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.
On Monday, the Business Higher Education Forum (BHEF) held an event on Capitol Hill to announce the launch of a dozen regional partnerships between undergraduate institutions and businesses to increase the research and workforce in key areas specific to the region. The partnerships are located in California, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Six of the twelve partnerships focus on information technology with several emphasizing cybersecurity. The others address health care, energy, and environmental concerns. All of the partnerships are in keeping with the overarching goal of increasing the number of undergraduates who pursue and obtain a degree in a STEM field, particularly a field that the industry in the region is seeking.
Information on each of the twelve partnerships can be found here.
David Forsyth and his research display for CRA's booth
David Forsyth, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, ably represented CRA last night at the Coalition for National Science Funding Science Exhibition on Capitol Hill. Featuring a poster and computer slideshow of his research on inserting synthetic objects into legacy photographs, David spoke to Congressional and Senate staff members, National Science Foundation employees, students and lobbyists who were all fascinated by his research and presentation.
Demonstrations of David’s research are available online as a video.
Three out of every four people who were asked to identify the real photograph from the computer-generated photograph were unable to correctly identify the real one. Many were intrigued by the possible applications of the research from the benign to the more sinister possibilities. Several said they would never look at a photograph the same way again.
House Science, Space, and Technology Committee staff member Chris O'Leary listens to David's research explanation
The Exhibition, an annual science fair for Congress and staff, had 35 booths manned by researchers representing universities and scientific societies featuring some of the important research funded by the National Science Foundation.
The Washington Post has a great write-up of an event on April 25th put on by an alliance of academic and scientific societies and a bi-partisan group of Congressmen that sought to highlight the incredible payoff of research that “may once have been viewed as unusual, odd, or obscure.” The event, called the Golden Goose Awards, is a spin on the long-running “Golden Fleece Awards” started by Sen. William Proxmire (D-WI) back in the mid-1970s, which Proxmire used to highlight what he thought was particularly egregious examples of wasteful federal spending. (Last year, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), launched a similarly themed attack on the National Science Foundation, mocking the agency for funding research into towel-folding robots and shrimp on treadmills, among other examples.) Instead, these Members took to the podium to cite examples of odd sounding research that produced enormous payoff. From the article:
Federally-funded research of dog urine ultimately gave scientists and understanding of the effect of hormones on the human kidney, which in turn has been helpful for diabetes patients. A study called “Acoustic Trauma in the Guinea Pig” resulted in treatment of early hearing loss in infants. And that randy screwworm study? It helped researchers control the population of a deadly parasite that targets cattle–costing the government $250,000 but ultimately saving the cattle industry more than $20 billion, according to [Rep. Jim] Cooper’s [(D-TN)] office.
Cooper was joined by Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL), Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA), and Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) in standing up for odd-sounding science — hardly a collection of free-spending Members.
Cooper himself can’t be accused of being a free-spending liberal:As a member of the Blue Dog Caucus that sponsored the Simpson-Bowles plan on the House floor, his own deficit reduction proposals have garnered praise from prominent fiscal conservatives. The two House Republicans who helped him unveil the Golden Goose Awards–named after Aesop’s fable of “the goose that laid the golden egg”– also voted for Sen. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) most recent budget. But the congressmen stress that federal money spent on basic scientific research is well worth the upfront investment.
“When we invest in science, we also invest in jobs. Research and development is a key part to any healthy economy,” said Rep. Robert Dold (R-Ill.) at Wednesday’s press conference. “It’s critical, and the federal government has an important role to play,” said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Penn.), who described how injecting horses with snake venom might “seem peculiar” but led to the discovery of the first anti-venom.
The group also wants their colleagues–and the broader public–to understand that investing in science means that the research failures are part of the process, as well. “There has never been a scientific project with guaranteed success…a single breakthrough can counter a thousand failures,” says Cooper.
