The bill is designed to ensure quality courses and teaching in computer science and computational thinking at the K-12 level. This includes assessing current computer science courses, creating teacher preparation programs, reviewing teacher certification, and implementing computer science standards, as well as addressing other issues at the state and district level.
The CSEA is supported by Computing in the Core, a coalition started to increase the presence of computing in K-12 education and of which CRA is a member. More information on the legislation can be found here.
It was a busy day on Capitol Hill yesterday for members of the computing research community as they worked to make the case to Congress of the importance of the federal investment in research from a couple of different angles. From one direction, a panel of current and former CRA board members joined the head of the National Coordinating Office for IT R&D (George Strawn) at a hearing of the Research and Science Education subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee to comment on the adequacy of the federal effort in IT research. CRA’s Computing Community Consortium Chair (and University of Washington CS professor) Edward Lazowska, current CCC council member and former Oracle Labs head Bob Sproull, and former CRA board member and current head of ACM’s Education Policy Committee Bobby Schnabel all carried the message to the subcommittee that the federal investment is critical to the overall IT ecosystem, and that the payoff from that investment has been extraordinary.
From another direction, computing research community members Luis von Ahn (from Carnegie Mellon) and Ben Bederson (from UMD) joined Physics Nobelist William Phillips and Texas Instruments Vice President of R&D Martin Izzard at a series of briefings for Members of Congress and their staffs intended to make the case for the federal investment in early-stage scientific research by telling the story of the federal role in some of the key technologies of the iPad. Called “Deconstructing the iPad: How Federally-Supported Research Leads to Game-Changing Innovation” the well-attended briefings sought to take an object familiar to most Members and staffers and show that it didn’t spring wholly from the minds of engineers at Apple, but that the key technologies that enable it all bear the clear stamp of federal support.
Both events were received very well and probably helped the case for computing generate a little more traction in Congress. We’ll break down the iPad event in the next post (though Pat Thibodeau has a bit of coverage of the event in Computerworld today). In this one, we’ll summarize yesterday’s hearing.
Lazowska, Sproull and Schnabel were all invited to testify to help the committee members, who have jurisdiction over the federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program — the ~$3.6 billion, 15 agency effort that comprises the federal investment in IT research — understand whether the program is delivering on its goals, or whether there are areas in which the federal government’s effort might better be directed. These sort of informational hearings — as opposed to a hearing focused on advancing a specific piece of legislation or a particular aspect of a program — are especially useful this Congress, as the membership of the Science, Space and Technology Committee is comprised in large part by freshmen members who are largely unfamiliar with the programs they oversee. Even the Chair of the Subcommittee, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), is serving in his first term — so the need for “educating” the members about the nature of the federal investment and its importance to the overall ecosystem is pretty crucial.
Lazowska began by noting the incredible pervasiveness of computing in our lives and it’s role in driving our economy, competitiveness, and in creating new industries and literally millions of new jobs. “Federal support is a key part of the vibrant ecosystem that drives IT innovation,” he said. “While the vast majority of industry R&D is focused on the engineering of the next release of products, it’s the role of Federally funded research to take the long view, creating the ideas that can later be turned into game-changers like the Internet, the Web browser and GPS.”
As the “industry” witness on the panel, Sproull amplified this point by noting that research funded by industry alone will not sustain the IT economy. “The explosive growth and dramatic advances in [the IT] sector over the last 50 years have depended on long-term research, mostly performed in academia and funded by the U.S. government. Industry works closely with academic researchers to harness their finding and expertise.”
Sproull also took a couple of minutes to detail for the subcommittee members the National Research Council’s “Tire Tracks” chart, which tries to illustrate some of the complex interactions between federally supported researchers and efforts in the private sector, making the point that federally supported research (usually in universities) doesn’t supplant industry research, there’s often a long lead time between the initial investments in fundamental research and the payoff in terms of a commercial product (though those products often turn into billion-dollar sectors of the economy), and that research often pays off in unexpected ways (another reason investments there aren’t attractive to industry).
