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.
On Friday, July 13th, the Woodrow Wilson Center held an event titled “Universities, High Skilled Immigration, and Regulatory Reform: Implication for America’s Economic Future.” The focus of the discussion was the Start-Up Act 2.0 (S. 3217), legislation that would create a STEM visa program so that U.S.-educated foreign students who graduate with a master’s or a doctorate in science, technology, engineering or mathematics can receive a green card, and an Entrepreneur’s Visa for legal immigrants so that they can remain in the United States.
In particular, the panel was put together to help stimulate discussion about the provisions of the act that are meant to facilitate the “commercialization of university research, the regulating of start-up companies, and the broadening of opportunities for temporary immigrants with post-graduate degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) to eventually qualify for permanent residency visas.”
The panel was made up of four speakers, three of whom gave opening statements. Kent Hughes (Director, Program on America and the Global Economy) facilitated the discussion and served as moderator. Jim Woodell (Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities), Karthick Ramakrishnan (University of California-Riverside) and Joseph Kennedy (US Dept. of Commerce) all participated in the panel discussion.
The discussion opened with a statement from Jim Woodell, in which he espoused the importance of technology transfer legislation, and emphasized how carefully this legislation must be crafted so that it has only the intended effects, and no other unintentional side effects.
Woodell went on to speak about Section 8 of the Start-Up Act, saying that although it is important to support the commercialization of research that comes out of our Universities, the way that the Start-Up Act approaches it circumvents the Technology Transfer Offices at these Universities. The “free agent” clause of the Act allows for individuals to seek commercialization outside of their University, and could in turn discourage Universities from supporting the growth of research and innovation.
As the discussion continued, Karthick Ramakrishnan made a statement in which he voiced his support of the Act because it includes a provision to incentivize those students who are allowed to immigrate to the United States on a visa for a Masters or PhD stay and work in the US after they have completed their education. Ramakrishnan noted that without this provision, there could be a reverse “brain-drain” effect in which we import students to the United States to study, but then lose them again to jobs outside of our borders.
Finally, Joseph Kennedy made remarks in which he made clear his view that the issue of immigration in reference to education is hampered by far too many regulations. However, he did praise Section 9 of the Act, which requires any agency to go through an extensive cost-benefit analysis before imposing any new regulations or rules. Additionally, they must fully analyze all alternatives to the policy they are proposing, and consider the possibility of failure and what that would entail.
You can find a video recording of the briefing here.
On Wednesday, June 27th the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s Subcommittee on Research and Science Education convened a hearing to survey the many challenges that U.S. research universities face. The hearing was held in conjunction with the 150th anniversary of the Morrill Act of 1862, which allowed for the creation of land-grant colleges. Under the Morrill Act, each eligible state in the Union received 30,000 acres of land that could be used to build a university on or could be sold to pay for the construction of universities.
The hearing opened with a statement from Subcommittee Chairman Mo Brooks (R-AL), in which he made note of the importance of innovation to the United States economy, and that “particularly in today’s tough economic times, research universities play a vital role in America’s ability to maintain its competitiveness.”
Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-IL) also gave a statement in which he espoused the essential nature of research universities to the United States’ R&D infrastructure, and thus to the economic success of our nation. He also cited a strong link between the success of research universities and the creation of jobs. He concluded his opening statement with a focus on the importance of research universities to our future workforce, “In addition to contributing immeasurably to our economic prosperity and wellbeing, research universities also train the next generation of scientists, engineering and innovators.”
The hearing comes on the heels of the release two weeks ago of a National Research Council (NRC)report on the status quo and viability of research universities in the US. This report, which was requested in 2009, presented three major goals that should be sought after in order to maximize the effectiveness of US research universities. The three goals are: “revitalize the partnership among universities, federal and state governments, philanthropists, and the business community; strengthen the institutions by streamlining and improving the productivity of the research operations within universities; and build talent to ensure that America’s pipeline of future students, scholars, and workers in science, engineering, and other research areas continues to be the best in the world.”
The final part of the hearing consisted of five witnesses who were questioned by the committee. The witness panel was made up of Mr. Charles Holliday (National Academies), Dr. John M. Mason (Auburn University), Dr. Jeffrey Seemann (Texas A&M University), Dr. Leslie P. Tolbert (University of Arizona), and Dr. James Siedow (Duke University).
