The COMPETES bill we discussed yesterday just got derailed – at the moment it’s just temporary, but it’s unclear how it goes forward from this point. Republican Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-TX) introduced a “Motion to Recommit with Instructions” that, to just about everyone’s surprise, passed. The motion has had the effect of forcing the Democrats to pull COMPETES from the floor without a vote on final passage, though they suggest it might come back next week.
In short, the motion to recommit with instructions sends the bill back to the committee from whence it came with instructions to amend it in specific ways. In this case, the instructions were to cut a number of “new” programs authorized in the bill (details below), add a provision that prohibits federal funds from being used to pay the salaries of federal employees who have been disciplined for watching porn (spurred on by the NSF pornography controversy), and freeze funding authorizations for NSF, NIST, and DOE – and eliminate funding for ARPA-E – during any year the budget isn’t balanced.
Apparently, it was the porn provision that pushed the votes in favor of the motion. Once there were over 218 votes in favor of the motion, a number of Democrats who had originally voted “no” changed their votes. The final vote on the motion was 292-126, with 121 Democrats voting in support of the motion.
Once the motion passed, Gordon pulled the bill from the floor, presumably because the changes to the bill were too significant for him to support.
So, it’s not clear how Gordon moves this bill forward. In a colloquy after the vote, the leadership suggested that the bill will be back on the floor next week. But I’m not sure how Gordon honors the instructions and still ends up with a bill he wants to pass. We’ll see.
Here’s a list of the programs that would be “cut” from the bill as a result of the motion:
NSF Prize Awards
Innovative Services Initiative
Fed Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing
Regional Innovation Program
Energy Innovation Hubs
More news as I get it…
UPDATE: (5/13/2010) Rep. Gordon was not happy (obviously) with the Motion to Recommit. Here’s a transcript of his remarks on the floor in response, courtesy of CSPAN (I cleaned up the formatting a bit):
THERE WERE 69 CO-SPONSORS OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHORIZATION AND IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
BUT WE RECOGNIZE THESE ARE DIFFICULT ECONOMIC TIMES.
AND SO WE MADE SOME CHANGES.
THIS BILL HAS BEEN CUT BY 10.3% FROM THE BILL THAT YOU VOTED FOR IN 2007.
THAT IS $9.6 BILLION.
NOW TELL ME WHAT AUTHORIZATION HAS BEEN CUT BY OVER 10%?
THIS IS THE ONLY ONE.
MR. HALL HAS A VERY GOOD CONCERNS ABOUT OUR VETERANS AND HE, EVERY DAY WHEN WE SEE HIM, WE SEE HIM AS AN EXAMPLE OF THOSE WORLD WAR II VETERANS.
SO LANGUAGE WAS PUT IN THE BILL BOTH FOR SCHOLARSHIPS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL VETERANS AND ALSO FOR THOSE INSTITUTIONS. LET ME READ THIS TO YOU.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS REPORTED BY THIS ACT AND AMENDMENTS MADE THIS THIS ACT EDUCATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION OFFERING STEM RESEARCH EDUCATION ACTIVITIES THAT SERVE VETERANS WITH DISAIN’T SHALL RECEIVE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.
WE HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THAT.
NOW LET’S GET DOWN TO THE HEART OF IT.
QUITE FRANKLY IT SADDENS ME TO HAVE TO GO INTO THIS.
IT SADDENS ME THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR KIDS, I HAVE A 9-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER, AND WHAT ABOUT HER FUTURE? WHAT ABOUT YOUR FAMILY’S FUTURE? WE ARE GOING TO HIDE BEHIND THIS.
WE ARE GOING TO GUT THIS BILL FOR THIS LITTLE BIT A FEW DAYS AGO THERE WAS SOME N.S.F. EMPLOYEES THAT WERE WATCHING PORNOGRAPHY.
OF COURSE THAT WAS BAD.
AND THEY WERE DISCIPLINED.
THERE’S BEEN THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, OFFICES, THERE’S FILTERING ON THAT NOW. NOBODY SERIOUSLY THINKS THAT WE WANT TO DEAL WITH PORNOGRAPHY HERE.
FOR GOD’S SAKES. WHEN IT GETS TO THE CONFERENCE, WE’LL TAKE CARE OF THAT EVEN MORE. BUT EVERYBODY — EVERYBODY RAISE YOUR HAND THAT’S FOR PORNOGRAPHY.
COME ON, RAISE YOUR HAND. NOBODY?
NOBODY IS FOR PORNOGRAPHYY? I’M SHOCKED.
I’M SHOCKED. I GUESS WE NEED THIS LITTLE BITTY PROVISION THAT MEANS NOTHING THAT’S GOING TO GUT THE ENTIRE BILL.
UPDATE 3: (5/13/2010; 5 pm) Gordon has released a statement:
“I’m disappointed that politics trumped good policy. The Minority was willing to trade American jobs and our nation’s economic competitiveness for the chance to run a good political ad.
If at any point during the 48 hearings we’ve held on this bill, the Minority brought up their concerns with isolated incidents of federal employees viewing pornography, or if they had made an amendment in order during any of the three Subcommittee markups, the Full Committee Markup, or the Floor Consideration, I would have been happy to vote for that amendment.
We’re all opposed to federal employees watching pornography. That is not a question; but that’s not what this was about. The Motion to Recommit was about gutting funding for our science agencies.
I believe in American leadership, and I think COMPETES is too important to let die. I would like to see it brought up again, but timing is unclear. Advocates for science, technology, manufacturing, and education—including the 750 organizations that endorsed COMPETES and their memberships—need to make their case to Members of the House and Senate why this bill needs to be signed into law.”
And a statement from Rep. Hall, who introduced the Motion to Recommit:
“I remain committed to the underlying goals of the America COMPETES Act and believe that we should continue to prioritize investments in basic research and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education,” said Ranking Member Hall. “However, this bill spends too much money and goes far beyond the original intent and scope of the COMPETES legislation.”
Two weeks after the House Science and Technology Committee approved it, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 will get consideration from the whole House today. The bill, which we’ve discussed previously, would extend funding authorizations through 2015 for a few key science agencies at levels that would double their budgets over ten years, in addition to reauthorizing a number of programs designed to increase the participation of U.S. students in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines, and creating or modifying a few programs designed to assist U.S. businesses commercialize new technologies.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), Chair of the House S&T Committee, hits the floor with 101 co-sponsors – all but two (by my count) Democrats. Reps. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) and Judy Biggert (D-IL) are the only GOP Members of Congress to lend their name to the effort. While this is markedly less bipartisan than the original bill (which, though it had fewer overall co-sponsors, had a much higher percentage of GOP endorsers), it’s not terribly surprising given the current election-year politics.
In fact, the House Republican Conference is opposing the bill, and they cite three bases: it expands government spending at a time of large federal deficits; it creates new government (they cite six new programs they feel are duplicative or not related to the original research focus of the bill), and it changes the original focus of COMPETES from the laudable goal of buttressing basic research to a more “technology commercialization” focus, “which many members may consider to be corporate welfare.”
Though it would be nice if the bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, like the original version of COMPETES, in this election-year climate, where the GOP has visions of picking up as many as 100 seats, it’s not terribly surprising that a large number (perhaps a large majority) of Republicans will likely vote against it. It should pass, regardless.
CRA has expressed its support for the bill. In a letter to Rep. Gordon, the bill’s sponsor, we wrote:
We believe this bill continues the strong commitment to U.S. innovation and competitiveness set out in the original America COMPETES Act of 2007 by strengthening the federal investment in basic research – including a particular focus on federal government’s investment in information technology research and development – by bolstering programs designed to increase participation in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields, and by fostering a environment conducive to innovation for American business.
