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.
Last year, CSEdWeek was a smashing success with more than 3,363 pledges of support and over 550 events and activities around the world. Help make 2012 an even bigger success and pledge your support today because computer science does indeed Fuel the Future!
From my column in this month’s issue of Computing Research News(If you don’t receive CRN via email, you should! Sign up here.)
Washington remains configured for political gridlock after last Tuesday’s elections, a fact which seems to portend two more years like the last two. But party leaders on both sides have indicated a willingness to work together in the new Congress, perhaps softening the hard line that built the so-called “fiscal cliff” towards which the country now hurtles. That willingness to compromise will be put to the test even before the new Congress is sworn in, as the lame duck session of the current Congress has two important deadlines looming before they can adjourn: the December 31, 2012, expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and the January 2, 2013, deadline for automatic, across-the-board budget cuts called sequestration. Failing to address either deadline could plunge the U.S. economy off the “fiscal cliff,” say economists, and perhaps into recession.
In addition, the current Congress needs to decide how it wants to resolve the unfinished work in the FY 2013 appropriations process. Because of election-year gridlock, Congress was able to finish none of the twelve annual appropriations bills required to fund all the operations of the federal government, leaving agencies — including federal science agencies — operating under stop-gap funding at last year’s levels. The congressional leadership will have to decide whether to attempt to pass the unfinished bills before they adjourn, or let the new Congress deal with them.
On top of all of that, it appears likely that the Federal government will once again hit the Federal statutory debt limit by the end of 2012, though a series of “extraordinary measures” taken by the U.S. Treasury may push that deadline until early February 2013. If Congress cannot agree to increase the debt limit before federal spending reaches it, the government will shut down and the U.S. could default on its debts.
So, despite remaining mired on a playing field seemingly designed to ensure gridlock in the legislative process (ie, a somewhat fractured GOP majority in control of the House, a narrow Democratic majority in the Senate, and a Democratic president), Congress needs to take action on a series of issues on which it could not reach agreement at any point over the previous two years, and it needs to do so over the next six weeks or risk plunging the U.S. into recession. And with relatively little change to that playing field, the new Congress will need to solve whatever unfinished business the current Congress leaves it, and address the debt limit, likely by February.
The lame duck has essentially three big decisions to make — on appropriations, the looming budget sequestration, and the expiring tax cuts. Of the three, sequestration and the tax cuts are the most time-sensitive and potentially impact the U.S. economy the most. Congress has already passed stop-gap funding for federal agencies through March of 2013, so failing to get appropriations done before the end of the year would not force agencies to shut down.
Sequestration and the expiring tax cuts have been grouped together by congressional Democrats, who would like to extend the Bush-era cuts, but modify them so that tax rates on the top tier payers would increase. Without concessions designed to raise government revenue, congressional Democrats have been unwilling to support efforts to mitigate cuts called for in the sequester, especially on defense spending that Republicans oppose. Neither party believes the cuts in the sequester are in the best interests of the country. Indeed, the sequester was designed (in the wake of the inability of the two parties to come up with an agreement for cutting the debt during the last debt limit crisis in August 2011) with cuts that were hard to stomach to force the two parties to reach agreement on cutting the deficit on their own.
So there are a few scenarios in which the lame duck may play out. The two least likely are:
Congress commits to a proposal for cutting the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years by some combination of raising revenue, cutting discretionary spending, and/or reforming entitlement programs, thereby eliminating the need for the automatic, across-the-board discretionary spending cuts called for in sequestration, and agrees to an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, with some modification;
Congress does nothing, allows the tax cuts to expire and the sequestration cuts to take place.
More likely, according to many Congressional observers and staffers, is that Congress will agree to delay the sequestration cuts for a period of a few months to maybe as much as a year so that Members have more chance to evaluate different solutions, and will either reach some agreement on the tax cuts, extend them for a short period for more debate, or allow the tax cuts to expire with the expectation that the new Congress will act on them immediately, hopefully causing no impact to taxpayers. Because this scenario would not reduce the uncertainty in the market, which is concerned whether sequestration or the tax cut extensions will eventually happen, Congressional leaders may elect to “send a signal” of their seriousness about controlling spending by passing a FY2013 omnibus appropriations bill with some significant across-the-board cut — but not as significant a cut as the sequester would have made.
