New legislation has been introduced in the Senate to expand the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. While this is not in and of itself a bad thing, the correlating increase in the budget could actually hit the research agencies hard. The SBIR program is funded by a tax on federal research agencies (those doing more than $100,000,000 in R&D). Currently the agencies are required to contribute a minimum 2.5 percent of their total budget to the SBIR program. The new legislation, S. 3778 – the Small Business Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2006, would increase the percentage to a minimum of 3 percent in FY 2007 and increase it by 0.5 percent each fiscal year until it reaches 5 percent in 2011 where it would remain until legislation is passed to increase it again.
The irony in this proposal is that it will actually decrease the amount of money the agencies can spend on their core research missions, which may have impacts on the nation’s innovative capacity beyond any expansion of the SBIR program. At a time when Congress and the Administration seem to have agreed on the importance of increasing support for fundamental research as a way to improve the environment for innovation and help ensure the nation’s continued competitiveness, this proposal actually represents a step backwards.
The science advocacy community is beginning to organize to respond to this new legislation. We will keep you posted here when more details on the effort become available.
Last week the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) approved its version of the FY 2007 Defense Appropriations bill and once again, as they did last year, included a significant cut to DARPA’s “Cognitive Computing” program. In addition, the SAC approved cuts to both the “Information and Communications Technology” account and even the “Computer Science Study Group” activity at DARPA.
Here are the details: Information and Communications Technology: President requested $243 million in his budget for ICT in FY 07, an increase of $47 million (or 24 percent) over FY 06.
The House included $243 million in their version of the FY 07 Defense Approps.
The SAC approved $229 million, a cut of $13.4 million, or 5 percent, vs. the request — an increase of $34 million over FY 06 (17 percent).
Programs that would suffer cuts are “Responsive Computing Architectures” (-$3.9 million), “Security-Aware Systems” (-$3 million) and “Automated Speech and Text Exploitation in Multiple Languages” (-$6.5 million). Cognitive Computing Systems: The President requested $220 million for FY 07, an increase of $57 million (35 percent) over FY 06.
The House included the full $220 million in their bill.
The SAC approved $149 million, a cut of $70.8 million (32 percent) vs. the request, and a cut of $14 million over FY 06 (9 percent).
Programs targeted are “Integrated Cognitive Systems” (-$60 million), “Learning Locomotion and Navigation,” (-$3.8 million) and “Improved Warfighter Information Processing” (-$7 million).
In addition, SAC cut the Computer Science Study Group at DARPA — established this year to help expose young faculty to DOD-oriented problems in computer science — from the requested level of $6.6 million in FY 07 to $3 million.
This is obviously bad news. While the ICT cut is really just the slowing of the rate of growth of ICT programs, the cuts to Cognitive Computing represent a real scaling back of the program — back to FY 05 budget levels.
CRA will be working to oppose the cuts along with representatives from a number of the institutions affected. (The cut to the Integrated Cognitive Systems account alone would impact more than 20 universities and research institutions.)
The SAC bill may come before the Senate as early as Tuesday, August 1st. Senate leadership hopes to have debate on the bill wrapped up by the end of the week, before Congress sets off on its annual August recess. The next chance to contest the cut would then be during the conference for the bill, which could happen in September.
Keep a watch here for the latest details in the effort to oppose the cuts. The case we laid out last year remains true today:
Research in learning, reasoning, and cognitive systems is focused on intelligent intrepretations of signals and data, on controlling unmanned vehicles, and on amplifying human effectiveness. Its aim is to reduce U.S. casualties by providing improved command and control and tactical planning against adversaries, as well as improved training systems. Work in this area includes research responsible for the Command Post of the Future (CPOF) — a software system currently deployed and very widely-used in Iraq to coordinate battle plans and integrate multiple intelligence reports, providing U.S. forces the capability to plan, execute and replan much faster than the enemy’s decision cycle and cited by Secretary Rumsfeld as the major contributor to victory in the first phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It’s also cricital to the research and development of autonomous, unmanned vehicles that amplify our warfighting capability while reducing the number of U.S. forces in harm’s way. Cutting support so significantly for this research will hamper advancements in defense-related IT in the short- and long-term and will slow technological advancements essential to current and future military operations in Iraq and around the globe.
It also runs completely counter to recent concerns of Congress, PITAC and the DOD’s Defense Science Board. All three bodies have raised strong concerns about the shift of DARPA resources away from fundamental research at universities, especially in information technology. The Cognitive Computing program is one area where DARPA has responded positively to these concerns.