A good counter to Proxmire and Coburn, and just what Congress needs to hear as they figure out how to prioritize the cuts required to tame the federal deficit. Read the whole article.
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees have just released their drafts (House – Senate) of the FY2013 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill, and the numbers look pretty decent for NSF and NIST.
Short version: NSF would see an increase of 4.3 percent overall in FY13; NIST would see increases of $54-56 million to its core research accounts; NASA would see cuts.
Here are the slightly more detailed summaries (House – Senate):
On NSF, from the House —
National Science Foundation (NSF) – The legislation funds NSF at $7.3 billion, which is $299 million above fiscal year 2012 and $41 million below the President’s request. NSF’s entire increase is provided to core research and education activities, which are critical to innovation and U.S. economic competitiveness, including funding for an advanced manufacturing science initiative and for research in cyber-security and cyber-infrastructure.
That’s a 4.3 percent increase over FY12, 1 percent less than the President’s Budget Request. NSF’s Research and Related Activities Account would receive a 4.5 percent increase in the bill.
From the Senate —
National Science Foundation (NSF) — The National Science Foundation (NSF) is funded at $7.3 billion, an increase of $240 million above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
Same overall level.
On NIST, from the House —
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) – NIST is funded at $830 million in the bill, which is $79 million above fiscal year 2012 and $27 million below the President’s request. Within this total, important core research activities to help advance U.S. competitiveness, innovation, and economic growth are increased by $54 million above fiscal year 2012. In addition, the bill includes $128 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program – which provides training and technical assistance to U.S. manufacturers – and $21 million for an Advanced Manufacturing competitive research initiative.
From the Senate —
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) – NIST is funded at $826 million, which is $75 million above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The bill provides an increase of $56 million for NIST’s laboratories and technical research while maintaining strong support with industry partners including $128.5 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and $14.5 million for the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech)
So, both have healthy increases for NIST core research.
NASA doesn’t fare as well in the House. On NASA, from the House —
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – NASA is funded at $17.6 billion in the bill, which is $226 million below fiscal year 2012 and $138 million below the President’s request. This funding includes:
$3.7 billion for Exploration – $59 million below fiscal year 2012. This includes funding to keep NASA on schedule for upcoming Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and Space Launch System flight milestones and to maintain progress in a reconfigured commercial crew program.
$4 billion for Space Operations – $249 million below fiscal year 2012. The legislation will continue the closeout of the Space Shuttle program for a savings of $503 million.
$5.1 billion for NASA Science programs – $5 million above fiscal year 2012. This includes $1.4 billion for planetary science to ensure the continuation of critical research and development programs that were imperiled by the President’s request. This also includes $628 million, as requested, for the James Webb Space Telescope.
NASA research also sees cuts in the Senate bill —
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is funded at $19.4 billion, an increase of $1.6 billion over the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The large increase results from a reorganization of operational weather satellite procurement from NOAA into NASA. Without the funds for weather satellite procurement, this level represents a $41.5 million cut from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
The bill provides $5 billion for Science which is $69 million less than fiscal year 2012. Within Science, the bill restores $100 million of a proposed cut to robotic Mars science programs, resulting in a total of $461 million for Mars robotic science.
So, on the whole, good news for the agencies we care most about in this bill, except for NASA. The bills have some marked differences in the way they treat other programs in the bill — NOAA satellites paid for by NASA, for example and differences in the way some Dept of Justice programs are funded — that might cause some rejiggering of funding levels as these bills go to the floor and into conference. But it’s always better to start with a big-ish number and work from there, rather than starting with a smaller number. Also important is the verbiage used by both committees in summarizing the increases. Our arguments about the importance of NSF and NIST in promoting US innovation and competitiveness still resonate loudly with both sides of the aisle.
Enrollments in undergraduate computer science programs rose 9.6 percent in the 2011-12 school year, the fourth straight year of increase, according to new data released today by the Computing Research Association.
