The long effort to address concerns about America’s future competitiveness and capacity for innovation may finally result in a bill.
For the last two years, there’s been a fairly constant drumbeat in Congress, the Administration, and federal advisory bodies over the need to prop up the U.S. innovation infrastructure — by strengthening the federal investment in basic research in the physical sciences (including computing, mathematics and engineering), by investing in new math and science teachers, by increasing the participation of US students in math and science, and by creating new research organizations to help nurture an innovative culture in some federal research agencies. There’s been a whole suite of different bills proposed to address these proposals — many inspired by the National Academies Rising Above the Gathering Storm report, or many of the other similar reports that have come out of the scientific community and American industry over the past several years. Unfortunately, though many of these bills had passed either the House or the Senate last session, none had passed both and gone on to the President.
But, that could change. As we’ve noted previously, this suite of competitiveness proposals has coaliesced into two different pieces of legislation, one House bill and one Senate bill — both essentially omnibus bills that are collections of most of the previous proposals. The Senate passed its version, S. 761 The America COMPETES Act, in May by bundling a whole bunch of proposals together and having the Senate Leader bring the package directly to the Senate floor, bypassing the Senate committee structure (which would’ve tied things up for months). The House took a more piecemeal approach, passing the “10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds” Science and Math Authorization Act (HR 362), the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Act (HR 363), the High Performance Computing Research and Development Act (HR 1068), the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007 (HR 1867), and the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act (HR 1868), one-by-one (by overwhelming margins) over the course of several months, then combining them into one giant omnibus bill “The 21st Century Competitiveness Act” (HR 2272), which they passed by voice vote. The plan was to conference HR 2272 and S. 761 and work out a compromise bill both chambers could approve. It appears that negotiation is nearing its end and a final bill may be on its way.
We just got a notice of a meeting with Speaker Pelosi scheduled for tomorrow at which the House and Senate leadership will discuss the conference agreement. We know that the bills have been exhaustively “pre-conferenced” with the various committee staff over the last couple of weeks. The official conferees — the Representatives and Senators who were appointed to serve on the conference committee — will meet tonight to hammer out the final details. So, this time tomorrow we should have a good sense of what made the bill and what didn’t.
We’ll have all the details as they are released, of course. There are some provisions in the the House and Senate bills about which the computing research community has had particular interest. More detail on those later. But for now, it’s nice to see a light at the end of the tunnel. Congress — and the Administration — has spent a lot of time over the last two years talking about the importance of bolstering the chain of innovation that helps keep America a world leader, but they don’t have much to show for it. It appears that could change soon. Update: (7/30/07 10 pm ET) — The conference committee has reached agreement on a compromise bill. It’s massive — 470 pages — but you can poke through it here (pdf) if you’re so inclined. We’ll have details on the bill in the next day or so, but after a brief look through the bill it’s fair to say there’s a lot of good news for the community in there — including the High Performance Computing R&D Act, which has died every previous Congress since the 106th (this is the 110th). So keep it tuned here for more detail….
President Bush yesterday presented awards to the 2005 and 2006 National Medal of Science and Technology Recipients, and in his remarks reiterated his support for a strong federal role in support of fundamental research. There’s no guarantee, of course, that the President’s strong support now will help alleviate the coming appropriations meltdown (that could threaten science funding gains), but at least it appears that his heart is in the right place. The full remarks are here, but I thought I’d just highlight a bit of them:
The work of these Laureates demonstrates that innovation is vital to a better future for our country and the world. In America, the primary engine of innovation is the private sector. But government can help by encouraging the basic research that gives rise to promising new thought and products. So that’s why I’ve worked with some in this room and around our country to develop and propose the American Competitiveness Initiative. Over ten years, this initiative will double the federal government’s commitment to the most critical, basic research programs in physical sciences. Last year the Congress provided more than $10 billion, and that’s just a start. And I call on leaders of both political parties to fully fund this initiative for the good of the country.
