Today, as part of CRA’s mission to improve public and policymaker understanding of the importance of computing and computing research, we’re pleased to announce the launch of a new feature on the CRA and CCC web pages: the Computing Research Highlight of the Week. Each week, we’ll highlight some of the exciting and important research results recently generated by the computing community.
Our first highlight features a new algorithm developed by researchers at the Jacobs School of Engineering at UC San Diego that promises to significantly boost the efficiency of network routing.
We hope to accomplish a few things with these highlights. First, we want to show off the good work being done in our community in a way that is accessible to the general public. One model for this is the very popular Astronomy Photo of the Day, where each day a new photo or graphic (or video) having something to do with astronomy is featured along with a succinct description. We hope to do the same for computing. Second, we hope to build up a good database of examples of the vibrancy of the computing fields that we can use in our advocacy efforts with Congress, the Adminstration, and federal agencies. Having a collection of easily accesible and digestable research “nuggets” helps us immeasurably when trying to make the case for computing research to policymakers. And thirdly, we want to make sure our members of our own community are aware of some of the wide variety of interesting research results that are being generated across the various sub-disciplines of computing, and perhaps even make connections to their own work.
We’ve tried to make it easy for you to keep track of the current weekly highlight with an RSS feed, an email notification system, and even embed code that allows you to feature the highlight of the week on your own web page. Each week’s highlight also features prominently on both the CRA and CCC home pages.
So how do you get your own work featured as a Computing Research Highlight of the Week? It’s easy: just submit it! From those submissions CRA and CCC staff and volunteers chose a new highlight each week. We’re pleased that so many answered our call last July for your research highlights, but we want more. So submit your interesting and important research results today!
As weve discussed here before, DARPA has shifted its research strategy from high risk, high reward to bridging the gap under Director Tony Tethers leadership since 2001. This week the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) held a breakfast with Dr. Erica Fuchs of Carnegie Mellon University who discussed research she had done regarding DARPAs research agenda.
Dr. Fuchs began by talking about her original research in optoelectronics and how she started looking into DARPA as a technology innovator. She went through the history of DARPA and talked about the basic model of DARPA brainstorm a new idea/direction, gain momentum around the idea, build a community, validate the idea with funding from other agencies or industry, and then let others take over the technology as DARPA was not meant to sustain technologies. Dr. Fuchs discussed the change under Tether to 12-18 month reviews with go/no go decisions and that universities are often shut out of the research or must partner with industry to get involved. Dr. Fuchs ended with the shift from Old DARPA with high risk, high reward, open ended research mostly at universities to the New DARPA characterized by “Bridging the Gap” and coordinating the commercialization of research and asked who is/will fund the earliest basic research at universities going forward?
Unfortunately, Dr. Fuchs slides are not posted online at this time. If they become available, we will add a link to the post.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
The fiscal year 2009 budget request for DARPA is $3,285,569,000, an increase of $326,493,000, more than 10 percent, over the fiscal year 2008 appropriated program of $2,959,076,000. In recent years, DARPA has repeatedly underexecuted its funded program level, executing a fiscal year 2005 program that was nine percent below the appropriated program and a fiscal year 2006 program that was twelve percent below the appropriated program. Based on program execution to date, DARPA will likely continue that trend for the fiscal year 2007 and 2008 programs. While DARPA’s continued underexecution can partially be explained by its fiscally responsible management approach of withholding funds from projects that fail to demonstrate progress, doubts exist about DARPA’s ability to responsibly manage such a large increase. Therefore, the bill provides $3,142,229,000, a reduction of $143,340,000 from the request. The Director of DARPA is directed to provide to the congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act a report that details by program element and project the application of undistributed reductions made in this Act….
The House is apparently moving to pass a continuing resolution for the FY 09 appropriations until March 6, 2009 — essentially deferring any decision on final appropriations levels to the new Congress and Administration. This is not unexpected — we’ve been talking about this since February — but it’s still bad news. Under this plan, most federal agencies (including federal science agencies) would see their funding restricted to the FY 08 level until at least March — halfway through the 09 fiscal year. This is especially unwelcome news for science agencies, which saw FY 08 funding levels that were essentially cuts vs. FY 07 levels (which weren’t spectacular either).