Schnabel focused most of his comments on the computing workforce and education issues, in particular the need for the NITRD program to focus more attention on computer science education issues, especially K-12.
The panelists generally received a favorable reception from the Members in attendance. Chairman Brooks wanted the community to be mindful of the dire budget situation facing the country when they come to Congress asking for more money for Science. He made reference to a briefing he’d attended as a member of the Armed Services Committee in which he learned the devastating impact of some of the cuts proposed for the Defense Department — 1000s of defense contractors out of work, cuts to the naval fleet, etc. So, how ought we prioritize our spending?, he asked. Lazowska, in a moment of relative drama for the hearing, hopped on his iPhone and determined that the projected cost overrun of just one of the Navy’s submarines was equal to four years worth of spending in total at DARPA and NSF for computer science. And yet the payoff from that “rounding error” in the overall budget was extraordinary in its impact.
Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) was very supportive of the overall case, but raised concerns about the workforce issues in computing. Specifically, he raised concerns about whether we were training students now for jobs that might not exist in the future — either because the technology moves so fast or because companies were moving those jobs offshore. The panelists didn’t get much time to answer the questions (a vote was pending on the House floor), but brought up the generally optimistic projections for job growth in the sector — Lazowska testified that “the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that 60% of all new jobs in all fields of science and engineering in the current decade will be jobs for computer specialists – more than all of the physical sciences, all of the life sciences, all of the social sciences, and all other fields of engineering combined” — and Schnabel shared that demand for graduates, including those at his own institution, was exceptionally strong.
The committee seems interested in moving another version of a reauthorization bill for the NITRD program, especially now that PCAST has reviewed the program and come up with a series of recommendations. However, its unlikely anything will come of it this year. Lipinski suggested that he’d still like to push for something before the end of this Congress next year. As that process moves forward, we’ll have all the details.
Chick-fil-A and the iPad – what more could you want at lunch? Well, that’s exactly what the Task Force on American Innovation, along with Rep. Hultgren (R-IL), Rep. McCaul (R-TX), and Rep. Quayle (R-AZ), are offering at tomorrow’s briefing, “Deconstructing the iPad: How Federally Supported Research Leads to Game-Changing Innovation” in 2325 Rayburn at noon. Speakers include Luis von Ahn from Carnegie Mellon University, Martin Izzard from Texas Instruments, Nobel Laureate William Phillips from NIST, and Benjamin Bederson from University of Maryland. All the details are available here (PDF) along with the RSVP contact. This will be a widely attended event.
The Senate Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Committee has only just finished marking up their version of the CJS Appropriations bill, but the early word is that they’ve cut funding for the National Science Funding by a little over 2 percent for FY12 compared to FY11. Here’s their (brief) summary:
• The National Science Foundation (NSF) is funded at $6.7 billion, a reduction of $162 million or 2.4 percent below the FY2011 enacted level.
The House CJS Committee marked up its bill back in July, flat-funding the agency overall, but providing a slight boost to NSF’s Research and Related Activities account ($43 million). It’s not clear yet how the Senate plans to divvy up their cut, or whether they were able to protect the R&RA account in the same way. We’ll let you know right here when those details emerge.
Here at CRA World HQ, we’re looking for a Program Manager. Below is the official notice. If you or someone you know might be interested, please apply! Send applications and inquiries to employment@cra.org. The position will remain open until a suitable applicant is found!
Program Manager
This posting will expire on December 31, 2011.
Organization/Institution: Computing Research Association (CRA) Posted: August 25, 2011
CRA’s mission is to strengthen research and advance education in the computing fields, expand opportunities for women and minorities, and improve public and policymaker understanding of the importance of computing and computing research in our society.
The role of the Program Manager is to support the CRA in the development and execution of programs that benefit the computing community by increasing participation and diversity in computing research. Specific tasks include the following (not exhaustive):
Work with CRA volunteers to plan, design and implement new and existing programs.