Anyway, this is a bit of a dark cloud over the otherwise very positive news we’ve received all year long (topped by the House and Senate both approving full funding for the ACI in their approps bills), but we’ve got a reasonable chance of mitigating this somewhat, provided we start moving now. Update: (Aug 1, 2006) — It appears now that the Senate won’t be able to begin consideration of its version of the FY 2007 Defense Appropriations bill until after the August recess — which is good news because it gives us a bit more time. However, it also means we’re a bit more likely to see another omnibus appropriations bill at the end of the session, which poses its own set of challenges…. Update 2: (Aug 1, 2006, 9:30 pm) — So, I should have known that as soon as I posted the update above, the situation would change. The Defense Appropriations bill came to the floor this afternoon and debate will continue for the remainder of the week. The plan is to finish it before the August recess begins — which means the Senate leadership would like to have it done by Friday or the weekend. One positive is an amendment planned by Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) that would appropriate an additional $45 million for basic research accounts at DOD. Here are the details:
$12 million in additional funds for Army University Research Initiatives (PE 0601103A)
$13 million in additional funds for Navy URI (PE 0601103N)
$5 million in additional funds for Air Force URI (PE 0601103F)
$6 million in additional funds for the DARPA (PE 0601101E) for its University Research Program in Computer Science and Cybersecurity
$9 million in additional funds for the SMART National Defense Education Program (PE 0601120D8Z)
This amendment is very similar to an amendment Kennedy and Collins introduced to the Defense Authorization early this summer, which passed unanimously after gaining the co-sponsorship of 21 other senators. We’ll pass along further details as we get them. Update 3: (August 7th) — The Senate didn’t manage to finish up debate on the Defense Approps bill before the recess, so they’ll take the bill up again when they return in September. No word on the fate of the Kennedy-Collins amendment, but it appears we’ve got some time to buttress support for it and for heading off the cuts to Cognitive Computing and ICT….
Information Week spent a great deal of its July 17 issue discussing the IT workforce shortage and a variety of issues surrounding it. One of the articles, Computer Classes Seen as Shop Class” at Many Schools, discusses an area of the talent pipeline that is contributing to the image problem of IT. The article starts:
If a kid takes a computer networking class as an elective, will college admissions departments look at it in the same spirit as an advanced physics class–or more akin to wood shop?
It goes on to discuss the different types of computer related courses that can be offered and the constraints that high schools are under as well as an example of a company program that works with schools on computer curriculum. However, it then states the disparity that while some computer classes are in the advanced placement or honors curriculum, others are often in the technical/vocational curriculum which makes parents steer their college-bound children away.
The question is, of course, a much more complicated one than just whether or not computer courses should be considered honors or vocational in high school. But it does raise the issue of how invasive the image problem that computer science suffers can be and the depth of the problem that needs to be addressed.
One of the most effective “tools” the science advocacy community has in making the case for federal support of science is, well, scientists. Those occasions in which researchers are able to sit down with Members of Congress and discuss their own work do more to advance the cause of science than five meetings with staff like me. There are a couple of reasons for this. One, scientists tend to be pretty smart and well-spoken. They’ve thought a lot about their work and usually understand how to explain it to lay people (despite the usual stereotypes about scientists, it’s a rare exception to this rule). More importantly, they’re usually pretty good at conveying why their work matters, and to do it in a way that makes any passion they feel for the research palpable. If they have the opportunity to spend 5, 10, 15 minutes with a Member, it’s pretty good odds that Member will leave the meeting with a better appreciation for the work and a sense of connection to the researcher.
And that’s no small thing. When the time comes to make decisions about priorities, a Member’s personal connection to a researcher, an understanding of what research goes on in his or her district, and an understanding of the long-term benefits of that research all can help swing the balance in favor of science. They are by no means the only factors that go into that decision, but they’re certainly weights we want to have on our side of the balance.
So I’m especially pleased to point out occasions when members of our community take time out of their schedules to spend time in Washington, mingling with policymakers and trying to convey a little of what it is they do. One occasion CRA tries to takeadvantage of everyyear is the Coalition for National Science Funding’s Capitol Hill Science Exhibition and Reception, held this year on June 7th.
Each year, CNSF brings together 30-35 of its members to stage a science fair of sorts on Capitol Hill for Members of Congress and their staff as a way to highlight the important and interesting work enabled by the federal investment in basic research at the National Science Foundation. This year, CRA was well-represented at the Exhibition by Lucy Sanders and Katie Ertz from the National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT).