There are lots of factors involved here, so the final endgame still isn’t known. We’ve assumed for most of this year that we were going to get a CR because the dynamics between the Bush administration and the Democratically-controlled Congress are just as bad as they were last year when we saw the FY08 appropriations meltdown. But add to the mix now the desire of Congress not to come back after the November election, indecision in the Senate over their way forward (Democrats there still want to pass a large emergency supplemental that’s now looking pretty unlikely), and the impact of a $700 billion bailout for the financial services sector, and we really don’t have a clue how this is going to shake out.
CRA has joined a couple of efforts in recent days urging Members of Congress to consider funding science agencies at COMPETES levels in the FY09 CR, but the science advocacy community in general isn’t holding its breath about this. Frankly, I only really see one scenario in which science funding might recover quickly: if Obama wins in November and the Democrats hold or add to their majority in Congress.* If McCain wins or the House GOP makes gains, the dynamic for science funding doesn’t really change. In fact, things may get worse for science funding in the short term as McCain has indicated that, if elected, he would call for a one year “freeze” on federal discretionary spending — holding all government programs to their FY 08 funded levels — to give time to his Administration to “evaluate each and every program, looking at which ones are worthwhile and which are a waste of taxpayer dollars” (according to Ike Brannon, an economic and senior policy advisor to McCain). Such a freeze would not be welcome news for science agencies looking for relief after suffering real-dollar cuts in FY 08 for the second straight year.
*There’s one more caveat to the scenario and that’s the unknown impact of the $700 billion bailout, both on the federal budget itself and, just as importantly, on the mindset of policymakers. It’s such a big number — more than 2/3rds of the Federal discretionary spending budget — that it’s hard to rationalize as part of the budget process. But, even if it’s a one-time hit against the total deficit (even if the total hit isn’t yet known) and not a big factor in the mechanics of the appropriations process, it sure seems likely to amplify deficit politics. How much that mindset change might impact how future appropriations work out is anyone’s guess.
In any case, we’ll pass along more details as we learn them. For subscribers, CQ.com has the details of the CR.
The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation and the Science Coalition held a press conference this morning on Fueling Americas Future–the importance of federal funding for basic energy research. While both groups support a broad basic research agenda, this event emphasized the need for basic research in energy to solve Americas energy crisis. The event, held at the National Press Club, took place before a standing room only crowd. The four speakers were:
MIT President Susan Hockfield
Dupont Senior Vice President and Chief Science and Technology Officer Uma Chowdhry
Nobel Laureate and Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Steven Chu
The speakers all called for an increase in funding for basic energy research and for the next President to take bold action to keep the US competitive in new technologies and discoveries in alternative energy sources. Each of the distinguished speakers brought their own take to the issue, but all spoke to the common goal of energy independence and reducing fossil fuel consumption while helping the environment.
Also featured at the event was a petition signed by over 70 organizations (including CRA) to the two Presidential candidates to focus on basic energy research in the White House to ensure Americas long-term security.
A recording of the event will be available on either the Task Force or Science Coalition website soon. We’ll have the link here when it appears. Update: Watch the full press event here.
Now that Senator John McCain has supplied his answers to the Science Debate 2008 questions, we can take a look at the similarities and differences between the two candidates on a topic that could determine the United States’ competitive and economic future in the next administration. We highlighted some of Senator Obama’s answers here earlier and all of the answers from both candidates can be found here. Previously in this space we have contrasted the technological agendas from each campaigns’ web site.
McCain specifically calls out information technology research and computer science as important in a few of his answers. McCain says that he wants to invest in basic and applied research particularly in new and emerging areas and in information technology and will “support significant increases in basic research” at the various federal agencies — but stopped short of saying he would fully fund the America COMPETES Act, in sharp contrast to Obama who has promised the doubling called for in that legislation. McCain also supports greater education efforts in science and math to fill the skilled jobs that are needed in an innovation economy. He particularly supports giving $250 million to states to increase participation in AP courses in math, sciences, and computer science by offering them virtually as well as supporting the STEM education programs at the various federal science agencies like DOE and NSF, a markedly different stance than the current administration.