Maintaining our global leadership also requires a first-class education system. There are many things that American schools are doing right — including insisting on accountability for every single child. There are also some areas where we need to improve. And so as members work to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act, one of their top priorities has got to be to strengthen math and science education.
One way to do that is to create an “adjunct teachers corps” of math and science professionals all aiming to bring their expertise into American classrooms. It’s not really what the aim is — the aim is to make it clear to young Americans that being in science and engineering is okay; it’s cool; it’s a smart thing to do. And so for those of you who are involved with inspiring youngsters, thank you for what you’re doing. I appreciate you encouraging the next generation to follow in your footsteps. And I ask that Congress fully fund the adjunct teacher corps, so you can have some help as you go out to inspire.
One of the many reasons that I am an optimistic fellow, and I am, is because I understand that this country is a nation of discovery and enterprise. And that spirit is really strong in America today. I found it interesting that one of today’s Laureates, Dr. Leslie Geddes, is 86 years old and continues to teach and conduct research at Purdue University. Even more interesting is what he had to say. He said, “I wouldn’t know what else to do. I’m not done yet.” (Laughter.)
He’s right. He’s not done yet, because the promise of science and technology never runs out. With the imagination and determinations of Americans like our awardees today, our nation will continue to discover new possibilities and to develop new innovations, and build a better life for generations to come. And that’s what we’re here to celebrate.
More on the awards, including links to pictures of each awardee receiving their medal, is here.
Two developments of note today in the annual appropriations cycle. First, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense will mark up its version of the FY 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill, which includes research funding for the various service and defense-wide accounts. We’ve gotten our first look at the funding levels for the Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation title of the bill in the Chairman’s mark, and they look pretty good for most of the accounts the computing research community might care about. In general, defense basic research accounts (6.1) are up vs. the President’s request, as are most of the computing-related applied research accounts (6.2). The remainder are funded at the President’s request.
DARPA does suffer an overall cut in the bill, however, related to the fact that the committee continues to have concerns with the rate of spending at the agency. DARPA has been slow to execute programs for which it has been appropriated money either because a) the agency has been a careful steward of taxpayer dollars or b) because programs have become bottlenecked in the Director’s office, depending on whether you believe the agency’s explanation or the feeling among some congressional committee staff. As a result the committee reduced funding in the Biological Warfare, Electronics Technology, Advanced Aerospace Systems and Land Warfare Technology program elements. As a result of this spend-it-or-lose-it DC culture, the cuts would cause DARPA to lose $80 million vs. FY 2007, a reduction of 2.6 percent.
For a more-detailed look at the different accounts, take a gander at the table included in the jump. (Click on the “Continue Reading” link below). We’ll update the table as we get additional detail.
Keep in mind, however, that these numbers are just a first step. The committee needs to approve them, then the whole House, then the Senate needs to approve its version, then a compromise version between the chambers, and then, after all that, it’s likely that the President will veto the bill for being too generous. (More on that below….) So, consider these numbers a starting point in the inevitable negotiation that will occur between both the Senate and the President. But, it’s a good place to start.
Speaking of vetoes, the Administration also issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) yesterday on the FY 2008 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill that the House will begin debating today, indicating that the President intends to veto the bill should the version the House will likely approve land on his desk. The CJS Appropriations bill, as we’ve discussed previously, contains funding for some science agencies we care about — in particular, the National Science Foundation and National Institute of Standards and Technology (as well as NASA and NOAA). The bill includes healthy increases for both NSF and NIST, in line with both the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative and the Democratic Innovation Agenda.
Despite issuing the veto threat, the President does commend the bill for its support of NSF and NIST’s research accounts, but takes issue with increases the House Appropriations Committee provided for NSF’s Education and Human Resources directorate beyond his request. The SAP also criticizes excessive earmarking in the bill and bluntly states that because the HAC failed to demonstrate offsets for the increased spending, he will veto the bill if presented to him.