This would be a marginally better, but still pretty poor, outcome for those concerned about federal investments in science. Research accounts at the National Science Foundation and National Institute of Standards and Technology appeared to be on a path to fare well in the FY 2013 appropriations process, and computing accounts at the Department of Energy would hold their own or grow slightly. An omnibus with across-the-board cuts would mitigate those gains in part, or perhaps completely. However, the alternate scenarios look even worse. Any cut through sequestration (on the order of 8 or 9 percent) would far outstrip the gains science agencies were likely to see, and sequestration followed by an omnibus in March might make a bad situation even worse.
The science community will also find itself without some key allies in the new Congress, as a number of “champions” for the sciences have retired or lost election battles in November. We will have more detail in the next issue of Computing Research News, but retirements like Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and losses like Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) mean that there are fewer Members of Congress with experience making the case for federal investment in fundamental research.
In any scenario, science agencies and programs, and all other federal agencies, will find themselves under increased budget pressure over the next two years, and probably into the foreseeable future. About the only positive change in the dynamic is a President who will no longer have to run for office, freeing him, potentially, to make politically “riskier” compromises on things like entitlement and tax reform.
The deals Congress will make over the next several weeks and months are likely to resonate in federal budgets for years to come. We’ll have all the details.
As part of its mission to develop a next generation of leaders in the computing research community, the Computing Research Association‘s Computing Community Consortium (CCC) announces the second offering of the CCC Leadership in Science Policy Institute (LiSPI), intended to educate computing researchers on how science policy in the U.S. is formulated and how our government works. We seek nominations for participants.
LiSPI will be centered around a two day workshop to be held April 11-12, 2013 in Washington, DC. (More details)
LiSPI will feature presentations and discussions with science policy experts, current and former Hill staff, and relevant agency and Administration personnel about mechanics of the legislative process, interacting with agencies, advisory committees, and the federal case for computing. (You can find a list of sessions and speakers from our first offering last November here.)
LiSPI participants are expected to
Complete a reading assignment and a short written homework prior to attending the workshop, so that time spent at the workshop can focus on more advanced content,
Attend the April 11-12th workshop, which includes breakfast both days, lunch, and a reception with the speakers and invited guests at the conclusion of the first day, and
Complete a small-group assignment afterwards that puts to use the workshop content on a CCC-inspired problem—perhaps writing an argument in favor of particular initiative for an agency audience, or drafting sample testimony on a CCC topic.
LiSPI is not intended for individuals who wish to undertake research on science policy, become science policy fellows, or take permanent positions in Washington, DC. Rather, we are trying to reach work-a-day academics who appreciate that our field must be engaged in helping government.
The CCC will provide funds for hotel accommodations for two nights of local expenses (hotel, meals) for the April 11-12 workshops. Nominees are expected to pay their own travel expenses, though there will be a limited fund available for participants who cannot attend unless their travel is provided.
Eligibility and Nomination Process
LiSPI participants are expected to have the experience and flexibility in their current positions to engage with government. University faculty members should be from CS or IS departments and be post-tenure; industrial researchers should have comparable seniority. Participants should be adept at communicating. They must be nominated by their chair or department head and must have demonstrated an interest in science policy, especially as it relates to computer science (and closely allied fields).
Specifically, the nomination process is as follows
A chair or department head proposes a LiSPI candidate by visiting (http://www.cra.org/ccc/spi_nomination.php) and providing the name and institution of the nominee, along with a letter of recommendation.
The candidate will then be contacted by the CCC and asked to submit a CV, a short essay detailing their interests in science policy, and an indication of whether they would require financial aid to attend.
All nominations and material from nominators and nominees must be received by December 14, 2012.
Selection Process
The LiSPI selection committee will evaluate each nomination based on record of accomplishment, proven ability to communicate, and promise. Selections will be announced by the year end. We plan to open the workshop to 60 participants.
Please discuss this opportunity with your colleagues, identify those you believe would be interested in participating, and submit nominations!
This post marks the first from CRA’s new communications specialist, Shar Steed. Shar will be a frequent contributor to the Computing Research Policy blog and is the new force behind CRA’s communications efforts. Shar joins us from the AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellows program where she handled communications and marketing duties, and can be reached at shar@cra.org.
Last month CRA joined ACM, SIAM and IEEE, to send a letter to Congress and federal policymakers to bring attention to how proposed restrictions on federal employees attending scientific conferences would negatively effect scientific collaborations.
The letter encouraged policymakers to designate scientific, technical and education meetings as exempt from the federal policy on conference spending. It is crucial for scientists and engineers working in the government to attend these meeting to interact with other professionals and stay current in their fields.
The combined efforts have not gone unnoticed. On Tuesday, an article in the science section of the New York Times, brought further attention to this critical issue.