We are particularly pleased that H.R. 5116 includes the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Act of 2009, which we supported last year when it passed the house as H.R. 2020. We believe the NITRD Act makes the NITRD program stronger by enacting several of the recommendations of the President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology (PCAST) review of the NITRD program in 2007. In particular, we are pleased that the NITRD Act includes a requirement that the NITRD program undergo periodic review and assessment of the program contents and funding, as well as develop and periodically update a strategic plan – both key recommendations of the PCAST and necessary in helping ensure the significant federal investment in IT R&D is used as effectively as possible.
Overall, H.R. 5116 sends a strong signal that Congress remains committed to the belief that federal investment in research remains a key part of the vibrant innovation ecosystem that helps preserve U.S. leadership in an increasingly competitive world – a belief CRA shares. The investments outlined in COMPETES will help ensure we continue to produce the ideas and the talent that drive American science and industry, creating new technologies, new industry sectors, and new high value jobs.
The debate could be long. Quite a large number of amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, though its likely not all of those will be ruled “in order” or will be offered by the original sponsors. I’d guess that most of the most-worrisome ones – those that freeze authorization levels or eliminate whole titles of the bill – will fail with at least a party-line vote. But we’ll keep an eye on the action and have a final wrap-up here when all is said and done.
UPDATE: (5/13/2010) – The bill has just been derailed.
[Each year, AAAS asks CRA to prepare a chapter on IT research funding in the federal budget request for their Research and Development FY 20XX report, and so we plow through the various agency budget documents and the White House releases and come up with 2000 words or so that attempt to sum up the Administration’s thinking, the current policy environment, and provide a little background on the program. While our attention will soon shift from budget requests and authorizations to actual appropriations, it’s useful to understand the “starting point” in the process: the President’s request. Given the immensity of the request ($4.3 billion) and space constraints imposed by AAAS, there’s not a ton of analysis here. But for those trying to get a sense of the composition of the NITRD portfolio, this is probably a good starter. For a more in-depth look at individual agency spending, there’s always the Budget Supplement prepared by the National Coordination Office for IT. In any case, here’s what we saw and submitted to AAAS:]
The National Science Foundation (NSF), the primary supporter of university-led computer science research in the United States, would see its share of the NITRD program increase $80 million to $1.17 billion, or just over 7.3 percent, in FY 2011 under the President’s request.
Changes in leadership at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have members of the computing research community optimistic that the agency will attempt to reengage its historically fruitful relationship with university computer science researchers.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The importance of computing research in enabling the new economy is well documented. The resulting advances in information technology have led to significant improvements in product design, development and distribution for American industry, provided instant communications for people worldwide, and enabled new scientific disciplines like bioinformatics and nanotechnology.
Information technology has also changed the conduct of research. Innovations in computing and networking technologies are enabling scientific discovery across every scientific discipline – from mapping the human brain to modeling climatic change. Researchers, faced with research problems that are ever more complex and interdisciplinary in nature, are using IT to collaborate across the globe, simulate experiments, visualize large and complex datasets, and collect and manage massive amounts of data.
As of FY 2010, the Federal IT R&D effort is now a $4.3 billion multi-agency enterprise called the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program and coordinated by the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Information Technology Research and Development of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). NITRD is the successor of the High Performance Computing and Communications Program established by Congress in 1991. NITRD agencies now coordinate research in eight Program Component Areas (PCAs): High End Computing Infrastructure and Applications; High End Computing Research and Development; Human Computer Interaction and Information Management (HCI&IM); Large Scale Networking (LSN); Software Design and Productivity; High Confidence Software and Systems (HCSS); Social, Economic, and Workforce Implications of IT; and Cyber Security and Information Assurance (CSIA). The NSF is the lead agency out of 13 member agencies in NITRD. Additionally, NITRD intends to formally recognize the Department of Homeland Security as a member agency this year after several years as a participating agency.
CURRENT POLICY ENVIRONMENT
Over most of the last decade, policies at DARPA have discouraged university-based computing researchers from participating fully in DARPA-sponsored research. During that time, DARPA – which, along with NSF, has been responsible to some significant degree for most of the major innovations in computing over the last 40 years – adopted a series of policies that hampered the ability of university researchers to participate in DARPA research. As a result, DARPA’s share of support for university computer science dropped from nearly 50 percent in FY 1998, to less than 15 percent in FY 2008.
However, new leadership at the agency has many in the community optimistic that DARPA will again play a key role in advancing university computer science. The new Director, Regina Dugan, has announced she has already, or intends to reverse each of the problematic policy requirements that hampered university participation. These include removing the requirement for “go/no-go” decisions on DARPA-sponsored research and publication pre-clearance review (except in exceptional cases of national security). Dugan has also promised the agency will be more cautious in its use of classification and will revamp the proposal process to give office directors and program managers more authority to pursue promising research.
In addition, Dugan announced the creation of a new office – the Tactical Convergence Technology Office (TCTO), headed by former Carnegie Mellon Department of Computer Science Chair Peter Lee. The TCTO is charged with reengaging the agency with the university research community and will house much of the fundamental computer science research programs that the community believed had gone neglected under the previous agency leadership. As a result, the computing community is optimistic that a crucial part of the federal computing research portfolio – the DARPA model for research – may be restored.
Cybersecurity R&D will also receive continued attention this year as both chambers of Congress look to move comprehensive cybersecurity bills before the end of the session. In the Senate, S. 773, sponsored by Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) would authorize $395 million in cybersecurity R&D through FY 2014. In addition, the bill contains a number of more controversial provisions for the community, including a requirement that professionals in cybersecurity be certified, a focus on training to mitigate cybersecurity risks rather than education, and a requirement that NSF promote and enforce a particular “secure coding” curriculum at colleges and universities. The House passed a more limited cybersecurity bill, H.R. 4061, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act, which would also authorize $395 million in cybersecurity R&D through FY 2014, as well as language to improve the coordination of federal cybersecurity R&D activities. While it is not clear how the House and Senate will align these two differing approaches to cybersecurity policy, it does seem likely that a healthy increase to the authorization for cybersecurity R&D will be part of any final package.
FY 2011 BUDGET REQUEST
Eight agencies included requests for FY 2011 funding as part of the NITRD activity. Under the President’s plan, NSF would once again be designated the lead agency for the initiative. For FY 2011, the President has requested $4.3 billion for the NITRD initiative; a decrease of 1.0 percent over the FY 2010 estimated level. The NITRD budget continues some significant declines within the National Security Agency (NSA) and the DOD service agencies, including the Department of Defense Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). NIH, NSF, DOE, and NIST’s IT R&D budgets would receive the bulk of the increases. The remainder of the participating agencies will see flat or slight declines in their budgets under the President’s plan for FY 2011.
National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation would spend $1.2 billion on NITRD-related research in FY 2011, an increase of $80 million, or 7.3 percent, over its FY 2010 estimated level.
The locus of NSF’s NITRD activity is the Foundation’s Computing and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) directorate, which would account for $685 million of NSF’s NITRD-related funding in FY 2011, an increase of $66 million (or 10.6 percent) over the FY 2010 request. CISE would continue to be the lead directorate for the Foundation-wide “Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation” initiative, with funding of $50 million in CISE in FY 2011. Additionally, CISE would contribute $15 million to the cross-foundation “Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law,” initiative, which aims to “position the U.S. at the forefront of communications and computation capability beyond the physical and conceptual limitations of current systems.”
CISE would be heavily involved in two new Foundation-wide programs for FY 2011. CISE would contribute $29.3 million to the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability (SEES) program, a Foundation-wide program with a total budget of $765 million, and $15 million to Cyberlearning for Transforming Education (CTE), which has a Foundation-wide budget of $41 million.
