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.
On June 19th, the The House Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a hearing to learn about different approaches universities and nonprofit are taking to transfer the results of federally funded research. This “results transfer” is a product of the Bayh-Dole Act, which was passed in 1980 in order to allow universities, small businesses or non-profit institutions to pursue ownership of intellectual property that resulted from federally funded research.
The hearing covered a number of different areas of focus; reduction of barriers to commercialization, promotion of entrepreneurship in university systems, increasing collaboration between industry and innovators, and linking technology transfer to economic development.
Representative Judy Biggert (R-IL) opened the hearing with a prepared statement that highlighted the economic impacts of the transfer of knowledge from universities to the marketplace, and praised the Bayh-Dole Act for its role in the commercialization of a number of technological advances since its passage in 1980. Rep. Biggert also gave some history about the act, and made mention of the fact that it was passed during an economic recession not unlike the current one, and was originally intended to create jobs and increase US competitiveness through the commercialization of university inventions.
Dr. Todd Sherer, President of the Association of University Technology Managers who was the first to give testimony, praised the Bayh-Dole act as the international standard for technology transfer across the globe. Dr. Sherer emphasized that the Bayh-Dole act has been instrumental in bringing many important discoveries to the marketplace, and has spurred a significant return on investment for federally funded research.
Ms. Catherine Innes, who is the Director of the Office of Technology Development at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, gave testimony on how the Carolina Express License agreement has helped the university eliminate barriers to entry for start up companies and fast track them to the marketplace. “UNC focused on finding ways to make the license process faster, easier and more transparent so that the money a company did have could go towards getting the company up and running,” said Ms. Innes.
Mr. Ken Nisbet, Executive Director of the Office of Technology Transfer at the University of Michigan, testified that the University of Michigan has been successful in technology transfer by establishing close relationships with prospective funding partners and understanding the impacts of technology on the region surrounding the University. As a result, the University has been able to report over 300 new discoveries each year, 100 different agreements with industry partners annually, and spin out an average of one start up every five weeks.
Finally, Mr. Robert Rosenbaum, President and Executive Director of the Maryland Technology Development Corporation gave testimony about how university culture can often be an inherent cause of slow technology transfer. He mentioned a number of unnecessary rules and regulations that make it difficult for professors and researchers to bring their discoveries from the laboratory to the marketplace, and made it clear that in order to most effectively support technology transfer in universities, there must be incentives to go public, instead of barriers.
Chairman Ben Quayle’s (R-AZ) written testimony and the archived webcast of the hearing can be found here.
While the majority of the hearing focused on energy priorities and space science, STEM education and computing did get a share of the attention. In opening testimony and in subsequent answers to questions from several Committee members, Dr. Holdren addressed STEM education by discussing the Educate to Innovate program and the Change the Equation program to increase the number of students who are prepared for and want to study STEM fields in college.
Representative Biggert (R-IL), asked a computing specific question of Dr. Holdren. Rep. Biggert noted that the Administration announced earlier this year a Big Data R&D Initiative. While Rep. Biggert agreed that the research in big data was important, she noted that there needed to be a balance between that and the research into high performance computing in order to fully realize the potential of big data. Dr. Holdren agreed that the future of computing requires both investments in “big hardware” as well as big data and that there were also research efforts underway to reduce the energy needs of high performance computing.
Representative Edwards (D-MD) made a point to say that research isn’t done in stops and starts. She noted that the best thing Congress and the Administration could do would be to give researchers consistency in budgeting for research and that this would also be encouraging to students entering the STEM disciplines.
Dr. Holdren’s written testimony and the archived webcast of the hearing can be found here.
In February,we wrote about the President’s Budget Request for the Department of Energy (DOE) for FY2013, in which he requested an increase of 2.4 percent for that agency’s Office of Science (SCI) and a $456 million increase for SCI’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research program.
In early June, the House took its crack at the agency as part of its passage of the FY13 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, and the message was more decidedly mixed. Despite an allocation for the
E&W bill with room for $87.5 million more spending than FY 12, cuts fell on programs in the Office of Science and on the agency’s ARPA-E program. Overall, Office of Science would see a 1.5 percent decrease in FY13 in the House-approved plan compared to FY12. Within SCI, ASCR managed to hold its ground in the House bill, remaining essentially flat ($442 million) vs FY12 ($441 million…though, when inflation is considered, “essentially flat” means “was cut”). Still, ASCR fared better than the average SCI program and better than the Basic Energy Sciences account, for example, which saw a 1.8 percent cut compared to its FY12 level
Early numbers out of the Senate Appropriations Committee (the full Senate has not yet considered the bill, and likely won’t until after the November elections) are more positive. SCI would receive a 0.7 percent increase under the Senate plan, and ASCR would see 3.3 percent more than in FY13. The ARPA-E cuts approved by the House are completely reversed in the Senate Appropriator’s plan, with the office slated to receive an increase of $53 million (to $300 million in FY13), or a 21.6 percent increase.
There’s a long way to go before these funding levels are finally resolved. Most believe further appropriations actions are likely to be postponed until the lame duck congressional session following November’s elections. At that point, House and Senate conferees will have to meet to work out the differences between the two approaches. As we learned again last year, where that final number ends up is anybody’s guess.
But we’ll have all the details for you here!
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
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.
House Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation Holds Hearing on Bayh-Dole Act
/In: Policy, Research /by MelissaNorrOn June 19th, the The House Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation held a hearing to learn about different approaches universities and nonprofit are taking to transfer the results of federally funded research. This “results transfer” is a product of the Bayh-Dole Act, which was passed in 1980 in order to allow universities, small businesses or non-profit institutions to pursue ownership of intellectual property that resulted from federally funded research.
