As promised, we’ve got some further detail on the individual agency budget requests for FY 2007 and what those requests might mean for computing research.
But before diving into that, I thought I’d point out that the FY 2007 NITRD Budget Supplement produced by the NITRD National Coordinating Office is now available in a pre-print version (pdf). We’ll have more details on that when we get a chance to tear through it a bit. I’ll just note for now that it indicates NITRD will increase 7.7 percent in FY 07 (versus the 2.0 percent indicated in the President’s budget and the 9.4 percent indicated in the OSTP documentation…see the whole sordid story here). But, the supplement is the most comprehensive look at the actual contributions of the participating agencies, so we’ll consider that the “number of record.”
Anyway, the descriptions below come from my forthcoming Computing Research News article on the budget submission. Previous issues are available online. National Science Foundation
NSF would continue to be the lead agency in the NITRD program in the President’s plan, making the largest contribution at $904 million in FY 2007. NSF’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering directorate (CISE) would continue to be home of the largest share of that investment with a budget of request of $527 million, an increase of 6.1 percent over CISE’s FY 2006 current plan. The CISE investment is spread relatively equally between its Computing and Communication Foundations activity ($123 million in the request, an increase of 16.5 percent over FY 2006), Computer and Network Systems ($163 million, an increase of 15.2 percent), and Information and Intelligent Systems ($119 million, an increase of 15.1 percent). The double-digit increases to these programs are made possible by both the 6.1 percent overall increase for the directorate and funding freed up as grants under the old Information Technology Research (ITR) program – which officially ended in FY 2004 – continue to expire. ITR expenditures in FY 2007 would decline by 17 percent to $122 million under the current plan.
Also included in the CISE budget request in FY 2007 is $10 million for the agency’s new Global Environment for Networking Innovations program (detailed by Peter Freeman, NSF Assistant Director for CISE, elsewhere in this issue). The GENI proposal – a plan for a $300 million computer science facility and $40 million research program — faces an internal NSF design review on February 22, 2006. The results of that review will determine whether the project stays on track for presentation to the National Science Board in the coming year, with the aim of securing approval for consideration for inclusion in FY 2009 budget request.
The overall NSF contribution to Cybersecurity and Information Assurance would also grow significantly under the President plan. The budget request boost NSF’s Cyber Trust program $10 million to $35 million in FY 2007, bringing NSF’s total contribution to information assurance research to $97 million (an increase of 26 percent).
Proposed investments in NSF’s Office of Cyber Infrastructure (to be headed by University of Michigan professor and computer scientist Daniel Atkins) account for $182 million of NSF’s NITRD share in FY 2007, an increase of $55 million, or 44 percent, over FY 2006. The great bulk of that increase — $50 million – would begin the acquisition of a new petascale computing system.
The remainder of NSF’s investments in NITRD programs would come from the other research directorates, which on average received about the same level of overall increase as did CISE (about 6 percent vs. FY 2006). One notable exception is the Engineering directorate, which would grow 8.0 percent in the President’s request, largely due to the establishment of a new $20 million Improvised Explosive Device Detection research program. Freeman said that program should provide opportunities for computer science researchers, especially those in artificial intelligence and sensors, to compete for funding. Department of Energy, Office of Science
The Department of Energy’s contribution to the NITRD effort would grow to $387 million in FY 2007 in the President’s plan, an increase of nearly 33 percent over FY 2006. The focus of much of the DOE SC investment will be on leadership-class computing efforts. The President’s budget calls for $103 million in DOE SC towards the goal of deploying petascale computing systems by the year 2010. The Advanced Scientific Computing Research Program would be funded at $319 million in FY 2007, an increase of $84 million, or 36 percent, over FY 2006. DARPA
Computing research at DARPA would grow significantly under the President’s plan, gaining back ground lost in the FY 2006 Defense Appropriations process when $55 million was cut from the agency’s Cognitive Computing program. DARPA’s two main computing research efforts, the Information and Communications Technology account and the Cognitive Computing Systems account are both slated for substantial gains in the President’s budget. ICT would grow $47 million to $243 million in FY 2007, an increase of 24 percent. Cognitive Computing Systems would grow $57 million to $220 million in FY 2007, an increase of 35 percent.
Overall, DARPA would see its budget increase by $400 million to $3.3 billion in FY 2007, a 14 percent increase. Basic research would grow to $151 million, which is more than the FY 2006 level of $133 million, but still under the $165 million spent in FY 2005. DARPA applied research would increase to $1.5 billion (vs. $1.4 billion in FY 2006), and advanced technology development would grow to $1.6 billion (vs. $1.4 billion in FY 2006).
ACM’s Cameron Wilson has the scoop on the USACMTechnology Policy Blog about some potentially troubling signs ahead for the President’s new American Competitiveness Initiative. Cameron focuses on the reaction of newly-elected House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) to a Democratic “innovation” event on the Hill today. Boehner disparaged the event and, more importantly, the Democratic innovation agenda — a fact that’s troubling because, well, it’s really quite similar to the President’s proposal. Cameron’s got all the details.
There are, of course, other hurdles/speedbumps/large potholes in the ACI’s road to enactment. There’s the fact that the life sciences community is upset that NIH’s budget would be held flat under the President’s plan. There’s also some tension with the NASA folks, which could prove tricky in the Senate as the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Commerce, Science and Justice, Richard Shelby (R-AL), is an avowed NASA supporter. Then there’s the congressional earmarking process, the annual fight about NIST’s ATP and MEP programs, and other fights over the rise in discretionary spending generally. In short, it’s still quite the battle ahead. We’ll try to keep you informed….
On the CRA Bulletin blog, Jay Vegso has the latest data from the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA on the continuing decline in interest in computer science and computer engineering among freshman. He’s even got a (not-so) pretty chart.
The President’s budget request for FY 2007 has just been released and we’ll be dissecting it and providing our analysis as we get through it. But I wanted to post a quick snapshot of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development program, the federal government’s multi-agency IT research and development effort, because 1) it’s the number of greatest concern to the computing research community and 2) it highlights the near-fruitlessness of trying to track the federal investment in IT R&D on a year-to-year basis. For FY 07, the President is requesting $3.09 billion in aggregate funding for NITRD, an increase of $930 million over the FY 06 budget request — a huge increase. However, in that peculiar DC way, that’s only a 2 percent increase over FY 06 actual. That’s because the baseline budget has changed significantly since the Administration last calculated its IT R&D expenditures. The Department of Defense apparently discovered it was funding a lot more IT R&D than it previously thought — $851 million more in FY06 than it spent in FY05 an increase of more than 400 percent.
How can this happen? Well, each agency is responsible for determining what its own contribution to the NITRD program actually is. If the criteria that agency uses to determine whether a particular expense is IT R&D related or not changes, the department’s contribution can change dramatically. Does it mean that there actually will be $851 million more available to researchers in FY06 than there was in FY05? Not likely, but I’d sure like to get my hands on the spreadsheet used to produce that number. Perhaps we’ll get a better look when the NITRD coordinating office releases its annual “blue book” report for FY07.
