We’re in the end game for the FY 2010 appropriations, but no one is really sure exactly how this will end (though there are some good theories). While a number of bills have actually passed through regular order — including, most relevantly for the computing research community, the Energy and Water appropriations bill, which contains funding for the DOE’s Office of Science — an equal number of key bills remain unsettled. Still unresolved are the Commerce, Justice, Science bill, which includes funding for NSF, NOAA, NIST, and NASA; the Defense bill, which includes funding for DARPA and the Defense labs; and Labor-HHS, which includes funding for NIH. Because we’ve passed the end of the fiscal year (Sept. 30th), the government is operating under a “Continuing Resolution” that will keep agencies funded at the FY 09 rate through Dec 18th. So, conventional wisdom suggests that these remaining appropriations bills will get taken care of by then (and probably at the last minute). Until then, Congress — the Senate, in particular — is more than occupied by the raging debate on reforming health care and will fit in appropriations discussions between now and then only as little blocks of free time appear.
It appears at this point that the remaining bills will end up in an omnibus measure — that is, they’ll be bundled into one bill for passage. (Because it’s only seven appropriations bills that would be bundled, rather than the usual twelve, many have taken to referring to the bill as a “minibus” — though I suppose everything is relative in DC). It also appears that the Defense bill will be the anchor for the minibus, because it’s considered the highest priority (a “must pass” bill), and thus many controversial provisions unrelated to defense that don’t have homes elsewhere may find their way into the bill (there’s been talk of adding a DC voting rights measure to it, though that’s now looking unlikely, or some health care-related language). But aside from that, we assume that sometime that week of Dec 14-18, we’ll start to see the final agreed-upon numbers for all of the as-yet-unappropriated science programs we care about. Until then, here’s what we know:
Department of Energy Office of Science (status: final): The Energy and Water Appropriations was passed and signed by the President on October 28th (P.L. 111-85). In it, DOE’s Office of Science received just over $4.8 billion (plus about $77 million in earmarks), a compromise between levels the House and Senate had passed separately, but an increase of 3 percent compared with FY 2009. The appropriation includes funding for the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program (ASCR), which will receive $394 million in FY 10, slightly less than both the Senate original appropriations of $399 million and the House original number of $409 million, but a healthy 6.8 percent increase over FY2009.
National Science Foundation (status: unfinished): Funding for NSF is contained in the FY 10 Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill. The House version of this bill would fund NSF at $6.93 billion in FY 10, an increase of 6.9 percent over FY09 but $108 million lower than the President’s request for the agency. The Senate version would fund the agency at $6.9 billion, a 6.6 percent increase. Both the Senate and House bills include healthy increases for NSF’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering directorate. The Senate version would provide $620 million in FY 10, 8.1 percent more than FY 09, and the House would provide $623 million, or an 8.6 percent increase. Both levels are less than the $633 million the President requested in his budget.
NSF’s Office of CyberInfrastructure (OCI) also fares well in both versions of the bill. The House would provide $216 million for OCI in FY 10, an increase of 8.1 percent, and the Senate $215 million, a 7.7 percent increase. Both are below the President’s requested increase of 10.0 percent in FY 10.
NSF’s Education and Human Resources directorate would receive a $17.6 million increase over FY 09 in the House, a $12.5 million increase over the Administration request. The Senate passed the President’s EHR request of $857.76 million.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (status: unfinished): NIST is also a part of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill. The House passed version includes $587 million for NIST’s research efforts, a 1.6 percent decrease from FY 09. The Senate would fund the agency at $684 million (less $47 million in earmarks), a 14.5 percent increase. However, if you remove the earmarked spending, the real increase to NIST in the Senate bill would be 6.1 percent. The Administration requested $652 million for the agency, a 9.2 percent increase over FY 09.
Department of Defense (status: unfinished): The Defense Appropriations bill includes funding for all DOD research, including DARPA and the Defense research labs. There’s some concern about the levels included for DARPA in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, but especially for the Senate levels. Both the House and Senate included significant cuts to the President’s request for DARPA — the House trimmed about $200 million from the request, the Senate about $500 million. In the Senate’s case, appropriations staffers apparently didn’t feel that the agency, given its recent history of under-spending its appropriation — a behavior linked to policies of the agency’s previous leadership — warranted an increase in FY 10 and instead used that money to fund increases elsewhere in the bill. Many of us in the science advocacy community reacted strongly to this reduction. Under new leadership, the agency appears to be making a serious effort to reverse many of the policies that the university community and Congress shared, and has proposed a number of new efforts designed to reengage DARPA with university researchers. We do not want to see that new approach derailed or hamstrung by this proposed reduction. CRA, along with many partners in the academic and industrial communities have weighed in with Congress in an attempt to mitigate these reductions. We’ll know in December how successful those efforts were. (We’ll also have much more on the “new” DARPA in future posts…)
There are also significant differences in opinion between the Senate and the House in the overall level of defense basic research (or 6.1 research, in DOD parlance). The House approved bill would fund Defense 6.1 research at $1.798 billion in FY 10, an increase of 10.1 percent over FY 09. The Senate, while still approving an increase, would only include $1.713 billion in FY 10, a 4.9 percent increase. Like the DARPA issue, this disparity will need to get worked out in conference between the chambers.
As we learn more, we’ll post it here. But it’s unlikely much will happen until mid-December….