This is not terribly surprising. Facing a Democratically-controlled Congress for the first time, it was likely that the President would be drawn into a political fight over spending, and his only leverage in that fight is the veto. While Congress chugs away at passing the 12 annual appropriations bills necessary to fund the operations of government, its unlikely many (if any) will pass with the majority required to override any potential presidential veto. Indeed, in the House, the “magic number” for the President is 145 — he needs just 145 out of 201 Republican members of the House to sustain any veto and provide him significant leverage in the spending negotiations that will follow. So far, none of the bills passed so far (Interior, Homeland Security, State-Foreign Operations) have had “veto-proof” majorities, so the President has retained his leverage.
It’s likely the appropriations process is again headed for a train-wreck, just as in previous years. The final form of this particular train-wreck isn’t yet known, but I tend to agree with others who expect that the end game will involve another omnibus appropriations bill in which, despite strong support for science programs in Congress and by the President, those programs will be threatened by across-the-board cuts required to get spending down to a level that the President will sign. The focus, then, of many of us in the science advocacy community once again will be on protecting the increases for science agencies approved by Congress and supported by the President in a bill in which they are just one of hundreds, if not thousands, of competing programs. The good news is that we’ve had some success with this approach in the past….
But for now, the funding levels included in both the Defense Appropriations and Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations are powerful symbols of the support R&D issues have in Congress, even if its likely that those levels might get modified in the coming months for reasons mostly unrelated to Congress’ support of science.
We’ll, of course, have all the details here as they emerge.
The National Science Foundation has published two reports on American research and the decline of journals publishing it. The reports show that beginning in 1992 journals began to publish less American based research with a corresponding rise in research from Europe and Asia being published. In 1992, the share of American research published in journals was 37 percent and in 2003 it was 30 percent. The reports give a number of possible reasons for the decline, including the increase in scientific research being performed in Europe and Asia as well as more international collaboration on research in all fields.
Both reports are interesting and worth a read along with an article about them in Inside Higher Education. A third report on the topic is planned.
NSFs CISE Directorate awarded the first two Distinguished Education Fellow grants today to Dr. Owen Astrachan and Dr. Peter Denning. The awards are part of the CISE Pathways to Revitalized Undergraduate Computing Education (CPATH) program that CISE began last year.
New CISE Assistant Director Jeannette Wing said that CISE supports the revitalization of undergraduate education in computer science because the community needs to show that computing is about more than programming or a machine in order to attract the best minds to the field.
Astrachan, of Duke University, received his grant to explore case-based approaches to teaching computer science. Denning, of the Naval Postgraduate School, received his grant to focus on defining the principles of computer science and to distill the principles into modules that can be used in teaching.
Both awards are $250,000 grants over 2 years.
CRA participated once again in the Coalition for National Science Funding’s annual Science Exposition on Capitol Hill last week and it was a great success. The event, a science fair for Congress and staff, had 35 booths manned by researchers representing universities and scientific societies featuring some of the important research funded by the National Science Foundation. This year CRA was ably represented by Lydia Kavraki, a computer science professor from Rice University, whose research into using computational tools to solve problems in a range of areas such as biology was a hit with all those who stopped at the booth.
The exhibit drew a record crowd with 493 attendees, 11 of whom were members of Congress such as Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL) who stopped to talk to Dr. Kavraki about her work. There were also a number of NSF staff members and a large contingent of Congressional staff, particularly from the House Science and Technology Committee.
As weve stated before in this space, personal visits to members of Congress and their staff are vital to getting the message about the importance of computing research out. CRA holds or participates in Congressional visit days several times throughout the year and we are always looking for participants. If you are interested in coming to Washington to visit your Representative and Senators, please contact Melissa Norr at mnorr at cra.org.
The National Research Council of the National Academies of Science released a new report on cyber security and research called “Toward a Safer and More Secure Cyberspace.” The report is available for free online at the National Academies Press.