Anyway, the good news is the NITRD program is slated for continued growth in FY07 (despite the widely fluctuating baseline numbers). Overall, the program will increase 2 percent, higher than any of the other government-wide “crosscutting” research programs (Nanotechnology will actually see a 2 percent decline, though that’s subject to some of the same odd DOD accounting changes; and the Climate Change program is flat). NSF would see a 12 percent increase in its NITRD funding, and DOE would see an increase of 23 percent. Update: (2/7/06 9:45pm) – I really should just trash this entry and start over, but it seems somehow more appropriate to leave the big strikethrough section for posterity.
After consulting with Simon Szykman, who heads the National Coordinating Office for NITRD, I’ve got a little better information on what is actually going on with the widely fluctuating budget numbers in the NITRD cross-cut. I can’t say I completely understand all the reasons, but I at least have some sense of what’s going on. Apologies to Simon if I screw this explanation up. This is likely uninteresting to all but the most hard-core federal funding geeks, but to me, it’s a great lesson in how tricky it is to rely on aggregate funding totals for any insight into federal policy.
In the early ’90s the decision was made — for reasons I don’t yet know — to exclude a number of programs in DOD from being counted as part of what would become the NITRD “cross-cut.” In particular, IT R&D investments at the DOD service labs — Air Force Research Lab, Army Research Lab, Naval Research Lab — weren’t included in the “Defense” line and weren’t calculated as part of the overall NITRD program.
For the FY 07 budget, the White House Office of Management and Budget (the gatekeepers for the budget process in the executive branch) reviewed the program accounting and decided that the legacy way of reporting the NITRD cross-cut was no longer accurate. To describe the full breadth of the federal government’s NITRD investments, R&D spending in the DOD service labs had to be included. So OMB produced this chart — which ran in the original version of this post — and included it in the Analytical Perspectives (pdf) supplement to the FY 2007 Budget Request. (Though I added the first column, “FY 05 (est),” just for comparison’s sake.)
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program dollars in millions OMB version
FY05 (est)1
FY05 (actual)
FY06 (est)
FY07 (request)
$ change FY06-FY07
% change FY06-FY07
Defense
277
775
1128
1018
-110
-10%
NSF
795
811
810
904
94
12%
HHS
573
571
551
541
-10
-2
Energy
383
377
384
473
89
23%
NASA
192
163
78
82
4
5%
Commerce
58
60
60
65
5
8%
EPA
4
4
6
6
0
0%
Total
2282
2761
3017
3089
72
2%
1Estimated expenditures in the FY 06 Budget Request.
Obviously, we’ll have much more as we get a little more time to dive into the budget. Stay tuned…
Now, as we’ve figured out, this spread of numbers isn’t very useful for year-to-year comparisons. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy realized this, too, so they now keep a second set of numbers which uses — roughly — the same set of agencies and programs that had been the norm until FY 07. Here’s the OSTP version:
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program dollars in millions OSTP Version
FY01 (actual)
FY05 (actual)
FY 06 (est)
FY07 (request)
$ change FY06-FY07
% change FY06-FY07
Defense
310
775
743
790
47
6.3%
NSF
636
811
810
904
94
11.6%
HHS
277
571
563
548
-15
-2.7
Energy
326
377
291
387
96
33.0%
NASA
177
163
78
82
4
5.1%
Commerce
38
60
53
66
13
24.5%
EPA
4
4
6
6
0
0%
Total
1768
2761
2544
2783
239
9.4%
You’ll note that when the military services are pulled from the numbers, DOD actually appears to receive an increase in the request versus FY06, which seems to indicate that the service labs don’t fare particularly well in the President’s budget. Szykman indicated that the DOD numbers for FY06 and FY07 in this chart also include, for the first time, funding from the DOD High Performance Computing Modernization Office. This isn’t new money.
Finally, you’ll note that some of the non-DOD numbers have changed in the second chart. According to Szykman, that’s likely due to further refinement as the chart worked its way through OMB to final release. Apparently the OSTP version is the “newer” version, and therefore its numbers are likely to be more accurate.
Presumably, we’ll have the final word when the NITRD NCO releases its FY07 Budget Supplement (the “Blue book,” which is now — of course — red) sometime in the next few weeks. So what’s the take-away from all of this? I don’t really know, honestly. OSTP indicates that NITRD is up 9.4 percent in the President’s request over last year, but that includes additional funding in the calculation for FY07 that isn’t really new money. The OMB numbers indicate it’s more like 2.0 percent, but those numbers include a whole bunch of funding that’s apparently never been considered before. Update: (2/8/06 8:39 am) – Ok, final update to this post. After some additional clarification from Szykman, it does appear that the OSTP-indicated increase of 9.4 percent is an accurate estimate of the status of the NITRD “legacy” programs OSTP is tracking. We’ll have further details in future posts about what exactly that 9.4 percent increase includes. But for now, maybe what’s most important for computing researchers is the knowledge that the traditional three big supporters for fundamental computing research — NSF, DOE and DOD/DARPA — all would see increases in the coming year under the President’s plan.
From OSTP:
High-end computing (HEC) continues to be a major focus of NITRD. DoE’s Office os Science (DoE SC), NSF and NASA are all engaged in developing and/or operating leadership class computing systems as recommended in the 2004 Federal Plan for High-End Computing, with the goal of deploying petascale computing systems by the year 2010. The DoE SC 2007 investment of $103M in leadership class computing, coupled with NSF’s investment of $50M in their Office of Cyber Infrastructure, will ensure that U.S. scientists and researchers have access to the most powerful computational resources in the world. Similarly, NASA continues to emphasize high-end computing within its NITRD portfolio through the operation of the Project Columbia supercomputer. All three agencies have pledged to make a portion of their leadership class computing systems available to other Federal users and the larger research community.
A 9% increase in support for advanced networking research in 2007, primarily by NSF, DARPA and DoE SC, will ensure that large-scale networking technologies will keep pace with the rapid development of petascale computing systems, so that the results of petascale computations are immediately accessible for analysis.
The 2007 Budget also includes significant increases in long-term fundamental research in cyber security and information assurance, as recommended by the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee. Budget increases in cyber security and information assurance for NSF (+28%), DHS (+43%) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (+11%) will support substantial new research activities to help secure the Nation’s information infrastructure, including fundamental research, and support for large-scale cyber security test beds and data sets.
We’ll have more on some of the agency-by-agency specifics as we get a chance to pour through the budget documents a little closer. As this episode points out, even a close reading of the documents isn’t always enough. And to think, if it’s this difficult to figure out the dollar amounts involved in this cross-agency program, imagine how difficult it is to coordinate research priorities and research activities….
Stay tuned.
We have so much to catch up on in the wake of the President’s State of the Union speech and his introduction of an American Competitiveness Initiative that I’m feeling a little overwhelmed. So let me start to wade through the torrent of new material.
First, the White House has posted the supporting documentation for ACI online. I’m still working my way through the document, but figured I should get the word out as soon as I could.