Last night, Congress passed a resolution stating that the week of December 7 is National Computer Science Education Week by a vote of 405 to 0. The resolution language includes reasons that computing is so important to our culture and economy and the need to increase the diversity of people in computing as important factors that a National Computer Science Education Week could help promote. The week of December 7 was chosen to honor Grace Murray Hopper, one of the earliest female pioneers in computing, as her birthday was December 9. The full text of the resolution is available. ACM has more information and community reaction here.
Ran Libeskind-Hadas, a member of the Computing Community Consortium’s Council and a professor at Harvey Mudd College, has an interesting post today on the CCC blog asking, in light of the recent Netflix Prize announcement, whether prizes are a viable mechanism for encouraging research in the computing fields.
From Netflixs perspective, the answer is almost certainly yes. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings is quoted telling the New York Times (probably tongue-in-cheek) “Youre getting Ph.D.s for a dollar an hour.”
He notes several other examples of prizes that have led to new results and asks:
Are there some major problems in computer science that could be incentivized by prizes financial or otherwise? What are the potential benefits and risks of this approach? Were eager to hear your thoughts.
Add your two cents (or more) in the comments section. (No prize for doing it, though.)
Requires the development of a cybersecurity R&D strategic plan throughout the federal government
Requires the inclusion of social and behavioral research at NSF as part of the cybersecurity research portfolio
Specifically includes identity management as an area of research that should be supported in a cybersecurity research portfolio
Requires NSF to create a postdoctoral fellowship program in cybersecurity
Authorizes a cybersecurity scholarship for service program at NSF
Requires OSTP to assess the current and future cybersecurity workforce needs of the federal government, including comparison of the skills needed by each fed agency, the supply of talent, and any barriers to recruitment
Establishes an academic-industry task force to explore public-private research partnerships in cybersecurity
Only two amendments to the original bill language were proposed and both were adopted. The first was the managers amendment which made technical changes to the bill and clarifies the service requirements for those students participating in the Scholarship for Service program authorized in the bill. The second amendment was introduced by Congresswoman Johnson (D-TX) and seeks to increase the participation of underrepresented groups in the scholarship program and include minority institutions as stakeholders in the strategic plan. We don’t yet have copies of either the Manager’s amendment or Rep. Johnson’s, but when we do, we’ll post them here.
Both the chairman of the subcommittee, Congressman Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) and the ranking member, Congressman Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) emphasized the need for cybersecurity research to keep pace with the changing cyber threats and to ensure a sufficient workforce in cybersecurity. Ehlers mentioned that the workforce problem had been personally brought to his attention last year by a computer science professor who visited his office and discussed the drop in computing related undergraduates after the boom, a situation that we have discussed in great detail here in the past, but one that, based on the most recent Taulbee data, we believe is turning around.
Delivering remarks at Hudson Valley Community College in Troy, NY, today, President Obama noted the importance of the U.S. remaining an innovation leaders and how his Administration hopes to continue fostering that. Here’s a snippet with some remarks relevant to the computing community:
One key to strengthening education, entrepreneurship, and innovation in communities like Troy is to harness the full power of the internet. That means faster and more widely available broadband as well as rules to ensure that we preserve the fairness and openness that led to the flourishing of the internet in the first place. Today, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is announcing a set of principles to preserve an open internet in which all Americans can participate and benefit. I am pleased that he is taking this step. It is an important reminder that the role of government is to provide investment that spurs innovation and common-sense ground rules to ensure that there is a level playing field for all comers who seek to contribute their innovations.
And we have to think about the networks we need today, but also the networks well want tomorrow. Thats why Ive proposed grants through the National Science Foundation and through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency which helped develop the internet to explore the next communications breakthroughs, whatever they may be. And thats why Ive appointed the first-ever Chief Technology Officer, charged with looking at ways technology can spur innovations that help government do a better and more efficient job.
We must also strengthen our commitment to research, including basic research, which has been badly neglected for decades. The fact is, basic research may not pay off immediately. It may not pay off for years. And when it does, the rewards are often broadly shared, enjoyed by those who bore its costs but also by those who did not. Thats why the private sector generally under-invests in basic science, and why the public sector must invest in its stead. While the risks may be large, so are the rewards for our economy and our society. It was basic research in the photoelectric effect that would one day lead to solar panels. It was basic research in physics that would eventually produce the CAT scan. The calculations of todays GPS satellites are based on the equations Einstein put to paper more than a century ago.
When we fail to invest in research, we fail to invest in the future. Yet, since the peak of the Space Race in the 1960s, our national commitment to research and development has steadily fallen as a share of our national income. That is why I have set a goal of putting a full three percent of our Gross Domestic Product our national income into research and development, surpassing the commitment we made when President Kennedy challenged this nation to send a man to the moon. Toward this goal, the Recovery Act has helped achieve the largest increase in basic research in history. And this month the National Institutes of Health will award more than a billion dollars in research grants through the Recovery Act focused on what we can learn from the mapping of the human genome in order to treat diseases that affect millions of Americans, from cancer to heart disease. I also want to urge Congress to fully fund the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, which has since its creation been a source of cutting-edge breakthroughs from that early internet to stealth technology.
As we invest in the building blocks of innovation, from the classroom to the laboratory, it is also essential that we have competitive and vibrant markets that promote innovation as well. Education and research help foster new ideas, but it takes fair and free markets to turn those ideas into industries.