The report lists three broad categories that lack of cyber security falls into:
First is the threat of catastrophe-a cyberattack, especially in conjunction with a physical attack, could result in thousands of deaths and many billions of dollars of damage in a very short time. Second is frictional drag on important economic and security-related processes. Today, insecurities in cyberspace systems and networks allow adversaries (in particular, criminals) to extract billions of dollars in fraud and extortion-and force businesses to expend additional resources to defend themselves against these threats. If cyberspace does not become more secure, the citizens, businesses, and governments of tomorrow will continue to face similar pressures, and most likely on a greater scale. Third, concerns about insecurity may inhibit the use of IT in the future and thus lead to a self-denial of the benefits that IT brings, benefits that will be needed for the national competitiveness of the United States as well as for national and homeland security.
It also lists a set of ten provisions that could form a Cyber Security Bill of Rights. The provisions are:
I. Availability of system and network resources to legitimate users. II. Easy and convenient recovery from successful attacks. III. Control over and knowledge of one’s own computing environment. IV. Confidentiality of stored information and information exchange. V. Authentication and provenance. VI. The technological capability to exercise fine-grained control over the flow of information in and through systems. VII. Security in using computing directly or indirectly in important applications, including financial, health care, and electoral transactions and real-time remote control of devices that interact with physical processes. VIII. The ability to access any source of information (e.g., e-mail, Web page, file) safely. IX. Awareness of what security is actually being delivered by a system or component. X. Justice for security problems caused by another party.
The Senate Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations subcommittee and the Senate Energy and Water Development appropriations subcommittee marked up their appropriations bills and, as with the House versions, it appears the science agencies did very well. We don’t yet have all the details, but here are the early numbers:
NSF received a total appropriation of $6.6 billion from the subcommittee — about $200 million more than the Presidents request, $100 million more than the House subcommittee allocation, and about $700 million more than the agency received in FY 07.
NIST received $712 million, $71 million more than the Presidents request and $33 million more than FY07 but $66 million less than the House subcommittee allocation. We don’t know how much of that increase goes to the NIST core research budget, however.
The Department of Energys Office of Science received $4.497 billion, almost $100 million above the Presidents request and $700 million over FY07 but $17 million less than the House allocation.
All the usual caveats about appropriations bills apply here — we don’t have the details, no funding is certain until the bill becomes law with the President’s signature, these numbers can change dramatically if the process melts down over an earmark dispute or a veto threat, etc — but it’s again a very positive sign that both the House and the Senate appear committed to the increases called for in both the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative and the Democratic Innovation Agenda. We’ll keep you posted as the bills move forward.
The Chronicle of Higher Education (sub. reqd.) has a great article on the future of the Internet and the Global Environment for Network Innovations or GENI. It contains quotes from many participants of the new Computing Community Consortium (CCC) that CRA helped launch.
The article talks about the problems with the current state of the Internet:
Identity theft, viruses, and attacks on Web sites are on the rise a few weeks ago the country of Estonia was practically shut down, digitally, by deliberate attempts to jam government computers. Spam, which was less than 50 percent of e-mail traffic back in 2002, is now close to 90 percent, according to Commtouch Software Ltd., an Internet-security company.
Moreover, the Internet has great difficulty coping with the sharp increase in mobile devices like cellphones and laptops, and handling bandwidth-hungry traffic such as video, now demanded by an increasing number of users.
GENI and its possibilities are discussed in great detail:
The people pushing for change are the very people at universities and colleges who built the Internet in the first place. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Southern California, among others, have joined Mr. Peterson in the GENI planning process. Industry players such as chip-maker Intel are also on board.
In late May of this year, the science foundation awarded Cambridge-based BBN Technologies the job of planning GENI, giving them $10-million to spend over the next four years. The company has deep roots in the old Internet: It built the first network segment connecting four universities back in 1969.