The NCWIT display occupied a unique niche at this year’s exhibition. While the great majority of booths highlighted particular research efforts of NSF, NCWIT’s was one of the few (if the only) to focus on NSF’s broader role of developing the science and engineering workforce. In particular, Lucy and Katie were able to bring some attention to the continued need to focus on increasing the participation of underrepresented populations within that workforce. The event was quite well-attended and Lucy and Katie found a number of willing listeners among Members of Congress (like Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), seen at left), key congressional staffers, and a surprising number of agency personnel. There were times when it was quite difficult to move around the room, the bodies were packed so tightly. CNSF counted more than 300 attendees this year, including six Members of Congress, despite a very busy day in the House — a very encouraging symbolic display of support for science.
Thanks to Lucy and Katie for their willingness to travel to DC and participate and for making the case so effectively. They join a growing list of CRA member institutions who have participated in CNSF Exhibitions, including James Hendler and his colleagues from the Mind Lab at the University of Marylandin 2005, DK Panda and his students from Ohio State University in 2004, Tim Finin and his colleagues and students from the University of Maryland Baltimore County in 2003, and Thad Starner and Janet Kolodner of Georgia Tech in 2002. If you’re at a CRA-member institution and are interested in showing of your NSF-sponsored research at a future Hill event, drop me a line!
This is also a reminder that it’s not too late to participate in CNSF’s upcoming Fall Congressional Visits Day, scheduled for September 13, 2006 (with an orientation session on September 12th). This is a great opportunity to make sure computing researchers are represented as the research community goes up to the Hill to speak with one voice about the importance of the federal role in supporting research. CRA’s Melissa Norr has all the details.
You may recall that Senator John Ensign (R-NV) promised a hearing on high performance computing back in May while passing innovation legislation out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. This morning the Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness held a hearing on high performance computing that Sen. Ensign, the subcommittee chair, and Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) engaged in. Sen. Ensign acknowledged that he had little knowledge of high performance computing but asked questions and seemed very interested in what policies could help keep the US in a leadership position in the field. The seven witnesses all discussed the importance of high performance computing and the need for government funding to continue and increase to keep a competitive edge. Formal testimony is available online and a web cast should be available in a few days.
Everyone at the hearing tied the advances in high performance computing to Americas competitiveness. One example was when Michael Garrett of Boeing said that the companys ability to meet its performance goals was due, in part, to high performance computing and that had allowed it an edge over competitors in Europe. A couple of the witnesses put great emphasis on networking in high performance computing as opposed to hardware or even software. At the end of the meeting Sen. Ensign asked if Congress needs to direct NIH on how to spend money to get it to invest in high performance computing. Dr. Stanley Burt of the Advanced Biomedical Computing Center said Congress should do so and that collaboration and cross training of scientists is needed for the future of scientific research in biology using high performance computing. Burt said computational biology needs to get to the level that computational physics is currently at as a field.
…and they look pretty good! Better than we thought, certainly.
You’ll recall we worried that the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative would face problems in the Senate due to the need to pay for cuts to NOAA and NASA in the President’s budget. But the Senate Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommitteemarked up their bill today (link doesn’t render on my Mac, however) and managed to get NOAA $1.1 billion more than the House included in their bill, and about $126 million more for NASA, without carving it out of the other science agencies. NSF and NIST managed to make it out of the markup with significant increases still intact. I haven’t seen the mark yet, so I don’t know all the details. But the short story appears to be that NIST will get its requested level and NSF gets almost everything requested — about $29 million shy of the request, actually — but still a healthy increase of $410 million over FY 06.
Here’s the detail the committee’s released so far (comparisons to the House bill in parentheses):
NIST: $764 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (vs. $627 million in the House bill) — $11.9 million above the FY06 enacted level and $182 million above the budget request. $106 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) (vs. $92 million in the House). No mention of ATP funding (zeroed in the House). It’s not clear how much of that $764 million would go to the NIST Labs, but considering the House included the full $104 million called for in the ACI in their smaller allocation, odds are decent that NIST Labs will actually receive their requested funding.
NSF: $5.99 billion for National Science Foundation: $410 million above the FY06 enacted level; $29 million less than the House bill.
NOAA: $4.43 billion for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (vs. $3.4 billion in the House bill): $536 million above the FY06 enacted level, excluding supplemental appropriations, and $753 million above the budget request.
NASA: $16.8 billion for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (vs. $16.7 billion in the House): $126 million above the FY06 enacted level.
If these numbers survive the full committee markup — scheduled for Thursday — and then again on the Senate floor, then NSF and NIST (and likely DOE Office of Science, when it gets its turn in the Energy and Water bill) will just about be assured of getting nearly the level of increase called for by the President back in January. The only possible monkey wrenches at that point — at least that I can see — would be Presidential veto (unlikely) or some sort of appropriations meltdown that would lead to another across-the-board cut as happened last year. Even then, it’s hard to imagine an across-the-board cut stunting much of the growth NSF, NIST and DOE SC should experience as a result of these appropriations.