The article detailed how the policy is currently affecting the computing community. For example, the number of Department of Energy employees attending the 2012 Supercomputing Conference, which takes place next month, has decreased 30 percent compared to last year. Additionally, this year none of the department’s 12 labs will have booths in the exhibit hall where they have traditionally used the opportunity to demonstrate their latest projects.
Several scientific associations have also expressed concerns on the policy, which has already been passed in the House of Representatives. Increased public exposure to the issue is essential to discourage the Senate from passing it as well.
Former CRA Board Chair Peter Lee testified today before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on “Five Years of the America COMPETES Act: Progress, Challenges, and Next Steps”. The hearing explored the successes of the past and necessary improvements required of the US to remain the preeminent global leader in STEM research and education in the future.
Lee spoke of an innovation ecosystem that is not accidental but exists because of a deliberate partnership between academia, private industry, and government. The current IT strength of the US is not a right but something that must be nurtured and invested in going forward. He noted that the research pipeline needs to be kept full but so does the talent pipeline and that, while computer science undergraduate enrollments are up for the last five years, the story at the K-12 level is cause for some concern.
Chairman Jay Rockefeller opened the hearing by noting that while the COMPETES Act has already been reauthorized once there really has not been enough time to realize the full impact of legislation that is by necessity focused on the long-term. He noted that despite the authorization levels in the original bill the legislature did not follow that up with appropriations to match and stated that “not funding scientific research is a disservice to our economic recovery.”
In addition to Lee, four other witnesses testified on various aspects of COMPETES and the state of research and education in the US. Norm Augustine, the original co-chair of the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report, spoke first and emphasized that the COMPETES Act is about jobs and the ability of American’s to compete for STEM jobs with the rest of the world. He noted that one challenge that could not have been foreseen in the original writing of the Gathering Storm was the recession and its effect on universities. Augustine stated that the US is in danger of losing its higher education leadership because other countries are watching us devalue our education and research and are more than willing to lure away our best faculty and students.
Dr. Carl Weiman, Nobel Laureate in physics and professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, spoke to the need to drastically change how we educate students in STEM. He spoke of research showing that learning STEM fields is not a transfer of knowledge but a development of the brain to think and learn in new ways. He noted that the STEM requirements for students entering K-12 teacher programs are very low.
Dr. Jeffrey L. Furman, professor at Boston University and research associate at National Bureau of Economic Research, testified that the federal investment in science and innovation is a public good and that regional leadership in innovation is important to success. He spoke to the fact that there were some clear and notable achievements from COMPETES but that many programs went unrealized because the lack of funding.
John Winn, Chief Program Officer at the National Math and Science Initiative, spoke to the success of the UTEACH program and the attempts to replicate it around the country. He noted it is being implemented at several universities around the country.
The hearing was likely the last for Ranking Member Kay Bailey Hutchison as she is retiring after this session. Many of the Committee members took part of their allotted time to thank her for her contributions and her hard work on the issues.
The written testimony and Chairman’s statement are available here.
The House and Senate leadership (and the President) have agreed in principle to a stopgap spending bill that will keep the government running after the start of FY 2013 on October 1st, despite having not passed any of the 12 annual spending bills that fund government activities. The so-called “continuing resolution” will keep government running through March 2013 at FY 2012 levels, giving the new Congress (and perhaps new president) the opportunity to leave its mark on FY13 spending.
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader of the Senate Harry Reid (D-NV) came to the agreement after Boehner agreed to slightly higher-spending levels in exchange for the longer-term CR. Republicans — believing they’ll do well in November and perhaps take the Senate and the presidency — preferred to have the new Congress decide the final appropriations outcome, rather than let a lame-duck Congress take it up in November and December. The agreement calls for a CR that’s “clean” with no additional riders (ie, no attacks on the President’s health care program).
Congress will take up the CR shortly after returning from the August recess and likely quickly pass it, perhaps leaving some time before heading home to campaign to figure out how to deal with the looming automatic across-the-board cuts due to the sequestration provisions in the Budget Control Act that will take effect Jan 2, 2013. Perhaps pushing off the final appropriations resolution for FY 13 until March signals that the leadership expects to come to some agreement on delaying or postponing sequestration in the coming weeks…we’ll see. Otherwise, there has been no progress in settling the sequestration question. In fact, at the moment the Administration is trying to convince the nation’s defense contractors that sequestration needn’t result in massive layoffs and therefore companies shouldn’t feel compelled to send out pink slip notices to all employees on November 2nd, as they’re threatening.