NSF’s Office of Cyberinfrastructure (OCI) would also see an increase in the President’s budget for FY 2011. Under the Administration’s plan, the office would grow 6.4 percent over FY 2010 to $228 million.
Department of Defense. Overall funding for IT R&D at the Department of Defense agencies would decrease significantly in FY 2011 compared to FY 2010, with cuts of $83.6 million for NSA (or 53.7 percent), bringing its budget to $72.2 million; a $67 million reduction (11 percent) for the service agencies and OSD, bringing their collective budget to $516 million; and $53 million reduction (9.6 percent) at the Defense Research Projects Agency (DARPA), bringing its budget to $500.8 million under the President’s plan.
According to DOD, the planned decrease at DARPA is largely due to decreases in the CSIA, HCI&IM, and LSN Program Component Areas with a slight increase of $19 million in HEC R&D for extreme computing technologies. The reduction in OSD and the Defense service labs would be due to decreases in HCI&A, CSIA, and HCI&IM. The proposed NSA decrease is due to the elimination of FY 2010’s Congressional add-ons.
Health and Human Services (HHS). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) constitutes the bulk of funding in IT R&D at HHS. For FY 2011, the President’s plan includes $1.3 billion in IT R&D funding at HHS, an increase of $38 million over the FY 2010 estimate. The NIH request of $1.2 billion for FY 2011 includes additional funding for HEC I&A and HCI&IM as well as continued adjustments based on the reporting system NIH implemented last year.
Department of Energy. IT R&D activities in DOE’s Office of Science (DOE SC), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), and the Office of Nuclear Energy constitute DOE’s participation in NITRD. Under the President’s plan DOE NITRD funding would be $510 million, an increase of 5.7 percent, or $28 million, from the FY 2010 estimated level. NNSA would see a $1 million increase in NITRD-related funding to $14 million for FY 2011.
The DOE SC’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program makes up the majority of the department’s participation in NITRD. For FY 2011, ASCR requested $426 million, up 8.1 percent over FY 2010. ASCR’s mission is to underpin and enable the efforts of programs within the DOE SC, as well as “to provide the high-performance computational and networking resources that are required for world leadership in science.” Additionally, the DOE increase in funding includes additional funding for HEC I&A for Leadership Computing Facilities, in particular the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Under the President’s plan, NASA would see a slight decrease of $0.3 million below the FY 2010 request level for its NITRD programs. The President’s request includes $82 million for NASA IT R&D in FY 2011.
Department of Commerce (DOC). The DOC request for FY 2011 contains NITRD-related funding requests from two agencies: NOAA and NIST. NIST IT R&D efforts include working with industry, educational, and government organizations to make IT systems more useable, secure, scalable, and interoperable. In addition, NIST works to apply IT to specialized areas like biotechnology and manufacturing, and to encourage industry to accelerate development of IT innovations. The President’s request includes $92 million for NIST IT R&D in FY 2011, an increase of $15 million over FY 2010. The increase is to support the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, Nationwide Healthcare Information Infrastructure Initiative, and Interoperability Standards Initiative.
NOAA supports IT research in emerging computer technologies for improved climate modeling and weather forecasting, and for improved communications technologies to disseminate weather products and warnings to emergency responders, policymakers, and the general public. The President’s request includes $26 million for NOAA IT R&D in FY 2011, flat funding compared to FY 2010.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA IT R&D would receive $6.3 million in FY 2011 under the President’s plan, the same it received in FY 2009 and FY 2010. EPA intends to use that funding to support IT technologies that facilitate ecosystem modeling, risk assessment, and environmental decision making at the federal, state, and local levels.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). NARA research focuses on the management and preservation of electronic records and fosters the development of advanced technologies for the management of electronic records for the current and future operations needs of government. For IT R&D, the agency requests $4.5 million, the same it received in FY 2010 and FY 2009.
The House Science and Technology Committee is marking up today its version of a reauthorization (pdf) of the America COMPETES Act – the act that, when passed back in August 2007, marked the culmination of several years of effort to convince Congress and the Administration of the importance of buttressing support for federal investments in the physical sciences and STEM education. COMPETES provided authorizations for three key federal science agencies – the National Science Foundation, National Institute for Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science – setting targets that would help put those agencies on a path that could see their budgets double over 10 years.
NSF's appropriations have never really reached the levels authorized in COMPETES, but the trend is at least in the right general direction.
While appropriations haven’t quite kept pace with the COMPETES authorized levels, the COMPETES authorizations sent an important signal to congressional appropriators that Congress thought these programs were worthy of increased support. In addition, COMPETES authorized a number of important STEM education programs including the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program and a number of other teacher training and fellowship programs designed to increase the participation of U.S. students in STEM fields.
The new bill reauthorizes the same key agencies as in the original COMPETES and adds an authorization for ARPA-E, the DARPA-like advanced research agency located in the Department of Energy that was originally enacted by COMPETES. In addition, the bill incorporates the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2009, which we supported when it was originally passed as H.R. 2020 back in June 2009. That bill would require the agencies participating in the federal government’s NITRD program to develop a strategic plan and review progress against the plan annually; encourage coordination between the participating agencies; require the program to support R&D in cyber-physical systems, HCI, visualization and information management; and call on NSF to improve IT education to encourage the participation of women and underrepresented minorities.
The COMPETES Authorization also includes a reauthorization of the the National Nanotechnology Initiative, it establishes postdoctoral fellowships for STEM graduates to pursue STEM education research, it halts a planned consolidation of all NSF undergraduate broadening participation programs until the agency can provide a plan clarifying the objectives and rationale for the decision, it creates an advisory committee on STEM education, and a host of other provisions relating to programs at DOE, NIST and NSF. You can check out the full 225 page bill here.
The markup appears to be headed for a marathon session. The committee has before it at least 54 planned amendments, with the minority suggesting more are coming. It’s not likely that the bill will change substantially when all is said and done, but if it does, we’ll have the details here. We’ll also have a complete breakdown of the final authorization levels in the marked up bill as well as an outlook for its eventual vote in the House (House S&T Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) hopes to have the bill on the floor before the House takes its Memorial Day break.)
The Senate has also begun work on its version of the COMPETES Act, though progress there lags the House considerably. With some luck, staffers on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hope to have a bill ready for markup by Memorial Day, with consideration in the full Senate sometime later this summer. The hope in both chambers is to have COMPETES wrapped up well before Congress turns all of its attention to appropriations in September and the upcoming mid-term elections. We’ll follow all the progress here….
The Computing Community Consortium (CCC) and the Computing Research Association (CRA), with anticipated funding from the National Science Foundation, are pleased to announce a new call for Computing Innovation Fellows (CIFellows) for the 2010-11 academic year. The CIFellows Project is an opportunity for new Ph.D. graduates in computer science and closely related fields to obtain one- to two-year positions at universities, industrial research laboratories, and other organizations that advance the field of computing and its positive impact on society. The goals of the CIFellows Project are to retain new Ph.D.s in research and teaching during challenging economic times, and to support intellectual renewal and diversity in computing fields at U.S. organizations.
…
We anticipate that awards will be for $75,000 salary for 12 months with approximately $25,000 for fringe benefits and a $15,000 allowance for moving, travel, and discretionary expenses. Host organizations will receive indirect costs at the 25% rate. The 12-month assignment must begin by November 1, 2010.
If you or someone you know might be interested in applying for these highly competitive fellowships, head to the Computing Innovation Fellows website for all of the details and eligibility requirements.