Chip Elliott, the BBN engineer who will be running the GENI project office, thinks the project calls for two approaches. “First, if you don’t like conventional Internet protocols, try something completely different. Second, do it on a large enough scale, with enough users, so that your results actually mean something.” People associated with GENI say that “large enough” means access for experimenters at several hundred universities and, eventually, a user community in the tens of thousands.
Thousands of users will provide a crucial dose of reality, say planners. Over the years, there have been many papers published on new Internet design, and simulations run on networks such as PlanetLab. “But you don’t know how an Internet design will behave until a large group of people actually use it,” says Ms. Zegura, who will co-chair a GENI science council charged with rounding up ideas from the research community. “They will do things that you don’t expect, just like in the real Internet, and then you’ll see how robust your idea is. That’s where the rubber meets the road.”
CRA NAMES 16 TO FIRST COMPUTING COMMUNITY CONSORTIUM COUNCIL
WASHINGTON, DC – The Computing Research Association, in consultation with the National Science Foundation (NSF), today announced the membership of the first permanent Council for the Computing Community Consortium (CCC). The council will direct and oversee the operations of the CCC as it provides scientific leadership and vision to computing research and future large-scale computing research projects.
CRA created the CCC under a $6 million, three-year agreement with NSF to identify major research opportunities and establish grand challenges for the computing field. The CCC will create venues for community participation in developing a vision for computing research and in launching new research activities.
Today’s announcement names 16 leaders of the computing research community from industry, government and academia to terms on the permanent CCC Council ranging from 1 to 3 years. Those named to the council are listed below.
Edward Lazowska, University of Washington, Chair
Three-year terms
Bill Feiereisen, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Susan Graham, University of California at Berkeley
David Kaeli, Northeastern University
John King, University of Michigan
Peter Lee, Carnegie Mellon University
Two-year terms
Andrew McCallum, University of Massachusetts
Beth Mynatt, Georgia Institute of Technology
Fred Schneider, Cornell University
David Tennenhouse, New Venture Partners
Dave Waltz, Columbia University
One-year terms
Greg Andrews, University of Arizona
Anita Jones, University of Virginia
Dick Karp, University of California at Berkeley
Bob Sproull, Sun Microsystems
Karen Sutherland, Augsburg College
We’re pleased to have assembled such a strong council with a broad range of interests and backgrounds, said Daniel Reed, chair of the Computing Research Association and director of the Renaissance Computing Institute. Having representatives from such a wide array of sub disciplines, from schools both large and small, and from industry and government research labs should provide the diversity of thought necessary to enhance our community’s ability to envision and pursue long-term, audacious computing research goals.
Reed said key tasks for the council will be to help the CCC catalyze the computing research community to debate long-range research challenges, build consensus around research visions, and develop the most promising visions into clearly defined initiatives.
The council members’ terms begin July 1, 2007.
About CRA: The CRA was established 30 years ago and has members at more than 250 research entities in academia, industry and government. Its mission is to strengthen research and advance education in the computing fields, expand opportunities for women and minorities, and improve public and policymaker understanding of the importance of computing and computing research in society.
CRA: https://cra.org
CCC: https://cra.org/ccc
Update: Some of the term limits in the original press release were wrong. Edward Lazowska, Chair, currently does not have a fixed term limit. Fred Schneider, Cornell University, has a two year term. These have been corrected in the list above.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
Competitiveness Bills Wrapping Up?
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Diversity in Computing, Funding, Policy /by Peter HarshaThe long effort to address concerns about America’s future competitiveness and capacity for innovation may finally result in a bill.
For the last two years, there’s been a fairly constant drumbeat in Congress, the Administration, and federal advisory bodies over the need to prop up the U.S. innovation infrastructure — by strengthening the federal investment in basic research in the physical sciences (including computing, mathematics and engineering), by investing in new math and science teachers, by increasing the participation of US students in math and science, and by creating new research organizations to help nurture an innovative culture in some federal research agencies. There’s been a whole suite of different bills proposed to address these proposals — many inspired by the National Academies Rising Above the Gathering Storm report, or many of the other similar reports that have come out of the scientific community and American industry over the past several years. Unfortunately, though many of these bills had passed either the House or the Senate last session, none had passed both and gone on to the President.