More details as they become available!
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
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.
Computer Science Fuels the Future! CSEdWeek is December 9 – 15, 2012
/In: Computing Education, Events /by MelissaNorrComputer Science Education Week 2012, held December 9 – 15, is an opportunity to raise awareness about the impact of computing and the critical need for computer science (CS) education. Host or attend an event or activity, join the Tweet Up on December 11th at 6 pm EST (#CSEdWeek), sign the pledge, and spread the word!
Last year, CSEdWeek was a smashing success with more than 3,363 pledges of support and over 550 events and activities around the world. Help make 2012 an even bigger success and pledge your support today because computer science does indeed Fuel the Future!
Political Playing Field Remains the Same But Deals Must Get Done to Avoid Fiscal Cliff
/In: Funding, FY13 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaFrom my column in this month’s issue of Computing Research News (If you don’t receive CRN via email, you should! Sign up here.)
Washington remains configured for political gridlock after last Tuesday’s elections, a fact which seems to portend two more years like the last two. But party leaders on both sides have indicated a willingness to work together in the new Congress, perhaps softening the hard line that built the so-called “fiscal cliff” towards which the country now hurtles. That willingness to compromise will be put to the test even before the new Congress is sworn in, as the lame duck session of the current Congress has two important deadlines looming before they can adjourn: the December 31, 2012, expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and the January 2, 2013, deadline for automatic, across-the-board budget cuts called sequestration. Failing to address either deadline could plunge the U.S. economy off the “fiscal cliff,” say economists, and perhaps into recession.
In addition, the current Congress needs to decide how it wants to resolve the unfinished work in the FY 2013 appropriations process. Because of election-year gridlock, Congress was able to finish none of the twelve annual appropriations bills required to fund all the operations of the federal government, leaving agencies — including federal science agencies — operating under stop-gap funding at last year’s levels. The congressional leadership will have to decide whether to attempt to pass the unfinished bills before they adjourn, or let the new Congress deal with them.
On top of all of that, it appears likely that the Federal government will once again hit the Federal statutory debt limit by the end of 2012, though a series of “extraordinary measures” taken by the U.S. Treasury may push that deadline until early February 2013. If Congress cannot agree to increase the debt limit before federal spending reaches it, the government will shut down and the U.S. could default on its debts.
So, despite remaining mired on a playing field seemingly designed to ensure gridlock in the legislative process (ie, a somewhat fractured GOP majority in control of the House, a narrow Democratic majority in the Senate, and a Democratic president), Congress needs to take action on a series of issues on which it could not reach agreement at any point over the previous two years, and it needs to do so over the next six weeks or risk plunging the U.S. into recession. And with relatively little change to that playing field, the new Congress will need to solve whatever unfinished business the current Congress leaves it, and address the debt limit, likely by February.
The lame duck has essentially three big decisions to make — on appropriations, the looming budget sequestration, and the expiring tax cuts. Of the three, sequestration and the tax cuts are the most time-sensitive and potentially impact the U.S. economy the most. Congress has already passed stop-gap funding for federal agencies through March of 2013, so failing to get appropriations done before the end of the year would not force agencies to shut down.
Sequestration and the expiring tax cuts have been grouped together by congressional Democrats, who would like to extend the Bush-era cuts, but modify them so that tax rates on the top tier payers would increase. Without concessions designed to raise government revenue, congressional Democrats have been unwilling to support efforts to mitigate cuts called for in the sequester, especially on defense spending that Republicans oppose. Neither party believes the cuts in the sequester are in the best interests of the country. Indeed, the sequester was designed (in the wake of the inability of the two parties to come up with an agreement for cutting the debt during the last debt limit crisis in August 2011) with cuts that were hard to stomach to force the two parties to reach agreement on cutting the deficit on their own.
So there are a few scenarios in which the lame duck may play out. The two least likely are:
More likely, according to many Congressional observers and staffers, is that Congress will agree to delay the sequestration cuts for a period of a few months to maybe as much as a year so that Members have more chance to evaluate different solutions, and will either reach some agreement on the tax cuts, extend them for a short period for more debate, or allow the tax cuts to expire with the expectation that the new Congress will act on them immediately, hopefully causing no impact to taxpayers. Because this scenario would not reduce the uncertainty in the market, which is concerned whether sequestration or the tax cut extensions will eventually happen, Congressional leaders may elect to “send a signal” of their seriousness about controlling spending by passing a FY2013 omnibus appropriations bill with some significant across-the-board cut — but not as significant a cut as the sequester would have made.