Oversee, track and provide updates of all related activities (including assessment and evaluation of programs)
Plan and coordinate all aspects of telephone and in-person professional meetings, workshops and special events
Participate in committee and program meetings, on the phone and in person, traveling as required
Assist committee members in securing funding for various programs
Write proposals and reports, including the development and implementation of budgets
Manage all federal and foundation funding for committees
Facilitate communication between and among external and internal constituencies
Work closely with volunteers and the webmasters to develop promotional materials, newsletters and web content
Increase visibility of the organization through participation at conferences, development of promotional materials and collaborations with other groups
The selected candidate will work closely with the chairs of the CRA committees, particularly CRA-W, that he or she will support. This position requires the ability to work independently and with significant autonomy. Initiative, organization, maturity, accounting experience and judgment are vital to this position. The staff member must operate under pressure in a busy office and maintain comprehensive control of a multitude of projects simultaneously while pushing all projects to timely completion and providing continual updates on the status of each project to the appropriate stakeholders. Reliability and good communication skills are key requirements. A strong interest in computing research and its impacts is desired. Availability to travel offsite to various meetings is necessary.
This is not a research position. It is a position working with and supporting the computing research community.
Application Instructions
Desired background:
Experience working with a research community
Financial management and accounting experience in a non-profit environment; particularly experience with the National Science Foundation’s processes and procedures
Demonstrated organizational and communication skills
The Computing Research Association is an association of more than 200 North American academic departments of computer science, computer engineering, and related fields; laboratories and centers in industry, government, and academia engaging in basic computing research; and affiliated professional societies with a focus on enhancing the computing research environment. CRA offers an excellent benefits package and competitive salaries. For more information, see www.cra.org.
Here are words of unmistakable support for federal investments in basic research, even in tight budget times. Can you guess the President who uttered them?
Science has grown, and with it, the fascination it holds for all of us. But as the pursuit of science has become ever more nationally and even multinationally funded, it has also become more expensive. The problem here is that science, unlike a bridge or an interstate highway or a courthouse, has no local constituency. Today, when we’re witnessing some of the most exciting discoveries in the history of science, things similar to the breakthroughs associated with Einstein, Galileo, and Newton, Federal funding for science is in jeopardy because of budget constraints.
That’s why it’s my duty as President to draw its importance to your attention and that of Congress. America has long been the world’s scientific leader. Over the years, we’ve secured far more patents than any other country in the world. And since World War II, we have won more Nobel prizes for science than the Europeans and Japanese combined. We also support more of what is called basic research; that is, research meant to teach us rather than to invent or develop new products. And for the past 40 years, the Government has been our leading sponsor of basic research.
The remarkable thing is that although basic research does not begin with a particular practical goal, when you look at the results over the years, it ends up being one of the most practical things government does. … I think that over the past 50 years the Government has helped build a number of particle accelerators so scientists could study high energy physics. Major industries, including television, communications, and computer industries, couldn’t be where they are today without developments that began with this basic research.
We cannot know where scientific research will lead. The consequences and spin-offs are unknown and unknowable until they happen. In research, as Albert Einstein once said, imagination is more important than knowledge. We can travel wherever the eye of our imagination can see. But one thing is certain: If we don’t explore, others will, and we’ll fall behind. This is why I’ve urged Congress to devote more money to research. … It is an indispensable investment in America’s future.
…
Some say that we can’t afford it, that we’re too strapped for cash. Well, leadership means making hard choices, even in an election year. We’ve put our research budget under a microscope and looked for quality and cost effectiveness. We’ve put together the best program for the taxpayers’ dollars. After all, the American tradition of hope is one we can’t afford to forget.
The full House Committee on Appropriations today approved its version of the FY 12 Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill, which includes funding for the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We focused on some of the funding levels included in the bill in our last post. The committee also released the legislative report accompanying the bill, which provides some insight into the funding decisions made by the committee. Some highlights:
Despite funding levels well below the President’s requested increases for FY12, science agencies in the bill were still a high priority, according to the committee’s report:
In the context of reducing overall discretionary spending in this bill, the Committee’s funding recommendations focus resources on the areas of highest priority, reflecting the Committee’s assessment of national priorities and ongoing challenges.