But, that could change. As we’ve noted previously, this suite of competitiveness proposals has coaliesced into two different pieces of legislation, one House bill and one Senate bill — both essentially omnibus bills that are collections of most of the previous proposals. The Senate passed its version, S. 761 The America COMPETES Act, in May by bundling a whole bunch of proposals together and having the Senate Leader bring the package directly to the Senate floor, bypassing the Senate committee structure (which would’ve tied things up for months). The House took a more piecemeal approach, passing the “10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds” Science and Math Authorization Act (HR 362), the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Act (HR 363), the High Performance Computing Research and Development Act (HR 1068), the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007 (HR 1867), and the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act (HR 1868), one-by-one (by overwhelming margins) over the course of several months, then combining them into one giant omnibus bill “The 21st Century Competitiveness Act” (HR 2272), which they passed by voice vote. The plan was to conference HR 2272 and S. 761 and work out a compromise bill both chambers could approve. It appears that negotiation is nearing its end and a final bill may be on its way.
We just got a notice of a meeting with Speaker Pelosi scheduled for tomorrow at which the House and Senate leadership will discuss the conference agreement. We know that the bills have been exhaustively “pre-conferenced” with the various committee staff over the last couple of weeks. The official conferees — the Representatives and Senators who were appointed to serve on the conference committee — will meet tonight to hammer out the final details. So, this time tomorrow we should have a good sense of what made the bill and what didn’t.
We’ll have all the details as they are released, of course. There are some provisions in the the House and Senate bills about which the computing research community has had particular interest. More detail on those later. But for now, it’s nice to see a light at the end of the tunnel. Congress — and the Administration — has spent a lot of time over the last two years talking about the importance of bolstering the chain of innovation that helps keep America a world leader, but they don’t have much to show for it. It appears that could change soon.
Update: (7/30/07 10 pm ET) — The conference committee has reached agreement on a compromise bill. It’s massive — 470 pages — but you can poke through it here (pdf) if you’re so inclined. We’ll have details on the bill in the next day or so, but after a brief look through the bill it’s fair to say there’s a lot of good news for the community in there — including the High Performance Computing R&D Act, which has died every previous Congress since the 106th (this is the 110th). So keep it tuned here for more detail….
President’s Remarks on Research and Innovation
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY08 Appropriations, People, Research /by Peter HarshaPresident Bush yesterday presented awards to the 2005 and 2006 National Medal of Science and Technology Recipients, and in his remarks reiterated his support for a strong federal role in support of fundamental research. There’s no guarantee, of course, that the President’s strong support now will help alleviate the coming appropriations meltdown (that could threaten science funding gains), but at least it appears that his heart is in the right place. The full remarks are here, but I thought I’d just highlight a bit of them:
More on the awards, including links to pictures of each awardee receiving their medal, is here.
Appropriations Update — FY 08 Defense Approps and Commerce, Justice, Science
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY08 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaTwo developments of note today in the annual appropriations cycle. First, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense will mark up its version of the FY 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill, which includes research funding for the various service and defense-wide accounts. We’ve gotten our first look at the funding levels for the Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation title of the bill in the Chairman’s mark, and they look pretty good for most of the accounts the computing research community might care about. In general, defense basic research accounts (6.1) are up vs. the President’s request, as are most of the computing-related applied research accounts (6.2). The remainder are funded at the President’s request.
DARPA does suffer an overall cut in the bill, however, related to the fact that the committee continues to have concerns with the rate of spending at the agency. DARPA has been slow to execute programs for which it has been appropriated money either because a) the agency has been a careful steward of taxpayer dollars or b) because programs have become bottlenecked in the Director’s office, depending on whether you believe the agency’s explanation or the feeling among some congressional committee staff. As a result the committee reduced funding in the Biological Warfare, Electronics Technology, Advanced Aerospace Systems and Land Warfare Technology program elements. As a result of this spend-it-or-lose-it DC culture, the cuts would cause DARPA to lose $80 million vs. FY 2007, a reduction of 2.6 percent.