We’ve posted his full remarks in the extended entry. As you’ll see in the coming days as we begin to post more on the appropriations process, there’s still positive sentiment in the Administration and the Congress for the federal government’s role in supporting basic research and its payoff in the economy. But translating that positive sentiment into robust funding for basic research is tricky and there are a number of hurdles along the way. So it helps that the President continues to shine a light on the issue and that articles like this great piece in today’s <a href=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik21-2009sep21,0,5599248.columnLos Angeles Times continue to highlight the importance of federal support for basic research. Here’s a bit from that LA Times article, written by columnist Michael Hiltzik:
[Bob Taylor’s] experience underscores the importance of a government role in fields like basic research, which profit-seeking enterprises tend to shun.
“Industry generally avoids long-term research because it entails risk,” the veteran computer scientist Ed Lazowska told Congress a few years ago. Why? Because it’s hard to predict the results of such research, and since it has to be published and publicly validated, corporations can’t capitalize on their investments in isolation.
Yet once the research reaches a certain point, private industry piles in — Lazowska cited a National Research Council list of 19 multibillion-dollar industries that had been incubated with federal funding, generally via university grants — including the Internet, Web browsers and cellphones — before becoming commercially viable. Taylor’s ARPAnet was eventually turned over to the National Science Foundation, which in 1991 opened what was then known as NSFnet to commercial exploitation. Four years later, the dot-com boom was underway.
CRA frequently talks about the need for more basic scientific research but we focus almost exclusively on governmental research investment. We talk about the fall of DARPA and the need for NSF to increase to compensate. We don’t spend quite as much time talking about industry investment in basic research. An article in Business Week points out the necessity of industry participation in the research ecosystem and the rich history of corporate laboratories’ basic research contributions. It’s a very interesting article that weaves together the past and present research ecosystems, today’s economic concerns, and suggestions for tackling the problems we see today.
The article discusses the two times in US history when the government spurred scientific innovation in a short period of time – the Manhattan Project and the Apollo space mission – and the reasons they were so successful. It states, “Their success can be mapped to five crucial success factors: 1) full and sustained Presidential support; 2) effective leadership with a clearly defined mandate; 3) access to resources; 4) parallel paths/processing to save time; and 5) private sector outsourcing.”
It also discusses the best basic research model which it says combines universities’ research efforts and “a dynamic public-private network of labs and a venture capital industry waiting downstream to commercialize ideas and turn them into large public companies that create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Here’s what’s needed to get that model back on track:
Clear national goals in two or three key areas, such as carbon-free energy and preventive medicine.
Government commitment of $10 billion a year above and beyond spending for national agencies to jump-start new industrial research labs.
Government tax credits for corporations that commit to spending 5% to 10% (or more) of R&D on basic research.”
The article is a good read with good historical background and ideas for the present.
The House Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing yesterday to examine how to improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics education through partnership of public and private stakeholders in an urban K-12 system. Last year the Committee examined this issue by focusing on the small-town school district of Texarkana, Texas. In contrast, this hearing used the large urban school district of Chicago (400,000 students) to investigate a systems approach to STEM education. Panelists and Committee members agreed that STEM education successes occur in pockets throughout the country, but the question of how to bring these successes to scale remains.
(Watch the archived webcast of the hearing and view copies of witness testimonies at the House S&T Committee website.)
Witnesses included Dr. Wanda Ward, Acting Assistant Director at the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (NSF); Ms. Maggie Daley, Chair of After School Matters; Mr. Michael Lach, Officer of Teaching and Learning, Chicago Public Schools; Dr. Donald Wink, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of Chemistry, and Director of Graduate Studies, Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Illinois at Chicago; Ms. Katherine Pickus, Divisional Vice President, Global Citizenship and Policy, Abbott Laboratories.
Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) framed the day’s discussion by recalling recent developments in STEM education: The National Academies Rising Above the Gathering Storm; the 2007 America COMPETES Act; and the passing of the STEM education bill H.R. 1709 in June of this year. From his opening remarks:
In hearings and reports we have repeatedly heard that innovation is key to maintaining a high standard of living for all Americans, and that we need more teachers and more graduates in the STEM fields if we want our country to continue to lead in the global economy. Unfortunately, American students have been lagging their international peers, while American businesses are warning about a wave of retirements without adequately trained young people to fill these vacated positions, especially in engineering fields.
Reform of our STEM education system will require coordination on multiple fronts across many diverse stakeholders. In addition to several federal agencies, there are state and local governments, school districts, universities, non-profits, businesses, community organizations, teachers, students, and if a child is fortunate their parents.
America needs to be successful in improving STEM education. Without it, we will lose our capacity for innovation and diminish our countrys economic strength and competitiveness in the international marketplace.
Dr. Ward opened her remarks by pointing to NSFs role in aligning stem priorities in the America COMPETES Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with four foci: innovation, broad participation to improve workforce development, enrichment of teacher education, and fostering cyber learning to enhance STEM education.
Ms. Daly used her opening statement to emphasize the importance of creating learning experiences in informal environments. Using her own program, After School Matters, as an example, Daly noted the successful interaction between hundreds of paid instructors and thousands of students in Block 37 programs where professionals address workforce trends with students, and students are exposed to workplace problems. She pointed specifically to a partnership for students to design and build robots with mentors provided by Motorola. Daly requested that more attention be given to assessment of such efforts; historically, little resources have been used for evaluating non-profit initiatives like After School Matters.
Mr. Lach provided the public school district’s perspective, sharing a vision of high quality instruction involving professional development of teachers that partner with local industry and higher educators. One area of strength in Chicago, he noted, are the strong partnerships between the public schools and local universities. In addition, he shared some of the learnings from Chicago’s efforts:
partner with universities for course support and classroom instruction
extend learning experiences beyond the classroom
create math and science focused schools
foster partnerships among schools, universities, and grants from the federal government
centralize coordination of program support
Dr. Wink focused his remarks on the relationships, leadership and research that are necessary for the flow between K-12 students and higher education to strengthen STEM education. The most valuable investment, in his view, is made in people and relationships. He recommended to focus work with existing products and on existing research and to incorporate K-12 data on student performance in universities.
Ms. Pickus gave the perspective of a private firm involved in STEM education activities. Abbott, a large pharmaceutical health care company, provides mentors that give real world experience for students. Abbott’s involvement in Chicago’s public schools represent part of the private science community efforts to creating meaningful, informal experiences for students and training for teachers. Pickus emphasized the need to give public schools access to scientists, start early, and involve parents.
Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) lessened the sanguine tone of the hearing, asking Mr. Lach about dropout rates in Chicago’s public schools (above fifty percent). While there have been successes, Ehlers reminded the room of the tremendous work that must still be done.
During questioning, Representative Marcia Fudge (D-OH) asked about NSF’s work in developing the role of administrators. Ward responded positively, but did not give any specific examples of programs. Fudge also brought up the significant gap in achievement among minority students asking how STEM efforts can be targeted toward them. Mr. Lach responded that there is no silver bullet for decreasing the achievement gap. However, he felt that minority students can achieve when the supports he mentioned in his above opening remarks testimony are in place.
Representative Russ Carnahan’s (D-MO) question about the disconnect that often occurs between world-class institutions and infrastructure in large urban centers and STEM activities in public schools brought out discussion among the panelists about the critical role of the executive support. Each panelist agreed that mayoral support and political capital were vital to the success of STEM efforts in Chicago.
On a side note, when asked about compensation for math and science teachers, all panelists were in favor of increasing salary or stipends in order to attract, train, and retain quality STEM teachers.
Yesterday the Congressional Robotics Caucus, chaired by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), hosted a briefing on healthcare robotics. Four speakers addressed various aspects of robotics in healthcare. They were: Tandy Trower, Microsoft, who spoke on Healthcare Challenges and Robotic Solutions; Maja Mataric, University of Southern California, who spoke on Socially Assistive Robotics for Personalized Care for Stroke, Autism, and Alzheimers Disease; Charles Remsberg, Hocoma, Inc., who spoke on Robots in Rehabilitation Medicine; and Howie Choset, Carnegie Mellon University, who spoke on Same Day Surgery: The Future of Medical Robotic Technology Interventions.
Healthcare is clearly a hot topic on the Hill these days and the speakers emphasized that robotic technologies could lower costs, particularly with a growing senior population. All the speakers called for more research in robotics but showed examples of currently deployed healthcare robotic technology and had demonstrations available before and after the presentations.
Trower pointed out that, outside military robotics, the United States research funding for service robotics is limited. He referenced the CCC funded Roadmap for US Robotics which calls for increased research funding, accelerating commercialization of robotics research, and promoting robotics, among other recommendations.
Remsberg discussed the strides already made by the Department of Veterans Affairs to increase the use of rehabilitative robotics for returning wounded veterans but called for wider adoption of the technologies in light of the costs of physical therapy using human therapists. Remsberg points out that therapy using the various robotic technologies allows more patients to get more therapy and have better outcomes than using human physical therapists alone.
Mataric focused on stroke, autism and Alzheimers patients and how they can be assisted with robotics. Many autistic children will interact with, and learn from, robots when they cannot do so with people according to Mataric.
Choset spoke on the need for better surgical robotics to lower the invasiveness of surgery and therefore, decrease recovery and hospital stay time for patients. He also stressed that robotic technology in surgery is not meant to replace human surgeons but to assist them in doing the surgery faster and safer.
The presentations will be available online at the Robotics Caucus web site next week.
CCCs Network Science and Engineering (NetSE) Council, led by Ellen Zegura, released a new agenda for networking research at the GENI Engineering Conference this week. The agenda, version 1.0, is available here (pdf) but the Council stresses that this is a living document and as such requests feedback and comments from the community at the CCC NetSE web site.
The agenda is the result of a process initiated in 2008 at the behest of the CCC, who charged the NetSE Council with developing a comprehensive research agenda that would support the development of better networks. Through a series of workshops and much community input, the NetSE council gathered the input to produce this draft, which includes four overarching recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The funding agencies of the United States government must increase investment in research that will lead to a better Internet or risk a marginal future role. Recommendation 2: Funding agencies should rebuild the experimental capabilities of networking researchers, through funding individual systems-building efforts, providing adequate and persistent shared experimental infrastructure, and supporting research that leads to continued improvements in experimental methodology. Experimental work is expensive and long-term; typical NSF awards are insufficient, therefore either NSF will need to change its award portfolio or other agencies will have to play a significantly increased role. Recommendation 3: Funding agencies should foster and support research activities relevant to network design within the theoretical computer science community, the new Network Science community, and other theoretical disciplines. Recommendation 4: Funding agencies should support a broad array of interdisciplinary research activities related to understanding the current Internet and designing future networks to include the Internet.
More information on the NetSE effort and the full version of the report are available at the CCC NetSE web site. Also, feel free to comment on the CCC Blog.
On Thursday, the National Science Foundation (NSF), with co-sponsorship from CRA, presented an open-house luncheon briefing on cyber-physical systems (CPS). Held in the Hart Senate Office Building, the luncheon briefing allowed industry and academic experts to share their insights into an area of IT that has been the subject of increasing attention fromCongress since a 2007 report of the President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology called it out for increased priority.
From the press release:
Cyber-physical systems are “smart” technologies that are beginning to transform our lives. Today’s research will lead to tomorrow’s autonomous, smart vehicles for safe transportation; homes filled with smart appliances; intelligent, earthquake resistant buildings and bridges; robots that assist us at home, at work, and at play; and unobtrusive assistive technology for healthier living.
Cyber-physical systems technologies will affect sectors critical to our well-being, security and competitiveness, including aerospace, automotive, chemical production, civil infrastructure, energy, finance, healthcare, manufacturing, materials and transportation.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid provided opening remarks by praising the efforts of scientists whose work is vital in bringing about smarter technology that will help save lives, improve energy efficiency and transform economic competitiveness. Due to health reasons, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV was unable to attend. Other speakers included Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation; Dr. Cora B. Marrett, Acting Deputy Director of the NSF; Dr. Jeannette Wing, Assistant Director for Computer & Information Science and Technology, NSF; Mr. Don Winter, Vice President of Engineering & Information Technology, Boeing Phantom Works; and Dr. Julian Goldman, Medical Director of Partners HealthCare System Biomedical Engineering.
Dr. Wing spoke about the important function of the NSF in fostering an environment where scientific innovation can flourish and be shared across disciplines. The NSFs role, she highlighted, is to coordinating these innovations among the sectors of industry and academia so that they can be instantiated in other areas. Dr. Goldman provided a glimpse into the challenges of medical information technology. In high-risk environments like a hospital operating room, system failure can lead to patient injury or death. While CPS Innovations in systems that prevent human error have been developed in some high-risk environments, Goldman explained that the barrier of interoperability has prevented widespread development and deployment of such systems in health care.
Researchers, ranging from Baltimore high school students to professors and graduate students, presented a variety of demonstrations representing the latest research on CPS. Many of the exhibits highlighted robotic and human-machine systems that could help people with disabilities, be used as tools for behavior studies, assist surgeons in operating rooms, drive autonomous vehicles, or be capable of haptic interaction. Other systems included those that could reason about human or environmental activities.
In addition to CRA, other co-sponsors of the event included the Coalition for National Science Funding, the American Chemical Societys Science & the Congress Project and the Association for Computing Machinery.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
FY 10 Appropriations Update: Energy, NSF, NIST, Defense
/In: FY10 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaWe’re in the end game for the FY 2010 appropriations, but no one is really sure exactly how this will end (though there are some good theories). While a number of bills have actually passed through regular order — including, most relevantly for the computing research community, the Energy and Water appropriations bill, which contains funding for the DOE’s Office of Science — an equal number of key bills remain unsettled. Still unresolved are the Commerce, Justice, Science bill, which includes funding for NSF, NOAA, NIST, and NASA; the Defense bill, which includes funding for DARPA and the Defense labs; and Labor-HHS, which includes funding for NIH. Because we’ve passed the end of the fiscal year (Sept. 30th), the government is operating under a “Continuing Resolution” that will keep agencies funded at the FY 09 rate through Dec 18th. So, conventional wisdom suggests that these remaining appropriations bills will get taken care of by then (and probably at the last minute). Until then, Congress — the Senate, in particular — is more than occupied by the raging debate on reforming health care and will fit in appropriations discussions between now and then only as little blocks of free time appear.
It appears at this point that the remaining bills will end up in an omnibus measure — that is, they’ll be bundled into one bill for passage. (Because it’s only seven appropriations bills that would be bundled, rather than the usual twelve, many have taken to referring to the bill as a “minibus” — though I suppose everything is relative in DC). It also appears that the Defense bill will be the anchor for the minibus, because it’s considered the highest priority (a “must pass” bill), and thus many controversial provisions unrelated to defense that don’t have homes elsewhere may find their way into the bill (there’s been talk of adding a DC voting rights measure to it, though that’s now looking unlikely, or some health care-related language). But aside from that, we assume that sometime that week of Dec 14-18, we’ll start to see the final agreed-upon numbers for all of the as-yet-unappropriated science programs we care about. Until then, here’s what we know:
Department of Energy Office of Science (status: final): The Energy and Water Appropriations was passed and signed by the President on October 28th (P.L. 111-85). In it, DOE’s Office of Science received just over $4.8 billion (plus about $77 million in earmarks), a compromise between levels the House and Senate had passed separately, but an increase of 3 percent compared with FY 2009. The appropriation includes funding for the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program (ASCR), which will receive $394 million in FY 10, slightly less than both the Senate original appropriations of $399 million and the House original number of $409 million, but a healthy 6.8 percent increase over FY2009.
National Science Foundation (status: unfinished): Funding for NSF is contained in the FY 10 Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill. The House version of this bill would fund NSF at $6.93 billion in FY 10, an increase of 6.9 percent over FY09 but $108 million lower than the President’s request for the agency. The Senate version would fund the agency at $6.9 billion, a 6.6 percent increase. Both the Senate and House bills include healthy increases for NSF’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering directorate. The Senate version would provide $620 million in FY 10, 8.1 percent more than FY 09, and the House would provide $623 million, or an 8.6 percent increase. Both levels are less than the $633 million the President requested in his budget.
NSF’s Office of CyberInfrastructure (OCI) also fares well in both versions of the bill. The House would provide $216 million for OCI in FY 10, an increase of 8.1 percent, and the Senate $215 million, a 7.7 percent increase. Both are below the President’s requested increase of 10.0 percent in FY 10.
NSF’s Education and Human Resources directorate would receive a $17.6 million increase over FY 09 in the House, a $12.5 million increase over the Administration request. The Senate passed the President’s EHR request of $857.76 million.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (status: unfinished): NIST is also a part of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill. The House passed version includes $587 million for NIST’s research efforts, a 1.6 percent decrease from FY 09. The Senate would fund the agency at $684 million (less $47 million in earmarks), a 14.5 percent increase. However, if you remove the earmarked spending, the real increase to NIST in the Senate bill would be 6.1 percent. The Administration requested $652 million for the agency, a 9.2 percent increase over FY 09.
Department of Defense (status: unfinished): The Defense Appropriations bill includes funding for all DOD research, including DARPA and the Defense research labs. There’s some concern about the levels included for DARPA in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, but especially for the Senate levels. Both the House and Senate included significant cuts to the President’s request for DARPA — the House trimmed about $200 million from the request, the Senate about $500 million. In the Senate’s case, appropriations staffers apparently didn’t feel that the agency, given its recent history of under-spending its appropriation — a behavior linked to policies of the agency’s previous leadership — warranted an increase in FY 10 and instead used that money to fund increases elsewhere in the bill. Many of us in the science advocacy community reacted strongly to this reduction. Under new leadership, the agency appears to be making a serious effort to reverse many of the policies that the university community and Congress shared, and has proposed a number of new efforts designed to reengage DARPA with university researchers. We do not want to see that new approach derailed or hamstrung by this proposed reduction. CRA, along with many partners in the academic and industrial communities have weighed in with Congress in an attempt to mitigate these reductions. We’ll know in December how successful those efforts were. (We’ll also have much more on the “new” DARPA in future posts…)
There are also significant differences in opinion between the Senate and the House in the overall level of defense basic research (or 6.1 research, in DOD parlance). The House approved bill would fund Defense 6.1 research at $1.798 billion in FY 10, an increase of 10.1 percent over FY 09. The Senate, while still approving an increase, would only include $1.713 billion in FY 10, a 4.9 percent increase. Like the DARPA issue, this disparity will need to get worked out in conference between the chambers.
As we learn more, we’ll post it here. But it’s unlikely much will happen until mid-December….
National CS Education Week
/In: Events /by MelissaNorrLast night, Congress passed a resolution stating that the week of December 7 is National Computer Science Education Week by a vote of 405 to 0. The resolution language includes reasons that computing is so important to our culture and economy and the need to increase the diversity of people in computing as important factors that a National Computer Science Education Week could help promote. The week of December 7 was chosen to honor Grace Murray Hopper, one of the earliest female pioneers in computing, as her birthday was December 9. The full text of the resolution is available.
ACM has more information and community reaction here.
Prizes and Computing Research
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC) /by Peter HarshaRan Libeskind-Hadas, a member of the Computing Community Consortium’s Council and a professor at Harvey Mudd College, has an interesting post today on the CCC blog asking, in light of the recent Netflix Prize announcement, whether prizes are a viable mechanism for encouraging research in the computing fields.
He notes several other examples of prizes that have led to new results and asks:
Add your two cents (or more) in the comments section. (No prize for doing it, though.)
House S&T Committee Considers Cyber Security R&D
/In: Diversity in Computing, Policy, Research, Security /by MelissaNorrThe House Committee on Science and Technologys Research and Science Education Subcommittee marked up a bill designed to amend portions of Cyber Security R&D Act of 2005 today. The aptly named Cybersecurity Research and Development Amendments Act of 2009 (PDF) touches on several things that CRA supports including:
Only two amendments to the original bill language were proposed and both were adopted. The first was the managers amendment which made technical changes to the bill and clarifies the service requirements for those students participating in the Scholarship for Service program authorized in the bill. The second amendment was introduced by Congresswoman Johnson (D-TX) and seeks to increase the participation of underrepresented groups in the scholarship program and include minority institutions as stakeholders in the strategic plan. We don’t yet have copies of either the Manager’s amendment or Rep. Johnson’s, but when we do, we’ll post them here.
Both the chairman of the subcommittee, Congressman Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) and the ranking member, Congressman Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) emphasized the need for cybersecurity research to keep pace with the changing cyber threats and to ensure a sufficient workforce in cybersecurity. Ehlers mentioned that the workforce problem had been personally brought to his attention last year by a computer science professor who visited his office and discussed the drop in computing related undergraduates after the boom, a situation that we have discussed in great detail here in the past, but one that, based on the most recent Taulbee data, we believe is turning around.
President Obama Touts Role of Basic Research in Innovation
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaDelivering remarks at Hudson Valley Community College in Troy, NY, today, President Obama noted the importance of the U.S. remaining an innovation leaders and how his Administration hopes to continue fostering that. Here’s a snippet with some remarks relevant to the computing community:
We’ve posted his full remarks in the extended entry. As you’ll see in the coming days as we begin to post more on the appropriations process, there’s still positive sentiment in the Administration and the Congress for the federal government’s role in supporting basic research and its payoff in the economy. But translating that positive sentiment into robust funding for basic research is tricky and there are a number of hurdles along the way. So it helps that the President continues to shine a light on the issue and that articles like this great piece in today’s <a href=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik21-2009sep21,0,5599248.columnLos Angeles Times continue to highlight the importance of federal support for basic research. Here’s a bit from that LA Times article, written by columnist Michael Hiltzik:
Read more →
Business Week on Research in Industry
/In: Economic Stimulus and Recovery, Funding, Policy, R&D in the Press /by MelissaNorrCRA frequently talks about the need for more basic scientific research but we focus almost exclusively on governmental research investment. We talk about the fall of DARPA and the need for NSF to increase to compensate. We don’t spend quite as much time talking about industry investment in basic research. An article in Business Week points out the necessity of industry participation in the research ecosystem and the rich history of corporate laboratories’ basic research contributions. It’s a very interesting article that weaves together the past and present research ecosystems, today’s economic concerns, and suggestions for tackling the problems we see today.
The article discusses the two times in US history when the government spurred scientific innovation in a short period of time – the Manhattan Project and the Apollo space mission – and the reasons they were so successful. It states, “Their success can be mapped to five crucial success factors: 1) full and sustained Presidential support; 2) effective leadership with a clearly defined mandate; 3) access to resources; 4) parallel paths/processing to save time; and 5) private sector outsourcing.”
It also discusses the best basic research model which it says combines universities’ research efforts and “a dynamic public-private network of labs and a venture capital industry waiting downstream to commercialize ideas and turn them into large public companies that create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Here’s what’s needed to get that model back on track:
The article is a good read with good historical background and ideas for the present.
A Systems Approach to Improving K-12 STEM Education
/In: Policy /by MelissaNorrThe House Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing yesterday to examine how to improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics education through partnership of public and private stakeholders in an urban K-12 system. Last year the Committee examined this issue by focusing on the small-town school district of Texarkana, Texas. In contrast, this hearing used the large urban school district of Chicago (400,000 students) to investigate a systems approach to STEM education. Panelists and Committee members agreed that STEM education successes occur in pockets throughout the country, but the question of how to bring these successes to scale remains.
(Watch the archived webcast of the hearing and view copies of witness testimonies at the House S&T Committee website.)
Witnesses included Dr. Wanda Ward, Acting Assistant Director at the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (NSF); Ms. Maggie Daley, Chair of After School Matters; Mr. Michael Lach, Officer of Teaching and Learning, Chicago Public Schools; Dr. Donald Wink, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of Chemistry, and Director of Graduate Studies, Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Illinois at Chicago; Ms. Katherine Pickus, Divisional Vice President, Global Citizenship and Policy, Abbott Laboratories.
Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) framed the day’s discussion by recalling recent developments in STEM education: The National Academies Rising Above the Gathering Storm; the 2007 America COMPETES Act; and the passing of the STEM education bill H.R. 1709 in June of this year. From his opening remarks:
Dr. Ward opened her remarks by pointing to NSFs role in aligning stem priorities in the America COMPETES Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with four foci: innovation, broad participation to improve workforce development, enrichment of teacher education, and fostering cyber learning to enhance STEM education.
Ms. Daly used her opening statement to emphasize the importance of creating learning experiences in informal environments. Using her own program, After School Matters, as an example, Daly noted the successful interaction between hundreds of paid instructors and thousands of students in Block 37 programs where professionals address workforce trends with students, and students are exposed to workplace problems. She pointed specifically to a partnership for students to design and build robots with mentors provided by Motorola. Daly requested that more attention be given to assessment of such efforts; historically, little resources have been used for evaluating non-profit initiatives like After School Matters.
Mr. Lach provided the public school district’s perspective, sharing a vision of high quality instruction involving professional development of teachers that partner with local industry and higher educators. One area of strength in Chicago, he noted, are the strong partnerships between the public schools and local universities. In addition, he shared some of the learnings from Chicago’s efforts:
Dr. Wink focused his remarks on the relationships, leadership and research that are necessary for the flow between K-12 students and higher education to strengthen STEM education. The most valuable investment, in his view, is made in people and relationships. He recommended to focus work with existing products and on existing research and to incorporate K-12 data on student performance in universities.
Ms. Pickus gave the perspective of a private firm involved in STEM education activities. Abbott, a large pharmaceutical health care company, provides mentors that give real world experience for students. Abbott’s involvement in Chicago’s public schools represent part of the private science community efforts to creating meaningful, informal experiences for students and training for teachers. Pickus emphasized the need to give public schools access to scientists, start early, and involve parents.
Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) lessened the sanguine tone of the hearing, asking Mr. Lach about dropout rates in Chicago’s public schools (above fifty percent). While there have been successes, Ehlers reminded the room of the tremendous work that must still be done.
During questioning, Representative Marcia Fudge (D-OH) asked about NSF’s work in developing the role of administrators. Ward responded positively, but did not give any specific examples of programs. Fudge also brought up the significant gap in achievement among minority students asking how STEM efforts can be targeted toward them. Mr. Lach responded that there is no silver bullet for decreasing the achievement gap. However, he felt that minority students can achieve when the supports he mentioned in his above opening remarks testimony are in place.