[Editor’s Note: Each year, the Coalition for National Science Funding (of which CRA is a member) hosts a Capitol Hill science exposition featuring representatives from 30+ universities and scientific societies, all there to highlight the important research funded by the National Science Foundation for an audience of Members of Congress, congressional staffers, Administration and agency staffers, members of the scientific advocacy community and the press. This year’s exhibition happened to coincide with National Robotics Week, so we at CRA were fortunate that well-known roboticist Dr. Robin Murphy, of Texas A&M University, could pull double-duty and appear at both the Congressional Robotics Caucus briefing marking National Robotics Week and represent CRA at the CNSF exhibition. We were also pleased that Dr. Murphy brought along one of her graduate students, Brittany Duncan, to help show off their research. Brittany put together a great account of her experience at the exhibition that, with her permission, we’re happy to reprint here.]
I wanted to add the graduate student view of CRA from my participation in the CNSF Exhibition during the National Robot Awareness week. I’m a grad student at Texas A&M University, where I have an OGS Diversity Fellowship and an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship. Before this event, I wasn’t familiar with the CRA beyond the Distributed Mentoring Program which I was funded under in 2008.
One of the big lessons I learned was that I didn’t realize how much muscle it takes to be a roboticist! I helped haul 120 pounds of robots about ½ a block from the curb to the disabled access entrance, unpacked and repacked the robots to get them through security, and then navigated the Rayburn Building.
Brittany Duncan hauls search and rescue robots to Capitol Hill for the CNSF Capitol Hill Science Exhibition
The event was really something special, having a room full of scientists interacting with each other, and with everyone enthusiastic about outreach. As roboticists, we get used to this but it is truly great to see how people react to our robots, not just members of Congress but also the other scientists and even kids. It was great to meet congressmen and women who were interested in science and technology AND how to get students more involved in these areas. I also liked the fact that the other scientists were interested in us and how to work with our lab in the future. The highlight of my night was the one middle school student that was there got enthusiastic about robots, when he wasn’t before. His mom pushed him forward from the crowd to ask questions and get his picture taken with one of our robots.
There were many surprises on this visit. The first was that CRA does this (and that they thought robotics was cool enough to invite us to this event). I also thought it was great that the members of Congress were interested in science and in meeting me, as a grad student, versus just talking to me while they were waiting for Dr. Murphy. It was also surprising that I had things in common with Dahlia Sokolov, who is a Staff Director as well as a former NSF Graduate Research Fellow. I also had fun bonding with Rep. Vern Ehlers over flying because he is a pilot and I am working on my license.
As I stood there, I realized that this wonderful experience (as well as my NSF Graduate Fellowship and my choice of universities and advisors) stemmed in a large part from the summer I was funded by the CRA Distributed Mentoring Program (DMP). The DMP allowed me to see what it was like to research at a different school, which gave me a better appreciation for different points of view. It was also a big change to have a female mentor plus female grad students in the lab. The biggest change though was getting to see how it would be to spend time on research rather than juggling classes. Most importantly, I gained a group of people to get advice from about grad school, what to look for in grad school, and recommendations. In fact, I still remain in contact with some of these people, who are now Ph.D.s working in the field. To summarize, I would not be at Texas A&M without this experience and it gave me a head start for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship.
Duncan shares some of her research with Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), ranking member of the House Science and Tech Committee Subcommittee on Research and Education
The experience of getting to go to Washington to demo for Congress was a big deal because it allowed me to talk and demo our robots to the people who make decisions about the future of robotics and computer science. I also gained a great deal of pride in CRA and the great job that both Peter and Melissa do! They were wonderful hosts and really helped us to meet people.
-Brittany Duncan, Texas A&M
[Ed note: If your institution is a CRA member and you’d like to participate in next year’s CNSF Exhibition as CRA’s representative, let us know!]
National Robotics Week aims to educate students, lawmakers, and the broader public about the importance of robotic technology to innovation and every day life as well as emphasize the vast array of fields in which robotics plays an increasingly vital role.
Since about 2001, the computing community – through CRA and others, and with lots of mention on this blog – has aired concerns about policy changes at the Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency (DARPA), the Defense Department’s leading-edge research arm and arguably one of the two most important agencies in the history of computer science. In particular, we’ve been concerned with a set of policies that discouraged the participation of university-based researchers in DARPA-sponsored research – policies like the use of “go/no-go” decisions without regard to the realities of fundamental research, the use of prepublication review on basic and applied research, and an increased use of classification of research that precludes participation from most researchers in the university community.
With the change in Administration and a new DARPA Director (Dr. Regina Dugan) appointed, we have been hopeful that these problematic policies would be reviewed and reversed. We were considerably encouraged when Dugan selected CRA’s former Chair, Dr. Peter Lee, the Chair of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University, to head a new office at the agency chartered, in part, to reengage the agency with the university community. Both Dugan and Lee have been making the rounds to university campuses over the last year listening to the concerns and pledging to address them.
Last week, Dugan testified before the House Armed Services Committee and addressed this need to change explicitly. Here’s some of what she said:
Over the last few years, the University community has articulated concerns about DARPA’s commitment to basic research. There was much said on both sides about the veracity of these concerns. As I described previously, one of the elements of DARPA’s success is the Agency’s commitment to work at the intersection of basic science and application, so-called Pasteur’s quadrant. The tension created in Pasteur’s quadrant arguably serves as a catalyst for innovation. DARPA is not a pure science organization, but neither are we a pure application organization. We sit firmly at the intersection of the two and, to be successful, we need the minds of the basic scientist and the application engineer, those in universities, and those in industry. And we need them working together, often on a single project, in the cauldron created by the urgency and technical demands of Defense. This is almost a unique characteristic of DARPA projects, which are often multi-discipline, multi-community, and multi-stage.
University Outreach.
Upon arrival at DARPA, we were determined to understand and repair the breach with universities. We discovered the following: Between 2001 and 2008, DARPA funding to US research university performers did decrease in real terms, by about half. But, as importantly, a noble and recent focus in the Agency on solving nearer term problems for the Department had resulted in some additional, perhaps unintended, consequences. The nature of the work changed, from multi-year commitments, to those with annual “go, no-go” decisions governing continued funding, which made it difficult for universities to commit to graduate students. A later stage focus resulted in more work done by universities as subs to prime contractors responsible for integration efforts, and the resulting flow-down of restrictions on the use of foreign nationals, export control, prepublication review, among others.
We assessed that we could address many of the concerns identified. So last September I traveled to five universities – Texas A&M, Caltech, UCLA, Stanford and Berkeley – to meet faculty, deans, and presidents, graduate students and undergraduates. The goal was to speak honestly and directly with them. We laid out the concerns, as we understood them, and the changes we had made or intended to make. We asked for their feedback. And we asked for their renewed commitment as well. For researchers to renew their commitment to working on Defense problems. For university leaders to clear obstacles and encourage their best and brightest to serve in Government. This service is, of course, in our shared self-interest because the quality of Government research sponsorship goes directly as the quality of the program leadership.
We continue to work on the issues: by educating our program managers to include basic research as an element in their programs, where appropriate, and to protect the integrity of this work under the provisions afforded fundamental research. The Agency has instituted new processes to ensure the necessary elements of academic freedom in basic research are balanced with the responsibilities of national security concerns. And we have increased transparency so that researchers can quickly determine whether restrictions apply to their work.
Since September, we have visited additional campuses across the country and spoken with university representatives to include Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, MIT, and others. Our dialogue continues with more than 100 schools. We have more work to do, on both sides, but so far, it seems as if the breach is healing.