Further good news is a recent indication from OMB that the out-year increases for ACI called for in the President’s FY07 budget are likely to be realized, at least in the next budget (FY 08) — meaning the Administration doesn’t see ACI as a one-shot deal; it’s committed to a multi-year increase for these agencies.
So, we’re in pretty good shape at the moment (knocking on wood).
Of course, we’ll have more details as they come available….
CRA is a member of the Coalition for National Science Funding — an organization comprising over 100 different scientific societies, universities, and industrial advocates for federal support of fundamental research. As part of their advocacy efforts, CNSF sponsors a “Hill Visits Day,” which is an opportunity for members of the research community to come to Washington and chat with Members of Congress and their staff about the importance of the federal role in supporting long-term research. CNSF will hold its second annual Hill Visits Day on September 13, 2006 with orientation on September 12. CRA invites researchers from its member institutions to take part.
With President Bush’s introduction of the American Competitiveness Initiative calling for a doubling of federal support for fundamental research in the physical sciences, computing, mathematics and engineering over the next 10 years, and the House of Representatives endorsement of that plan, the opportunity for seeing significant increases at agencies important to our community — NSF, DOE Office of Science, and NIST, in particular — is better than at any time in recent memory. But it’s important that Congress continue to hear from researchers about the importance of sustained support for research.
CNSF Hill Visits Day presents the unique opportunity for the research community to speak with one voice. Participating in CNSF Hill Visits Day gives us the opportunity to make our case again to Congress, but to do so as part of a larger and multidisciplinary group with even greater impact.
A CNSF subcommittee will create interdisciplinary teams of visitors and make all the appointments, so if you would like to participate, please contact Melissa Norr at mnorr@cra.org by August 16 with your name and full contact information.
For more information please visit our previous blog postings and the CNSF web site.
To join the Computing Research Advocacy Network (CRAN) sign up here.
There is an interesting article at Forbes.com about Neumont University, a for-profit school in Utah, aiming to fill the need for well trained computer professionals. The school is anything but traditional with classes from 8 to 5, year round and a very hands on learning approach. The idea that Neumont is based on is that there will be a need for 135,000 new computer professionals each year according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics but only 49,000 computer science graduates.
Some snippets:
Physically and philosophically, there’s no confusing Neumont with a traditional university. It is housed in a glass-and-steel reflective office building. Students live in nearby apartments–no campus quad, football games, frat houses or keg parties.
Doxey aims foremost to please employers–not students, not parents and certainly not the educational establishment. Produce what business needs, he figures, and graduates will win good jobs, which will in turn attract more paying students.
…
But some in the educational establishment are still skeptical of Neumont’s rush-through, hands-on approach. “What you learn in technology is gone in five years, so you need to learn the principles,” says Pradeep Khosla, dean of the engineering school at Carnegie Mellon. Khosla says students need to know how semiconductor chips and operating systems are built, not merely how to program them.
But Halpin, the professor who came from Microsoft, finds Neumont’s mix of theory and practice just right. “I have five degrees. I use some of the theory and 5% of the math,” he says. “There are clearly areas where we could go deeper, but you’ve got to ask yourself: Will they use it?” He notes that he is now overseeing students who are creating software that can query multiple databases using logical algorithms, a fairly sophisticated project. President Doxey points to research from the nonprofit NTL Institute in Alexandria, Va.; it estimates that learning retention rates for those working in groups can range from 75% to 90% versus just 5% for students zoning out in lectures.
The NSF is seeking comments by the research community on a draft of their 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. The deadline for comments is July 17, 2006 and comments can be made at the website or by emailing strategicplaninput@nsf.gov.
The draft includes many mentions throughout the plan of the need for cyberinfrastructure and includes a bullet that says:
Develop a comprehensive, integrated cyberinfrastructure to drive discovery in all fields of science and engineering. NSF will initiate the first steps toward the development of a petascale computing facility; investigate the development of a next-generation Internet; and advance a wide variety of generic and domain specific cyberinfrastructure projects supporting global-scale research and education communities.
The new plan also includes a great deal on education at the K-12 and undergraduate levels and on “informal education” through museums, aquariums, and the like.