Here are excerpts from McCain’s answers to the questions that are most relevant to the computing community:
Q1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?
“…America has led the world into this technology revolution because we have enabled innovation to take root, grow, and prosper. Nurturing technology and innovation is essential for solving the critical problems facing our country…”
“As President, I will —
Focus on addressing national needs to make the United States a leader in developing, deploying, and exporting new technologies;
Utilize the nation’s science and technology infrastructure to develop a framework for economic growth both domestically and globally;
Appoint a Science and Technology Advisor within the White House to ensure that the role of science and technology in policies is fully recognized and leveraged, that policies will be based upon sound science, and that the scientific integrity of federal research is restored;
Eliminate wasteful earmarks in order to allocate funds for science and technology investments;
Fund basic and applied research in new and emerging fields such as nanotechnology and biotechnology, and in greater breakthroughs in information technology;
…
Encourage and facilitate commercialization of new innovations, especially those created from federally funded research;
Grow public understanding and popularity of mathematics and science by reforming mathematics and science education in schools;
Develop and implement a global competitive agenda through a series of business roundtables with industry and academia leaders.” Q4. Education. A comparison of 15-year-olds in 30 wealthy nations found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 17th, while average U.S. math scores ranked 24th. What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?
“My Administration will promote economic policies that will spur economic growth and a focus on an innovative economy. Critical to these efforts is the creation of the best trained, best prepared workforce to drive this economy through the 21st century. America’s ability to compete in the global market is dependent on the availability of a skilled workforce. Less than 20 percent of our undergraduate students obtaining degrees in math or science, and the number of computer science majors have fallen by half over the last eight years. America must address these trends in education and training if it hopes to compete successfully.
But I believe that education is an ongoing process. Thus our nation’s education system should not only focus on graduating new students; we must also help re-train displaced workers as they prepare for the rapidly evolving economy. Invigorating our community college system is a good place to start. For example, recognizing this, I have long supported grants for educational instruction in digital and wireless technologies, targeted to minorities and low-income students who may not otherwise be exposed to these fields.
Beyond the basics of enabling every student to reach their potential, our country is faced with a critical shortage of students with specific skills fundamental to our ability to compete globally.
The diminishing number of science, technology, engineering and math graduates at the college level poses a fundamental and immediate threat to American competitiveness.
We must fill the pipeline to our colleges and universities with students prepared for the rigors of advanced engineering, math, science and technology degrees.
We must move aggressively to provide opportunities from elementary school on, for students to explore the sciences through laboratory experimentation, science fairs and competitions.
We must bring private corporations more directly into the process, leveraging their creativity, and experience to identify and maximize the potential of students who are interested and have the unique potential to excel in math and science.
We must strengthen skills of existing science and math teachers through training and education, through professional development programs and community colleges. I believe we must provide funding for needed professional teacher development. Where federal funds are involved, teacher development money should be used to enhance the ability of teachers to perform in today’s technology driven environment. We need to provide teachers with high quality professional development opportunities with a primary focus on instructional strategies that address the academic needs of their students. The first 35 percent of Title II funding would be directed to the school level so principals and teachers could focus these resources on the specific needs of their schools.
I will devote 60 percent of Title II funding for incentive bonuses for high performing teachers to locate in the most challenging educational settings, for teachers to teach subjects like math and science, and for teachers who demonstrate student improvement. Payments will be made directly to teachers. Funds should also be devoted to provide performance bonuses to teachers who raise student achievement and enhance the school-wide learning environment. Principals may also consider other issues in addition to test scores such as peer evaluations, student subgroup improvements, or being removed from the state’s “in need of improvement” list.
I will allocate $250 million through a competitive grant program to support states that commit to expanding online education opportunities. States can use these funds to build virtual math and science academies to help expand the availability of AP Math, Science, and Computer Sciences courses, online tutoring support for students in traditional schools, and foreign language courses.
I will also continue to support STEM education programs at NSF, DOE, NASA, and NOAA. These scientific agencies can and should play a key role in the education of its future engineers and scientists. These agencies have the opportunity to add a practical component to the theoretical aspects of the students’ educational process.” Q13. Research. For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?