Law Enforcement and National Security. …<snip>…
American innovation and competitiveness. As stated in the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report of the National Research Council, healthy levels of investment in scientific research are the key to long-term economic growth that exceeds population growth. These investments lead to innovation and improve the competitiveness of American businesses, leading, in turn, to positive impacts on the quality of life for all Americans. The bill includes $6.9 billion for the National Science Foundation, including an increase of $43 million above fiscal year 2011 for basic scientific research, and $701 million for research and standards work at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, including $128 million for Manufacturing Extension Partnerships to increase the competitiveness of the Nation’s manufacturers. An efficient patent process is also critical for innovation and economic growth. The bill provides $2.7 billion for the Patent and Trademark Office, the full estimate of fee collections for fiscal year 2012. Finally, the bill includes over $1 billion for science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programs across NSF, NASA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The committee also included $43 million in additional funding for NSF’s Research and Related Activities Account, one of the few accounts in the bill to receive an increase. The committee expects NSF to prioritize research on cybersecurity, cyber infrastructure and advanced manufacturing in FY 12, as well as place an emphasis on neuroscience. In addition, the committee reminds NSF that it has the authority to fund prize competitions to stimulate research and makes it clear that the $150 million the President requested to fund wireless research under the Wireless Innovation Fund won’t exist unless Congress passes separate legislation to authorize spectrum auctions. Here’s the verbiage:
Research priorities.—The National Science Foundation (NSF) can maximize the amount of money available in fiscal year 2012 for new activities by carrying out the various reduction and termination proposals contained in the R&RA budget request. The funds made available through these reductions and terminations, together with the increase provided by the Committee, will allow NSF to expand or enhance its activities across a range of research areas with significant impacts on national security or economic competitiveness. The Committee directs NSF to prioritize these new activities towards cybersecurity and cyberinfrastructure improvements; advanced manufacturing (as further discussed below); materials research; and disciplinary and interdisciplinary research in the natural and physical sciences, math and engineering.
Advanced manufacturing.—The Committee encourages NSF’s planned activities related to the Advanced Manufacturing initiative. Future economic prosperity in the United States will depend largely on our ability to develop and manufacture new products based on advanced technologies, both for the domestic market and for export. Basic research supported through the NSF and other Federal science agencies is critical to this effort because it will help provide the foundation for the development of such new products and technologies by the private sector.
…<snip>…
Wireless Innovation Fund.—NSF’s request included $150,000,000
of mandatory funding for research on access to the radio spectrum,
wireless testbeds and cyber-physical systems. This funding is dependent on legislation being enacted to authorize incentive auctions that would reallocate Federal agency and commercial spectrum bands over the next ten years.
As we mentioned in the last post, the funding level for NSF in this bill isn’t nearly as good as the President requested, but given the current fiscal uncertainty and the political climate for cutting discretionary spending to the bone, the fact that NSF and NIST fared as well as they did is evidence of the committee’s belief of the importance of federal support for research. We’ll see if the whole House follows suit when the bill makes its way to the floor.
The House Appropriations Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, Science today released its draft of the FY12 CJS appropriations bill, containing funding for the National Science Foundation at the same level the agency received in FY11. The bill totals over $50 billion for FY12 spending in programs at the Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, NASA, NSF, and other agencies — down $3 billion from FY11 levels, and down more than $7.4 billion from levels requested by the President for FY12. Though NSF holds ground compared to FY11, the committee’s plan for FY12 is well below the President’s requested levels for the agency ($907 million less). While not a good result for NSF — a “flat” budget is essentially a cut when inflation is factored in — it’s also not nearly as bad as it could have been given the current climate and cuts elsewhere within the bill. NASA, for example, would absorb a $1.6 billion cut vs. FY11, if the House appropriators plan is approved.
Though they flat-funded the agency overall, House appropriators included an increase to NSF’s core research account (R&RA) of $43 million compared to FY12 to “enhance basic research that is critical to innovation and U.S. economic competitiveness,” according to a statement released by the committee today. At the same time, the bill calls for cuts to both the Education and Human Resources directorate ($26 million vs. FY11) and Major Research Equipment and Facilities account ($17 million vs. FY11).
