunity: The Future of the Research Enterprise” at the National Academy of Sciences. While acknowledging America’s continued success in scientific and technological research and development, the report warns that we must not be complacent in our position as the world leader. Global competition in scientific research continues to increase and corporate focus is more and more on near term development and less on basic and longer term applied research.
“We need to strengthen basic research at our great universities—that’s the primary platform on which new industries are built. And we need policies that encourage industry to keep the commercially directed parts of research and development in the United States. If we do both, then we can continue to create new industries and new jobs here at home,” said William Press, PCAST member and co-chair of the working group that wrote the report.
At the release event, Subra Suresh, NSF Director, spoke about the importance of increasing the funding for basic research and the need for more interdisciplinary research. “Risk taking interdisciplinary research leads to a change in culture at institutions” and a break down of stove pipes, Suresh said.
The report recommends:
On the last recommendation, the House of Representatives passed the STEM Jobs Act of 2012 on Friday. It would abolish the current visa lottery system and implement 55,000 visas for doctorate and masters level STEM graduates.
The full report can be found here and an archived webcast is available here.
Last PCAST Meeting of 2012 Focuses on NITRD and Education
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC), Events, People /by MelissaNorrToday was the last PCAST meeting of 2012 and it focused on computing and STEM education. The meeting opened with the NITRD study update report from David Shaw, Susan Graham, and Peter Lee. The update was more of a review of the recommendations from the 2010 report. Graham went quickly through each recommendation from the 2010 report and gave a concise summary of what has happened and what still needs to be done. For instance, in the area of big data, an area called out for focus in the 2010 report, has led to a government initiative but privacy has not been addressed because “it’s important to everyone but it’s no one’s mission.” The NITRD update was unanimously passed by PCAST.
The rest of the meeting was devoted to STEM education – first with a panel on massively open online courses (MOOCs) and then two speakers on STEM education. Four speakers discussed their experience with MOOCs and how they fit in the education system. Sebastian Thrun, CEO of Udacity, spoke to the growing popularity of MOOCs and their ability to innovate in the education space. Daphne Koller, co-founder of Coursera, spoke to the three piers of MOOCs – content, assessment, and interaction. Koller noted that because of the sheer amount of data coming out of MOOCs, it allows for more quantitative assessments of learning than are possible with standard classes. Anant Agarwal, president of edX, spoke to the fact that the concepts incorporated in MOOCs are not new but that MOOCs offer new delivery options and implementation. Frank DiGiovanni, director of Training Readiness and Strategy at the Department of Defense, discussed the use of MOOCs by the Veterans Administration in bringing returning veterans’ skills up to speed for the civilian workforce and a DARPA program called “Education Dominance” that allows high school students to use digital tutors to learn computing skills. The CCC will be holding a visioning activity regarding MOOCs called Multidisciplinary Research for Online Education in February.
The final speakers spoke to the changing nature of STEM education programs. Linda Rosen, CEO of Change the Equation, talked about STEMtistics, data that Change the Equation uses to measure and advise on STEM education. She also pointed out that only one out of five households have a student who is in an outside STEM program such as Girl Scouts or FIRST. Mark Rosenberg, president of Florida International University, discussed the movement from lecture halls to “learning laboratories”. He noted that the best thing about education is that one size doesn’t fit all and that we need to continue our commitment to allowing students access to learning in whatever way works best for them.
The full webcast will be available here soon.