One interesting aspect of the document is that includes the FY07 budget numbers for NSF, NIST and DOEOffice of Science, so we don’t need to wait until Monday to see how each of the agencies fared. In it we learn that NSF will see a 7.8 percent bump to $6.02 billion, an increase of $440 million over FY 06.
DOE Office of Science actually does a little better, growing 14 percent to $4.10 billion in FY 07, an increase of $500 million.
NIST “Core” (Labs + Construction…not ATP or MEP) will decline $30 million from FY 06, but in twisted Washington DC logic, that’s actually an increase of 24 percent. The White House claims to have stripped $137 million in earmarks to the NIST budget from FY 06, so it’s actually an increase of $100 million in NIST core R&D.
Here’s a handy chart showing not only the proposed increases for next year, but the 10 year commitment the President is proposing (chart stolen from the President’s proposal).
I’d also like to include a lengthy quote from the President’s speech today at 3M in Minneapolis — the first of his “post-SOTU road show” speeches focused on competitiveness — that I found particularly, well, amazing. It would have been hard impossible to have imagined these words coming from the President even two months ago. (And apologies to History majors for the slight in the speech…hope it doesn’t apply to English majors, too):
I want to talk about another important issue, and I’ve come to 3M to highlight this issue. And the truth of the matter is, in order to stay competitive, we have got to lead the world in research and development, and got to lead the world in having people — scientists and engineers that are capable of helping America stay on the cutting edge of technology. And 3M is a perfect place to come. (Applause.)
There’s an economic reason why we need to do this. The economic reason why we got to stay on the leading edge of technology is to make sure that people’s standard of living here in America goes up — that’s what it is. And there’s a direct correlation by being the most innovative country in the world and how our citizens live.
Secondly, the second practical application to make sure we’ve got young scientists and engineers coming up, is that if we don’t have people that have got the skill set to fill the jobs of the 21st century, because we’re in a global world and a competitive world, they’re going to go somewhere else. And so I want to talk about an initiative to make sure America remains competitive.
The first element is, is that for the federal government to continue its role — oh, by the way, when we went on the tour, so I asked, how you doing? Fine. What do you do? This. Where did you get your education? We met engineers and chemists and physicists. I didn’t meet any history majors. (Laughter.) I met people who are incredibly capable, smart thinkers that are able to take their brainpower and come up with ways to make practical products that changes Americans’ lives. And so — and the federal government has a role in this, and our taxpayers have got to understand a good use of your taxpayers’ money is to promote research and development — research into the physical sciences.
Again, I’d repeat to you that if we can remain the most competitive nation in the world, it will benefit the worker here in America. People have got to understand, when we talk about spending your taxpayers’ money on research and development, there is a correlating benefit, particularly to your children. See, it takes a while for some of the investments that are being made with government dollars to come to market. I don’t know if people realize this, but the Internet began as the Defense Department project to improve military communications. In other words, we were trying to figure out how to better communicate, here was research money spent, and as a result of this sound investment, the Internet came to be.
The Internet has changed us. It’s changed the whole world. It’s an amazing example of what a commitment to research dollars can mean. The iPod — I’m a bike guy and I like to plug in music on my iPod when I’m riding along to hopefully help me forget how old I am. (Laughter.) But it was built — when it was launched, it was built on years of government-funded research and microdrive storage, or electrochemistry, or single compression — signal compression. See, the nanotechnology research that the government is helping sponsor is going to change the way people live.
And so what I said to the Congress was, let’s be wise with taxpayers’ money. Let’s stay on the leading edge of technology and change, and let’s reaffirm our commitment to scientific innovation. I think we ought to double the federal commitment to the most basic critical research programs in physical sciences over the next decade.
This year alone we’re proposing $6 billion go to the National Science Foundation to fund research in physics and chemistry and material science and nanotechnology. We’re proposing $4 billion goes to the Energy Department’s Office of Science to build the world’s most powerful civilian supercomputer. We’re proposing $535 million to the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology to research electronics information technologies and advanced computers.
I wouldn’t be proposing this if I didn’t believe that there will be tangible benefits for the American people. We may not see them tomorrow, but your children will see them. We’re staying on the leading edge of technology for a reason. If America doesn’t lead, if we try to kind of forget that we’re in a competitive world, generations of Americans won’t be able to realize the standard of living that we’ve been able to realize.
So that’s just the first speech on the topic. He plans to deliver a few more. Also, I wouldn’t get too hung up on the examples of research he mentions for the agencies — it’s not a comprehensive list. I’m far more interested in the overall message of the speech.
Anyway, we sort of need to enjoy this moment while we can. As one congressional staffer put it this morning, “Today is the best it’s going to get.” There are some tactical issues that will make realizing the full extent of the President’s plan problematic. Come Monday and the actual release of the President’s budget, some constituencies will feel slighted and there will be some hurdles to clear in Congress. But that’s a post for tomorrow or Monday.
Today I’m still reveling in what has to be considered one of the bigger wins for the science community, and more importantly, for the nation, in quite some years. Update: (5:02 pm 2/2/06) — The House Democratic response is great — very positive:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 02, 2006
Pelosi Statement on Presidents Competitiveness Speech
Washington, D.C. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement this afternoon in response to President Bushs speech on American competitiveness in Minnesota today:
In September, House Democrats launched the Innovation Agenda: A Commitment to Competitiveness to Keep America Number One. With this Innovation Agenda, House Democrats laid down a challenge to the President and to Congress to renew our commitment to the public-private partnerships that will secure America’s continued leadership in innovation and unleash the next generation of discovery, invention, and growth.
I am glad that the President addressed this vital issue in his State of the Union Address, and in Minnesota today. House Democrats are ready to work with the President to move our country forward and keep America competitive nothing could be more important.
We must now go beyond words and speeches and make the commitment in next years budget to a sustained investment in technological innovation and educational excellence to ensure that our country remains competitive against formidable international competition and generates high quality jobs throughout the 21st century. Nothing less is at stake than Americas economic leadership.
Got a “pre-brief” this afternoon from the White House. We’ll like it.
It’ll be webcast live.
We’ll have CRA’s reaction here, right after the speech. Update (1/31/06 9:20 pm) — Here’s the key passage:
And to keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hard-working, ambitious people and we are going to keep that edge. Tonight I announce the American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our Nations children a firm grounding in math and science.
First: I propose to double the Federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next ten years. This funding will support the work of Americas most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.
Second: I propose to make permanent the research and development tax credit, to encourage bolder private-sector investment in technology. With more research in both the public and private sectors, we will improve our quality of life and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come.
Third: We need to encourage children to take more math and science, and make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We have made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers, to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If we ensure that Americas children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world.
Preparing our Nation to compete in the world is a goal that all of us can share. I urge you to support the American Competitiveness Initiative and together we will show the world what the American people can achieve.