The subcommittee is set to mark up the bill tomorrow, where it may undergo further changes. We’ll have the details here as soon as we learn them.
In the meantime, the committee has prepared a summary chart featuring the funding levels contained in the bill for all the major programs, as well as a comparison to FY11 and the President’s FY12 Budget Request.
It’s worth noting that the CCC Robotics Roadmap is a core part of this new initiative and $70 million of the $500 million Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP) will go toward advancing robotics.
(Editor’s note: We’re pleased to have Max Cho, CRA’s Tisdale Fellow, working at CRA World HQ this summer. Max is a student at Yale with a keen interest in the intersection of technology and policy and will be posting frequently on the blog!)
At a subsequent briefing on university research and federal grants, one of the speakers mentioned that most scientists said the most important factor that inspired them to pursue research was excellent undergraduate research opportunities. Not the promise of fame or fortune, but of passion and opportunity. While this kind of anecdotal evidence is exactly that, it’s worth keeping in mind how federal grant monies can inspire young people: not by dangling a benjamin in front of their nose, but with the excitement of discovery.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
Computer Science Education Act Introduced
/In: Computing Education, Diversity in Computing, Policy /by MelissaNorrFollowing the theme of computing taking over the Hill this week, Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) and Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced the Computer Science Education Act (CSEA) yesterday. In the House, the bill is co-sponsored by Representative Bob Filner (D-CA), Representative James Langevin (D-RI), and Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-TX).
The bill is designed to ensure quality courses and teaching in computer science and computational thinking at the K-12 level. This includes assessing current computer science courses, creating teacher preparation programs, reviewing teacher certification, and implementing computer science standards, as well as addressing other issues at the state and district level.
The CSEA is supported by Computing in the Core, a coalition started to increase the presence of computing in K-12 education and of which CRA is a member. More information on the legislation can be found here.
Computing Community Takes Case to Hill
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC), CRA, Events, Policy /by Peter HarshaIt was a busy day on Capitol Hill yesterday for members of the computing research community as they worked to make the case to Congress of the importance of the federal investment in research from a couple of different angles. From one direction, a panel of current and former CRA board members joined the head of the National Coordinating Office for IT R&D (George Strawn) at a hearing of the Research and Science Education subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee to comment on the adequacy of the federal effort in IT research. CRA’s Computing Community Consortium Chair (and University of Washington CS professor) Edward Lazowska, current CCC council member and former Oracle Labs head Bob Sproull, and former CRA board member and current head of ACM’s Education Policy Committee Bobby Schnabel all carried the message to the subcommittee that the federal investment is critical to the overall IT ecosystem, and that the payoff from that investment has been extraordinary.
From another direction, computing research community members Luis von Ahn (from Carnegie Mellon) and Ben Bederson (from UMD) joined Physics Nobelist William Phillips and Texas Instruments Vice President of R&D Martin Izzard at a series of briefings for Members of Congress and their staffs intended to make the case for the federal investment in early-stage scientific research by telling the story of the federal role in some of the key technologies of the iPad. Called “Deconstructing the iPad: How Federally-Supported Research Leads to Game-Changing Innovation” the well-attended briefings sought to take an object familiar to most Members and staffers and show that it didn’t spring wholly from the minds of engineers at Apple, but that the key technologies that enable it all bear the clear stamp of federal support.
Both events were received very well and probably helped the case for computing generate a little more traction in Congress. We’ll break down the iPad event in the next post (though Pat Thibodeau has a bit of coverage of the event in Computerworld today). In this one, we’ll summarize yesterday’s hearing.
Lazowska, Sproull and Schnabel were all invited to testify to help the committee members, who have jurisdiction over the federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program — the ~$3.6 billion, 15 agency effort that comprises the federal investment in IT research — understand whether the program is delivering on its goals, or whether there are areas in which the federal government’s effort might better be directed. These sort of informational hearings — as opposed to a hearing focused on advancing a specific piece of legislation or a particular aspect of a program — are especially useful this Congress, as the membership of the Science, Space and Technology Committee is comprised in large part by freshmen members who are largely unfamiliar with the programs they oversee. Even the Chair of the Subcommittee, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), is serving in his first term — so the need for “educating” the members about the nature of the federal investment and its importance to the overall ecosystem is pretty crucial.