For a more-detailed look at the different accounts, take a gander at the table included in the jump. (Click on the “Continue Reading” link below). We’ll update the table as we get additional detail.
Keep in mind, however, that these numbers are just a first step. The committee needs to approve them, then the whole House, then the Senate needs to approve its version, then a compromise version between the chambers, and then, after all that, it’s likely that the President will veto the bill for being too generous. (More on that below….) So, consider these numbers a starting point in the inevitable negotiation that will occur between both the Senate and the President. But, it’s a good place to start.
Speaking of vetoes, the Administration also issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) yesterday on the FY 2008 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill that the House will begin debating today, indicating that the President intends to veto the bill should the version the House will likely approve land on his desk. The CJS Appropriations bill, as we’ve discussed previously, contains funding for some science agencies we care about — in particular, the National Science Foundation and National Institute of Standards and Technology (as well as NASA and NOAA). The bill includes healthy increases for both NSF and NIST, in line with both the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative and the Democratic Innovation Agenda.
Despite issuing the veto threat, the President does commend the bill for its support of NSF and NIST’s research accounts, but takes issue with increases the House Appropriations Committee provided for NSF’s Education and Human Resources directorate beyond his request. The SAP also criticizes excessive earmarking in the bill and bluntly states that because the HAC failed to demonstrate offsets for the increased spending, he will veto the bill if presented to him.
This is not terribly surprising. Facing a Democratically-controlled Congress for the first time, it was likely that the President would be drawn into a political fight over spending, and his only leverage in that fight is the veto. While Congress chugs away at passing the 12 annual appropriations bills necessary to fund the operations of government, its unlikely many (if any) will pass with the majority required to override any potential presidential veto. Indeed, in the House, the “magic number” for the President is 145 — he needs just 145 out of 201 Republican members of the House to sustain any veto and provide him significant leverage in the spending negotiations that will follow. So far, none of the bills passed so far (Interior, Homeland Security, State-Foreign Operations) have had “veto-proof” majorities, so the President has retained his leverage.
It’s likely the appropriations process is again headed for a train-wreck, just as in previous years. The final form of this particular train-wreck isn’t yet known, but I tend to agree with others who expect that the end game will involve another omnibus appropriations bill in which, despite strong support for science programs in Congress and by the President, those programs will be threatened by across-the-board cuts required to get spending down to a level that the President will sign. The focus, then, of many of us in the science advocacy community once again will be on protecting the increases for science agencies approved by Congress and supported by the President in a bill in which they are just one of hundreds, if not thousands, of competing programs. The good news is that we’ve had some success with this approach in the past….
But for now, the funding levels included in both the Defense Appropriations and Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations are powerful symbols of the support R&D issues have in Congress, even if its likely that those levels might get modified in the coming months for reasons mostly unrelated to Congress’ support of science.
We’ll, of course, have all the details here as they emerge.
Read more →
NSF Reports on Research Publishing
/In: R&D in the Press, Research /by MelissaNorrThe National Science Foundation has published two reports on American research and the decline of journals publishing it. The reports show that beginning in 1992 journals began to publish less American based research with a corresponding rise in research from Europe and Asia being published. In 1992, the share of American research published in journals was 37 percent and in 2003 it was 30 percent. The reports give a number of possible reasons for the decline, including the increase in scientific research being performed in Europe and Asia as well as more international collaboration on research in all fields.
Both reports are interesting and worth a read along with an article about them in Inside Higher Education. A third report on the topic is planned.