The House today approved increasing funding for two key science agencies called out for increases in the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative last February. The House passed the FY 2007 Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriation bill by a large margin (393-23), approving an increase of nearly 8 percent to the budget of the National Science Foundation and 14 percent to core research programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. With the passage of the SSJC, along with the passage on May 24, 2006, of the FY 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, the House has now approved all of the funding the President requested for the three key agencies targeted by the ACI: NSF, NIST and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
As we noted in our previous coverage of the SSJC, there was some concern expressed by both Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), the sponsor of the bill, and those of us in the science advocacy community that the increases for NSF and NIST called for in the bill might be at risk on the House floor. The fear was that Members of Congress who are fans of programs that received cuts in the bill (as many did) would seek to address those cuts in amendments. Because of the House rules, any amendment seeking to increase funding for one program in the bill must also seek to offset that increase by cutting program funding elsewhere in the bill. Given that the ACI agencies received very healthy increases in an otherwise austere bill, there was a fear that the ACI increases would be juicy targets for Members not as concerned about US innovation and competitiveness. However, that fear appears to have been unfounded, as the funding levels approved by the committee last week emerged unscathed in the floor debate yesterday and today.
As we noted previously, though, those increase remain at risk in the Senate, as appropriators there struggle with how to mitigate significant cuts to NOAA in both the House bill and the President’s budget request. We’ll have more on the Senate appropriations effort as the details emerge.
However, it’s hard to understate the significance of the House action today. The House acted to reverse a long-standing lack of support for research in the fundamental physical sciences, mathematics, computing and engineering. In doing so, they have sent a very clear message that this research forms the core of our economic and scientific future and is worthy of federal support. Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) put it well in his remarks on the House floor:
These agencies, which are not exactly on the tip of everyone’s tongue, are keystones of our nation’s economic future. Our nation will remain strong and prosperous only if we remain innovative. And we will only remain innovative if we have the most robust research and education enterprise in the world. And it is these agencies that help enable the U.S. to lead the world in science, math and engineering education and in research.
SBIR Increase from Research Agencies Budgets
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY07 Appropriations, Research /by MelissaNorrNew legislation has been introduced in the Senate to expand the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. While this is not in and of itself a bad thing, the correlating increase in the budget could actually hit the research agencies hard. The SBIR program is funded by a tax on federal research agencies (those doing more than $100,000,000 in R&D). Currently the agencies are required to contribute a minimum 2.5 percent of their total budget to the SBIR program. The new legislation, S. 3778 – the Small Business Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2006, would increase the percentage to a minimum of 3 percent in FY 2007 and increase it by 0.5 percent each fiscal year until it reaches 5 percent in 2011 where it would remain until legislation is passed to increase it again.
The irony in this proposal is that it will actually decrease the amount of money the agencies can spend on their core research missions, which may have impacts on the nation’s innovative capacity beyond any expansion of the SBIR program. At a time when Congress and the Administration seem to have agreed on the importance of increasing support for fundamental research as a way to improve the environment for innovation and help ensure the nation’s continued competitiveness, this proposal actually represents a step backwards.
The science advocacy community is beginning to organize to respond to this new legislation. We will keep you posted here when more details on the effort become available.
Senate Appropriators Target Cognitive Computing, IT Research Again
/In: Funding, FY07 Appropriations, Policy /by Peter HarshaLast week the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) approved its version of the FY 2007 Defense Appropriations bill and once again, as they did last year, included a significant cut to DARPA’s “Cognitive Computing” program. In addition, the SAC approved cuts to both the “Information and Communications Technology” account and even the “Computer Science Study Group” activity at DARPA.
Here are the details:
Information and Communications Technology: President requested $243 million in his budget for ICT in FY 07, an increase of $47 million (or 24 percent) over FY 06.
The House included $243 million in their version of the FY 07 Defense Approps.
The SAC approved $229 million, a cut of $13.4 million, or 5 percent, vs. the request — an increase of $34 million over FY 06 (17 percent).
Programs that would suffer cuts are “Responsive Computing Architectures” (-$3.9 million), “Security-Aware Systems” (-$3 million) and “Automated Speech and Text Exploitation in Multiple Languages” (-$6.5 million).
Cognitive Computing Systems: The President requested $220 million for FY 07, an increase of $57 million (35 percent) over FY 06.
The House included the full $220 million in their bill.
The SAC approved $149 million, a cut of $70.8 million (32 percent) vs. the request, and a cut of $14 million over FY 06 (9 percent).
Programs targeted are “Integrated Cognitive Systems” (-$60 million), “Learning Locomotion and Navigation,” (-$3.8 million) and “Improved Warfighter Information Processing” (-$7 million).
In addition, SAC cut the Computer Science Study Group at DARPA — established this year to help expose young faculty to DOD-oriented problems in computer science — from the requested level of $6.6 million in FY 07 to $3 million.
This is obviously bad news. While the ICT cut is really just the slowing of the rate of growth of ICT programs, the cuts to Cognitive Computing represent a real scaling back of the program — back to FY 05 budget levels.