Update (1/26/06 9:21 pm) — CRA’s response:
January 31, 2006
COMPUTING RESEARCHERS APPLAUD PRESIDENT’S INNOVATION PLANS
WASHINGTON, DC – The Computing Research Association commends President Bush for announcing in his State of the Union address a new focus on U.S. competitiveness and innovation in a plan that would include healthy increases for U.S. science agencies.
The President’s plan, called the American Competitiveness Initiative, would double the federal investment in research sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science over then next ten years, reversing a trend that has deemphasized fundamental research, which is typically performed in U.S. universities and long-acknowledged as the fuel for American innovation. The plan would also bolster math and science education, make permanent the research and experimentation tax credit, provide worker training opportunities, and reform immigration policies to ensure the U.S. can continue to attract and retain the world’s best and brightest.
“The President’s proposal is an important step in ensuring the U.S. will have the resources — the people, the ideas, the infrastructure — the country needs to continue to lead in an increasingly competitive world,” said Professor Daniel A. Reed, Chair of the Computing Research Association and Director of the Renaissance Computing Institute at the University of North Carolina.
In the last decade, innovations spawned by fundamental research, particularly research in information technology, have driven U.S. productivity increases and fired the new economy. “But the increasing trend toward short–term efforts puts this innovation cycle at risk at exactly the time when our global competitors are expanding and accelerating their own efforts,” Reed said. “I am very pleased the President is committed to doubling the investment in long–term research to reverse the trend.”
Computing researchers have grown increasingly concerned that while information technology remains central to the nation’s economy, national security, health and the conduct of the sciences, the federal investment in fundamental IT research has been stagnant since 2001, and in fact, declined 4.5 percent in the President’s most recent budget submission.
“That’s why it’s crucial that any reinvestment in fundamental research include a revitalization of the federal Networking and Information Technology R&D program,” said Edward Lazowska, Bill & Melinda Gates Chair in Computer Science & Engineering at the University of Washington and former co–Chair of the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee. “While the payoffs of past research have been dramatic, the field remains in relative infancy. Tremendous opportunities remain — far more can happen in the next ten years than has happened in the last thirty, and it is crucial that America lead the way.”
CRA is also supportive of the effort to increase the participation of American students in science and math education, as called for in the President’s plan and featured in bipartisan proposals in Congress. As part of that effort, computing researchers urge policymakers to focus particular attention on reaching out to members of underrepresented groups.
“The pace of innovation is constrained when significant portions of the population aren’t represented in the research and development process,” said John King, Dean of the School of Information at the University of Michigan. “Building a diverse workforce not only encourages a diversity of ideas that breed real innovation, but it may be the only way to meet the Nation’s workforce needs in the face of the projected growth in the field.”
“The President’s innovation agenda creates an important opportunity,” Reed said. “We’re optimistic that these good ideas are shared by a large and growing number of Members of Congress on a bipartisan basis and look forward to working with policymakers to see them implemented in the coming year. Our nation’s future depends critically on increased investments in advanced education and research in information technology and other fields.”
CRA is an organization of 200 of the Nation’s leading industrial computing research labs and university computer science departments. For more information, visit the CRA website at: http://www.cra.org
Update: (1/31/06 9:51pm) — Standing ovations for:
“Tonight I announce the American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our Nations children a firm grounding in math and science.”
“With more research in both the public and private sectors, we will improve our quality of life and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come.”
Ok, so that’s about the most played-out cliche in politics, but it’s hard to come up with another phrase that encapsulates how pervasive the competitiveness meme has become in science policy circles — and more encouragingly, in the words of administration and congressional policymakers — over the last year.
Also, apologies for going sort of radio silent here the last couple of weeks, but there’s lots going on surrounding this issue and we’re involved in some of it, which makes chatting about it a little dicey. But here’s where things stand.
At the moment, all eyes (ears?) are focused on the President’s State of the Union speech tomorrow night. In that speech, among the new programs and initiatives he’s expected to announce may be a piece on ensuring U.S. competitiveness, which could feature a number of important planks. Now, I have no specific knowledge about what is actually in the speech, but there’s been a bit of press coverage, plenty of rumors floating around town, and a few tea leaves that can be read.
It seems fairly clear that there will be a focus on education, a focus on workforce/immigration, and a focus on “innovation” that could include increased budgets for federal science angencies. One big clue is the Administration’s apparent fondness for the National Academies “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” report put together by former Lockheed-Martin CEO Norman Augustine. There have been several mentions of the report by folks within the Administration. Maybe the most prominent mention was by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card during his January 11th talk at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This exchange is about 47:28 into the webcast:
Question: There’s a recent report from the National Academy of Sciences, put together by Norm Augustine, called “The Gathering Storm.” It raises some questions about science and technology leadership in the U.S. going forward. Do you have any thoughts on that, especially as it relates to the economy, one of your key issues?
Card: I would encourage you to read this report, which is The Gathering Storm. It’s about our need to have more engineers and scientists in the United States. It is work that was done in the private sector under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, and Norm Augustine did lead the effort. There were some great academics involved.
I actually read the report, not just the summary, but the report. And it is dramatic in its exposure to that which is a problem in the United States, and how few young people are going into the physical sciences, into math, and how they’re not going to college with an expectation that they’ll be a an engineer, or a mathematician, or a physicist.
The life sciences have actually had a little bump up. There’s some excitement about the life sciences, but on the physical sciences side, there is a dearth of students, and there is a death of teachers, and a dearth of scholarships and opportunities at some our major institutions. This report highlights that. It outlines a road map toward solving the problem. It’s a ten year roadmap.
We are taking a very close look at it in the Administration. We are very forward leaning in believing it is the right issue to address. Many of the suggestions are appropriate suggestions, but we have to put them in the context of Josh Bolton’s budget. And we’ll be doing that.
It is a compelling report.
We’ve covered the Gathering Storm report in this space, and it’s filled with things we like. If the Administration embraces the report in any meaningful way — particularly its core recommendation to “sustain and strengthen the nation’s traditional commitment to the long-term basic research that has the potential to be transformational to maintain the flow of new ideas that fuel the economy, provide security, and enhance the quality of life” — then we’ll be very pleased. After all, this represents a pretty signficant (and welcome) sea change for the Administration, which until recently has maintained, as John Marburger, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy said back in March, that “the U.S. is so far ahead in [science and technology] that we are going to be able to maintain our competitive strength. I don’t see the same danger signs [that others do].”
There are other hints that the President may be willing to adopt an “innovation” agenda, including a number of tidbits in the press. Technology Dailyreports today (sub. req’d.) that some high-tech officials who have met with White House senior officials in recent days have come away optimistic about the Administrations commitment to innovation. Yesterday’s Boston Globeindicates Norm Augustine will play an important role in the President’s speech. And the Baltimore Sun has twopieces on the likelihood of “innovation” being a featured part of Bush’s remarks. The big question is whether there will be the funding commitment to accompany any rhetorical commitment to innovation by the President.