CISE Awards Distinguished Education Fellow Grants
/In: Funding, People, Research /by MelissaNorrNSFs CISE Directorate awarded the first two Distinguished Education Fellow grants today to Dr. Owen Astrachan and Dr. Peter Denning. The awards are part of the CISE Pathways to Revitalized Undergraduate Computing Education (CPATH) program that CISE began last year.
New CISE Assistant Director Jeannette Wing said that CISE supports the revitalization of undergraduate education in computer science because the community needs to show that computing is about more than programming or a machine in order to attract the best minds to the field.
Astrachan, of Duke University, received his grant to explore case-based approaches to teaching computer science. Denning, of the Naval Postgraduate School, received his grant to focus on defining the principles of computer science and to distill the principles into modules that can be used in teaching.
Both awards are $250,000 grants over 2 years.
CRA at CNSF Exhibit on Hill
/In: CRA, Events, Funding, People, Research /by MelissaNorrCRA participated once again in the Coalition for National Science Funding’s annual Science Exposition on Capitol Hill last week and it was a great success. The event, a science fair for Congress and staff, had 35 booths manned by researchers representing universities and scientific societies featuring some of the important research funded by the National Science Foundation. This year CRA was ably represented by Lydia Kavraki, a computer science professor from Rice University, whose research into using computational tools to solve problems in a range of areas such as biology was a hit with all those who stopped at the booth.
As weve stated before in this space, personal visits to members of Congress and their staff are vital to getting the message about the importance of computing research out. CRA holds or participates in Congressional visit days several times throughout the year and we are always looking for participants. If you are interested in coming to Washington to visit your Representative and Senators, please contact Melissa Norr at mnorr at cra.org.
Cyber Security Report Released
/In: Events, People, Policy, Research, Security /by MelissaNorrThe National Research Council of the National Academies of Science released a new report on cyber security and research called “Toward a Safer and More Secure Cyberspace.” The report is available for free online at the National Academies Press.
The report lists three broad categories that lack of cyber security falls into:
It also lists a set of ten provisions that could form a Cyber Security Bill of Rights. The provisions are:
First Senate Appropriations Numbers
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY08 Appropriations /by MelissaNorrThe Senate Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations subcommittee and the Senate Energy and Water Development appropriations subcommittee marked up their appropriations bills and, as with the House versions, it appears the science agencies did very well. We don’t yet have all the details, but here are the early numbers:
NSF received a total appropriation of $6.6 billion from the subcommittee — about $200 million more than the Presidents request, $100 million more than the House subcommittee allocation, and about $700 million more than the agency received in FY 07.
NIST received $712 million, $71 million more than the Presidents request and $33 million more than FY07 but $66 million less than the House subcommittee allocation. We don’t know how much of that increase goes to the NIST core research budget, however.
The Department of Energys Office of Science received $4.497 billion, almost $100 million above the Presidents request and $700 million over FY07 but $17 million less than the House allocation.
All the usual caveats about appropriations bills apply here — we don’t have the details, no funding is certain until the bill becomes law with the President’s signature, these numbers can change dramatically if the process melts down over an earmark dispute or a veto threat, etc — but it’s again a very positive sign that both the House and the Senate appear committed to the increases called for in both the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative and the Democratic Innovation Agenda. We’ll keep you posted as the bills move forward.
GENI Gets Some Press
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC), R&D in the Press, Research, Security /by MelissaNorrThe Chronicle of Higher Education (sub. reqd.) has a great article on the future of the Internet and the Global Environment for Network Innovations or GENI. It contains quotes from many participants of the new Computing Community Consortium (CCC) that CRA helped launch.
The article talks about the problems with the current state of the Internet:
GENI and its possibilities are discussed in great detail:
CRA NAMES 16 TO FIRST COMPUTING COMMUNITY CONSORTIUM COUNCIL
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC) /by Peter HarshaAn announcement from CRA:
Update: Some of the term limits in the original press release were wrong. Edward Lazowska, Chair, currently does not have a fixed term limit. Fred Schneider, Cornell University, has a two year term. These have been corrected in the list above.