CRA will be working to oppose the cuts along with representatives from a number of the institutions affected. (The cut to the Integrated Cognitive Systems account alone would impact more than 20 universities and research institutions.)
The SAC bill may come before the Senate as early as Tuesday, August 1st. Senate leadership hopes to have debate on the bill wrapped up by the end of the week, before Congress sets off on its annual August recess. The next chance to contest the cut would then be during the conference for the bill, which could happen in September.
Keep a watch here for the latest details in the effort to oppose the cuts. The case we laid out last year remains true today:
Anyway, this is a bit of a dark cloud over the otherwise very positive news we’ve received all year long (topped by the House and Senate both approving full funding for the ACI in their approps bills), but we’ve got a reasonable chance of mitigating this somewhat, provided we start moving now.
Update: (Aug 1, 2006) — It appears now that the Senate won’t be able to begin consideration of its version of the FY 2007 Defense Appropriations bill until after the August recess — which is good news because it gives us a bit more time. However, it also means we’re a bit more likely to see another omnibus appropriations bill at the end of the session, which poses its own set of challenges….
Update 2: (Aug 1, 2006, 9:30 pm) — So, I should have known that as soon as I posted the update above, the situation would change. The Defense Appropriations bill came to the floor this afternoon and debate will continue for the remainder of the week. The plan is to finish it before the August recess begins — which means the Senate leadership would like to have it done by Friday or the weekend. One positive is an amendment planned by Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) that would appropriate an additional $45 million for basic research accounts at DOD. Here are the details:
This amendment is very similar to an amendment Kennedy and Collins introduced to the Defense Authorization early this summer, which passed unanimously after gaining the co-sponsorship of 21 other senators. We’ll pass along further details as we get them.
Update 3: (August 7th) — The Senate didn’t manage to finish up debate on the Defense Approps bill before the recess, so they’ll take the bill up again when they return in September. No word on the fate of the Kennedy-Collins amendment, but it appears we’ve got some time to buttress support for it and for heading off the cuts to Cognitive Computing and ICT….
Another Piece of the Image Problem
/In: Diversity in Computing, Misc., People /by MelissaNorrInformation Week spent a great deal of its July 17 issue discussing the IT workforce shortage and a variety of issues surrounding it. One of the articles, Computer Classes Seen as Shop Class” at Many Schools, discusses an area of the talent pipeline that is contributing to the image problem of IT. The article starts:
It goes on to discuss the different types of computer related courses that can be offered and the constraints that high schools are under as well as an example of a company program that works with schools on computer curriculum. However, it then states the disparity that while some computer classes are in the advanced placement or honors curriculum, others are often in the technical/vocational curriculum which makes parents steer their college-bound children away.
The question is, of course, a much more complicated one than just whether or not computer courses should be considered honors or vocational in high school. But it does raise the issue of how invasive the image problem that computer science suffers can be and the depth of the problem that needs to be addressed.
Getting Scientists and Congress to Mingle…
/In: CRA, Diversity in Computing, Events, Funding, People, Policy, Research /by Peter HarshaOne of the most effective “tools” the science advocacy community has in making the case for federal support of science is, well, scientists. Those occasions in which researchers are able to sit down with Members of Congress and discuss their own work do more to advance the cause of science than five meetings with staff like me. There are a couple of reasons for this. One, scientists tend to be pretty smart and well-spoken. They’ve thought a lot about their work and usually understand how to explain it to lay people (despite the usual stereotypes about scientists, it’s a rare exception to this rule). More importantly, they’re usually pretty good at conveying why their work matters, and to do it in a way that makes any passion they feel for the research palpable. If they have the opportunity to spend 5, 10, 15 minutes with a Member, it’s pretty good odds that Member will leave the meeting with a better appreciation for the work and a sense of connection to the researcher.
The event was quite well-attended and Lucy and Katie found a number of willing listeners among Members of Congress (like Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), seen at left), key congressional staffers, and a surprising number of agency personnel. There were times when it was quite difficult to move around the room, the bodies were packed so tightly. CNSF counted more than 300 attendees this year, including six Members of Congress, despite a very busy day in the House — a very encouraging symbolic display of support for science.
And that’s no small thing. When the time comes to make decisions about priorities, a Member’s personal connection to a researcher, an understanding of what research goes on in his or her district, and an understanding of the long-term benefits of that research all can help swing the balance in favor of science. They are by no means the only factors that go into that decision, but they’re certainly weights we want to have on our side of the balance.
So I’m especially pleased to point out occasions when members of our community take time out of their schedules to spend time in Washington, mingling with policymakers and trying to convey a little of what it is they do. One occasion CRA tries to take advantage of every year is the Coalition for National Science Funding’s Capitol Hill Science Exhibition and Reception, held this year on June 7th.