The hearing covered a number of different areas of focus; reduction of barriers to commercialization, promotion of entrepreneurship in university systems, increasing collaboration between industry and innovators, and linking technology transfer to economic development.
Representative Judy Biggert (R-IL) opened the hearing with a prepared statement that highlighted the economic impacts of the transfer of knowledge from universities to the marketplace, and praised the Bayh-Dole Act for its role in the commercialization of a number of technological advances since its passage in 1980. Rep. Biggert also gave some history about the act, and made mention of the fact that it was passed during an economic recession not unlike the current one, and was originally intended to create jobs and increase US competitiveness through the commercialization of university inventions.
Dr. Todd Sherer, President of the Association of University Technology Managers who was the first to give testimony, praised the Bayh-Dole act as the international standard for technology transfer across the globe. Dr. Sherer emphasized that the Bayh-Dole act has been instrumental in bringing many important discoveries to the marketplace, and has spurred a significant return on investment for federally funded research.
Ms. Catherine Innes, who is the Director of the Office of Technology Development at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, gave testimony on how the Carolina Express License agreement has helped the university eliminate barriers to entry for start up companies and fast track them to the marketplace. “UNC focused on finding ways to make the license process faster, easier and more transparent so that the money a company did have could go towards getting the company up and running,” said Ms. Innes.
Mr. Ken Nisbet, Executive Director of the Office of Technology Transfer at the University of Michigan, testified that the University of Michigan has been successful in technology transfer by establishing close relationships with prospective funding partners and understanding the impacts of technology on the region surrounding the University. As a result, the University has been able to report over 300 new discoveries each year, 100 different agreements with industry partners annually, and spin out an average of one start up every five weeks.
Finally, Mr. Robert Rosenbaum, President and Executive Director of the Maryland Technology Development Corporation gave testimony about how university culture can often be an inherent cause of slow technology transfer. He mentioned a number of unnecessary rules and regulations that make it difficult for professors and researchers to bring their discoveries from the laboratory to the marketplace, and made it clear that in order to most effectively support technology transfer in universities, there must be incentives to go public, instead of barriers.
Chairman Ben Quayle’s (R-AZ) written testimony and the archived webcast of the hearing can be found here.
OSTP Oversight Hearing
/In: Computing Education, Funding, Policy /by MelissaNorrDr. John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), testified at an oversight hearing of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee yesterday. In his testimony, Dr. Holdren spoke of the transformative nature of science and technology and its potential for economic growth but also its challenges for public policy.
While the majority of the hearing focused on energy priorities and space science, STEM education and computing did get a share of the attention. In opening testimony and in subsequent answers to questions from several Committee members, Dr. Holdren addressed STEM education by discussing the Educate to Innovate program and the Change the Equation program to increase the number of students who are prepared for and want to study STEM fields in college.
Representative Biggert (R-IL), asked a computing specific question of Dr. Holdren. Rep. Biggert noted that the Administration announced earlier this year a Big Data R&D Initiative. While Rep. Biggert agreed that the research in big data was important, she noted that there needed to be a balance between that and the research into high performance computing in order to fully realize the potential of big data. Dr. Holdren agreed that the future of computing requires both investments in “big hardware” as well as big data and that there were also research efforts underway to reduce the energy needs of high performance computing.
Representative Edwards (D-MD) made a point to say that research isn’t done in stops and starts. She noted that the best thing Congress and the Administration could do would be to give researchers consistency in budgeting for research and that this would also be encouraging to students entering the STEM disciplines.
Dr. Holdren’s written testimony and the archived webcast of the hearing can be found here.
House Passes Department of Energy Budget for FY 2013
/In: Funding, FY13 Appropriations /by MelissaNorrIn February,we wrote about the President’s Budget Request for the Department of Energy (DOE) for FY2013, in which he requested an increase of 2.4 percent for that agency’s Office of Science (SCI) and a $456 million increase for SCI’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research program.
In early June, the House took its crack at the agency as part of its passage of the FY13 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, and the message was more decidedly mixed. Despite an allocation for the
E&W bill with room for $87.5 million more spending than FY 12, cuts fell on programs in the Office of Science and on the agency’s ARPA-E program. Overall, Office of Science would see a 1.5 percent decrease in FY13 in the House-approved plan compared to FY12. Within SCI, ASCR managed to hold its ground in the House bill, remaining essentially flat ($442 million) vs FY12 ($441 million…though, when inflation is considered, “essentially flat” means “was cut”). Still, ASCR fared better than the average SCI program and better than the Basic Energy Sciences account, for example, which saw a 1.8 percent cut compared to its FY12 level
Early numbers out of the Senate Appropriations Committee (the full Senate has not yet considered the bill, and likely won’t until after the November elections) are more positive. SCI would receive a 0.7 percent increase under the Senate plan, and ASCR would see 3.3 percent more than in FY13. The ARPA-E cuts approved by the House are completely reversed in the Senate Appropriator’s plan, with the office slated to receive an increase of $53 million (to $300 million in FY13), or a 21.6 percent increase.
There’s a long way to go before these funding levels are finally resolved. Most believe further appropriations actions are likely to be postponed until the lame duck congressional session following November’s elections. At that point, House and Senate conferees will have to meet to work out the differences between the two approaches. As we learned again last year, where that final number ends up is anybody’s guess.
But we’ll have all the details for you here!