Charles Holliday testified on the importance of research universities in helping the United States “position itself in a competitive world transformed by technology.” He also emphasized the need for a strong science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) workforce in the United States, and how research universities play a role in encouraging the development of such a workforce.
Following Holliday’s testimony, Dr. John Mason brought up the issue of regulatory challenges that research universities face, and said that “the regulatory burdens placed on all recipients because of what appears to be the improper actions of a few.”
Dr. Leslie Tolbert contributed with an agreeing statement, echoing Mason’s testimony by saying that requiring research universities to comply with an increasing load of regulations wastes a significant amount of time and money.
During the questioning portion of the hearing, Congressman Lipinski focused on a recent decrease in funding for research universities and how regulations restrict the transfer of technology from the laboratory to the commercial market. Lipinski concluded by clearly stating that although our country is in a difficult financial situation, “we cannot afford to jeopardize our nation’s future prosperity by not providing sustained and predictable support for scientific research and affordable education.”
It appears that Arati Prabhakar has been named the new DARPA Director, taking over for Regina Dugan who left the agency to work with Google.
From the memo to DARPA staff:
Dr. Prabhakar has spent her career advancing technology in support of both national security and the private sector, from early research and development through production. Dr. Prabhakar served from 1986 to 1993 at DARPA, first as program manager and then as founding director of the Microelectronics Technology Office. In 1993, President Clinton appointed Dr. Prabhakar as the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, where she led the 3,000-person organization in its work with companies across multiple industries. Dr. Prabhakar’s Department of Defense and leadership experience, when coupled with her experience with technical communities in Silicon Valley and beyond, make her the ideal candidate to continue DARPA’s impressive track record of success.
This past Wednesday, IBM Corp sponsored a Senate briefing called “Big Data: The New Natural Resource,” which was held in conjunction with an announcement of IBM’s partnership with the Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to expand collaboration on high-performance computing. The collaboration, which will be referred to as “Deep Computing Solutions,” is a part of LLNL’s High Performance Computing Innovation Center. For more in-depth information, check out IBM’s news release here.
The briefing opened with a statement from Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), in which she praised the United States for the development of the world’s fastest, most efficient supercomputer; a 20-petaflop computer affectionately named “Sequoia,” which currently resides at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). According to Feinstein, as a result of the United States’ leadership in this area, countries around the world have recognized that an investment in technology yields a significant return, and are attempting to follow suit.
The briefing continued with remarks from David McQueeney, vice president for software at IBM Research, who noted that leaders within the corporate community are ever more aware of “big data” as a significant natural resource, but because the infrastructure is not in place to capture and analyze the data in an efficient manner, most have been unable to effectively use it.
McQueeney used the analogy of a tsunami to describe the current plight of big data – there is a plethora of incoming data, but no one has the capacity to handle it, or translate it into the desired outputs. He noted, however, that if decision makers can “master the tsunami of data,” there would be a significant increase in the efficiency with which our world works.
In order to more effectively communicate the potential that big data has to change the status quo of decision making, McQueeney used a number of different comparisons. He contended that in the past, we made decisions based on human intuition, but as we have access to properly analyzed data, we can begin to make decisions based on facts. He believes that this will change our decision making time from weeks or days to hours or minutes, and will change our operations from being merely efficient to completely optimized.
In addition to the remarks provided by Sen. Feinstein and Mr. McQueeney, the hearing played host to a panel discussion on “How Analytics Technology Creates an Enormous Opportunity for Government.” The panel was moderated by Dr. Steven Koonin, Director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University, and consisted of discussion among the panelists Dr. Steven Ashby (Deputy Director for Science and Technology, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory), Shantenu Jha (Associate Director of Research Cyber infrastructure, Rutgers Discovery Informatics Institute), and Tony Elder (Deputy Police Chief, Charleston, South Carolina). Mr. Elder, the only panelist not directly involved in the analytics field was chosen because of the Charleston Police Department’s development of a “fusion center,” which is a groundbreaking way for police officers to acquire relevant data on areas they are patrolling and suspects they are tracking.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
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!