Each year, CNSF brings together 30-35 of its members to stage a science fair of sorts on Capitol Hill for Members of Congress and their staff as a way to highlight the important and interesting work enabled by the federal investment in basic research at the National Science Foundation. This year, CRA was well-represented at the Exhibition by Lucy Sanders and Katie Ertz from the National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT).
The NCWIT display occupied a unique niche at this year’s exhibition. While the great majority of booths highlighted particular research efforts of NSF, NCWIT’s was one of the few (if the only) to focus on NSF’s broader role of developing the science and engineering workforce. In particular, Lucy and Katie were able to bring some attention to the continued need to focus on increasing the participation of underrepresented populations within that workforce.
Thanks to Lucy and Katie for their willingness to travel to DC and participate and for making the case so effectively. They join a growing list of CRA member institutions who have participated in CNSF Exhibitions, including James Hendler and his colleagues from the Mind Lab at the University of Marylandin 2005, DK Panda and his students from Ohio State University in 2004, Tim Finin and his colleagues and students from the University of Maryland Baltimore County in 2003, and Thad Starner and Janet Kolodner of Georgia Tech in 2002. If you’re at a CRA-member institution and are interested in showing of your NSF-sponsored research at a future Hill event, drop me a line!
This is also a reminder that it’s not too late to participate in CNSF’s upcoming Fall Congressional Visits Day, scheduled for September 13, 2006 (with an orientation session on September 12th). This is a great opportunity to make sure computing researchers are represented as the research community goes up to the Hill to speak with one voice about the importance of the federal role in supporting research. CRA’s Melissa Norr has all the details.
High Performance Computing Hearing
/In: Misc. /by MelissaNorrYou may recall that Senator John Ensign (R-NV) promised a hearing on high performance computing back in May while passing innovation legislation out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. This morning the Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness held a hearing on high performance computing that Sen. Ensign, the subcommittee chair, and Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) engaged in. Sen. Ensign acknowledged that he had little knowledge of high performance computing but asked questions and seemed very interested in what policies could help keep the US in a leadership position in the field. The seven witnesses all discussed the importance of high performance computing and the need for government funding to continue and increase to keep a competitive edge. Formal testimony is available online and a web cast should be available in a few days.
Everyone at the hearing tied the advances in high performance computing to Americas competitiveness. One example was when Michael Garrett of Boeing said that the companys ability to meet its performance goals was due, in part, to high performance computing and that had allowed it an edge over competitors in Europe. A couple of the witnesses put great emphasis on networking in high performance computing as opposed to hardware or even software. At the end of the meeting Sen. Ensign asked if Congress needs to direct NIH on how to spend money to get it to invest in high performance computing. Dr. Stanley Burt of the Advanced Biomedical Computing Center said Congress should do so and that collaboration and cross training of scientists is needed for the future of scientific research in biology using high performance computing. Burt said computational biology needs to get to the level that computational physics is currently at as a field.
First Details of Senate Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations…
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY07 Appropriations /by Peter Harsha…and they look pretty good! Better than we thought, certainly.
You’ll recall we worried that the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative would face problems in the Senate due to the need to pay for cuts to NOAA and NASA in the President’s budget. But the Senate Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee marked up their bill today (link doesn’t render on my Mac, however) and managed to get NOAA $1.1 billion more than the House included in their bill, and about $126 million more for NASA, without carving it out of the other science agencies. NSF and NIST managed to make it out of the markup with significant increases still intact. I haven’t seen the mark yet, so I don’t know all the details. But the short story appears to be that NIST will get its requested level and NSF gets almost everything requested — about $29 million shy of the request, actually — but still a healthy increase of $410 million over FY 06.
Here’s the detail the committee’s released so far (comparisons to the House bill in parentheses):
If these numbers survive the full committee markup — scheduled for Thursday — and then again on the Senate floor, then NSF and NIST (and likely DOE Office of Science, when it gets its turn in the Energy and Water bill) will just about be assured of getting nearly the level of increase called for by the President back in January. The only possible monkey wrenches at that point — at least that I can see — would be Presidential veto (unlikely) or some sort of appropriations meltdown that would lead to another across-the-board cut as happened last year. Even then, it’s hard to imagine an across-the-board cut stunting much of the growth NSF, NIST and DOE SC should experience as a result of these appropriations.
Further good news is a recent indication from OMB that the out-year increases for ACI called for in the President’s FY07 budget are likely to be realized, at least in the next budget (FY 08) — meaning the Administration doesn’t see ACI as a one-shot deal; it’s committed to a multi-year increase for these agencies.