If the President chooses to truly embrace the recommendations of the Augustine report, his budget will find a way to provide for a significant increase for the National Science Foundation, and perhaps to the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The Augustine report specifically recommends an increase of 10 percent a year for the next seven years for “long-term basic research…with special attention paid to the physical sciences, engineering, mathematics, and information sciences.” This is the approach taken in both the National Innovation Act introduced by Sens. John Ensign (R-NV) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and the new “Protecting America’s Competitive Edge” (PACE) Act, introduced last week by Sens. Pete Domenici (R-NM), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).
The strong bipartisan support accorded both bills in the Senate is indicative of the traction the “competiveness and innovation” case has in Congress. A year’s worth of reports — mostfamiliartoreadersof thisblog — by some of the most influential academic and industrial entities, all making the same essential points that the world has become an increasingly competitive place and that the US isn’t currently doing enough to ensure our future scientific and innovative leadership, has clearly had an impact on Members of Congress — and now, hopefully, the Administration.
But even if the President does include signficant increases for basic research in his budget, there will be a lot of work remaining. As Congress is fond of pointing out, “the President proposes, Congress disposes.” This is, after all, a time of incredibly tight budgets, with lots of pressure in place to hold down increases in discretionary spending. So, step one will be making sure that the Congressional Budget Resolution includes the same support for fundamental research that we hope will be present in the President’s budget. This is turn will aid in getting “302(b) allocations” (essentially, the amounts each of the 10 or 12 (House v Senate) appropriations subcommittees are allowed to spend for the bills under their control) that are robust enough to let the subcommittees that oversee the science agencies provide the any increases called for in the budget. Then it will be up to this same coalition of partners in university and industry to make the case to appropriators. In past years, the lack of a budget “cap” room has prevented even some of the most ardent congressional champions of research from providing significant increases. A strong budget request and good 302(b) allocations would remove that constraint.
So, I’m cautiously optimistic and very eager to hear the President’s words tomorrow night. If the Adminstration comes through with a proposal that embraces the best of the Augustine report recommendations, it is hugely important that they, and Congress, hear from the community in support of the idea. As we’ve noted in the past, the case for bolstering U.S. competitiveness by bolstering U.S. innovation finds strong support in both parties. Supporting the plan need not commit you to supporting any one party.
But let’s see what’s in the plan, first.
The President will deliver the State of the Union at 9 pm, Tuesday, January 31st.
We’ll have more after the speech (or earlier, if we get some scoop…).
At the CRA Bulletin, Jay Vegso has the first part of what will be a three-part look at the new Bureau of Labor Statistics workforce projections for 2004-2014. Some noteable bits:
The professional IT workforce added 134,000 jobs between 2002 and 2004, a significant turnaround from the period between 2000 and 2002, when the workforce shrank by 7,000 jobs. The overall workforce added 1.6 million jobs between 2002 and 2004, but numbered 145.6 million in both 2000 and 2004.
The professional IT workforce is projected to add a little over a million new jobs between 2004 and 2014, an increase of about 30 percent. In 2004, there were 3.4 million IT professionals out of a total workforce of 145.6 million. The total workforce is expected to add 18.9 million jobs between 2004 and 2014.
Six of the 30 occupations that are projected to grow the fastest (i.e., percent gain) between 2004 and 2014 are in the IT profession. Among the 30 fastest-growing occupations, 17 have median salary earnings of $43,605 or above, including all six IT occupations.
Two of the six IT occupations listed as the fastest growing also rank among the 30 that are projected to have the largest numeric growth. Only seven of these 30 have median salary earnings of $43,605 or more, including both IT occupations.
Of course, the usual caveats for long-term projections of anything should apply here (“notoriously unreliable,” “a crap shoot,” etc) but this is the current “best guess” of your Federal Government.
We’ve put some additional IT workforce data over at our IT Workforce page. There you’ll also find a link to an article written by John Sargent, a senior policy analyst at the Department of Commerce’s Office of Technology Policy for Computing Research News on the last set of projections. And to top it off, Jay also has a number of good posts on the IT workforce debate at the CRA Bulletin.
The first meeting of the President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology (PCAST) since the committee absorbed the functions of the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) last October 1st will be held tomorrow in Washington, DC. The committee will hear for the first time in detail about the Networking and Information Technology R&D program — the $2 billion per year, multi-agency program that constitutes the federal IT R&D effort. Simon Szykman, who now runs the National Coordinating Office for IT R&D and oversees the NITRD effort, will spend 90 minutes providing an overview of the NITRD program for the committee — though the President hasn’t yet named the additional members to the committee he authorized “to buttress PCAST’s Information Technology (IT) assessment functions.”
You’ll recall when the news first broke that the President was consolidating PITAC’s function under PCAST, I was decidedly mixed about it, but leaning towards the positive. The move was spun in Administration press releases as an “elevation” of IT policy issues — and indeed, the membership of PCAST is august and influential. However my concern then was that the charter of PCAST was becoming too broad for the committee to really spend the time to evaluate the federal IT R&D portfolio in sufficient depth.
Having thought about it a bit more, I’m much less optimistic now than I was then. I really don’t think PCAST can serve as PITAC in the way Congress intended. Congress established what would become PITAC in the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (with some additional responsibilities added in the Next Generation Internet Act of 1998), so that an independent panel filled with experts from industry and academia would review the whole of the federal effort every two years and provide guidance to Congress and the President. In fact, here’s what the statute says:
The President shall establish an advisory committee on high-performance computing consisting of non-Federal members, including representatives of the research, education, and library communities, network providers, and industry, who are specially qualified to provide the Director [of the Office of Science and Technology Policy] with advice and information on high-performance computing. The recommendations of the advisory committee shall be considered in reviewing and revising the Program.
The advisory committee shall provide the Director with an independent assessment of–
(1) progress made in implementing the Program;
(2) the need to revise the Program;
(3) the balance between the components of the Program;
(4) whether the research and development undertaken pursuant to the Program is helping to maintain United States leadership in computing technology; and
(5) other issues identified by the Director.
Unfortunately, PITAC hasn’t really met the intent of the statute since the committee released its 1999 report “Investing in Our Future,” a report which found that the US was woefully underinvested in IT R&D, especially given the “spectacular” return on investment that research produced. The most recent incarnation of an independent PITAC, while of suitable composition, was hamstrung by a charter from OSTP that led them to consider only three small subsections of the overall IT R&D portfolio — health and IT, cybersecurity R&D, and computational science. While the committee produced three excellent reports on the topics, as soon as it became clear the committee was prepared to act on their statutory responsibility to consider the state of the overall federal IT R&D program as the previous PITAC had done, their charter was allowed to expire and the committee was disbanded.
Instead, the Administration has subsumed PITAC under PCAST, which has become a one-stop shop for science advisory committees. Since it’s re-chartering in 2001, the committee of 24 has produced reports on Energy Efficiency, Building Out Broadband, Assessing the U.S. R&D Investment, Maximizing the Contribution of Science and Technology Within the Department of Homeland Security, The S&T of Combating Terrorism, Technology Transfer, Science and Engineering Capabilities, IT Manufacturing and Competitiveness, and most recently, under their role as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (another Congressionally-chartered panel whose responsibilities have been turned over to PCAST), The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel.