The full testimony is online and worth reading. This change at the agency is enormously positive, not only for the computing research community – which will gain (regain?) an important funding source and a different funding model than NSF – but for DOD and the country as well. After all, one of our biggest concerns with DARPA’s disengagement from the university community over the better part of the last decade was that it meant that some of the best minds in the country – indeed, some of the best minds in the world – were no longer thinking about defense problems. DARPA’s policy changes should help reclaim some of that mindshare, and in the process, better serve our warfighters and protect our country.
We’re releasing today the “Computing Degree and Enrollment Trends” portion of CRA’s annual survey of its member departments, the CRA Taulbee Survey, and are pleased to report that for the second straight year, the number of undergraduate students enrolled in computer science departments, and the number of new majors in computer science, have both increased for the second straight year.
The number of new students majoring in computer science increased 8.5 percent over last year. The total number of majors increased 5.5 percent, yielding a two-year increase of 14 percent. Computer science graduation rates should increase in two to three years as these new students graduate.
The report contains enrollment and degree production statistics for Bachelor’s, Master’s and Ph.D. computer science, computer engineering and information fields. The statistics are gleaned from our survey of 265 Ph.D.-granting departments, which has traditionally correlated well with NSF’s less timely but more comprehensive survey of all graduate and undergraduate institutions, the Science and Engineering Indicators.
Here’s the press release we’re issuing to announce the report. (The report in can be downloaded here.)
Computer Science Majors Significantly
Increase for the Second Year in a Row
Growth Reverses the Steep Decline in Enrollment of the 2000’s
Washington, March 24, 2010 – The number of undergraduate students majoring in computer science significantly increased for the second year in a row according to the Computing Research Association (CRA). The upward trend reverses the steep decline experienced in computer science enrollment during the 2000‘s. CRA reported these trends as part of the 2008-2009 annual CRA Taulbee Survey. This growth in student enrollment comes as recent government projections highlight computing careers as among those expected to grow the fastest over the next decade.
“The best and brightest students recognize that computer science is a field that offers tremendous intellectual excitement, great job prospects, and the ability to change the world,” said Dr. Eric Grimson, Chair of CRA. “The ability to earn high salaries and receive good job opportunities undoubtedly plays an important role as students decide to major in computer science. As these students graduate, the U.S. tech industry will gain an enormous competitive advantage in future research and development.”
“This upward surge proves that computer science is cool again,” said Grimson. “Computers, smartphones and online social networks are a daily part of young people’s lives. It should come as no surprise that today’s students want to learn more about computing.”
The Computing Research Association collected enrollment data in fall 2009 from the computer science, computer engineering and information technology departments of 185 Ph.D.-granting universities. Specific findings include:
• Total enrollment by majors in computer science is up 5.5 percent over last year. Computer science enrollment increased 14 percent cumulatively over the previous two years, reversing a steep decline since 2002.
• The number of new students majoring in computer science in the fall of 2009 increased by 8.5 percent over last year. Computer science graduation rates should increase in two to four years as these new students graduate.
• Total Ph.D. degree production decreased by 6.9 percent from last year. This is the first decline in seven years, suggesting last year’s total represented a recent peak in Ph.D. degree production. Fully 99 percent of recent Ph.D. graduates surveyed are employed in academic or industry computing jobs.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/), computer science graduates earn higher than average salaries, employment growth in computer science is expected to be much faster than average and job prospects should be excellent. The BLS also projects that computing occupations are likely to grow by 22.2 percent between now and 2018, the fastest growing cluster of all professional occupations.
The CRA Taulbee Survey is the principal source of information on student enrollment, employment, graduation, and faculty salary trends in Ph.D.-granting departments of computer science, computer engineering and information technology in the United States and Canada. This year marks the 39th consecutive year of the Taulbee Survey. Visit http://www.cra.org/statistics/ for more information and to see previous editions of the Taulbee Survey.
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. For more information, visit www.cra.org.
Named for British mathematician Alan M. Turing, the A.M. Turing award was first granted in 1966 and is widely considered the “Noble Prize in Computing.” The award carries a prize of $250,000 with financial support from Intel Corporation and Google Inc.
Charles P. (Chuck) Thacker is a pioneering architect, inventor, designer, and builder of many of today’s key personal computing and network technologies. During the 70s and early 80s at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Chuck was a central systems designer and main pragmatic engineering force behind many of PARC’s technologies, including: Alto, the first modern personal computer with a bit-map screen to run graphical user interfaces with WYSIWYG fidelity and interaction. All of today’s personal computers with bit-map screens and graphical user interfaces descend directly from the Alto.
In addition, he invented the snooping cache coherence protocols used in nearly all small-scale shared-memory multiprocessors, pioneered the design of high-performance, high-availability packet- or cell-switched local area networks in the AN1 and AN2, and designed the Firefly, the first multiprocessor workstation. Almost 30 years after the Alto Chuck designed and built the prototype for the most used tablet PCs today.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
COMPETES Gets Derailed (Temporarily?)
/In: Funding, Policy /by Peter HarshaThe COMPETES bill we discussed yesterday just got derailed – at the moment it’s just temporary, but it’s unclear how it goes forward from this point. Republican Ranking Member Ralph Hall (R-TX) introduced a “Motion to Recommit with Instructions” that, to just about everyone’s surprise, passed. The motion has had the effect of forcing the Democrats to pull COMPETES from the floor without a vote on final passage, though they suggest it might come back next week.
In short, the motion to recommit with instructions sends the bill back to the committee from whence it came with instructions to amend it in specific ways. In this case, the instructions were to cut a number of “new” programs authorized in the bill (details below), add a provision that prohibits federal funds from being used to pay the salaries of federal employees who have been disciplined for watching porn (spurred on by the NSF pornography controversy), and freeze funding authorizations for NSF, NIST, and DOE – and eliminate funding for ARPA-E – during any year the budget isn’t balanced.
Apparently, it was the porn provision that pushed the votes in favor of the motion. Once there were over 218 votes in favor of the motion, a number of Democrats who had originally voted “no” changed their votes. The final vote on the motion was 292-126, with 121 Democrats voting in support of the motion.
Once the motion passed, Gordon pulled the bill from the floor, presumably because the changes to the bill were too significant for him to support.
So, it’s not clear how Gordon moves this bill forward. In a colloquy after the vote, the leadership suggested that the bill will be back on the floor next week. But I’m not sure how Gordon honors the instructions and still ends up with a bill he wants to pass. We’ll see.
Here’s a list of the programs that would be “cut” from the bill as a result of the motion:
NSF Prize Awards
Innovative Services Initiative
Fed Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing
Regional Innovation Program
Energy Innovation Hubs
More news as I get it…
UPDATE: (5/13/2010) Rep. Gordon was not happy (obviously) with the Motion to Recommit. Here’s a transcript of his remarks on the floor in response, courtesy of CSPAN (I cleaned up the formatting a bit):
UPDATE 2: Here’s The Hill on the story.
UPDATE 3: (5/13/2010; 5 pm) Gordon has released a statement:
And a statement from Rep. Hall, who introduced the Motion to Recommit:
COMPETES Reauthorization on Floor Today; CRA Endorses Bill
/In: CRA, Funding, Policy /by Peter HarshaTwo weeks after the House Science and Technology Committee approved it, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 will get consideration from the whole House today. The bill, which we’ve discussed previously, would extend funding authorizations through 2015 for a few key science agencies at levels that would double their budgets over ten years, in addition to reauthorizing a number of programs designed to increase the participation of U.S. students in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines, and creating or modifying a few programs designed to assist U.S. businesses commercialize new technologies.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), Chair of the House S&T Committee, hits the floor with 101 co-sponsors – all but two (by my count) Democrats. Reps. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) and Judy Biggert (D-IL) are the only GOP Members of Congress to lend their name to the effort. While this is markedly less bipartisan than the original bill (which, though it had fewer overall co-sponsors, had a much higher percentage of GOP endorsers), it’s not terribly surprising given the current election-year politics.