The data, found in the CRA Taulbee Survey report Computing Degree and Enrollment Trends, 2010-2011, compares schools that responded to both this year’s survey and last. Overall enrollment — including schools that did not participate in the survey last year — increased by 11.5 percent per department compared to the 2010-11 school year. The report also suggests that student interest in computer science may even be higher than the enrollment statistics indicate, noting that enrollments at some schools are constrained by enrollment caps in computer science departments. Free of these caps, in place because of faculty or infrastructure limitations, the report suggests that enrollments might have reflected even larger increases.
The number of bachelors degrees in computer science awarded by U.S. schools also increased by 10.5 percent in the 2010-11 school year, according to the report. Among schools who responded to both year’s surveys, the increase was 12.9 percent.
Total Ph.D. production in computing programs held steady in 2010-11, with 1,782 degrees granted.
The CRA Taulbee Survey is conducted annually by the Computing Research Association to document trends in student enrollment, degree production, employment of graduates, and faculty salaries in academic units in the United States and Canada that grant the Ph.D. in computer science (CS), computer engineering (CE) or information (I). CRA today released its Computing Degrees and Enrollment Trends, 2010-2011 report. The full Taulbee dataset will be released to the public in May and published in CRA’s Computing Research News.
Wired News’ Noah Shactman has an exclusive today on DARPA Director Regina Dugan’s announcement that she will be leaving the agency she’s helmed for three years to take a senior executive level position at Google. Here’s a snippet:
Darpa director Regina Dugan will soon be stepping down from her position atop the Pentagon’s premiere research shop to take a job with Google. Dugan, whose controversial tenure at the agency lasted just under three years, was “offered and accepted at senior executive position” with the internet giant, according to Darpa spokesman Eric Mazzacone. She felt she couldn’t say no to such an “innovative company,” he adds.
Current Deputy Director Ken Gabriel is expected to take on the interim Director role and is a good bet to take on the permanent role, though IARPA head Lisa Porter could also be considered, according to Shactman.
Dugan is responsible for changing a number of policies at the agency that often limited academic researchers from participating in DARPA-sponsored research, including removing the requirement for “go/no-go” decisions on all research and publication pre-clearance review (except in exceptional cases of national security). Dugan also promised the agency would be more cautious in its use of classification and would revamp the proposal process to give office directors and program managers more authority to pursue promising research, and by most indications, has followed through. It’s hard to imagine that Gabriel, who is well known to the academic community having been a professor of electrical and computer engineering and robotics at Carnegie Mellon, wouldn’t continue those policies under his tenure.
As we noted yesterday, science agencies were among the winners in the President’s budget request. The National Science Foundation “fared very well,” according to Director Subra Suresh, garnering an increase in the President’s plan of $340 million or nearly 5 percent compared to FY 12 final levels. Computing research, in particular, did even better. The agency’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering directorate (CISE) — the home for fundamental computing research at the agency — would see an increase of 8.6 percent in the President’s plan, the highest percentage increase among all the major science directorates.
How does computing warrant this seemingly preferential treatment? In large part, the reason lies with the agency’s new priorities — a suite of mostly-new initiatives announced by Suresh under what he called the new “OneNSF Framework.” In each, computing plays a key, or even foundational, role:
Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems (CEMMS) — $247 million across the foundation, including $91 million in CISE;
Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science and Engineering (CIF21) — $106 million NSF-wide, $16 million in CISE;
Expeditions in Education (E2) — $49 million NSF-wide, $4 million in CISE;
NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) — $19 million NSF-wide, $6 million in CISE;
Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and Education (INSPIRE) — $63 million NSF-wide, $4 million in CISE;
Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC) — $110 million NSF-wide, $69 million in CISE;
Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) — $203 million NSF-wide, $11.5 million in CISE.
While some of this funding represents research already funded under different programs — for example, CISE already supports research in CEMMS through the ongoing work in Cyber-physical Systems National Robotics Initiative, as well as through the now discontinued Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation program — much of it is new money for the directorate. In addition, the directorate is funneling $17 million from three programs that have ended (Network Science and Engineering (NetSE), Social-Computational Systems, and the Interface between Computer Science and Economic and Social Sciences (ICES), into core CISE research areas. This process of identifying new initiatives, securing new funding for them, letting them run their course, then ending them and folding that money back into the CISE core is key to growing the CISE budget, and really the Foundation budget, over time.
So what do the newly announced OneNSF initiatives mean for CISE and computing researchers? Here’s how they break down:
Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems (CEMMS) — The overall goal of CEMMS is to accelerate advances in 21st century smart engineered systems — systems that sense, respond, and adapt to the environment. CISE, partnering with NSF’s Biological Sciences, Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, and Office of Cyber Infrastructure, hopes to establish the scientific basis for engineered systems interdependent with physical world and social systems, model and simulate them in full complexity and dynamics, and develop a technology framework. In doing so, they’ll leverage ongoing research in their CPS and NRI activities.
Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science and Engineering (CIF21) — Aims to accelerate the progress of scientific discovery and innovation. CISE’s contributions include investments in Advanced Computational Infrastructure (ACI) — foundational research in parallelism and concurrency, as well as distributed systems at scale — and to advance big data science and engineering through foundational research in managing, analyzing, visualizing and extracting useful information from large data sets.
Expeditions in Education (E2) — The goal across the Foundation is to integrate, leverage and expand STEM education. CISE hopes to focus on transforming undergraduate STEM learning though science and engineering, learning and understanding sustainability, and cyberlearning, data and observations for STEM education. CISE hopes to leverage their cross-directorate program in Cyberlearning (wit EHR, SBE, OCI), to design ways that innovative tools can be effectively integrated into learning, understand how people learn with technology, and implement new technologies into learning environments in way so that their potential is fulfilled.
NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) — The Foundation goal is to accelerate innovations from the lab to the market, and as one of the founding directorates in the effort, CISE plans to continue its efforts to show high-impact results from a relatively modest investment ($6 million).
Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and Education (INSPIRE) — Aims to catalyze interdisciplinary research.
Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC) — A cross-directorate (CISE, EHR, ENG, MPS, OCI, SBE) effort to “build a cybersecure society and provide a strong competitive edge in the Nation’s ability to produce high-quiality digital systems and a well-trained cybersecurity workforce.” The program includes a solicitation that addresses cybersecurity from trustworthy computing systems; social, behavioral and economics; and addressing the transition to practice perspective. It also includes the ongoing Scholarship for Service (SFS) program designed to increase the number of qualified students entering the cyber security field.
Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) — This ongoing program aims to inform the societal actions needed for environmental and economic sustainability and sustainable human well-being. CISE sees multiple roles for computer science in SEES, including in questions of monitoring, data, scalability, addressing complexity, and behavior modeling and change, and is funding $11.5 million in research in response.
In addition to the cross-agency priorities, CISE maintains a number of CISE-level cross-cutting programs, including the Expeditions in Computing program (see this recent post on the CCC Blog), the Computing Education for the 21st Century program (which includes CISE efforts in computing education, research on teaching and learning, and broadening participation), Smart Health and Wellbeing, Enhancing Access to the Radio Spectrum (EARS), and Mid-scale Research Infrastructure, which includes increasing the “GENI footprint” and pushing ahead with US Ignite.
Finally, in his detailed briefing on the CISE directorate yesterday, CISE AD Farnam Jahanian stressed that while there’s a focus on the initiatives on this budget, the net result for the CISE “core” research areas is very positive. Put simply, as CISE grows, so grows the CISE core. And CISE will continue to grow as long as computing continues to stay relevant to national priorities and the priorities of the Foundation. Even in difficult budget climes….
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
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!