Lazowska began by noting the incredible pervasiveness of computing in our lives and it’s role in driving our economy, competitiveness, and in creating new industries and literally millions of new jobs. “Federal support is a key part of the vibrant ecosystem that drives IT innovation,” he said. “While the vast majority of industry R&D is focused on the engineering of the next release of products, it’s the role of Federally funded research to take the long view, creating the ideas that can later be turned into game-changers like the Internet, the Web browser and GPS.”
As the “industry” witness on the panel, Sproull amplified this point by noting that research funded by industry alone will not sustain the IT economy. “The explosive growth and dramatic advances in [the IT] sector over the last 50 years have depended on long-term research, mostly performed in academia and funded by the U.S. government. Industry works closely with academic researchers to harness their finding and expertise.”
Sproull also took a couple of minutes to detail for the subcommittee members the National Research Council’s “Tire Tracks” chart, which tries to illustrate some of the complex interactions between federally supported researchers and efforts in the private sector, making the point that federally supported research (usually in universities) doesn’t supplant industry research, there’s often a long lead time between the initial investments in fundamental research and the payoff in terms of a commercial product (though those products often turn into billion-dollar sectors of the economy), and that research often pays off in unexpected ways (another reason investments there aren’t attractive to industry).
Schnabel focused most of his comments on the computing workforce and education issues, in particular the need for the NITRD program to focus more attention on computer science education issues, especially K-12.
The panelists generally received a favorable reception from the Members in attendance. Chairman Brooks wanted the community to be mindful of the dire budget situation facing the country when they come to Congress asking for more money for Science. He made reference to a briefing he’d attended as a member of the Armed Services Committee in which he learned the devastating impact of some of the cuts proposed for the Defense Department — 1000s of defense contractors out of work, cuts to the naval fleet, etc. So, how ought we prioritize our spending?, he asked. Lazowska, in a moment of relative drama for the hearing, hopped on his iPhone and determined that the projected cost overrun of just one of the Navy’s submarines was equal to four years worth of spending in total at DARPA and NSF for computer science. And yet the payoff from that “rounding error” in the overall budget was extraordinary in its impact.
Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) was very supportive of the overall case, but raised concerns about the workforce issues in computing. Specifically, he raised concerns about whether we were training students now for jobs that might not exist in the future — either because the technology moves so fast or because companies were moving those jobs offshore. The panelists didn’t get much time to answer the questions (a vote was pending on the House floor), but brought up the generally optimistic projections for job growth in the sector — Lazowska testified that “the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that 60% of all new jobs in all fields of science and engineering in the current decade will be jobs for computer specialists – more than all of the physical sciences, all of the life sciences, all of the social sciences, and all other fields of engineering combined” — and Schnabel shared that demand for graduates, including those at his own institution, was exceptionally strong.
The committee seems interested in moving another version of a reauthorization bill for the NITRD program, especially now that PCAST has reviewed the program and come up with a series of recommendations. However, its unlikely anything will come of it this year. Lipinski suggested that he’d still like to push for something before the end of this Congress next year. As that process moves forward, we’ll have all the details.
Deconstructing the iPad
/In: Events, People, Policy, Research /by MelissaNorrChick-fil-A and the iPad – what more could you want at lunch? Well, that’s exactly what the Task Force on American Innovation, along with Rep. Hultgren (R-IL), Rep. McCaul (R-TX), and Rep. Quayle (R-AZ), are offering at tomorrow’s briefing, “Deconstructing the iPad: How Federally Supported Research Leads to Game-Changing Innovation” in 2325 Rayburn at noon. Speakers include Luis von Ahn from Carnegie Mellon University, Martin Izzard from Texas Instruments, Nobel Laureate William Phillips from NIST, and Benjamin Bederson from University of Maryland. All the details are available here (PDF) along with the RSVP contact. This will be a widely attended event.
NSF Cut in Senate FY12 Approps Bill
/In: Funding, FY12 Appropriations, Research /by Peter HarshaThe Senate Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Committee has only just finished marking up their version of the CJS Appropriations bill, but the early word is that they’ve cut funding for the National Science Funding by a little over 2 percent for FY12 compared to FY11. Here’s their (brief) summary:
The House CJS Committee marked up its bill back in July, flat-funding the agency overall, but providing a slight boost to NSF’s Research and Related Activities account ($43 million). It’s not clear yet how the Senate plans to divvy up their cut, or whether they were able to protect the R&RA account in the same way. We’ll let you know right here when those details emerge.
We Want You! – CRA is Hiring!
/In: CRA, People /by Peter HarshaHere at CRA World HQ, we’re looking for a Program Manager. Below is the official notice. If you or someone you know might be interested, please apply! Send applications and inquiries to employment@cra.org. The position will remain open until a suitable applicant is found!
Guess the President! A Defense of Basic Research
/In: Funding, FY12 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaHere are words of unmistakable support for federal investments in basic research, even in tight budget times. Can you guess the President who uttered them?
Give up?
(via Barry Toiv at AAU)
More Detail on Science Funding in House CJS Bill
/In: Funding, FY12 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaThe full House Committee on Appropriations today approved its version of the FY 12 Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill, which includes funding for the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We focused on some of the funding levels included in the bill in our last post. The committee also released the legislative report accompanying the bill, which provides some insight into the funding decisions made by the committee. Some highlights:
As we mentioned in the last post, the funding level for NSF in this bill isn’t nearly as good as the President requested, but given the current fiscal uncertainty and the political climate for cutting discretionary spending to the bone, the fact that NSF and NIST fared as well as they did is evidence of the committee’s belief of the importance of federal support for research. We’ll see if the whole House follows suit when the bill makes its way to the floor.
NSF Flat-funded in House FY12 Approps Draft
/In: Funding, FY12 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaThough they flat-funded the agency overall, House appropriators included an increase to NSF’s core research account (R&RA) of $43 million compared to FY12 to “enhance basic research that is critical to innovation and U.S. economic competitiveness,” according to a statement released by the committee today. At the same time, the bill calls for cuts to both the Education and Human Resources directorate ($26 million vs. FY11) and Major Research Equipment and Facilities account ($17 million vs. FY11).
The subcommittee is set to mark up the bill tomorrow, where it may undergo further changes. We’ll have the details here as soon as we learn them.
In the meantime, the committee has prepared a summary chart featuring the funding levels contained in the bill for all the major programs, as well as a comparison to FY11 and the President’s FY12 Budget Request.
National Robotics Initiative Announced
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC), Funding /by MelissaNorrOur colleague, Erwin Gianchandani, has written a great piece on the President’s announcement on robotics and advanced manufacturing over at the CCC blog.
It’s worth noting that the CCC Robotics Roadmap is a core part of this new initiative and $70 million of the $500 million Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP) will go toward advancing robotics.
American Innovation, a day in the House
/In: Computing Education /by MelissaNorr(Editor’s note: We’re pleased to have Max Cho, CRA’s Tisdale Fellow, working at CRA World HQ this summer. Max is a student at Yale with a keen interest in the intersection of technology and policy and will be posting frequently on the blog!)
This morning I attended the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology hearing on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education.
One of the hearing’s themes was how to motivate students to study science. Motivation’s a tricky business, especially for young students: the payoffs are distant, and high-level thinking tasks have a negative correlation between payoff and effective learning. For whatever reason, engineering, while perceived as a worthwhile and high paying profession, isn’t motivating enough students to pursue it to meet industry demand.
At a subsequent briefing on university research and federal grants, one of the speakers mentioned that most scientists said the most important factor that inspired them to pursue research was excellent undergraduate research opportunities. Not the promise of fame or fortune, but of passion and opportunity. While this kind of anecdotal evidence is exactly that, it’s worth keeping in mind how federal grant monies can inspire young people: not by dangling a benjamin in front of their nose, but with the excitement of discovery.