This would be a marginally better, but still pretty poor, outcome for those concerned about federal investments in science. Research accounts at the National Science Foundation and National Institute of Standards and Technology appeared to be on a path to fare well in the FY 2013 appropriations process, and computing accounts at the Department of Energy would hold their own or grow slightly. An omnibus with across-the-board cuts would mitigate those gains in part, or perhaps completely. However, the alternate scenarios look even worse. Any cut through sequestration (on the order of 8 or 9 percent) would far outstrip the gains science agencies were likely to see, and sequestration followed by an omnibus in March might make a bad situation even worse.
The science community will also find itself without some key allies in the new Congress, as a number of “champions” for the sciences have retired or lost election battles in November. We will have more detail in the next issue of Computing Research News, but retirements like Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and losses like Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) mean that there are fewer Members of Congress with experience making the case for federal investment in fundamental research.
In any scenario, science agencies and programs, and all other federal agencies, will find themselves under increased budget pressure over the next two years, and probably into the foreseeable future. About the only positive change in the dynamic is a President who will no longer have to run for office, freeing him, potentially, to make politically “riskier” compromises on things like entitlement and tax reform.
The deals Congress will make over the next several weeks and months are likely to resonate in federal budgets for years to come. We’ll have all the details.
Call For Nominations — CCC Leadership in Science Policy Institute 2013
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC), CRA, People, Policy /by Peter HarshaAs part of its mission to develop a next generation of leaders in the computing research community, the Computing Research Association‘s Computing Community Consortium (CCC) announces the second offering of the CCC Leadership in Science Policy Institute (LiSPI), intended to educate computing researchers on how science policy in the U.S. is formulated and how our government works. We seek nominations for participants.
LiSPI will be centered around a two day workshop to be held April 11-12, 2013 in Washington, DC. (More details)
LiSPI will feature presentations and discussions with science policy experts, current and former Hill staff, and relevant agency and Administration personnel about mechanics of the legislative process, interacting with agencies, advisory committees, and the federal case for computing. (You can find a list of sessions and speakers from our first offering last November here.)
LiSPI participants are expected to
LiSPI is not intended for individuals who wish to undertake research on science policy, become science policy fellows, or take permanent positions in Washington, DC. Rather, we are trying to reach work-a-day academics who appreciate that our field must be engaged in helping government.
The CCC will provide funds for hotel accommodations for two nights of local expenses (hotel, meals) for the April 11-12 workshops. Nominees are expected to pay their own travel expenses, though there will be a limited fund available for participants who cannot attend unless their travel is provided.
Eligibility and Nomination Process
LiSPI participants are expected to have the experience and flexibility in their current positions to engage with government. University faculty members should be from CS or IS departments and be post-tenure; industrial researchers should have comparable seniority. Participants should be adept at communicating. They must be nominated by their chair or department head and must have demonstrated an interest in science policy, especially as it relates to computer science (and closely allied fields).
Specifically, the nomination process is as follows
All nominations and material from nominators and nominees must be received by December 14, 2012.
Selection Process
The LiSPI selection committee will evaluate each nomination based on record of accomplishment, proven ability to communicate, and promise. Selections will be announced by the year end. We plan to open the workshop to 60 participants.
Please discuss this opportunity with your colleagues, identify those you believe would be interested in participating, and submit nominations!
New York Times Covers Restrictions on Federal Employees Attending Scientific Conferences in Computing
/In: CRA, Policy /by Shar SteedThis post marks the first from CRA’s new communications specialist, Shar Steed. Shar will be a frequent contributor to the Computing Research Policy blog and is the new force behind CRA’s communications efforts. Shar joins us from the AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellows program where she handled communications and marketing duties, and can be reached at shar@cra.org.
Last month CRA joined ACM, SIAM and IEEE, to send a letter to Congress and federal policymakers to bring attention to how proposed restrictions on federal employees attending scientific conferences would negatively effect scientific collaborations.
The letter encouraged policymakers to designate scientific, technical and education meetings as exempt from the federal policy on conference spending. It is crucial for scientists and engineers working in the government to attend these meeting to interact with other professionals and stay current in their fields.
The combined efforts have not gone unnoticed. On Tuesday, an article in the science section of the New York Times, brought further attention to this critical issue.
The article detailed how the policy is currently affecting the computing community. For example, the number of Department of Energy employees attending the 2012 Supercomputing Conference, which takes place next month, has decreased 30 percent compared to last year. Additionally, this year none of the department’s 12 labs will have booths in the exhibit hall where they have traditionally used the opportunity to demonstrate their latest projects.