BHEF Launches Regional Industry-Academic Partnerships
/In: Computing Education, Diversity in Computing /by MelissaNorrOn Monday, the Business Higher Education Forum (BHEF) held an event on Capitol Hill to announce the launch of a dozen regional partnerships between undergraduate institutions and businesses to increase the research and workforce in key areas specific to the region. The partnerships are located in California, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Six of the twelve partnerships focus on information technology with several emphasizing cybersecurity. The others address health care, energy, and environmental concerns. All of the partnerships are in keeping with the overarching goal of increasing the number of undergraduates who pursue and obtain a degree in a STEM field, particularly a field that the industry in the region is seeking.
Information on each of the twelve partnerships can be found here.
CNSF Science Exhibition on Hill
/In: CRA, Events, People, Research /by MelissaNorrDavid Forsyth and his research display for CRA's booth
David Forsyth, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, ably represented CRA last night at the Coalition for National Science Funding Science Exhibition on Capitol Hill. Featuring a poster and computer slideshow of his research on inserting synthetic objects into legacy photographs, David spoke to Congressional and Senate staff members, National Science Foundation employees, students and lobbyists who were all fascinated by his research and presentation.
Three out of every four people who were asked to identify the real photograph from the computer-generated photograph were unable to correctly identify the real one. Many were intrigued by the possible applications of the research from the benign to the more sinister possibilities. Several said they would never look at a photograph the same way again.
House Science, Space, and Technology Committee staff member Chris O'Leary listens to David's research explanation
The Exhibition, an annual science fair for Congress and staff, had 35 booths manned by researchers representing universities and scientific societies featuring some of the important research funded by the National Science Foundation.
Members of Congress Defend “Frivolous-sounding” Research That Really Pays Off at “Golden Goose Awards”
/In: Funding, Policy, R&D in the Press /by Peter HarshaScrewworm Larvae
The Washington Post has a great write-up of an event on April 25th put on by an alliance of academic and scientific societies and a bi-partisan group of Congressmen that sought to highlight the incredible payoff of research that “may once have been viewed as unusual, odd, or obscure.” The event, called the Golden Goose Awards, is a spin on the long-running “Golden Fleece Awards” started by Sen. William Proxmire (D-WI) back in the mid-1970s, which Proxmire used to highlight what he thought was particularly egregious examples of wasteful federal spending. (Last year, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), launched a similarly themed attack on the National Science Foundation, mocking the agency for funding research into towel-folding robots and shrimp on treadmills, among other examples.) Instead, these Members took to the podium to cite examples of odd sounding research that produced enormous payoff. From the article:
Cooper was joined by Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL), Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA), and Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) in standing up for odd-sounding science — hardly a collection of free-spending Members.
A good counter to Proxmire and Coburn, and just what Congress needs to hear as they figure out how to prioritize the cuts required to tame the federal deficit. Read the whole article.
NSF, NIST Fare OK in First FY13 Spending Bill Drafts
/In: Funding, FY13 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaThe House and Senate Appropriations Committees have just released their drafts (House – Senate) of the FY2013 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill, and the numbers look pretty decent for NSF and NIST.
Short version: NSF would see an increase of 4.3 percent overall in FY13; NIST would see increases of $54-56 million to its core research accounts; NASA would see cuts.
Here are the slightly more detailed summaries (House – Senate):
On NSF, from the House —
That’s a 4.3 percent increase over FY12, 1 percent less than the President’s Budget Request. NSF’s Research and Related Activities Account would receive a 4.5 percent increase in the bill.
From the Senate —
Same overall level.
On NIST, from the House —
From the Senate —
So, both have healthy increases for NIST core research.
NASA doesn’t fare as well in the House. On NASA, from the House —
NASA research also sees cuts in the Senate bill —
So, on the whole, good news for the agencies we care most about in this bill, except for NASA. The bills have some marked differences in the way they treat other programs in the bill — NOAA satellites paid for by NASA, for example and differences in the way some Dept of Justice programs are funded — that might cause some rejiggering of funding levels as these bills go to the floor and into conference. But it’s always better to start with a big-ish number and work from there, rather than starting with a smaller number. Also important is the verbiage used by both committees in summarizing the increases. Our arguments about the importance of NSF and NIST in promoting US innovation and competitiveness still resonate loudly with both sides of the aisle.
More details as they become available!
Undergrad Computer Science Enrollments Rise for Fourth Straight Year — CRA Taulbee Report
/In: Computing Education, CRA, Diversity in Computing, People /by Peter HarshaEnrollments in undergraduate computer science programs rose 9.6 percent in the 2011-12 school year, the fourth straight year of increase, according to new data released today by the Computing Research Association.
The data, found in the CRA Taulbee Survey report Computing Degree and Enrollment Trends, 2010-2011, compares schools that responded to both this year’s survey and last. Overall enrollment — including schools that did not participate in the survey last year — increased by 11.5 percent per department compared to the 2010-11 school year. The report also suggests that student interest in computer science may even be higher than the enrollment statistics indicate, noting that enrollments at some schools are constrained by enrollment caps in computer science departments. Free of these caps, in place because of faculty or infrastructure limitations, the report suggests that enrollments might have reflected even larger increases.
The number of bachelors degrees in computer science awarded by U.S. schools also increased by 10.5 percent in the 2010-11 school year, according to the report. Among schools who responded to both year’s surveys, the increase was 12.9 percent.
Total Ph.D. production in computing programs held steady in 2010-11, with 1,782 degrees granted.
The CRA Taulbee Survey is conducted annually by the Computing Research Association to document trends in student enrollment, degree production, employment of graduates, and faculty salaries in academic units in the United States and Canada that grant the Ph.D. in computer science (CS), computer engineering (CE) or information (I). CRA today released its Computing Degrees and Enrollment Trends, 2010-2011 report. The full Taulbee dataset will be released to the public in May and published in CRA’s Computing Research News.
DARPA Director Dugan to Leave Agency for Google
/In: General /by Peter HarshaWired News’ Noah Shactman has an exclusive today on DARPA Director Regina Dugan’s announcement that she will be leaving the agency she’s helmed for three years to take a senior executive level position at Google. Here’s a snippet:
Current Deputy Director Ken Gabriel is expected to take on the interim Director role and is a good bet to take on the permanent role, though IARPA head Lisa Porter could also be considered, according to Shactman.
Dugan is responsible for changing a number of policies at the agency that often limited academic researchers from participating in DARPA-sponsored research, including removing the requirement for “go/no-go” decisions on all research and publication pre-clearance review (except in exceptional cases of national security). Dugan also promised the agency would be more cautious in its use of classification and would revamp the proposal process to give office directors and program managers more authority to pursue promising research, and by most indications, has followed through. It’s hard to imagine that Gabriel, who is well known to the academic community having been a professor of electrical and computer engineering and robotics at Carnegie Mellon, wouldn’t continue those policies under his tenure.
We’ll have more detail as it’s available.
Budget Drilldown FY13: National Science Foundation
/In: Funding, FY13 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaAs we noted yesterday, science agencies were among the winners in the President’s budget request. The National Science Foundation “fared very well,” according to Director Subra Suresh, garnering an increase in the President’s plan of $340 million or nearly 5 percent compared to FY 12 final levels. Computing research, in particular, did even better. The agency’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering directorate (CISE) — the home for fundamental computing research at the agency — would see an increase of 8.6 percent in the President’s plan, the highest percentage increase among all the major science directorates.