So, they’ve been busy. Even if the President does make timely appointments of additional members, it’s not clear to me that the members of PCAST will have anywhere near the time to delve into the issues of most concern to the community in anywhere near sufficient depth. (PCAST intends to devote 90 minutes of tomorrow’s 8 hour meeting to IT issues, splitting the rest of the time with sessions on nanotechnology (20 minutes), US-China S&T (60 minutes), and 3 hours of Advanced Energy Technologies.) Instead, it’s likely the committee will adopt the “technical advisory group” (TAG) approach, naming 50 “government and private sector” scientists to assist the members of PCAST carry out their PITAC responsibilities.
It’s hard to reconcile this approach — a large TAG comprised of government and private sector IT experts (though probably not of comparable stature to even the previous incarnation of PITAC), reporting up to a PCAST whose IT-oriented members are in the decided minority — with the intent of Congress in chartering an independent advisory committee staffed with some of the most-respected members of the field, focused solely on IT R&D. So, given that, and the fact that we’re now in the fourth month after the President’s order and no new members to the PCAST have been named, despite the fact that the committee is moving forward…well, color me pessimistic. For now, anyway.
In any case, I’ll be at tomorrow’s meeting and will have all the details. Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised. Update: (Jan 11) — No big surprises, unfortunately. OSTP Director John Marburger (who serves as co-chair of PCAST) noted that the committee will be expanded to accommodate the additional expertise required to take on the PITAC role, but that no new members were ready to be named yet (“in process,” he said). They decided to tape the proceedings and will make a copy for the new members to help bring them “up to speed.”
Simon Szykman gave a good overall presentation of the history of NITRD and PITAC and made the case that it was time for another focus on taking an overall look at NITRD, similar to the “Investing in Our Future” report by PITAC in 1999 (which led to structural and budgetary changes in the program) — as opposed to the narrower focus of the previous PITAC.
PCAST was in general agreement that that’s the sort of study that’s required, and Marburger seemed to agree.
So in that sense, I’m pleased. The committee seemed very engaged, though the audio was awful in the room so it wasn’t always possible to hear everyone’s contribution. There was a lot of talk about the committee needing to figure out a way to assess the state of the US leadership in IT. Also some question about whether the NITRD Interagency Working Group prioritizes research areas within IT, or just reacts to what the agencies are already doing. PCAST Member (and former NSF Director) Eric Bloch wanted to know if the NITRD IWG was the group that originates IT strategy or is it just “a recording group” for strategies upon which the agencies have already decided. “This question of originating the strategy versus recording is an issue we need to get into.”
If the committee stays this engaged in the process, they could produce a very valuable report. Much will depend on how much work they turn over to the TAG, I suppose, and the level of engagement the TAG membership brings to the issues. One possible warning sign came during the update on the committee’s nanotech advisory efforts. PCAST Executive Director Celia Merzbacher reported slightly disappointing response rates from the nanotech TAG to some issues of concern from PCAST — something like only 17 responses out of 40 or 50 TAG members. But that’s probably just the hazard of working with large groups of busy people.
Anyway, I was encouraged by the emphasis on the scope of the review. This PCAST has a lot on their plate, but they’re certainly looking at the issue at the right level I think. We’ll see how things move forward as the President starts appointing new members.
Aliya Sternstein of Federal Computer Week, has more coverage of yesterday’s meeting.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
ACI: Details of the NSF, DARPA and DOE Office of Science FY07 Requests
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY07 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaAs promised, we’ve got some further detail on the individual agency budget requests for FY 2007 and what those requests might mean for computing research.
But before diving into that, I thought I’d point out that the FY 2007 NITRD Budget Supplement produced by the NITRD National Coordinating Office is now available in a pre-print version (pdf). We’ll have more details on that when we get a chance to tear through it a bit. I’ll just note for now that it indicates NITRD will increase 7.7 percent in FY 07 (versus the 2.0 percent indicated in the President’s budget and the 9.4 percent indicated in the OSTP documentation…see the whole sordid story here). But, the supplement is the most comprehensive look at the actual contributions of the participating agencies, so we’ll consider that the “number of record.”
Anyway, the descriptions below come from my forthcoming Computing Research News article on the budget submission. Previous issues are available online.
National Science Foundation
NSF would continue to be the lead agency in the NITRD program in the President’s plan, making the largest contribution at $904 million in FY 2007. NSF’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering directorate (CISE) would continue to be home of the largest share of that investment with a budget of request of $527 million, an increase of 6.1 percent over CISE’s FY 2006 current plan. The CISE investment is spread relatively equally between its Computing and Communication Foundations activity ($123 million in the request, an increase of 16.5 percent over FY 2006), Computer and Network Systems ($163 million, an increase of 15.2 percent), and Information and Intelligent Systems ($119 million, an increase of 15.1 percent). The double-digit increases to these programs are made possible by both the 6.1 percent overall increase for the directorate and funding freed up as grants under the old Information Technology Research (ITR) program – which officially ended in FY 2004 – continue to expire. ITR expenditures in FY 2007 would decline by 17 percent to $122 million under the current plan.
Also included in the CISE budget request in FY 2007 is $10 million for the agency’s new Global Environment for Networking Innovations program (detailed by Peter Freeman, NSF Assistant Director for CISE, elsewhere in this issue). The GENI proposal – a plan for a $300 million computer science facility and $40 million research program — faces an internal NSF design review on February 22, 2006. The results of that review will determine whether the project stays on track for presentation to the National Science Board in the coming year, with the aim of securing approval for consideration for inclusion in FY 2009 budget request.
The overall NSF contribution to Cybersecurity and Information Assurance would also grow significantly under the President plan. The budget request boost NSF’s Cyber Trust program $10 million to $35 million in FY 2007, bringing NSF’s total contribution to information assurance research to $97 million (an increase of 26 percent).
Proposed investments in NSF’s Office of Cyber Infrastructure (to be headed by University of Michigan professor and computer scientist Daniel Atkins) account for $182 million of NSF’s NITRD share in FY 2007, an increase of $55 million, or 44 percent, over FY 2006. The great bulk of that increase — $50 million – would begin the acquisition of a new petascale computing system.
The remainder of NSF’s investments in NITRD programs would come from the other research directorates, which on average received about the same level of overall increase as did CISE (about 6 percent vs. FY 2006). One notable exception is the Engineering directorate, which would grow 8.0 percent in the President’s request, largely due to the establishment of a new $20 million Improvised Explosive Device Detection research program. Freeman said that program should provide opportunities for computer science researchers, especially those in artificial intelligence and sensors, to compete for funding.
Department of Energy, Office of Science
The Department of Energy’s contribution to the NITRD effort would grow to $387 million in FY 2007 in the President’s plan, an increase of nearly 33 percent over FY 2006. The focus of much of the DOE SC investment will be on leadership-class computing efforts. The President’s budget calls for $103 million in DOE SC towards the goal of deploying petascale computing systems by the year 2010. The Advanced Scientific Computing Research Program would be funded at $319 million in FY 2007, an increase of $84 million, or 36 percent, over FY 2006.