So, we’re in pretty good shape at the moment (knocking on wood).
Of course, we’ll have more details as they come available….
Hill Visits
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Events, Funding /by MelissaNorrCRA is a member of the Coalition for National Science Funding — an organization comprising over 100 different scientific societies, universities, and industrial advocates for federal support of fundamental research. As part of their advocacy efforts, CNSF sponsors a “Hill Visits Day,” which is an opportunity for members of the research community to come to Washington and chat with Members of Congress and their staff about the importance of the federal role in supporting long-term research.
CNSF will hold its second annual Hill Visits Day on September 13, 2006 with orientation on September 12. CRA invites researchers from its member institutions to take part.
With President Bush’s introduction of the American Competitiveness Initiative calling for a doubling of federal support for fundamental research in the physical sciences, computing, mathematics and engineering over the next 10 years, and the House of Representatives endorsement of that plan, the opportunity for seeing significant increases at agencies important to our community — NSF, DOE Office of Science, and NIST, in particular — is better than at any time in recent memory. But it’s important that Congress continue to hear from researchers about the importance of sustained support for research.
CNSF Hill Visits Day presents the unique opportunity for the research community to speak with one voice. Participating in CNSF Hill Visits Day gives us the opportunity to make our case again to Congress, but to do so as part of a larger and multidisciplinary group with even greater impact.
A CNSF subcommittee will create interdisciplinary teams of visitors and make all the appointments, so if you would like to participate, please contact Melissa Norr at mnorr@cra.org by August 16 with your name and full contact information.
For more information please visit our previous blog postings and the CNSF web site.
To join the Computing Research Advocacy Network (CRAN) sign up here.
Article on Computer Science For Profit School
/In: Misc. /by MelissaNorrThere is an interesting article at Forbes.com about Neumont University, a for-profit school in Utah, aiming to fill the need for well trained computer professionals. The school is anything but traditional with classes from 8 to 5, year round and a very hands on learning approach. The idea that Neumont is based on is that there will be a need for 135,000 new computer professionals each year according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics but only 49,000 computer science graduates.
Some snippets:
Read the whole article here.
NSF Wants Your Comments
/In: Research /by MelissaNorrThe NSF is seeking comments by the research community on a draft of their 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. The deadline for comments is July 17, 2006 and comments can be made at the website or by emailing strategicplaninput@nsf.gov.
The draft includes many mentions throughout the plan of the need for cyberinfrastructure and includes a bullet that says:
The new plan also includes a great deal on education at the K-12 and undergraduate levels and on “informal education” through museums, aquariums, and the like.
With Passage of SSJC Appropriations, House Votes to Fully Fund ACI
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY07 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaThe House today approved increasing funding for two key science agencies called out for increases in the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative last February. The House passed the FY 2007 Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriation bill by a large margin (393-23), approving an increase of nearly 8 percent to the budget of the National Science Foundation and 14 percent to core research programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. With the passage of the SSJC, along with the passage on May 24, 2006, of the FY 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, the House has now approved all of the funding the President requested for the three key agencies targeted by the ACI: NSF, NIST and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
As we noted in our previous coverage of the SSJC, there was some concern expressed by both Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), the sponsor of the bill, and those of us in the science advocacy community that the increases for NSF and NIST called for in the bill might be at risk on the House floor. The fear was that Members of Congress who are fans of programs that received cuts in the bill (as many did) would seek to address those cuts in amendments. Because of the House rules, any amendment seeking to increase funding for one program in the bill must also seek to offset that increase by cutting program funding elsewhere in the bill. Given that the ACI agencies received very healthy increases in an otherwise austere bill, there was a fear that the ACI increases would be juicy targets for Members not as concerned about US innovation and competitiveness. However, that fear appears to have been unfounded, as the funding levels approved by the committee last week emerged unscathed in the floor debate yesterday and today.
As we noted previously, though, those increase remain at risk in the Senate, as appropriators there struggle with how to mitigate significant cuts to NOAA in both the House bill and the President’s budget request. We’ll have more on the Senate appropriations effort as the details emerge.
However, it’s hard to understate the significance of the House action today. The House acted to reverse a long-standing lack of support for research in the fundamental physical sciences, mathematics, computing and engineering. In doing so, they have sent a very clear message that this research forms the core of our economic and scientific future and is worthy of federal support. Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) put it well in his remarks on the House floor:
So, the community owes big thanks to Rep. Wolf, Ranking Member Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Rep. Boehlert, and Science Committee Ranking Member Bart Gordon (D-TN), as well as to the other 389 Members of Congress who voted in support of securing America’s innovative future.