Representative Russ Carnahan’s (D-MO) question about the disconnect that often occurs between world-class institutions and infrastructure in large urban centers and STEM activities in public schools brought out discussion among the panelists about the critical role of the executive support. Each panelist agreed that mayoral support and political capital were vital to the success of STEM efforts in Chicago.
On a side note, when asked about compensation for math and science teachers, all panelists were in favor of increasing salary or stipends in order to attract, train, and retain quality STEM teachers.
Healthcare Robotics Briefing
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC), Events, Policy /by MelissaNorrYesterday the Congressional Robotics Caucus, chaired by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), hosted a briefing on healthcare robotics. Four speakers addressed various aspects of robotics in healthcare. They were: Tandy Trower, Microsoft, who spoke on Healthcare Challenges and Robotic Solutions; Maja Mataric, University of Southern California, who spoke on Socially Assistive Robotics for Personalized Care for Stroke, Autism, and Alzheimers Disease; Charles Remsberg, Hocoma, Inc., who spoke on Robots in Rehabilitation Medicine; and Howie Choset, Carnegie Mellon University, who spoke on Same Day Surgery: The Future of Medical Robotic Technology Interventions.
Healthcare is clearly a hot topic on the Hill these days and the speakers emphasized that robotic technologies could lower costs, particularly with a growing senior population. All the speakers called for more research in robotics but showed examples of currently deployed healthcare robotic technology and had demonstrations available before and after the presentations.
Trower pointed out that, outside military robotics, the United States research funding for service robotics is limited. He referenced the CCC funded Roadmap for US Robotics which calls for increased research funding, accelerating commercialization of robotics research, and promoting robotics, among other recommendations.
Remsberg discussed the strides already made by the Department of Veterans Affairs to increase the use of rehabilitative robotics for returning wounded veterans but called for wider adoption of the technologies in light of the costs of physical therapy using human therapists. Remsberg points out that therapy using the various robotic technologies allows more patients to get more therapy and have better outcomes than using human physical therapists alone.
Mataric focused on stroke, autism and Alzheimers patients and how they can be assisted with robotics. Many autistic children will interact with, and learn from, robots when they cannot do so with people according to Mataric.
Choset spoke on the need for better surgical robotics to lower the invasiveness of surgery and therefore, decrease recovery and hospital stay time for patients. He also stressed that robotic technology in surgery is not meant to replace human surgeons but to assist them in doing the surgery faster and safer.
The presentations will be available online at the Robotics Caucus web site next week.
CCC Announces New Networking Research Agenda
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC), Research /by MelissaNorrCCCs Network Science and Engineering (NetSE) Council, led by Ellen Zegura, released a new agenda for networking research at the GENI Engineering Conference this week. The agenda, version 1.0, is available here (pdf) but the Council stresses that this is a living document and as such requests feedback and comments from the community at the CCC NetSE web site.
The agenda is the result of a process initiated in 2008 at the behest of the CCC, who charged the NetSE Council with developing a comprehensive research agenda that would support the development of better networks. Through a series of workshops and much community input, the NetSE council gathered the input to produce this draft, which includes four overarching recommendations:
More information on the NetSE effort and the full version of the report are available at the CCC NetSE web site. Also, feel free to comment on the
CCC Blog.
NSF Shows Off Cyber-Physical Systems on the Hill
/In: Events /by MelissaNorrOn Thursday, the National Science Foundation (NSF), with co-sponsorship from CRA, presented an open-house luncheon briefing on cyber-physical systems (CPS). Held in the Hart Senate Office Building, the luncheon briefing allowed industry and academic experts to share their insights into an area of IT that has been the subject of increasing attention from Congress since a 2007 report of the President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology called it out for increased priority.
From the press release:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid provided opening remarks by praising the efforts of scientists whose work is vital in bringing about smarter technology that will help save lives, improve energy efficiency and transform economic competitiveness. Due to health reasons, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV was unable to attend. Other speakers included Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation; Dr. Cora B. Marrett, Acting Deputy Director of the NSF; Dr. Jeannette Wing, Assistant Director for Computer & Information Science and Technology, NSF; Mr. Don Winter, Vice President of Engineering & Information Technology, Boeing Phantom Works; and Dr. Julian Goldman, Medical Director of Partners HealthCare System Biomedical Engineering.
Dr. Wing spoke about the important function of the NSF in fostering an environment where scientific innovation can flourish and be shared across disciplines. The NSFs role, she highlighted, is to coordinating these innovations among the sectors of industry and academia so that they can be instantiated in other areas. Dr. Goldman provided a glimpse into the challenges of medical information technology. In high-risk environments like a hospital operating room, system failure can lead to patient injury or death. While CPS Innovations in systems that prevent human error have been developed in some high-risk environments, Goldman explained that the barrier of interoperability has prevented widespread development and deployment of such systems in health care.
Researchers, ranging from Baltimore high school students to professors and graduate students, presented a variety of demonstrations representing the latest research on CPS. Many of the exhibits highlighted robotic and human-machine systems that could help people with disabilities, be used as tools for behavior studies, assist surgeons in operating rooms, drive autonomous vehicles, or be capable of haptic interaction. Other systems included those that could reason about human or environmental activities.
In addition to CRA, other co-sponsors of the event included the Coalition for National Science Funding, the American Chemical Societys Science & the Congress Project and the Association for Computing Machinery.