In fact, the House Republican Conference is opposing the bill, and they cite three bases: it expands government spending at a time of large federal deficits; it creates new government (they cite six new programs they feel are duplicative or not related to the original research focus of the bill), and it changes the original focus of COMPETES from the laudable goal of buttressing basic research to a more “technology commercialization” focus, “which many members may consider to be corporate welfare.”
Though it would be nice if the bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, like the original version of COMPETES, in this election-year climate, where the GOP has visions of picking up as many as 100 seats, it’s not terribly surprising that a large number (perhaps a large majority) of Republicans will likely vote against it. It should pass, regardless.
CRA has expressed its support for the bill. In a letter to Rep. Gordon, the bill’s sponsor, we wrote:
The debate could be long. Quite a large number of amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, though its likely not all of those will be ruled “in order” or will be offered by the original sponsors. I’d guess that most of the most-worrisome ones – those that freeze authorization levels or eliminate whole titles of the bill – will fail with at least a party-line vote. But we’ll keep an eye on the action and have a final wrap-up here when all is said and done.
UPDATE: (5/13/2010) – The bill has just been derailed.
Computing Research in the FY11 Budget Request
/In: Funding, FY11 Appropriations, Policy /by Peter Harsha[Each year, AAAS asks CRA to prepare a chapter on IT research funding in the federal budget request for their Research and Development FY 20XX report, and so we plow through the various agency budget documents and the White House releases and come up with 2000 words or so that attempt to sum up the Administration’s thinking, the current policy environment, and provide a little background on the program. While our attention will soon shift from budget requests and authorizations to actual appropriations, it’s useful to understand the “starting point” in the process: the President’s request. Given the immensity of the request ($4.3 billion) and space constraints imposed by AAAS, there’s not a ton of analysis here. But for those trying to get a sense of the composition of the NITRD portfolio, this is probably a good starter. For a more in-depth look at individual agency spending, there’s always the Budget Supplement prepared by the National Coordination Office for IT. In any case, here’s what we saw and submitted to AAAS:]
Computing Research in the FY 2011 Budget
Peter Harsha and Melissa Norr
Computing Research Association
HIGHLIGHTS
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The importance of computing research in enabling the new economy is well documented. The resulting advances in information technology have led to significant improvements in product design, development and distribution for American industry, provided instant communications for people worldwide, and enabled new scientific disciplines like bioinformatics and nanotechnology.
Information technology has also changed the conduct of research. Innovations in computing and networking technologies are enabling scientific discovery across every scientific discipline – from mapping the human brain to modeling climatic change. Researchers, faced with research problems that are ever more complex and interdisciplinary in nature, are using IT to collaborate across the globe, simulate experiments, visualize large and complex datasets, and collect and manage massive amounts of data.
As of FY 2010, the Federal IT R&D effort is now a $4.3 billion multi-agency enterprise called the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program and coordinated by the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Information Technology Research and Development of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). NITRD is the successor of the High Performance Computing and Communications Program established by Congress in 1991. NITRD agencies now coordinate research in eight Program Component Areas (PCAs): High End Computing Infrastructure and Applications; High End Computing Research and Development; Human Computer Interaction and Information Management (HCI&IM); Large Scale Networking (LSN); Software Design and Productivity; High Confidence Software and Systems (HCSS); Social, Economic, and Workforce Implications of IT; and Cyber Security and Information Assurance (CSIA). The NSF is the lead agency out of 13 member agencies in NITRD. Additionally, NITRD intends to formally recognize the Department of Homeland Security as a member agency this year after several years as a participating agency.
CURRENT POLICY ENVIRONMENT
Over most of the last decade, policies at DARPA have discouraged university-based computing researchers from participating fully in DARPA-sponsored research. During that time, DARPA – which, along with NSF, has been responsible to some significant degree for most of the major innovations in computing over the last 40 years – adopted a series of policies that hampered the ability of university researchers to participate in DARPA research. As a result, DARPA’s share of support for university computer science dropped from nearly 50 percent in FY 1998, to less than 15 percent in FY 2008.
However, new leadership at the agency has many in the community optimistic that DARPA will again play a key role in advancing university computer science. The new Director, Regina Dugan, has announced she has already, or intends to reverse each of the problematic policy requirements that hampered university participation. These include removing the requirement for “go/no-go” decisions on DARPA-sponsored research and publication pre-clearance review (except in exceptional cases of national security). Dugan has also promised the agency will be more cautious in its use of classification and will revamp the proposal process to give office directors and program managers more authority to pursue promising research.
In addition, Dugan announced the creation of a new office – the Tactical Convergence Technology Office (TCTO), headed by former Carnegie Mellon Department of Computer Science Chair Peter Lee. The TCTO is charged with reengaging the agency with the university research community and will house much of the fundamental computer science research programs that the community believed had gone neglected under the previous agency leadership. As a result, the computing community is optimistic that a crucial part of the federal computing research portfolio – the DARPA model for research – may be restored.
Cybersecurity R&D will also receive continued attention this year as both chambers of Congress look to move comprehensive cybersecurity bills before the end of the session. In the Senate, S. 773, sponsored by Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) would authorize $395 million in cybersecurity R&D through FY 2014. In addition, the bill contains a number of more controversial provisions for the community, including a requirement that professionals in cybersecurity be certified, a focus on training to mitigate cybersecurity risks rather than education, and a requirement that NSF promote and enforce a particular “secure coding” curriculum at colleges and universities. The House passed a more limited cybersecurity bill, H.R. 4061, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act, which would also authorize $395 million in cybersecurity R&D through FY 2014, as well as language to improve the coordination of federal cybersecurity R&D activities. While it is not clear how the House and Senate will align these two differing approaches to cybersecurity policy, it does seem likely that a healthy increase to the authorization for cybersecurity R&D will be part of any final package.
FY 2011 BUDGET REQUEST
Eight agencies included requests for FY 2011 funding as part of the NITRD activity. Under the President’s plan, NSF would once again be designated the lead agency for the initiative. For FY 2011, the President has requested $4.3 billion for the NITRD initiative; a decrease of 1.0 percent over the FY 2010 estimated level. The NITRD budget continues some significant declines within the National Security Agency (NSA) and the DOD service agencies, including the Department of Defense Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). NIH, NSF, DOE, and NIST’s IT R&D budgets would receive the bulk of the increases. The remainder of the participating agencies will see flat or slight declines in their budgets under the President’s plan for FY 2011.
National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation would spend $1.2 billion on NITRD-related research in FY 2011, an increase of $80 million, or 7.3 percent, over its FY 2010 estimated level.
The locus of NSF’s NITRD activity is the Foundation’s Computing and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) directorate, which would account for $685 million of NSF’s NITRD-related funding in FY 2011, an increase of $66 million (or 10.6 percent) over the FY 2010 request. CISE would continue to be the lead directorate for the Foundation-wide “Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation” initiative, with funding of $50 million in CISE in FY 2011. Additionally, CISE would contribute $15 million to the cross-foundation “Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law,” initiative, which aims to “position the U.S. at the forefront of communications and computation capability beyond the physical and conceptual limitations of current systems.”
CISE would be heavily involved in two new Foundation-wide programs for FY 2011. CISE would contribute $29.3 million to the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability (SEES) program, a Foundation-wide program with a total budget of $765 million, and $15 million to Cyberlearning for Transforming Education (CTE), which has a Foundation-wide budget of $41 million.