Woodrow Wilson Center Holds Hearing on Start-Up Act 2.0
/In: Computing Education, Diversity in Computing, Policy, Research /by MelissaNorrOn Friday, July 13th, the Woodrow Wilson Center held an event titled “Universities, High Skilled Immigration, and Regulatory Reform: Implication for America’s Economic Future.” The focus of the discussion was the Start-Up Act 2.0 (S. 3217), legislation that would create a STEM visa program so that U.S.-educated foreign students who graduate with a master’s or a doctorate in science, technology, engineering or mathematics can receive a green card, and an Entrepreneur’s Visa for legal immigrants so that they can remain in the United States.
In particular, the panel was put together to help stimulate discussion about the provisions of the act that are meant to facilitate the “commercialization of university research, the regulating of start-up companies, and the broadening of opportunities for temporary immigrants with post-graduate degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) to eventually qualify for permanent residency visas.”
The panel was made up of four speakers, three of whom gave opening statements. Kent Hughes (Director, Program on America and the Global Economy) facilitated the discussion and served as moderator. Jim Woodell (Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities), Karthick Ramakrishnan (University of California-Riverside) and Joseph Kennedy (US Dept. of Commerce) all participated in the panel discussion.
The discussion opened with a statement from Jim Woodell, in which he espoused the importance of technology transfer legislation, and emphasized how carefully this legislation must be crafted so that it has only the intended effects, and no other unintentional side effects.
Woodell went on to speak about Section 8 of the Start-Up Act, saying that although it is important to support the commercialization of research that comes out of our Universities, the way that the Start-Up Act approaches it circumvents the Technology Transfer Offices at these Universities. The “free agent” clause of the Act allows for individuals to seek commercialization outside of their University, and could in turn discourage Universities from supporting the growth of research and innovation.
As the discussion continued, Karthick Ramakrishnan made a statement in which he voiced his support of the Act because it includes a provision to incentivize those students who are allowed to immigrate to the United States on a visa for a Masters or PhD stay and work in the US after they have completed their education. Ramakrishnan noted that without this provision, there could be a reverse “brain-drain” effect in which we import students to the United States to study, but then lose them again to jobs outside of our borders.
Finally, Joseph Kennedy made remarks in which he made clear his view that the issue of immigration in reference to education is hampered by far too many regulations. However, he did praise Section 9 of the Act, which requires any agency to go through an extensive cost-benefit analysis before imposing any new regulations or rules. Additionally, they must fully analyze all alternatives to the policy they are proposing, and consider the possibility of failure and what that would entail.
You can find a video recording of the briefing here.
House Research and Science Education Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Challenges for Research Universities
/In: Computing Education, Funding, R&D in the Press, Research /by MelissaNorrOn Wednesday, June 27th the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s Subcommittee on Research and Science Education convened a hearing to survey the many challenges that U.S. research universities face. The hearing was held in conjunction with the 150th anniversary of the Morrill Act of 1862, which allowed for the creation of land-grant colleges. Under the Morrill Act, each eligible state in the Union received 30,000 acres of land that could be used to build a university on or could be sold to pay for the construction of universities.
The hearing opened with a statement from Subcommittee Chairman Mo Brooks (R-AL), in which he made note of the importance of innovation to the United States economy, and that “particularly in today’s tough economic times, research universities play a vital role in America’s ability to maintain its competitiveness.”
Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-IL) also gave a statement in which he espoused the essential nature of research universities to the United States’ R&D infrastructure, and thus to the economic success of our nation. He also cited a strong link between the success of research universities and the creation of jobs. He concluded his opening statement with a focus on the importance of research universities to our future workforce, “In addition to contributing immeasurably to our economic prosperity and wellbeing, research universities also train the next generation of scientists, engineering and innovators.”
The hearing comes on the heels of the release two weeks ago of a National Research Council (NRC) report on the status quo and viability of research universities in the US. This report, which was requested in 2009, presented three major goals that should be sought after in order to maximize the effectiveness of US research universities. The three goals are: “revitalize the partnership among universities, federal and state governments, philanthropists, and the business community; strengthen the institutions by streamlining and improving the productivity of the research operations within universities; and build talent to ensure that America’s pipeline of future students, scholars, and workers in science, engineering, and other research areas continues to be the best in the world.”