“With spending constraints, it will be more important than ever to ensure we are maximizing our investments in basic research and minimizing the bureaucratic requirements that eat away at the money designed for funding scientists and science. Basic research serves as the foundation for many new discoveries and represents a critical investment for the future of the country and the innovations that drive our economy and protect our people. I have supported significant increases in basic research at the National Science Foundation. I also called for a plan developed by our top scientists on how the funding should be utilized. We must ensure that our research is addressing our national needs and taking advantage of new areas of opportunities and that the results of this research can enter the marketplace. We must also ensure that basic research money is allocated to the best science based on quality and peer review, not politics and earmarks.
I am committed to reinvigorating America’s commitment to basic research, and will ensure my administration funds research activities accordingly. I have supported increased funding at DOE, NSF, and NIH for years and will continue to do so. I will continue my commitment to ensure that the funding is properly managed and that the nation’s research needs are adequately addressed.”
Senator Barack Obama responded to fourteen science questions asked by Science Debate 2008 regarding how an Obama White House would lead the US in areas vital to our competitiveness and innovation. All fourteen questions and Obama’s answers in their entirety can be found here. Some highlights of most importance to the computing community include:
Q 1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?
Ensuring that the U.S. continues to lead the world in science and technology will be a central priority for my administration. Our talent for innovation is still the envy of the world, but we face unprecedented challenges that demand new approaches. For example, the U.S. annually imports $53 billion more in advanced technology products than we export. China is now the world’s number one high technology exporter. This competitive situation may only worsen over time because the number of U.S. students pursuing technical careers is declining. The U.S. ranks 17th among developed nations in the proportion of college students receiving degrees in science or engineering; we were in third place thirty years ago.
My administration will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade. We will increase research grants for early-career researchers to keep young scientists entering these fields. We will increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at our science agencies. And we will invest in the breakthrough research we need to meet our energy challenges and to transform our defense programs.
A vigorous research and development program depends on encouraging talented people to enter science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and giving them the support they need to reach their potential. My administration will work to guarantee to students access to strong science curriculum at all grade levels so they graduate knowing how science works – using hands-on, IT-enhanced education. As president, I will launch a Service Scholarship program that pays undergraduate or graduate teaching education costs for those who commit to teaching in a high-need school, and I will prioritize math and science teachers. Additionally, my proposal to create Teacher Residency Academies will also add 30,000 new teachers to high-need schools – training thousands of science and math teachers. I will also expand access to higher education, work to draw more of these students into science and engineering, and increase National Science Foundation (NSF) graduate fellowships. My proposals for providing broadband Internet connections for all Americans across the country will help ensure that more students are able to
bolster their STEM achievement.
Progress in science and technology must be backed with programs ensuring that U.S. businesses have strong incentives to convert advances quickly into new business opportunities and jobs. To do this, my administration will make the R&D tax credit permanent. Q 13. Research. For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?
Federally supported basic research, aimed at understanding many features of nature- from the size of the universe to subatomic particles, from the chemical reactions that support a living cell to interactions that sustain ecosystems-has been an essential feature of American life for over fifty years. While the outcomes of specific projects are never predictable, basic research has been a reliable source of new knowledge that has fueled important developments in fields ranging from telecommunications to medicine, yielding remarkable rates of economic return and ensuring American leadership in industry, military power, and higher education. I believe that continued investment in fundamental research is essential for ensuring healthier lives, better sources of energy, superior military capacity, and high-wage jobs for our nation’s future.
Yet, today, we are clearly under-investing in research across the spectrum of scientific and engineering disciplines. Federal support for the physical sciences and engineering has been declining as a fraction of GDP for decades, and, after a period of growth of the life sciences, the NIH budget has been steadily losing buying power for the past six years. As a result, our science agencies are often able to support no more than one in ten proposals that they receive, arresting the careers of our young scientists and blocking our ability to pursue many remarkable recent advances. Furthermore, in this environment, scientists are less likely to pursue the risky research that may lead to the most important breakthroughs. Finally, we are reducing support for science at a time when many other nations are increasing it, a situation that already threatens our leadership in many critical areas of science.
This situation is unacceptable. As president, I will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade.
Sustained and predictable increases in research funding will allow the United States to accomplish a great deal. First, we can expand the frontiers of human knowledge. Second, we can provide greater support for high-risk, high-return research and for young scientists at the beginning of their careers. Third, we can harness science and technology to address the “grand challenges” of the 21st century: energy, health, food and water, national security, information technology, and manufacturing capacity.
The other twelve questions and answers are worth taking a look at as well.
Thomas G. Dolan, editorial page editor for Barron’s asserts in an editorial yesterday that federal support for basic research is overrated — what’s really needed to drive innovation in this country are R&D tax cuts for American business and “permanently opening the golden door for foreign scientists and engineers.” And while he’s not wrong that both tax cuts and improved visa policies are probably key pieces keeping America’s innovation ecosystem powering along, his understanding of the (crucial) role of basic research in that process is somewhat lacking.
Fortunately, CCC Council Chair Ed Lazowska (who is also the Bill and Melinda Gates Chair in Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Washington), has penned this response to help fill out the picture a bit. Here, with permission, is the note he sent to Barron’s:
Your editorial tackles a critical issue.
The steps that you focus on — tax policy (particularly, making permanent the R&D tax credit) and immigration policy — are important elements of a solution.
But improvements to our education system, to federal support of fundamental research, and to various policies that create “friction” in the innovation ecosystem, are equally important.
There have been several authoritative studies of how innovation actually occurs in information technology — my own field.
Let me focus on research here, although there is just as much to say about the other elements of the innovation ecosystem. America is the world leader in IT innovation due to a complex interplay of universities, industry, and the federal government. Essentially every aspect of IT upon which we rely today – every billion-dollar sub-category of the IT industry – bears the clear stamp of federally-supported university-based research. See, for example, the figure on pages 6 and 7 of this National Academies study.
Continued investment is necessary to maintain our leadership and competitiveness. Achieving many of the “societal grand challenges” of this century will depend critically on further fundamental advances in IT: the engineering of new tools that will transform scientific discovery; advancing personalized learning; shifting towards predictive, preventive, personalized, participatory medicine; enhancing national security; developing smart controls and smart electric grids needed to address energy and climate challenges. Many of the “grand challenges” of IT itself will have broad implications for society: securing cyberspace; designing truly scalable systems; enhancing virtual reality; creating the future of networking; infusing “computational thinking” into a wide variety of disciplines which are themselves becoming “information sciences”; driving advances in entirely new approaches to computing such as quantum computing.
Research is the key to making progress on these grand challenges. Both industry and the federal government have important, but different, roles to play. It is crucial to avoid confusing the IT industry’s research and development (R&D) expenditures with fundamental research that is guiding our way to the future. The vast majority of corporate R&D in IT – far more than 95% – involves the engineering of the next version of a product. This “development” is essential. But the transformative ideas – and our nation’s long-term leadership – come from long-range research. It is a natural and essential role of government to support this fundamental research – R&D that looks out 5, 10, or 15 years, rather than just one product cycle. This federally-supported research takes place primarily in America’s universities and has the benefit of producing not just the ideas that will power the nation and the world, but the people who will make them happen. The relatively modest federal investment in IT research has played an essential role in the past, and will play an equally essential role in the future.
=====
Ed Lazowska
Bill & Melinda Gates Chair in Computer Science & Engineering
University of Washington http://lazowska.cs.washington.edu
The Chronicle of Higher Ed yesterday covered the release of a National Science Foundation Info Brief on the decline of U.S. funding for academic research for the second straight year, noting that NSF declares the decline “unprecedented for this data series, which began in 1972.”
Though federal funding for academic research technically increased from FY 2006 to FY 2007 by 1.1 percent to $30.4 billion in constant dollars, once adjusted for inflation the “increase” actually represents at 1.6 percent decline. This follows a 0.2 percent adjusted decrease between FY 2006 and FY 2005. And, though NSF isn’t reporting it yet, we already know (barring a surprising 2nd second emergency supplemental appropriations) that FY 2008 will continue that negative trend.
The Chronicle piece notes that industry’s support for academic research has ramped up and actually covered most of the federal decline overall. But that was not the case in Computer Science, which still saw a decrease of 1.4 percent in academic funding from all sources. It remains to be seen how some recenthighly-publicized university-industry partnerships in computing will affect FY 08 and beyond, but at this point, every little (and big) bit helps.
As the Chronicle piece also points out, it’s also too soon to know how the next President might handle the situation. What we do know is that the FY 2009 appropriations bills that Congress ought to be moving in advance of the Oct 1, 2008 beginning of the fiscal year are hopelessly mired in budget politics that won’t likely get resolved until post November at the very earliest (and more likely next February or later). That’s more bad news for science, which was again slated for big increases in those FY 09 bills. We’ll keep an eye on all developments here and keep you posted.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
Announcing the Computing Research Highlight of the Week
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC), CRA, R&D in the Press, Research /by Peter HarshaToday, as part of CRA’s mission to improve public and policymaker understanding of the importance of computing and computing research, we’re pleased to announce the launch of a new feature on the CRA and CCC web pages: the Computing Research Highlight of the Week. Each week, we’ll highlight some of the exciting and important research results recently generated by the computing community.
Our first highlight features a new algorithm developed by researchers at the Jacobs School of Engineering at UC San Diego that promises to significantly boost the efficiency of network routing.
We hope to accomplish a few things with these highlights. First, we want to show off the good work being done in our community in a way that is accessible to the general public. One model for this is the very popular Astronomy Photo of the Day, where each day a new photo or graphic (or video) having something to do with astronomy is featured along with a succinct description. We hope to do the same for computing. Second, we hope to build up a good database of examples of the vibrancy of the computing fields that we can use in our advocacy efforts with Congress, the Adminstration, and federal agencies. Having a collection of easily accesible and digestable research “nuggets” helps us immeasurably when trying to make the case for computing research to policymakers. And thirdly, we want to make sure our members of our own community are aware of some of the wide variety of interesting research results that are being generated across the various sub-disciplines of computing, and perhaps even make connections to their own work.
We’ve tried to make it easy for you to keep track of the current weekly highlight with an RSS feed, an email notification system, and even embed code that allows you to feature the highlight of the week on your own web page. Each week’s highlight also features prominently on both the CRA and CCC home pages.
So how do you get your own work featured as a Computing Research Highlight of the Week? It’s easy: just submit it! From those submissions CRA and CCC staff and volunteers chose a new highlight each week. We’re pleased that so many answered our call last July for your research highlights, but we want more. So submit your interesting and important research results today!
Computerworld Articles on US Innovation, Technology, and the Next President
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY09 Appropriations, People, Policy, R&D in the Press, Research /by MelissaNorrComputerworld has published a great couple of articles this week regarding the next Administration, technology, and US innovation. They feature a number of folks well-known in the CS community and are definitely worth checking out.
US Innovation: On the Skids
Dear Mr. President: Lets Talk Tech
ITIF Breakfast with Dr. Erica Fuchs
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Events, Funding, FY09 Appropriations, People /by MelissaNorrAs weve discussed here before, DARPA has shifted its research strategy from high risk, high reward to bridging the gap under Director Tony Tethers leadership since 2001. This week the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) held a breakfast with Dr. Erica Fuchs of Carnegie Mellon University who discussed research she had done regarding DARPAs research agenda.
Dr. Fuchs began by talking about her original research in optoelectronics and how she started looking into DARPA as a technology innovator. She went through the history of DARPA and talked about the basic model of DARPA brainstorm a new idea/direction, gain momentum around the idea, build a community, validate the idea with funding from other agencies or industry, and then let others take over the technology as DARPA was not meant to sustain technologies. Dr. Fuchs discussed the change under Tether to 12-18 month reviews with go/no go decisions and that universities are often shut out of the research or must partner with industry to get involved. Dr. Fuchs ended with the shift from Old DARPA with high risk, high reward, open ended research mostly at universities to the New DARPA characterized by “Bridging the Gap” and coordinating the commercialization of research and asked who is/will fund the earliest basic research at universities going forward?
Unfortunately, Dr. Fuchs slides are not posted online at this time. If they become available, we will add a link to the post.
DARPA’s Tether Continues to Lose His Fight with Congress
/In: Funding, FY09 Appropriations, Policy, R&D in the Press /by Peter HarshaFrom the explanatory statement for the Continuing Resolution that will fund government agencies until March 6, 2009:
Wired’s Noah Shactman, writing for the Danger Room blog, has more.
House Dems Want to Punt Approps Until March 2009
/In: FY09 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaThe House is apparently moving to pass a continuing resolution for the FY 09 appropriations until March 6, 2009 — essentially deferring any decision on final appropriations levels to the new Congress and Administration. This is not unexpected — we’ve been talking about this since February — but it’s still bad news. Under this plan, most federal agencies (including federal science agencies) would see their funding restricted to the FY 08 level until at least March — halfway through the 09 fiscal year. This is especially unwelcome news for science agencies, which saw FY 08 funding levels that were essentially cuts vs. FY 07 levels (which weren’t spectacular either).
There are lots of factors involved here, so the final endgame still isn’t known. We’ve assumed for most of this year that we were going to get a CR because the dynamics between the Bush administration and the Democratically-controlled Congress are just as bad as they were last year when we saw the FY08 appropriations meltdown. But add to the mix now the desire of Congress not to come back after the November election, indecision in the Senate over their way forward (Democrats there still want to pass a large emergency supplemental that’s now looking pretty unlikely), and the impact of a $700 billion bailout for the financial services sector, and we really don’t have a clue how this is going to shake out.
CRA has joined a couple of efforts in recent days urging Members of Congress to consider funding science agencies at COMPETES levels in the FY09 CR, but the science advocacy community in general isn’t holding its breath about this. Frankly, I only really see one scenario in which science funding might recover quickly: if Obama wins in November and the Democrats hold or add to their majority in Congress.* If McCain wins or the House GOP makes gains, the dynamic for science funding doesn’t really change. In fact, things may get worse for science funding in the short term as McCain has indicated that, if elected, he would call for a one year “freeze” on federal discretionary spending — holding all government programs to their FY 08 funded levels — to give time to his Administration to “evaluate each and every program, looking at which ones are worthwhile and which are a waste of taxpayer dollars” (according to Ike Brannon, an economic and senior policy advisor to McCain). Such a freeze would not be welcome news for science agencies looking for relief after suffering real-dollar cuts in FY 08 for the second straight year.
*There’s one more caveat to the scenario and that’s the unknown impact of the $700 billion bailout, both on the federal budget itself and, just as importantly, on the mindset of policymakers. It’s such a big number — more than 2/3rds of the Federal discretionary spending budget — that it’s hard to rationalize as part of the budget process. But, even if it’s a one-time hit against the total deficit (even if the total hit isn’t yet known) and not a big factor in the mechanics of the appropriations process, it sure seems likely to amplify deficit politics. How much that mindset change might impact how future appropriations work out is anyone’s guess.
In any case, we’ll pass along more details as we learn them. For subscribers, CQ.com has the details of the CR.
Basic Energy Research Press Event
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Events, Funding, FY09 Appropriations, Policy, R&D in the Press /by MelissaNorrThe Task Force on the Future of American Innovation and the Science Coalition held a press conference this morning on Fueling Americas Future–the importance of federal funding for basic energy research. While both groups support a broad basic research agenda, this event emphasized the need for basic research in energy to solve Americas energy crisis. The event, held at the National Press Club, took place before a standing room only crowd. The four speakers were:
The speakers all called for an increase in funding for basic energy research and for the next President to take bold action to keep the US competitive in new technologies and discoveries in alternative energy sources. Each of the distinguished speakers brought their own take to the issue, but all spoke to the common goal of energy independence and reducing fossil fuel consumption while helping the environment.
Also featured at the event was a petition signed by over 70 organizations (including CRA) to the two Presidential candidates to focus on basic energy research in the White House to ensure Americas long-term security.
A recording of the event will be available on either the Task Force or Science Coalition website soon. We’ll have the link here when it appears.
Update: Watch the full press event here.
McCain Answers Science Debate 2008
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, People, Policy, R&D in the Press /by MelissaNorrNow that Senator John McCain has supplied his answers to the Science Debate 2008 questions, we can take a look at the similarities and differences between the two candidates on a topic that could determine the United States’ competitive and economic future in the next administration. We highlighted some of Senator Obama’s answers here earlier and all of the answers from both candidates can be found here. Previously in this space we have contrasted the technological agendas from each campaigns’ web site.
McCain specifically calls out information technology research and computer science as important in a few of his answers. McCain says that he wants to invest in basic and applied research particularly in new and emerging areas and in information technology and will “support significant increases in basic research” at the various federal agencies — but stopped short of saying he would fully fund the America COMPETES Act, in sharp contrast to Obama who has promised the doubling called for in that legislation. McCain also supports greater education efforts in science and math to fill the skilled jobs that are needed in an innovation economy. He particularly supports giving $250 million to states to increase participation in AP courses in math, sciences, and computer science by offering them virtually as well as supporting the STEM education programs at the various federal science agencies like DOE and NSF, a markedly different stance than the current administration.
Here are excerpts from McCain’s answers to the questions that are most relevant to the computing community:
Obama Answers Science Debate 2008
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, Policy, R&D in the Press /by MelissaNorrSenator Barack Obama responded to fourteen science questions asked by Science Debate 2008 regarding how an Obama White House would lead the US in areas vital to our competitiveness and innovation. All fourteen questions and Obama’s answers in their entirety can be found here. Some highlights of most importance to the computing community include:
The other twelve questions and answers are worth taking a look at as well.
Barron’s Editorial Slags Federal Support for Basic Research, Lazowska Replies
/In: R&D in the Press /by Peter HarshaThomas G. Dolan, editorial page editor for Barron’s asserts in an editorial yesterday that federal support for basic research is overrated — what’s really needed to drive innovation in this country are R&D tax cuts for American business and “permanently opening the golden door for foreign scientists and engineers.” And while he’s not wrong that both tax cuts and improved visa policies are probably key pieces keeping America’s innovation ecosystem powering along, his understanding of the (crucial) role of basic research in that process is somewhat lacking.
Fortunately, CCC Council Chair Ed Lazowska (who is also the Bill and Melinda Gates Chair in Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Washington), has penned this response to help fill out the picture a bit. Here, with permission, is the note he sent to Barron’s:
NSF Study Confirms that Federal R&D and CS Funding Decreased for Second Straight Year
/In: Funding, FY08 Appropriations, FY09 Appropriations, Policy, R&D in the Press /by Peter HarshaThe Chronicle of Higher Ed yesterday covered the release of a National Science Foundation Info Brief on the decline of U.S. funding for academic research for the second straight year, noting that NSF declares the decline “unprecedented for this data series, which began in 1972.”
Though federal funding for academic research technically increased from FY 2006 to FY 2007 by 1.1 percent to $30.4 billion in constant dollars, once adjusted for inflation the “increase” actually represents at 1.6 percent decline. This follows a 0.2 percent adjusted decrease between FY 2006 and FY 2005. And, though NSF isn’t reporting it yet, we already know (barring a surprising 2nd second emergency supplemental appropriations) that FY 2008 will continue that negative trend.
The Chronicle piece notes that industry’s support for academic research has ramped up and actually covered most of the federal decline overall. But that was not the case in Computer Science, which still saw a decrease of 1.4 percent in academic funding from all sources. It remains to be seen how some recent highly-publicized university-industry partnerships in computing will affect FY 08 and beyond, but at this point, every little (and big) bit helps.
As the Chronicle piece also points out, it’s also too soon to know how the next President might handle the situation. What we do know is that the FY 2009 appropriations bills that Congress ought to be moving in advance of the Oct 1, 2008 beginning of the fiscal year are hopelessly mired in budget politics that won’t likely get resolved until post November at the very earliest (and more likely next February or later). That’s more bad news for science, which was again slated for big increases in those FY 09 bills. We’ll keep an eye on all developments here and keep you posted.