NSF’s Office of Cyberinfrastructure (OCI) would also see an increase in the President’s budget for FY 2011. Under the Administration’s plan, the office would grow 6.4 percent over FY 2010 to $228 million.
Department of Defense. Overall funding for IT R&D at the Department of Defense agencies would decrease significantly in FY 2011 compared to FY 2010, with cuts of $83.6 million for NSA (or 53.7 percent), bringing its budget to $72.2 million; a $67 million reduction (11 percent) for the service agencies and OSD, bringing their collective budget to $516 million; and $53 million reduction (9.6 percent) at the Defense Research Projects Agency (DARPA), bringing its budget to $500.8 million under the President’s plan.
According to DOD, the planned decrease at DARPA is largely due to decreases in the CSIA, HCI&IM, and LSN Program Component Areas with a slight increase of $19 million in HEC R&D for extreme computing technologies. The reduction in OSD and the Defense service labs would be due to decreases in HCI&A, CSIA, and HCI&IM. The proposed NSA decrease is due to the elimination of FY 2010’s Congressional add-ons.
Health and Human Services (HHS). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) constitutes the bulk of funding in IT R&D at HHS. For FY 2011, the President’s plan includes $1.3 billion in IT R&D funding at HHS, an increase of $38 million over the FY 2010 estimate. The NIH request of $1.2 billion for FY 2011 includes additional funding for HEC I&A and HCI&IM as well as continued adjustments based on the reporting system NIH implemented last year.
Department of Energy. IT R&D activities in DOE’s Office of Science (DOE SC), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), and the Office of Nuclear Energy constitute DOE’s participation in NITRD. Under the President’s plan DOE NITRD funding would be $510 million, an increase of 5.7 percent, or $28 million, from the FY 2010 estimated level. NNSA would see a $1 million increase in NITRD-related funding to $14 million for FY 2011.
The DOE SC’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program makes up the majority of the department’s participation in NITRD. For FY 2011, ASCR requested $426 million, up 8.1 percent over FY 2010. ASCR’s mission is to underpin and enable the efforts of programs within the DOE SC, as well as “to provide the high-performance computational and networking resources that are required for world leadership in science.” Additionally, the DOE increase in funding includes additional funding for HEC I&A for Leadership Computing Facilities, in particular the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Under the President’s plan, NASA would see a slight decrease of $0.3 million below the FY 2010 request level for its NITRD programs. The President’s request includes $82 million for NASA IT R&D in FY 2011.
Department of Commerce (DOC). The DOC request for FY 2011 contains NITRD-related funding requests from two agencies: NOAA and NIST. NIST IT R&D efforts include working with industry, educational, and government organizations to make IT systems more useable, secure, scalable, and interoperable. In addition, NIST works to apply IT to specialized areas like biotechnology and manufacturing, and to encourage industry to accelerate development of IT innovations. The President’s request includes $92 million for NIST IT R&D in FY 2011, an increase of $15 million over FY 2010. The increase is to support the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, Nationwide Healthcare Information Infrastructure Initiative, and Interoperability Standards Initiative.
NOAA supports IT research in emerging computer technologies for improved climate modeling and weather forecasting, and for improved communications technologies to disseminate weather products and warnings to emergency responders, policymakers, and the general public. The President’s request includes $26 million for NOAA IT R&D in FY 2011, flat funding compared to FY 2010.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA IT R&D would receive $6.3 million in FY 2011 under the President’s plan, the same it received in FY 2009 and FY 2010. EPA intends to use that funding to support IT technologies that facilitate ecosystem modeling, risk assessment, and environmental decision making at the federal, state, and local levels.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). NARA research focuses on the management and preservation of electronic records and fosters the development of advanced technologies for the management of electronic records for the current and future operations needs of government. For IT R&D, the agency requests $4.5 million, the same it received in FY 2010 and FY 2009.
House S&T Marks up COMPETES Act Reauthorization Today
/In: Funding, Policy /by Peter HarshaThe House Science and Technology Committee is marking up today its version of a reauthorization (pdf) of the America COMPETES Act – the act that, when passed back in August 2007, marked the culmination of several years of effort to convince Congress and the Administration of the importance of buttressing support for federal investments in the physical sciences and STEM education. COMPETES provided authorizations for three key federal science agencies – the National Science Foundation, National Institute for Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science – setting targets that would help put those agencies on a path that could see their budgets double over 10 years.
NSF's appropriations have never really reached the levels authorized in COMPETES, but the trend is at least in the right general direction.
While appropriations haven’t quite kept pace with the COMPETES authorized levels, the COMPETES authorizations sent an important signal to congressional appropriators that Congress thought these programs were worthy of increased support. In addition, COMPETES authorized a number of important STEM education programs including the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program and a number of other teacher training and fellowship programs designed to increase the participation of U.S. students in STEM fields.
The new bill reauthorizes the same key agencies as in the original COMPETES and adds an authorization for ARPA-E, the DARPA-like advanced research agency located in the Department of Energy that was originally enacted by COMPETES. In addition, the bill incorporates the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2009, which we supported when it was originally passed as H.R. 2020 back in June 2009. That bill would require the agencies participating in the federal government’s NITRD program to develop a strategic plan and review progress against the plan annually; encourage coordination between the participating agencies; require the program to support R&D in cyber-physical systems, HCI, visualization and information management; and call on NSF to improve IT education to encourage the participation of women and underrepresented minorities.
The COMPETES Authorization also includes a reauthorization of the the National Nanotechnology Initiative, it establishes postdoctoral fellowships for STEM graduates to pursue STEM education research, it halts a planned consolidation of all NSF undergraduate broadening participation programs until the agency can provide a plan clarifying the objectives and rationale for the decision, it creates an advisory committee on STEM education, and a host of other provisions relating to programs at DOE, NIST and NSF. You can check out the full 225 page bill here.
The markup appears to be headed for a marathon session. The committee has before it at least 54 planned amendments, with the minority suggesting more are coming. It’s not likely that the bill will change substantially when all is said and done, but if it does, we’ll have the details here. We’ll also have a complete breakdown of the final authorization levels in the marked up bill as well as an outlook for its eventual vote in the House (House S&T Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) hopes to have the bill on the floor before the House takes its Memorial Day break.)
The Senate has also begun work on its version of the COMPETES Act, though progress there lags the House considerably. With some luck, staffers on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hope to have a bill ready for markup by Memorial Day, with consideration in the full Senate sometime later this summer. The hope in both chambers is to have COMPETES wrapped up well before Congress turns all of its attention to appropriations in September and the upcoming mid-term elections. We’ll follow all the progress here….
CRA and CCC Announce New Call for Computing Innovation Fellows
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC), CRA, People /by Peter HarshaFrom the Computing Community Consortium blog (and CIFellows website):
If you or someone you know might be interested in applying for these highly competitive fellowships, head to the Computing Innovation Fellows website for all of the details and eligibility requirements.
CRA Features Robotics at Annual Congressional Science Fair
/In: CRA, People, Research /by Peter Harsha[Editor’s Note: Each year, the Coalition for National Science Funding (of which CRA is a member) hosts a Capitol Hill science exposition featuring representatives from 30+ universities and scientific societies, all there to highlight the important research funded by the National Science Foundation for an audience of Members of Congress, congressional staffers, Administration and agency staffers, members of the scientific advocacy community and the press. This year’s exhibition happened to coincide with National Robotics Week, so we at CRA were fortunate that well-known roboticist Dr. Robin Murphy, of Texas A&M University, could pull double-duty and appear at both the Congressional Robotics Caucus briefing marking National Robotics Week and represent CRA at the CNSF exhibition. We were also pleased that Dr. Murphy brought along one of her graduate students, Brittany Duncan, to help show off their research. Brittany put together a great account of her experience at the exhibition that, with her permission, we’re happy to reprint here.]