Several scientific associations have also expressed concerns on the policy, which has already been passed in the House of Representatives. Increased public exposure to the issue is essential to discourage the Senate from passing it as well.
Five Years of COMPETES
/In: People, Policy /by MelissaNorrFormer CRA Board Chair Peter Lee testified today before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on “Five Years of the America COMPETES Act: Progress, Challenges, and Next Steps”. The hearing explored the successes of the past and necessary improvements required of the US to remain the preeminent global leader in STEM research and education in the future.
Lee spoke of an innovation ecosystem that is not accidental but exists because of a deliberate partnership between academia, private industry, and government. The current IT strength of the US is not a right but something that must be nurtured and invested in going forward. He noted that the research pipeline needs to be kept full but so does the talent pipeline and that, while computer science undergraduate enrollments are up for the last five years, the story at the K-12 level is cause for some concern.
Chairman Jay Rockefeller opened the hearing by noting that while the COMPETES Act has already been reauthorized once there really has not been enough time to realize the full impact of legislation that is by necessity focused on the long-term. He noted that despite the authorization levels in the original bill the legislature did not follow that up with appropriations to match and stated that “not funding scientific research is a disservice to our economic recovery.”
In addition to Lee, four other witnesses testified on various aspects of COMPETES and the state of research and education in the US. Norm Augustine, the original co-chair of the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report, spoke first and emphasized that the COMPETES Act is about jobs and the ability of American’s to compete for STEM jobs with the rest of the world. He noted that one challenge that could not have been foreseen in the original writing of the Gathering Storm was the recession and its effect on universities. Augustine stated that the US is in danger of losing its higher education leadership because other countries are watching us devalue our education and research and are more than willing to lure away our best faculty and students.
Dr. Carl Weiman, Nobel Laureate in physics and professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, spoke to the need to drastically change how we educate students in STEM. He spoke of research showing that learning STEM fields is not a transfer of knowledge but a development of the brain to think and learn in new ways. He noted that the STEM requirements for students entering K-12 teacher programs are very low.
Dr. Jeffrey L. Furman, professor at Boston University and research associate at National Bureau of Economic Research, testified that the federal investment in science and innovation is a public good and that regional leadership in innovation is important to success. He spoke to the fact that there were some clear and notable achievements from COMPETES but that many programs went unrealized because the lack of funding.
John Winn, Chief Program Officer at the National Math and Science Initiative, spoke to the success of the UTEACH program and the attempts to replicate it around the country. He noted it is being implemented at several universities around the country.
The hearing was likely the last for Ranking Member Kay Bailey Hutchison as she is retiring after this session. Many of the Committee members took part of their allotted time to thank her for her contributions and her hard work on the issues.
The written testimony and Chairman’s statement are available here.
Congressional Leaders Agree on Stopgap FY13 Funding
/In: FY13 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaThe House and Senate leadership (and the President) have agreed in principle to a stopgap spending bill that will keep the government running after the start of FY 2013 on October 1st, despite having not passed any of the 12 annual spending bills that fund government activities. The so-called “continuing resolution” will keep government running through March 2013 at FY 2012 levels, giving the new Congress (and perhaps new president) the opportunity to leave its mark on FY13 spending.
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader of the Senate Harry Reid (D-NV) came to the agreement after Boehner agreed to slightly higher-spending levels in exchange for the longer-term CR. Republicans — believing they’ll do well in November and perhaps take the Senate and the presidency — preferred to have the new Congress decide the final appropriations outcome, rather than let a lame-duck Congress take it up in November and December. The agreement calls for a CR that’s “clean” with no additional riders (ie, no attacks on the President’s health care program).
Congress will take up the CR shortly after returning from the August recess and likely quickly pass it, perhaps leaving some time before heading home to campaign to figure out how to deal with the looming automatic across-the-board cuts due to the sequestration provisions in the Budget Control Act that will take effect Jan 2, 2013. Perhaps pushing off the final appropriations resolution for FY 13 until March signals that the leadership expects to come to some agreement on delaying or postponing sequestration in the coming weeks…we’ll see. Otherwise, there has been no progress in settling the sequestration question. In fact, at the moment the Administration is trying to convince the nation’s defense contractors that sequestration needn’t result in massive layoffs and therefore companies shouldn’t feel compelled to send out pink slip notices to all employees on November 2nd, as they’re threatening.
More details as they become available!