The final part of the hearing consisted of five witnesses who were questioned by the committee. The witness panel was made up of Mr. Charles Holliday (National Academies), Dr. John M. Mason (Auburn University), Dr. Jeffrey Seemann (Texas A&M University), Dr. Leslie P. Tolbert (University of Arizona), and Dr. James Siedow (Duke University).
Charles Holliday testified on the importance of research universities in helping the United States “position itself in a competitive world transformed by technology.” He also emphasized the need for a strong science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) workforce in the United States, and how research universities play a role in encouraging the development of such a workforce.
Following Holliday’s testimony, Dr. John Mason brought up the issue of regulatory challenges that research universities face, and said that “the regulatory burdens placed on all recipients because of what appears to be the improper actions of a few.”
Dr. Leslie Tolbert contributed with an agreeing statement, echoing Mason’s testimony by saying that requiring research universities to comply with an increasing load of regulations wastes a significant amount of time and money.
During the questioning portion of the hearing, Congressman Lipinski focused on a recent decrease in funding for research universities and how regulations restrict the transfer of technology from the laboratory to the commercial market. Lipinski concluded by clearly stating that although our country is in a difficult financial situation, “we cannot afford to jeopardize our nation’s future prosperity by not providing sustained and predictable support for scientific research and affordable education.”
Prabhakar Named New DARPA Director
/In: People /by Peter HarshaIt appears that Arati Prabhakar has been named the new DARPA Director, taking over for Regina Dugan who left the agency to work with Google.
From the memo to DARPA staff:
Prabhakar will start as Director on July 30th.
IBM Hosts “Big Data” Briefing, Announces Partnership with LLNL
/In: Events, Policy, R&D in the Press, Research /by MelissaNorrThis past Wednesday, IBM Corp sponsored a Senate briefing called “Big Data: The New Natural Resource,” which was held in conjunction with an announcement of IBM’s partnership with the Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to expand collaboration on high-performance computing. The collaboration, which will be referred to as “Deep Computing Solutions,” is a part of LLNL’s High Performance Computing Innovation Center. For more in-depth information, check out IBM’s news release here.
The briefing opened with a statement from Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), in which she praised the United States for the development of the world’s fastest, most efficient supercomputer; a 20-petaflop computer affectionately named “Sequoia,” which currently resides at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). According to Feinstein, as a result of the United States’ leadership in this area, countries around the world have recognized that an investment in technology yields a significant return, and are attempting to follow suit.
The briefing continued with remarks from David McQueeney, vice president for software at IBM Research, who noted that leaders within the corporate community are ever more aware of “big data” as a significant natural resource, but because the infrastructure is not in place to capture and analyze the data in an efficient manner, most have been unable to effectively use it.
McQueeney used the analogy of a tsunami to describe the current plight of big data – there is a plethora of incoming data, but no one has the capacity to handle it, or translate it into the desired outputs. He noted, however, that if decision makers can “master the tsunami of data,” there would be a significant increase in the efficiency with which our world works.
In order to more effectively communicate the potential that big data has to change the status quo of decision making, McQueeney used a number of different comparisons. He contended that in the past, we made decisions based on human intuition, but as we have access to properly analyzed data, we can begin to make decisions based on facts. He believes that this will change our decision making time from weeks or days to hours or minutes, and will change our operations from being merely efficient to completely optimized.
In addition to the remarks provided by Sen. Feinstein and Mr. McQueeney, the hearing played host to a panel discussion on “How Analytics Technology Creates an Enormous Opportunity for Government.” The panel was moderated by Dr. Steven Koonin, Director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University, and consisted of discussion among the panelists Dr. Steven Ashby (Deputy Director for Science and Technology, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory), Shantenu Jha (Associate Director of Research Cyber infrastructure, Rutgers Discovery Informatics Institute), and Tony Elder (Deputy Police Chief, Charleston, South Carolina). Mr. Elder, the only panelist not directly involved in the analytics field was chosen because of the Charleston Police Department’s development of a “fusion center,” which is a groundbreaking way for police officers to acquire relevant data on areas they are patrolling and suspects they are tracking.