How does computing warrant this seemingly preferential treatment? In large part, the reason lies with the agency’s new priorities — a suite of mostly-new initiatives announced by Suresh under what he called the new “OneNSF Framework.” In each, computing plays a key, or even foundational, role:
While some of this funding represents research already funded under different programs — for example, CISE already supports research in CEMMS through the ongoing work in Cyber-physical Systems National Robotics Initiative, as well as through the now discontinued Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation program — much of it is new money for the directorate. In addition, the directorate is funneling $17 million from three programs that have ended (Network Science and Engineering (NetSE), Social-Computational Systems, and the Interface between Computer Science and Economic and Social Sciences (ICES), into core CISE research areas. This process of identifying new initiatives, securing new funding for them, letting them run their course, then ending them and folding that money back into the CISE core is key to growing the CISE budget, and really the Foundation budget, over time.
So what do the newly announced OneNSF initiatives mean for CISE and computing researchers? Here’s how they break down:
Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems (CEMMS) — The overall goal of CEMMS is to accelerate advances in 21st century smart engineered systems — systems that sense, respond, and adapt to the environment. CISE, partnering with NSF’s Biological Sciences, Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, and Office of Cyber Infrastructure, hopes to establish the scientific basis for engineered systems interdependent with physical world and social systems, model and simulate them in full complexity and dynamics, and develop a technology framework. In doing so, they’ll leverage ongoing research in their CPS and NRI activities.
Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science and Engineering (CIF21) — Aims to accelerate the progress of scientific discovery and innovation. CISE’s contributions include investments in Advanced Computational Infrastructure (ACI) — foundational research in parallelism and concurrency, as well as distributed systems at scale — and to advance big data science and engineering through foundational research in managing, analyzing, visualizing and extracting useful information from large data sets.
Expeditions in Education (E2) — The goal across the Foundation is to integrate, leverage and expand STEM education. CISE hopes to focus on transforming undergraduate STEM learning though science and engineering, learning and understanding sustainability, and cyberlearning, data and observations for STEM education. CISE hopes to leverage their cross-directorate program in Cyberlearning (wit EHR, SBE, OCI), to design ways that innovative tools can be effectively integrated into learning, understand how people learn with technology, and implement new technologies into learning environments in way so that their potential is fulfilled.
NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) — The Foundation goal is to accelerate innovations from the lab to the market, and as one of the founding directorates in the effort, CISE plans to continue its efforts to show high-impact results from a relatively modest investment ($6 million).
Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and Education (INSPIRE) — Aims to catalyze interdisciplinary research.
Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC) — A cross-directorate (CISE, EHR, ENG, MPS, OCI, SBE) effort to “build a cybersecure society and provide a strong competitive edge in the Nation’s ability to produce high-quiality digital systems and a well-trained cybersecurity workforce.” The program includes a solicitation that addresses cybersecurity from trustworthy computing systems; social, behavioral and economics; and addressing the transition to practice perspective. It also includes the ongoing Scholarship for Service (SFS) program designed to increase the number of qualified students entering the cyber security field.
Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) — This ongoing program aims to inform the societal actions needed for environmental and economic sustainability and sustainable human well-being. CISE sees multiple roles for computer science in SEES, including in questions of monitoring, data, scalability, addressing complexity, and behavior modeling and change, and is funding $11.5 million in research in response.
In addition to the cross-agency priorities, CISE maintains a number of CISE-level cross-cutting programs, including the Expeditions in Computing program (see this recent post on the CCC Blog), the Computing Education for the 21st Century program (which includes CISE efforts in computing education, research on teaching and learning, and broadening participation), Smart Health and Wellbeing, Enhancing Access to the Radio Spectrum (EARS), and Mid-scale Research Infrastructure, which includes increasing the “GENI footprint” and pushing ahead with US Ignite.
Finally, in his detailed briefing on the CISE directorate yesterday, CISE AD Farnam Jahanian stressed that while there’s a focus on the initiatives on this budget, the net result for the CISE “core” research areas is very positive. Put simply, as CISE grows, so grows the CISE core. And CISE will continue to grow as long as computing continues to stay relevant to national priorities and the priorities of the Foundation. Even in difficult budget climes….