DARPA
Computing research at DARPA would grow significantly under the President’s plan, gaining back ground lost in the FY 2006 Defense Appropriations process when $55 million was cut from the agency’s Cognitive Computing program. DARPA’s two main computing research efforts, the Information and Communications Technology account and the Cognitive Computing Systems account are both slated for substantial gains in the President’s budget. ICT would grow $47 million to $243 million in FY 2007, an increase of 24 percent. Cognitive Computing Systems would grow $57 million to $220 million in FY 2007, an increase of 35 percent.
Overall, DARPA would see its budget increase by $400 million to $3.3 billion in FY 2007, a 14 percent increase. Basic research would grow to $151 million, which is more than the FY 2006 level of $133 million, but still under the $165 million spent in FY 2005. DARPA applied research would increase to $1.5 billion (vs. $1.4 billion in FY 2006), and advanced technology development would grow to $1.6 billion (vs. $1.4 billion in FY 2006).
First Speedbumps for President’s Competitiveness Initiative?
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative /by Peter HarshaACM’s Cameron Wilson has the scoop on the USACM Technology Policy Blog about some potentially troubling signs ahead for the President’s new American Competitiveness Initiative. Cameron focuses on the reaction of newly-elected House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) to a Democratic “innovation” event on the Hill today. Boehner disparaged the event and, more importantly, the Democratic innovation agenda — a fact that’s troubling because, well, it’s really quite similar to the President’s proposal. Cameron’s got all the details.
There are, of course, other hurdles/speedbumps/large potholes in the ACI’s road to enactment. There’s the fact that the life sciences community is upset that NIH’s budget would be held flat under the President’s plan. There’s also some tension with the NASA folks, which could prove tricky in the Senate as the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Commerce, Science and Justice, Richard Shelby (R-AL), is an avowed NASA supporter. Then there’s the congressional earmarking process, the annual fight about NIST’s ATP and MEP programs, and other fights over the rise in discretionary spending generally. In short, it’s still quite the battle ahead. We’ll try to keep you informed….
Interest in CS/CE Continues to Drop
/In: People /by Peter HarshaOn the CRA Bulletin blog, Jay Vegso has the latest data from the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA on the continuing decline in interest in computer science and computer engineering among freshman. He’s even got a (not-so) pretty chart.
President’s Budget: NSF
/In: FY07 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaNSF has released its budget as well. Rather than reproduce it, here’s the NSF-produced summary table (pdf).
Key points:
I’ll have more detail after I return from NSF’s budget rollout briefing at 3 pm.
President’s Budget: NITRD Numbers for FY07
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY06 Appropriations, FY07 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaThe President’s budget request for FY 2007 has just been released and we’ll be dissecting it and providing our analysis as we get through it. But I wanted to post a quick snapshot of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development program, the federal government’s multi-agency IT research and development effort, because 1) it’s the number of greatest concern to the computing research community and 2) it highlights the near-fruitlessness of trying to track the federal investment in IT R&D on a year-to-year basis.
For FY 07, the President is requesting $3.09 billion in aggregate funding for NITRD, an increase of $930 million over the FY 06 budget request — a huge increase. However, in that peculiar DC way, that’s only a 2 percent increase over FY 06 actual. That’s because the baseline budget has changed significantly since the Administration last calculated its IT R&D expenditures. The Department of Defense apparently discovered it was funding a lot more IT R&D than it previously thought — $851 million more in FY06 than it spent in FY05 an increase of more than 400 percent.How can this happen? Well, each agency is responsible for determining what its own contribution to the NITRD program actually is. If the criteria that agency uses to determine whether a particular expense is IT R&D related or not changes, the department’s contribution can change dramatically. Does it mean that there actually will be $851 million more available to researchers in FY06 than there was in FY05? Not likely, but I’d sure like to get my hands on the spreadsheet used to produce that number. Perhaps we’ll get a better look when the NITRD coordinating office releases its annual “blue book” report for FY07.
Anyway, the good news is the NITRD program is slated for continued growth in FY07 (despite the widely fluctuating baseline numbers). Overall, the program will increase 2 percent, higher than any of the other government-wide “crosscutting” research programs (Nanotechnology will actually see a 2 percent decline, though that’s subject to some of the same odd DOD accounting changes; and the Climate Change program is flat). NSF would see a 12 percent increase in its NITRD funding, and DOE would see an increase of 23 percent.
Update: (2/7/06 9:45pm) – I really should just trash this entry and start over, but it seems somehow more appropriate to leave the big strikethrough section for posterity.
After consulting with Simon Szykman, who heads the National Coordinating Office for NITRD, I’ve got a little better information on what is actually going on with the widely fluctuating budget numbers in the NITRD cross-cut. I can’t say I completely understand all the reasons, but I at least have some sense of what’s going on. Apologies to Simon if I screw this explanation up. This is likely uninteresting to all but the most hard-core federal funding geeks, but to me, it’s a great lesson in how tricky it is to rely on aggregate funding totals for any insight into federal policy.
In the early ’90s the decision was made — for reasons I don’t yet know — to exclude a number of programs in DOD from being counted as part of what would become the NITRD “cross-cut.” In particular, IT R&D investments at the DOD service labs — Air Force Research Lab, Army Research Lab, Naval Research Lab — weren’t included in the “Defense” line and weren’t calculated as part of the overall NITRD program.
For the FY 07 budget, the White House Office of Management and Budget (the gatekeepers for the budget process in the executive branch) reviewed the program accounting and decided that the legacy way of reporting the NITRD cross-cut was no longer accurate. To describe the full breadth of the federal government’s NITRD investments, R&D spending in the DOD service labs had to be included. So OMB produced this chart — which ran in the original version of this post — and included it in the Analytical Perspectives (pdf) supplement to the FY 2007 Budget Request. (Though I added the first column, “FY 05 (est),” just for comparison’s sake.)
dollars in millions
OMB version
(est)1
(actual)
(est)
(request)
FY06-FY07
FY06-FY07
Obviously, we’ll have much more as we get a little more time to dive into the budget. Stay tuned…Now, as we’ve figured out, this spread of numbers isn’t very useful for year-to-year comparisons. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy realized this, too, so they now keep a second set of numbers which uses — roughly — the same set of agencies and programs that had been the norm until FY 07. Here’s the OSTP version:
dollars in millions
OSTP Version
(actual)
(actual)
(est)
(request)
FY06-FY07
FY06-FY07
You’ll note that when the military services are pulled from the numbers, DOD actually appears to receive an increase in the request versus FY06, which seems to indicate that the service labs don’t fare particularly well in the President’s budget. Szykman indicated that the DOD numbers for FY06 and FY07 in this chart also include, for the first time, funding from the DOD High Performance Computing Modernization Office. This isn’t new money.