I wanted to add the graduate student view of CRA from my participation in the CNSF Exhibition during the National Robot Awareness week. I’m a grad student at Texas A&M University, where I have an OGS Diversity Fellowship and an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship. Before this event, I wasn’t familiar with the CRA beyond the Distributed Mentoring Program which I was funded under in 2008.
One of the big lessons I learned was that I didn’t realize how much muscle it takes to be a roboticist! I helped haul 120 pounds of robots about ½ a block from the curb to the disabled access entrance, unpacked and repacked the robots to get them through security, and then navigated the Rayburn Building.
Brittany Duncan hauls search and rescue robots to Capitol Hill for the CNSF Capitol Hill Science Exhibition
The event was really something special, having a room full of scientists interacting with each other, and with everyone enthusiastic about outreach. As roboticists, we get used to this but it is truly great to see how people react to our robots, not just members of Congress but also the other scientists and even kids. It was great to meet congressmen and women who were interested in science and technology AND how to get students more involved in these areas. I also liked the fact that the other scientists were interested in us and how to work with our lab in the future. The highlight of my night was the one middle school student that was there got enthusiastic about robots, when he wasn’t before. His mom pushed him forward from the crowd to ask questions and get his picture taken with one of our robots.
There were many surprises on this visit. The first was that CRA does this (and that they thought robotics was cool enough to invite us to this event). I also thought it was great that the members of Congress were interested in science and in meeting me, as a grad student, versus just talking to me while they were waiting for Dr. Murphy. It was also surprising that I had things in common with Dahlia Sokolov, who is a Staff Director as well as a former NSF Graduate Research Fellow. I also had fun bonding with Rep. Vern Ehlers over flying because he is a pilot and I am working on my license.
As I stood there, I realized that this wonderful experience (as well as my NSF Graduate Fellowship and my choice of universities and advisors) stemmed in a large part from the summer I was funded by the CRA Distributed Mentoring Program (DMP). The DMP allowed me to see what it was like to research at a different school, which gave me a better appreciation for different points of view. It was also a big change to have a female mentor plus female grad students in the lab. The biggest change though was getting to see how it would be to spend time on research rather than juggling classes. Most importantly, I gained a group of people to get advice from about grad school, what to look for in grad school, and recommendations. In fact, I still remain in contact with some of these people, who are now Ph.D.s working in the field. To summarize, I would not be at Texas A&M without this experience and it gave me a head start for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship.
Duncan shares some of her research with Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), ranking member of the House Science and Tech Committee Subcommittee on Research and Education
The experience of getting to go to Washington to demo for Congress was a big deal because it allowed me to talk and demo our robots to the people who make decisions about the future of robotics and computer science. I also gained a great deal of pride in CRA and the great job that both Peter and Melissa do! They were wonderful hosts and really helped us to meet people.
-Brittany Duncan, Texas A&M
[Ed note: If your institution is a CRA member and you’d like to participate in next year’s CNSF Exhibition as CRA’s representative, let us know!]
National Robotics Week
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC), Computing Education, Events, People /by MelissaNorrThe first annual National Robotics Week kicked off this past weekend and will run through April 18. The week will include a variety of local events across the country as well as a Congressional Robotics Caucus briefing on Capitol Hill this Thursday. The briefing will feature Dr. Robin Murphy, director of the Center for Robot-Assisted Search and Rescue and professor at Texas A&M University. The briefing is part of a day long robotics exhibition featuring robots from around the country. Dr. Murphy, a Computing Community Consortium (CCC) council member, will also be representing CRA at the CNSF Exhibition on April 14.
National Robotics Week aims to educate students, lawmakers, and the broader public about the importance of robotic technology to innovation and every day life as well as emphasize the vast array of fields in which robotics plays an increasingly vital role.
A calendar of events along with additional information and materials are available at http://www.nationalroboticsweek.org/
The Change at DARPA
/In: People, Policy, Research, Security /by Peter HarshaSince about 2001, the computing community – through CRA and others, and with lots of mention on this blog – has aired concerns about policy changes at the Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency (DARPA), the Defense Department’s leading-edge research arm and arguably one of the two most important agencies in the history of computer science. In particular, we’ve been concerned with a set of policies that discouraged the participation of university-based researchers in DARPA-sponsored research – policies like the use of “go/no-go” decisions without regard to the realities of fundamental research, the use of prepublication review on basic and applied research, and an increased use of classification of research that precludes participation from most researchers in the university community.
With the change in Administration and a new DARPA Director (Dr. Regina Dugan) appointed, we have been hopeful that these problematic policies would be reviewed and reversed. We were considerably encouraged when Dugan selected CRA’s former Chair, Dr. Peter Lee, the Chair of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University, to head a new office at the agency chartered, in part, to reengage the agency with the university community. Both Dugan and Lee have been making the rounds to university campuses over the last year listening to the concerns and pledging to address them.
Last week, Dugan testified before the House Armed Services Committee and addressed this need to change explicitly. Here’s some of what she said:
The full testimony is online and worth reading. This change at the agency is enormously positive, not only for the computing research community – which will gain (regain?) an important funding source and a different funding model than NSF – but for DOD and the country as well. After all, one of our biggest concerns with DARPA’s disengagement from the university community over the better part of the last decade was that it meant that some of the best minds in the country – indeed, some of the best minds in the world – were no longer thinking about defense problems. DARPA’s policy changes should help reclaim some of that mindshare, and in the process, better serve our warfighters and protect our country.
CRA Taulbee Report: CS Enrollments, New Majors Up For 2nd Straight Year
/In: CRA, Events, People /by Peter HarshaWe’re releasing today the “Computing Degree and Enrollment Trends” portion of CRA’s annual survey of its member departments, the CRA Taulbee Survey, and are pleased to report that for the second straight year, the number of undergraduate students enrolled in computer science departments, and the number of new majors in computer science, have both increased for the second straight year.
The number of new students majoring in computer science increased 8.5 percent over last year. The total number of majors increased 5.5 percent, yielding a two-year increase of 14 percent. Computer science graduation rates should increase in two to three years as these new students graduate.
We think this says some very positive things about students’ perceptions of a career in computing. And maybe that’s not surprising. Computing careers are projected to be the fastest growing professional occupations over the next decade. They are among the tops in salary and ranked as some of the best jobs in America. And they’re filled with tremendous intellectual excitement and the opportunity to change the world.
The report contains enrollment and degree production statistics for Bachelor’s, Master’s and Ph.D. computer science, computer engineering and information fields. The statistics are gleaned from our survey of 265 Ph.D.-granting departments, which has traditionally correlated well with NSF’s less timely but more comprehensive survey of all graduate and undergraduate institutions, the Science and Engineering Indicators.
Here’s the press release we’re issuing to announce the report. (The report in can be downloaded here.)
Thacker Awarded A.M. Turing Award
/In: General /by MelissaNorrCharles P. Thacker has been named the recipient of the 2009 A.M. Turing Award by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) for his work in personal computing and networking. Thacker is currently a technical fellow at Microsoft Research, a Fellow of the ACM, has won several awards and citations, including the IEEE John von Neumann medal and graduated from the University of California, Berkeley. He also holds an honorary doctorate from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
Named for British mathematician Alan M. Turing, the A.M. Turing award was first granted in 1966 and is widely considered the “Noble Prize in Computing.” The award carries a prize of $250,000 with financial support from Intel Corporation and Google Inc.
The full citation for the A.M. Turing Award reads: