Congratulations to Edmund M. Clarke of Carnegie Mellon, E. Allen Emerson of UT-Austin, and Joseph Siafkis of Verimag Laboratory in France, on being awarded ACM’s 2007 A.M. Turing award, the highest honor in computing, for their work on a quality assurance process known as Model Checking!
ACM has all the details in their press release.
It looks like a decent year for Advanced Scientific Computing Research at the Department of Energys Office of Science. Following the FY08 omnibus, in which ASCR received an almost 25 percent increase, the President has requested another 5 percent increase for FY09, for a total of $368.8 million. Here is a brief breakdown:
Applied mathematics and computer science research $93.2 million
Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) $58.1 million
High-performance computing and network facilities and testbeds $217.5 million
The high-performance computing number includes:
$54.8 million for the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center
$85 million for Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility
$30 million for Argonne Leadership Computing Facility
$25 million for an Energy Sciences Network (ESNet)
US high-performance computing is expected to reach a petaflop this year at Oak Ridge and Raymond Orbach, the director of the Office of Science, stated at the budget briefing presentation that the US will increase computing power by a factor of ten every two years moving forward.
Overall, the Office of Science did well in the request with $4.7 billion, an 18.8 percent increase. This keeps the Office of Science close to the ACI trajectory announced by the President in 2006. Funding levels include:
$805 million for high energy physics
$510 million for nuclear physics
$568.5 million for biological and environmental research
$1.57 billion for basic energy science
$493 million for fusion energy sciences
$110 million for science laboratories infrastructure
In FY08, there were $123.6 million in earmarks in a total appropriation of $4.02 billion, which the President has zeroed out in the FY09 budget request.
The President’s budget request for FY 2009 is now online and we’ve done a quick read through to glean some numbers of interest to the computing research community. These will likely be refined over the next few days as we figure out exactly what’s in there and what’s not, but it’s a pretty good indication of where the President’s priorities are as we head into his final year. The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program
NITRD represents the sum total of the federal government’s investment in information technology research across 13 federal agencies. Overall, the NITRD program would see an increase of 6 percent compared to estimated levels for FY 2008, due largely to increases in the three agencies featured in the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). IT R&D at the National Science Foundation would grow 17 percent> over FY 08 levels to $1.090 billion (putting NSF’s share of NITRD at over a billion dollars for the first time). The Department of Energy’sOffice of Science computing research would grow 13 percent over FY 08 to $494 million. Dept of Commerce, which includes the National Institute of Standards and Technology, would grow 6 percent to $90 million.
Defense IT R&D appears to decrease 2 percent in the President’s request vs FY08, but it’s hard to assess that decrease without understanding exactly how many congressionally-directed projects (earmarks) were removed in the agency request. (More below.) NASA and the National Institutes of Health also see either flat-funding or slight decreases in the request, but again, without knowing what earmarks were removed, it’s hard to assess the budgets. EPA and the National Archives and Records Administration would get what little they received in FY 08 in FY 09 ($6 million and $5 million, respectively).
Agency budgets: NSF (pdf)
NSF research accounts would increase 16 percent (14 percent for NSF overall) over FY 08 in the President’s plan, to $6.06 billion. Included in that $6 billion is “$1.1 billion for fundamental information technology research and cutting-edge supercomputing and networking resources, including: $100 million, an 110-percent increase, for an NSF-wide effort to develop radically new computational concepts and tools [this is Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation — Peter]; and $30 million for a new targeted cyber-security research effort in privacy, fundamental theory and usability.”
We’ll have CISE numbers after NSF’s budget briefing later this afternoon. DOE (pdf)
DOE Science Programs would grow 19 percent vs FY 08 to $4.7 billion. As noted above, DOE’s IT R&D would see a 13 percent increase (on top of the nearly 25 percent increase DOE’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research account received in the omnibus for FY 08). NIST (pdf)
NIST core research would increase 4 percent over FY 08, but given the heavy earmarks in the omnibus that were likely stripped from this agency request, that may actually seem like a much more substantial increase. NASA (pdf)
NASA science would drop 4 percent to $4.4 billion. NIH (pdf)
NIH is flat-funded in the President’s request. Defense (pdf)
This is trickiest to figure out given the how heavily the DOD budget is earmarked. The President’s budget calls for an increase of just 4 percent for Defense Basic (6.1) research and a decrease of 16 percent to Defense Applied (6.2) research vs. FY 08. However, if you subtract the earmarks from the FY 08 baseline, the increase for DOD 6.1 is more like 17 percent. DOD 6.2 shorn of earmarks would also grow in FY 09 to look like a 3.5 percent *increase* over FY 08 (not a 16 percent decrease). But the devil’s in the details and we’ll have many more of those in the coming days.
On the whole, it looks like the President has followed through with his commitment to ACI in his final budget. Of course, he’s also pledged to take some very firm stands regarding earmarks in the upcoming appropriations process (he’s threatened to veto any appropriations bill sent to his desk that doesn’t cut FY08 earmark levels in half). That stand virtually guarantees he won’t be around when Congress finally gets around to passing approps bills. It’s very unlikely Congress will want to a) give up that many earmarks and b) engage in a battle over appropriations before the election, so it’s likely this won’t get settled until January 09 (or later). But, as with last year, we start with some pretty healthy numbers. In fact, in terms of IT R&D, we start with the healthiest requests we’ve seen in many years.
More details to come.
I know that after the crummyomnibusappropriation we got after a year of positive signs, it’s hard to get excited about the prospect of starting the whole process over again. But it was very encouraging to see the standing ovation for the President’s mention of the need to double federal funding for basic research in the physical sciences in his State of the Union remarks tonight. Here was the line that earned the ovation:
To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow.
Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge.
So I ask Congress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most dynamic nation on earth. (APPLAUSE)
It’s a start. We’ll have much more budget news after the new Administration budget is released next Monday….
Update: (1/30/08) — Cameron Wilson of USACM has some additional (depressing) details of the impact of the omnibus on the third ACI-related agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. For the impact on the other two — NSF and DOE’s Office of Science — see the original post just below! Original Post: We’re beginning to get a sense of how the shortfall in the FY 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill will impact specific programs in some of the federal science agencies. While we won’t get the full story until after the FY 09 Budget comes out on February 4th, the bits and pieces that are leaking around town are fairly dispiriting.
First the good news. It appears that though NSF’s research accounts only received $57 million in new money for FY 08 (an increase over FY 07 that fails to keep pace with inflation), the $52 million Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation program will likely move forward, though it’s not clear whether it will be “fully-funded.” Unfortunately, that’s where the good news ends. The rest of the stats are pretty gruesome:
NSF will likely fund 1,000 fewer research grants in FY 08 than planned and the average award size will be smaller.
NSF Graduate Fellowships will drop by 230.
The number of Faculty Early Career Awards will likely drop by five percent.
The Science of Science and Innovation Policy program will likely be delayed.
The Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program, slated to grow to $40 million in FY 08 will instead be flat-funded at $10 million.
The National Ecological Observatory Network will likely be delayed.
The Ocean Observatories Initiative will likely be delayed.
Research Experiences for Undergraduates may be reduced by five percent.
Science of Learning Centers will likely face a delay and possible reduction.
Things aren’t any better at the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. While the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program will see an pretty healthy increase in FY 08 (about 25 percent) and the start of a new “Institute for Advanced Architectures and Algorithms” with Centers of Excellence at Sandia National Labs and Oak Ridge National Labs, researchers across the board (including computing researchers) will see cuts or layoffs as a result of the overall agency budget. Here’s what we know so far:
Cuts to the Fusion Energy Sciences budget will result in layoffs of up to 40 at ORNL, PPPL, SRL, and LANL.
Cuts to the Basic Energy Sciences budget mean that no funding for any new research initiatives in use-inspired energy research and the layoff of approximately 50 permanent PhDs, 30 postdocs, and 20 students from on-going research programs. (As a comparison, the new research initiatives called for in the FY 08 budget would have supported about 400 permanent PhDs, 120 postdocs and 240 students).
Cuts to High Energy Physics will result in some facility closures and the loss of support for 450 employees (250 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator and 200 at Fermi Lab).
Cuts to Nuclear Physics will result in reductions of up to 8 permanent PhDs, 10 postdocs and 10 students.
It’s not clear whether anything can be done to mitigate any of these cuts. Congress has, in theory, closed the book on FY 2008. There are a couple of legislative vehicles that could provide opportunities to supplement these poor funding levels, but the likelihood that they will be used that way is pretty slim.
The first is in the economic stimulus package that will be passed shortly by the Congress in an effort to provide some relief for U.S. taxpayers and get them spending money in this slowing economy. While the House is not likely to include any funding for science as part of a stimulus, there’s a teeny-tiny chance that the Senate might give it a run. But even though the amount of the shortfall for science represents a very small portion of the proposed stimulus package — $900 million versus $150 billion — there are not likely to be too many in the House or the Administration who would be willing to support any additions beyond their original proposal. So, the odds for this route are, well, beyond slim.
The second is in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that will have to be considered in the next few months to pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Emergency supplemental bills have frequently been looked to in the past as a good place to stash a bit of extra funding for favored projects, provided you can make the case (however tenuous) that the funding is going for some sort of “emergency” use. Given the number of jobs lost at federal research facilities, and the fact that U.S. participation in some international research efforts (particularly the ITER fusion reactor project) is in jeopardy as a result of the FY 08 omnibus, Congress and the Administration might agree that supplemental funding is actually appropriate and include it in the supplemental appropriations bill. So, while this is unlikely to mitigate the whole of the shortfall, it’s not inconceivable that Congress could include $100-300 million, particularly for DOE Office of Science, to help mitigate the damage.
Beyond that, we’re looking at trying to make up as much of the difference in the FY 2009 appropriations process. The science community and the high-tech industry are already gearing up for that fight — with lessons learned from our failures in FY 08. Expect to read much more about how that effort moves forwards in the coming weeks….
Craig Barrett, Chairman of Intel, comes out swinging over the debacle that was the FY 08 Omnibus Appropriations Act and it’s impact on federal support for the physical sciences, computing, mathematics and engineering, in a piece that runs today in the San Francisco Chronicle (which should get Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) attention). The whole piece is well-worth reading, but I thought his conclusion was remarkably on point:
The United States stands at a pivotal point in our history. Competition is heating up around the world with millions of industrious, highly educated workers who are willing to compete at salaries far below those paid here. The only way we can hope to compete is with brains and ideas that set us above the competition – and that only comes from investments in education and R&D. Practically everyone who has traveled outside the United States in the last decade has seen this dynamic at work. The only place where it is apparently still a deep, dark secret is in Washington, D.C.
What are they thinking? When will they wake up? It may already be too late; but I genuinely think the citizenry of this country wants the United States to compete. If only our elected leaders weren’t holding us back.
The National Science Board released the 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators today at an event on Capitol Hill. Board Chair Steven Beering, Subcommittee Chair Louis Lanzerotti, and Arthur Reilly presented the Science and Engineering Indicators, the Digest of Key S&E Indicators, and a companion policy recommendation document, Research and Development: Essential Foundation for US Competitiveness in a Global Economy. Dr. Arden Bement and Dr. Kathie Olsen also attended the event and participated in the Q&A session at the end.
While the entire document can be found online, the event highlighted some specific findings of the 2008 S&E Indicators, including:
world science and engineering activities are shifting from the US and Europe, the traditional leaders, to Asia.
US share of high tech manufacturing has stayed above 30 percent over the last twenty years
Two-thirds of US R&D funding comes from industry and only 28 percent is from the federal government
2007 had a major downward curve in constant dollars of federal support for academic research
Defense research, mostly development, accounts for over half of all federal R&D
Chinas PhD attainment is on a steep up curve but is still significantly below the US
There has been an increase in S&E bachelors degrees in the US in all fields EXCEPT computing
Most foreign born PhD candidates in the US plan to stay in the US
80 percent of the public supports federal funding of basic research and 40 percent believe there is too little federal funding of basic research
The policy companion piece includes three broad recommendations. They are:
The federal government should take action to enhance the level of funding for, and the transformational nature of, basic research
Industry, government, the academic sector, and professional organizations should take action to encourage greater intellectual interchange between industry and academia. Industry researchers should also be encouraged to participate as authors and reviewers for articles in open, peer-reviewed publications.
New data are critically needed to track the implications for the US economy of the globalization of manufacturing and services in high technology industries, and this need should be addressed expeditiously by relevant federal agencies.
During the Q&A, Bement said that investment in basic research drives the economy and that it is not just dollars but also talent. In response to a question about why students would go into science and engineering instead of fields with better job prospects, Olsen said that the data found that demand for science and engineering majors in industry is increasing but students dont realize the options that are out there for a science or engineering degree.
There’s an interesting piece running now in BusinessWeek by Microsoft Researcher Bill Buxton that capitalizes on the buzz around the concept of the “long tail” in business by arguing that there’s an equally important “long nose” in business innovation that represents the long period of research and development that’s required to bring innovative products to market. Here’s a snip:
My belief is there is a mirror-image of the long tail that is equally important to those wanting to understand the process of innovation. It states that the bulk of innovation behind the latest “wow” moment (multi-touch on the iPhone, for example) is also low-amplitude and takes place over a long periodbut well before the “new” idea has become generally known, much less reached the tipping point. It is what I call The Long Nose of Innovation.
It’s a great article and certainly worth reading in full.
In the piece, he mentions a chart Butler Lampson presented to the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board of the National Research Council that traced the history of a number of key technologies. That’s this chart (frequently referred to as the “tire tracks” chart, for reasons that should be apparent). The chart originally appeared in a 1995 CSTB report, in which the CSTB had identified 9 billion-dollar sectors in the IT economy that bore the stamp of federally-supported research. They revised the chart in 2003 and identified 10 more sectors. I’m guessing that if they revised it again today (and I understand they are), you could at add least three more billion-dollar sectors — “Search,” “Social Networks,” and “Digital Video” — all enabled in some way by long-term research, usually supported by the federal government … exactly the type of long-term research that got hit hardest in this year’s appropriationsdebacle.
(Ed Lazowska’s testimony before the House Government Reform committee in 2004 contains an extended riff on the chart — how it shows the complex interplay between federally-supported university-based research and industrial R&D efforts; how industry based R&D is a fundamentally different character than university-based R&D; how the chart illustrates how interdependent the IT R&D ecosystem really is; and how university-based research produces not just ideas, but people, too. It’s all under the section titled “The Ecosystem that Gives Birth to New Technologies,” though the whole testimony is certainly worth a read, too.)
The FY08 omnibus appropriations bill that Congress is considering represents a step backwards for the bipartisan innovation agenda. The President and Congress, for all their stated support this year for making basic research in the physical sciences and engineering a top budget priority ended up essentially cutting, or flat-funding, key science agencies after accounting for inflation.
The nations that seek to challenge our global leadership in science and innovation should be greatly encouraged by this legislation.
The President and a near-unanimous Congress, by enacting the America COMPETES Act earlier this year, laid out a bold path toward revitalizing basic research in the physical sciences and engineering. COMPETES was a welcome Congressional initiative to double funding for Americas science research programs and expand science education that complemented the Presidents American Competitiveness Initiative and the Democratic Innovation Agenda.
This appropriations legislation takes a step back from the promises contained in all of these initiatives.
The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation is hopeful that this reversal of direction does not represent a lack of commitment to turning around the nations long decline in support for basic research programs. For now, the failure to provide the funding required to begin growing these programs makes these promises little more than empty gestures. We intend to work with the Administration and Congress in the new year to make the promise of America COMPETES a reality.
Strong words from an organization consisting of some of the most important technology companies and organizations on the planet.
Finally, it’s worth pointing out some interesting statistics. Late last summer, 367 members of the House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 2272, The America COMPETES Act, which we celebrated and covered in great detail. It was an unequivocal demonstration of support for strengthening the federal investment in basic research in the physical sciences, computing, mathematics and engineering and the importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Of those 367 members who voted for the COMPETES Act, 244 voted for this omnibus bill — a bill which represents a nearly 180 degree reversal from the goals of COMPETES. 206 Democrats, 38 Republicans.
Now there were clearly other possible reasons for voting for the omnibus, including a deluge of earmarks in the bill. But the fact remains that support for science ceased to be a priority for those 244 members — including quite a few who probably should have had science ranked high on their personal lists. As we now start to think about the FY 09 appropriations process, certainly it will be worth checking in with those members to understand the dissonance in their positions. (See the extended entry for the full list….)
Update: (12/17/07 1:30 pm) — It appears this bill is even worse than we initially thought. It turns out that the 3.3 percent increase for NSF’s research accounts (“Research and Related Activities”) is artificially inflated by some bookkeeping — namely the shifting of the EPSCoR program from the Education and Human Resources directorate to R&RA. Taking that shift into account, there’s really only $57 million in “new” funding in the R&RA account — a terribly anemic 1.2 percent increase for the research portion of the only federal agency devoted to supporting basic research. When you factor in inflation, that 1.2 percent really represents a cut — and a complete reversal of the goals of the ACI, the COMPETES Act, and the innovation plans so touted by the congressional leadership….. Original Post: Having gotten a peek at the final details for what will end up in the omnibus appropriations bill the House will consider Tuesday, I’m a bit dismayed at the choices that have been made. (Congressional Quarterly has the details; unfortunately, you’ll need a subscription to access them. The House Rules Committee has the text of the agreement online now.)
Those who have been following the saga that is the FY 08 appropriations process will recall that the total spending in the appropriations bills left unfinished by Congress (which included everything but Defense) exceeded the President’s budget request by $23 billion, a figure that brought out the President’s veto threat. The Democratic leadership tried to assess that threat by passing a Labor/HHS/Education bill they knew he would veto. When he vetoed it and the Congress failed to override it, it was clear who held the power in the negotiation. So, realizing they didn’t have the leverage they needed, the Democratic leadership began to cut back. They attempted to meet the President halfway with an omnibus that proposed an $11 billion cap overrun, but when they couldn’t peel off enough GOP members to override any potential veto, they caved completely, agreeing to live within the President’s budget cap for all the unfinished appropriations bills.
Unfortunately for the National Science Foundation and National Institute for Standards and Technology — two agencies that had been at the focal point of the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative and the Democratic Innovation Agenda — living under the cap meant that other programs within the omnibus received higher priorities and the planned increases for those two science agencies were cut sharply.
NSF, which under the House and Senate appropriations plans approvedearlier in the year would have received either a 10 or 11 percent increase (respectively) over FY 07, will instead receive just 2.5 percent vs. FY 07 in the new omnibus. NSF’s R&RA account (which funds the research directorates) will see just a 3.3 percent increase over FY 07 (instead of a planned 10.5 percent increase), should the omnibus pass.
NIST’s research efforts, which had been slated to grow over 15 percent vs. FY 07 in the House and Senate bills, will instead see that planned increase drop to just 1.4 percent over FY 07, should the bill pass.
DOE Office of Science fares a bit better — and DOE-related computing research comes out even further ahead in the deal. The Office of Science would have grown over 18 percent vs. FY 07 in the earlier House and Senate plans, but the new agreement will reduce that rate of increase to a still-respectable 6.8 percent. Advanced Scientific Computing Research, which had been slated to grow about 20 percent over FY07, would actually see *more* money in the new agreement — a growth of 25 percent over FY 07. Included in the increase is $19.5 million to “continue the Department’s participation in the [DARPA] High Productivity Computing Systems partnership” and an increase of $7.7 million for Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility to “maintain the planned budget and cost schedule.”
The agreement also includes details of an additional effort:
The Office of Science and the [NNSA] are directed to establish the Institute for Advanced Architectures and Algorithms with Centers of Excellence at Sandia National Labs and [ORNL]. These Centers will execute a national program involving industry, universities and national laboratories that is focused on technologies to sustain the U.S. leadership in high performance computing. The NNSA ASC and Office of Science ASCR programs will jointly fund the program and provide direction needed to support the goal of developing exascale computing for the Nation.
So, the House is set to begin consideration of the bill Tuesday. The Senate will get it as soon as the House passes it. It’s not clear whether the President will sign. There’s a core of the House GOP leadership that’s still not content with the limited spending in the omnibus. They’re leading an effort to push for a “Continuing Resolution” for FY 2008 (funding all agencies at their FY 07 levels) instead of the omnibus as a way of holding an even sharper line on spending. I suppose it’s possible that the President could veto the omnibus , and he could cite a lot of reasons — runaway earmarks, poor prioritization by congressional Democrats, the gutting of ACI — and the House GOP could force a CR by sustaining the veto. In that case, it would behoove the science advocacy community to push hard for special consideration of ACI-related agencies, as happened under the last CR. And it’s not implausible that GOP hard-liners might support it — after all, the real point of the CR would be to put a hold on earmarks. The science increases are, in fact, in the President’s budget.
But barring that somewhat unlikely chain of events — Presidential veto -> House GOP uphold veto and force CR -> CR favors ACI-related agencies — the ACI-related increases we’d hoped for at NSF and NIST appear to be lost. It’s hard not look for those to blame. The Democratic leadership is certainly open to some criticism for these numbers. When push came to shove and they were forced to live within the President’s budget constraints, the leadership didn’t feel that preserving the increases for science funding rose to a high enough priority in the face of other increases for programs and earmarks elsewhere in the omnibus. At the same time, the inability to put together appropriations bills that could garner enough support to pass with sufficient support isn’t unique to their leadership. You’ll recall the FY 07 appropriations process, managed by the GOP, also melted down in spectacular fashion.
In any case, this is a very disappointing development. Failing to get this bipartisan priority (President’s ACI, Democratic Innovation Agenda) funded — essentially abandoning science when it counted — only puts at risk our long-term competitiveness. It’s especially disappointing when one considers how many voices from all sides of the political spectrum have weighed in in support bolstering federal science funding, when the Administration has seen fit to make it a Presidential priority, and when Congress has emphasized its commitment with the passage of a landmark competitiveness bill in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion.
So, it’s hard to imagine what else can be done. The debate over funding for FY 08 is much much larger than science funding. The issues that led to the meltdown are heavily political and have considerations that outweigh anything the science community could bring to the table. But, this is certainly a step back, I think, from science’s standing in the Congress at the beginning of this year, when it was granted special status in the CR for FY 07.
Though it certainly gives us a rallying cry for FY 09.
We’ll have more details as the omnibus moves forward and a final breakdown of the agency-by-agency numbers when they’re passed.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
ACM Announces 2007 Turing Award Winners
/In: People /by Peter HarshaCongratulations to Edmund M. Clarke of Carnegie Mellon, E. Allen Emerson of UT-Austin, and Joseph Siafkis of Verimag Laboratory in France, on being awarded ACM’s 2007 A.M. Turing award, the highest honor in computing, for their work on a quality assurance process known as Model Checking!
ACM has all the details in their press release.
FY 09 Budget Close-up: DOE Office of Science
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY09 Appropriations /by MelissaNorrIt looks like a decent year for Advanced Scientific Computing Research at the Department of Energys Office of Science. Following the FY08 omnibus, in which ASCR received an almost 25 percent increase, the President has requested another 5 percent increase for FY09, for a total of $368.8 million. Here is a brief breakdown:
The high-performance computing number includes:
US high-performance computing is expected to reach a petaflop this year at Oak Ridge and Raymond Orbach, the director of the Office of Science, stated at the budget briefing presentation that the US will increase computing power by a factor of ten every two years moving forward.
Overall, the Office of Science did well in the request with $4.7 billion, an 18.8 percent increase. This keeps the Office of Science close to the ACI trajectory announced by the President in 2006. Funding levels include:
In FY08, there were $123.6 million in earmarks in a total appropriation of $4.02 billion, which the President has zeroed out in the FY09 budget request.
Computing Research Appears to Do Well in First Look at FY 09 Budget Numbers
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY08 Appropriations, FY09 Appropriations, Policy /by Peter HarshaThe President’s budget request for FY 2009 is now online and we’ve done a quick read through to glean some numbers of interest to the computing research community. These will likely be refined over the next few days as we figure out exactly what’s in there and what’s not, but it’s a pretty good indication of where the President’s priorities are as we head into his final year.
The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program
NITRD represents the sum total of the federal government’s investment in information technology research across 13 federal agencies. Overall, the NITRD program would see an increase of 6 percent compared to estimated levels for FY 2008, due largely to increases in the three agencies featured in the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). IT R&D at the National Science Foundation would grow 17 percent> over FY 08 levels to $1.090 billion (putting NSF’s share of NITRD at over a billion dollars for the first time). The Department of Energy’s Office of Science computing research would grow 13 percent over FY 08 to $494 million. Dept of Commerce, which includes the National Institute of Standards and Technology, would grow 6 percent to $90 million.
Defense IT R&D appears to decrease 2 percent in the President’s request vs FY08, but it’s hard to assess that decrease without understanding exactly how many congressionally-directed projects (earmarks) were removed in the agency request. (More below.)
NASA and the National Institutes of Health also see either flat-funding or slight decreases in the request, but again, without knowing what earmarks were removed, it’s hard to assess the budgets.
EPA and the National Archives and Records Administration would get what little they received in FY 08 in FY 09 ($6 million and $5 million, respectively).
Agency budgets:
NSF (pdf)
NSF research accounts would increase 16 percent (14 percent for NSF overall) over FY 08 in the President’s plan, to $6.06 billion. Included in that $6 billion is “$1.1 billion for fundamental information technology research and cutting-edge supercomputing and networking resources, including: $100 million, an 110-percent increase, for an NSF-wide effort to develop radically new computational concepts and tools [this is Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation — Peter]; and $30 million for a new targeted cyber-security research effort in privacy, fundamental theory and usability.”
We’ll have CISE numbers after NSF’s budget briefing later this afternoon.
DOE (pdf)
DOE Science Programs would grow 19 percent vs FY 08 to $4.7 billion. As noted above, DOE’s IT R&D would see a 13 percent increase (on top of the nearly 25 percent increase DOE’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research account received in the omnibus for FY 08).
NIST (pdf)
NIST core research would increase 4 percent over FY 08, but given the heavy earmarks in the omnibus that were likely stripped from this agency request, that may actually seem like a much more substantial increase.
NASA (pdf)
NASA science would drop 4 percent to $4.4 billion.
NIH (pdf)
NIH is flat-funded in the President’s request.
Defense (pdf)
This is trickiest to figure out given the how heavily the DOD budget is earmarked. The President’s budget calls for an increase of just 4 percent for Defense Basic (6.1) research and a decrease of 16 percent to Defense Applied (6.2) research vs. FY 08. However, if you subtract the earmarks from the FY 08 baseline, the increase for DOD 6.1 is more like 17 percent. DOD 6.2 shorn of earmarks would also grow in FY 09 to look like a 3.5 percent *increase* over FY 08 (not a 16 percent decrease). But the devil’s in the details and we’ll have many more of those in the coming days.
On the whole, it looks like the President has followed through with his commitment to ACI in his final budget. Of course, he’s also pledged to take some very firm stands regarding earmarks in the upcoming appropriations process (he’s threatened to veto any appropriations bill sent to his desk that doesn’t cut FY08 earmark levels in half). That stand virtually guarantees he won’t be around when Congress finally gets around to passing approps bills. It’s very unlikely Congress will want to a) give up that many earmarks and b) engage in a battle over appropriations before the election, so it’s likely this won’t get settled until January 09 (or later). But, as with last year, we start with some pretty healthy numbers. In fact, in terms of IT R&D, we start with the healthiest requests we’ve seen in many years.
More details to come.
Standing “O” for Basic Research
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY09 Appropriations, Policy /by Peter HarshaI know that after the crummy omnibus appropriation we got after a year of positive signs, it’s hard to get excited about the prospect of starting the whole process over again. But it was very encouraging to see the standing ovation for the President’s mention of the need to double federal funding for basic research in the physical sciences in his State of the Union remarks tonight. Here was the line that earned the ovation:
It’s a start. We’ll have much more budget news after the new Administration budget is released next Monday….
FY 2008 Omnibus: Damage Assessment
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY08 Appropriations, FY09 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaUpdate: (1/30/08) — Cameron Wilson of USACM has some additional (depressing) details of the impact of the omnibus on the third ACI-related agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. For the impact on the other two — NSF and DOE’s Office of Science — see the original post just below!
Original Post: We’re beginning to get a sense of how the shortfall in the FY 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill will impact specific programs in some of the federal science agencies. While we won’t get the full story until after the FY 09 Budget comes out on February 4th, the bits and pieces that are leaking around town are fairly dispiriting.
First the good news. It appears that though NSF’s research accounts only received $57 million in new money for FY 08 (an increase over FY 07 that fails to keep pace with inflation), the $52 million Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation program will likely move forward, though it’s not clear whether it will be “fully-funded.” Unfortunately, that’s where the good news ends. The rest of the stats are pretty gruesome:
Things aren’t any better at the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. While the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program will see an pretty healthy increase in FY 08 (about 25 percent) and the start of a new “Institute for Advanced Architectures and Algorithms” with Centers of Excellence at Sandia National Labs and Oak Ridge National Labs, researchers across the board (including computing researchers) will see cuts or layoffs as a result of the overall agency budget. Here’s what we know so far:
It’s not clear whether anything can be done to mitigate any of these cuts. Congress has, in theory, closed the book on FY 2008. There are a couple of legislative vehicles that could provide opportunities to supplement these poor funding levels, but the likelihood that they will be used that way is pretty slim.
The first is in the economic stimulus package that will be passed shortly by the Congress in an effort to provide some relief for U.S. taxpayers and get them spending money in this slowing economy. While the House is not likely to include any funding for science as part of a stimulus, there’s a teeny-tiny chance that the Senate might give it a run. But even though the amount of the shortfall for science represents a very small portion of the proposed stimulus package — $900 million versus $150 billion — there are not likely to be too many in the House or the Administration who would be willing to support any additions beyond their original proposal. So, the odds for this route are, well, beyond slim.
The second is in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that will have to be considered in the next few months to pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Emergency supplemental bills have frequently been looked to in the past as a good place to stash a bit of extra funding for favored projects, provided you can make the case (however tenuous) that the funding is going for some sort of “emergency” use. Given the number of jobs lost at federal research facilities, and the fact that U.S. participation in some international research efforts (particularly the ITER fusion reactor project) is in jeopardy as a result of the FY 08 omnibus, Congress and the Administration might agree that supplemental funding is actually appropriate and include it in the supplemental appropriations bill. So, while this is unlikely to mitigate the whole of the shortfall, it’s not inconceivable that Congress could include $100-300 million, particularly for DOE Office of Science, to help mitigate the damage.
Beyond that, we’re looking at trying to make up as much of the difference in the FY 2009 appropriations process. The science community and the high-tech industry are already gearing up for that fight — with lessons learned from our failures in FY 08. Expect to read much more about how that effort moves forwards in the coming weeks….
Craig Barrett’s Upset About the Omnibus (and who can blame him?)
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY08 Appropriations, Policy, R&D in the Press /by Peter HarshaCraig Barrett, Chairman of Intel, comes out swinging over the debacle that was the FY 08 Omnibus Appropriations Act and it’s impact on federal support for the physical sciences, computing, mathematics and engineering, in a piece that runs today in the San Francisco Chronicle (which should get Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) attention). The whole piece is well-worth reading, but I thought his conclusion was remarkably on point:
Wow.
NSB Releases 2008 S&E Indicators
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, Policy, Research /by MelissaNorrThe National Science Board released the 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators today at an event on Capitol Hill. Board Chair Steven Beering, Subcommittee Chair Louis Lanzerotti, and Arthur Reilly presented the Science and Engineering Indicators, the Digest of Key S&E Indicators, and a companion policy recommendation document, Research and Development: Essential Foundation for US Competitiveness in a Global Economy. Dr. Arden Bement and Dr. Kathie Olsen also attended the event and participated in the Q&A session at the end.
While the entire document can be found online, the event highlighted some specific findings of the 2008 S&E Indicators, including:
The policy companion piece includes three broad recommendations. They are:
During the Q&A, Bement said that investment in basic research drives the economy and that it is not just dollars but also talent. In response to a question about why students would go into science and engineering instead of fields with better job prospects, Olsen said that the data found that demand for science and engineering majors in industry is increasing but students dont realize the options that are out there for a science or engineering degree.
The Long Nose of Innovation
/In: Funding, FY08 Appropriations, Policy, R&D in the Press, Research /by Peter HarshaThere’s an interesting piece running now in BusinessWeek by Microsoft Researcher Bill Buxton that capitalizes on the buzz around the concept of the “long tail” in business by arguing that there’s an equally important “long nose” in business innovation that represents the long period of research and development that’s required to bring innovative products to market. Here’s a snip:
It’s a great article and certainly worth reading in full.
In the piece, he mentions a chart Butler Lampson presented to the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board of the National Research Council that traced the history of a number of key technologies. That’s this chart (frequently referred to as the “tire tracks” chart, for reasons that should be apparent). The chart originally appeared in a 1995 CSTB report, in which the CSTB had identified 9 billion-dollar sectors in the IT economy that bore the stamp of federally-supported research. They revised the chart in 2003 and identified 10 more sectors. I’m guessing that if they revised it again today (and I understand they are), you could at add least three more billion-dollar sectors — “Search,” “Social Networks,” and “Digital Video” — all enabled in some way by long-term research, usually supported by the federal government … exactly the type of long-term research that got hit hardest in this year’s appropriations debacle.
(Ed Lazowska’s testimony before the House Government Reform committee in 2004 contains an extended riff on the chart — how it shows the complex interplay between federally-supported university-based research and industrial R&D efforts; how industry based R&D is a fundamentally different character than university-based R&D; how the chart illustrates how interdependent the IT R&D ecosystem really is; and how university-based research produces not just ideas, but people, too. It’s all under the section titled “The Ecosystem that Gives Birth to New Technologies,” though the whole testimony is certainly worth a read, too.)
More On the Awful Omnibus
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY08 Appropriations, Policy /by Peter HarshaCameron Wilson at USACM’s Technology Policy Blog has a great dissection of the FY2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill in which Congress managed to reverse two years worth of positive efforts in science and innovation funding policy. His piece is titled “Congress Abandons Commitment to Basic Research; Puts NIST in the Construction Business” and it’s a must read.
Also, the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation (of which CRA is a member) released a statement today expressing grave disappointment in the appropriations outcome. Since it’s not yet posted on the Task Force website, I’ll quote it here:
Strong words from an organization consisting of some of the most important technology companies and organizations on the planet.
Finally, it’s worth pointing out some interesting statistics. Late last summer, 367 members of the House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 2272, The America COMPETES Act, which we celebrated and covered in great detail. It was an unequivocal demonstration of support for strengthening the federal investment in basic research in the physical sciences, computing, mathematics and engineering and the importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Of those 367 members who voted for the COMPETES Act, 244 voted for this omnibus bill — a bill which represents a nearly 180 degree reversal from the goals of COMPETES. 206 Democrats, 38 Republicans.
Now there were clearly other possible reasons for voting for the omnibus, including a deluge of earmarks in the bill. But the fact remains that support for science ceased to be a priority for those 244 members — including quite a few who probably should have had science ranked high on their personal lists. As we now start to think about the FY 09 appropriations process, certainly it will be worth checking in with those members to understand the dissonance in their positions. (See the extended entry for the full list….)
Read more →
NSF, NIST Lose Out in Final (?) Omnibus
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY08 Appropriations, Policy /by Peter HarshaUpdate: (12/17/07 1:30 pm) — It appears this bill is even worse than we initially thought. It turns out that the 3.3 percent increase for NSF’s research accounts (“Research and Related Activities”) is artificially inflated by some bookkeeping — namely the shifting of the EPSCoR program from the Education and Human Resources directorate to R&RA. Taking that shift into account, there’s really only $57 million in “new” funding in the R&RA account — a terribly anemic 1.2 percent increase for the research portion of the only federal agency devoted to supporting basic research. When you factor in inflation, that 1.2 percent really represents a cut — and a complete reversal of the goals of the ACI, the COMPETES Act, and the innovation plans so touted by the congressional leadership…..
Original Post: Having gotten a peek at the final details for what will end up in the omnibus appropriations bill the House will consider Tuesday, I’m a bit dismayed at the choices that have been made. (
Congressional Quarterly has the details; unfortunately, you’ll need a subscription to access them.The House Rules Committee has the text of the agreement online now.)Those who have been following the saga that is the FY 08 appropriations process will recall that the total spending in the appropriations bills left unfinished by Congress (which included everything but Defense) exceeded the President’s budget request by $23 billion, a figure that brought out the President’s veto threat. The Democratic leadership tried to assess that threat by passing a Labor/HHS/Education bill they knew he would veto. When he vetoed it and the Congress failed to override it, it was clear who held the power in the negotiation. So, realizing they didn’t have the leverage they needed, the Democratic leadership began to cut back. They attempted to meet the President halfway with an omnibus that proposed an $11 billion cap overrun, but when they couldn’t peel off enough GOP members to override any potential veto, they caved completely, agreeing to live within the President’s budget cap for all the unfinished appropriations bills.
Unfortunately for the National Science Foundation and National Institute for Standards and Technology — two agencies that had been at the focal point of the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative and the Democratic Innovation Agenda — living under the cap meant that other programs within the omnibus received higher priorities and the planned increases for those two science agencies were cut sharply.
NSF, which under the House and Senate appropriations plans approved earlier in the year would have received either a 10 or 11 percent increase (respectively) over FY 07, will instead receive just 2.5 percent vs. FY 07 in the new omnibus. NSF’s R&RA account (which funds the research directorates) will see just a 3.3 percent increase over FY 07 (instead of a planned 10.5 percent increase), should the omnibus pass.
NIST’s research efforts, which had been slated to grow over 15 percent vs. FY 07 in the House and Senate bills, will instead see that planned increase drop to just 1.4 percent over FY 07, should the bill pass.
DOE Office of Science fares a bit better — and DOE-related computing research comes out even further ahead in the deal. The Office of Science would have grown over 18 percent vs. FY 07 in the earlier House and Senate plans, but the new agreement will reduce that rate of increase to a still-respectable 6.8 percent. Advanced Scientific Computing Research, which had been slated to grow about 20 percent over FY07, would actually see *more* money in the new agreement — a growth of 25 percent over FY 07. Included in the increase is $19.5 million to “continue the Department’s participation in the [DARPA] High Productivity Computing Systems partnership” and an increase of $7.7 million for Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility to “maintain the planned budget and cost schedule.”
The agreement also includes details of an additional effort:
So, the House is set to begin consideration of the bill Tuesday. The Senate will get it as soon as the House passes it. It’s not clear whether the President will sign. There’s a core of the House GOP leadership that’s still not content with the limited spending in the omnibus. They’re leading an effort to push for a “Continuing Resolution” for FY 2008 (funding all agencies at their FY 07 levels) instead of the omnibus as a way of holding an even sharper line on spending. I suppose it’s possible that the President could veto the omnibus , and he could cite a lot of reasons — runaway earmarks, poor prioritization by congressional Democrats, the gutting of ACI — and the House GOP could force a CR by sustaining the veto. In that case, it would behoove the science advocacy community to push hard for special consideration of ACI-related agencies, as happened under the last CR. And it’s not implausible that GOP hard-liners might support it — after all, the real point of the CR would be to put a hold on earmarks. The science increases are, in fact, in the President’s budget.
But barring that somewhat unlikely chain of events — Presidential veto -> House GOP uphold veto and force CR -> CR favors ACI-related agencies — the ACI-related increases we’d hoped for at NSF and NIST appear to be lost. It’s hard not look for those to blame. The Democratic leadership is certainly open to some criticism for these numbers. When push came to shove and they were forced to live within the President’s budget constraints, the leadership didn’t feel that preserving the increases for science funding rose to a high enough priority in the face of other increases for programs and earmarks elsewhere in the omnibus. At the same time, the inability to put together appropriations bills that could garner enough support to pass with sufficient support isn’t unique to their leadership. You’ll recall the FY 07 appropriations process, managed by the GOP, also melted down in spectacular fashion.
In any case, this is a very disappointing development. Failing to get this bipartisan priority (President’s ACI, Democratic Innovation Agenda) funded — essentially abandoning science when it counted — only puts at risk our long-term competitiveness. It’s especially disappointing when one considers how many voices from all sides of the political spectrum have weighed in in support bolstering federal science funding, when the Administration has seen fit to make it a Presidential priority, and when Congress has emphasized its commitment with the passage of a landmark competitiveness bill in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion.
So, it’s hard to imagine what else can be done. The debate over funding for FY 08 is much much larger than science funding. The issues that led to the meltdown are heavily political and have considerations that outweigh anything the science community could bring to the table. But, this is certainly a step back, I think, from science’s standing in the Congress at the beginning of this year, when it was granted special status in the CR for FY 07.
Though it certainly gives us a rallying cry for FY 09.
We’ll have more details as the omnibus moves forward and a final breakdown of the agency-by-agency numbers when they’re passed.