Finally, you’ll note that some of the non-DOD numbers have changed in the second chart. According to Szykman, that’s likely due to further refinement as the chart worked its way through OMB to final release. Apparently the OSTP version is the “newer” version, and therefore its numbers are likely to be more accurate.
Presumably, we’ll have the final word when the NITRD NCO releases its FY07 Budget Supplement (the “Blue book,” which is now — of course — red) sometime in the next few weeks.
So what’s the take-away from all of this? I don’t really know, honestly. OSTP indicates that NITRD is up 9.4 percent in the President’s request over last year, but that includes additional funding in the calculation for FY07 that isn’t really new money. The OMB numbers indicate it’s more like 2.0 percent, but those numbers include a whole bunch of funding that’s apparently never been considered before.Update: (2/8/06 8:39 am) – Ok, final update to this post. After some additional clarification from Szykman, it does appear that the OSTP-indicated increase of 9.4 percent is an accurate estimate of the status of the NITRD “legacy” programs OSTP is tracking. We’ll have further details in future posts about what exactly that 9.4 percent increase includes. But for now, maybe what’s most important for computing researchers is the knowledge that the traditional three big supporters for fundamental computing research — NSF, DOE and DOD/DARPA — all would see increases in the coming year under the President’s plan.
From OSTP:
We’ll have more on some of the agency-by-agency specifics as we get a chance to pour through the budget documents a little closer. As this episode points out, even a close reading of the documents isn’t always enough. And to think, if it’s this difficult to figure out the dollar amounts involved in this cross-agency program, imagine how difficult it is to coordinate research priorities and research activities….
Stay tuned.
American Competitiveness Initiative: First Numbers Posted
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY07 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaWe have so much to catch up on in the wake of the President’s State of the Union speech and his introduction of an American Competitiveness Initiative that I’m feeling a little overwhelmed. So let me start to wade through the torrent of new material.
First, the White House has posted the supporting documentation for ACI online. I’m still working my way through the document, but figured I should get the word out as soon as I could.
One interesting aspect of the document is that includes the FY07 budget numbers for NSF, NIST and DOE Office of Science, so we don’t need to wait until Monday to see how each of the agencies fared. In it we learn that NSF will see a 7.8 percent bump to $6.02 billion, an increase of $440 million over FY 06.
DOE Office of Science actually does a little better, growing 14 percent to $4.10 billion in FY 07, an increase of $500 million.
NIST “Core” (Labs + Construction…not ATP or MEP) will decline $30 million from FY 06, but in twisted Washington DC logic, that’s actually an increase of 24 percent. The White House claims to have stripped $137 million in earmarks to the NIST budget from FY 06, so it’s actually an increase of $100 million in NIST core R&D.
Here’s a handy chart showing not only the proposed increases for next year, but the 10 year commitment the President is proposing (chart stolen from the President’s proposal).
I’d also like to include a lengthy quote from the President’s speech today at 3M in Minneapolis — the first of his “post-SOTU road show” speeches focused on competitiveness — that I found particularly, well, amazing. It would have been
hardimpossible to have imagined these words coming from the President even two months ago. (And apologies to History majors for the slight in the speech…hope it doesn’t apply to English majors, too):So that’s just the first speech on the topic. He plans to deliver a few more. Also, I wouldn’t get too hung up on the examples of research he mentions for the agencies — it’s not a comprehensive list. I’m far more interested in the overall message of the speech.
Anyway, we sort of need to enjoy this moment while we can. As one congressional staffer put it this morning, “Today is the best it’s going to get.” There are some tactical issues that will make realizing the full extent of the President’s plan problematic. Come Monday and the actual release of the President’s budget, some constituencies will feel slighted and there will be some hurdles to clear in Congress. But that’s a post for tomorrow or Monday.
Today I’m still reveling in what has to be considered one of the bigger wins for the science community, and more importantly, for the nation, in quite some years.
Update: (5:02 pm 2/2/06) — The House Democratic response is great — very positive:
State of the Union
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaGot a “pre-brief” this afternoon from the White House. We’ll like it.
It’ll be webcast live.
We’ll have CRA’s reaction here, right after the speech.
Update (1/31/06 9:20 pm) — Here’s the key passage:
Update (1/26/06 9:21 pm) — CRA’s response:
Update: (1/31/06 9:51pm) — Standing ovations for:
It’s about Competitiveness, Stupid…: Competitiveness, Innovation and the State of the Union
/In: Funding, Policy, R&D in the Press /by Peter HarshaOk, so that’s about the most played-out cliche in politics, but it’s hard to come up with another phrase that encapsulates how pervasive the competitiveness meme has become in science policy circles — and more encouragingly, in the words of administration and congressional policymakers — over the last year.
Also, apologies for going sort of radio silent here the last couple of weeks, but there’s lots going on surrounding this issue and we’re involved in some of it, which makes chatting about it a little dicey. But here’s where things stand.
At the moment, all eyes (ears?) are focused on the President’s State of the Union speech tomorrow night. In that speech, among the new programs and initiatives he’s expected to announce may be a piece on ensuring U.S. competitiveness, which could feature a number of important planks. Now, I have no specific knowledge about what is actually in the speech, but there’s been a bit of press coverage, plenty of rumors floating around town, and a few tea leaves that can be read.
It seems fairly clear that there will be a focus on education, a focus on workforce/immigration, and a focus on “innovation” that could include increased budgets for federal science angencies. One big clue is the Administration’s apparent fondness for the National Academies “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” report put together by former Lockheed-Martin CEO Norman Augustine. There have been several mentions of the report by folks within the Administration. Maybe the most prominent mention was by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card during his January 11th talk at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This exchange is about 47:28 into the webcast:
We’ve covered the Gathering Storm report in this space, and it’s filled with things we like. If the Administration embraces the report in any meaningful way — particularly its core recommendation to “sustain and strengthen the nation’s traditional commitment to the long-term basic research that has the potential to be transformational to maintain the flow of new ideas that fuel the economy, provide security, and enhance the quality of life” — then we’ll be very pleased. After all, this represents a pretty signficant (and welcome) sea change for the Administration, which until recently has maintained, as John Marburger, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy said back in March, that “the U.S. is so far ahead in [science and technology] that we are going to be able to maintain our competitive strength. I don’t see the same danger signs [that others do].”
There are other hints that the President may be willing to adopt an “innovation” agenda, including a number of tidbits in the press. Technology Daily reports today (sub. req’d.) that some high-tech officials who have met with White House senior officials in recent days have come away optimistic about the Administrations commitment to innovation. Yesterday’s Boston Globe indicates Norm Augustine will play an important role in the President’s speech. And the Baltimore Sun has two pieces on the likelihood of “innovation” being a featured part of Bush’s remarks. The big question is whether there will be the funding commitment to accompany any rhetorical commitment to innovation by the President.
If the President chooses to truly embrace the recommendations of the Augustine report, his budget will find a way to provide for a significant increase for the National Science Foundation, and perhaps to the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The Augustine report specifically recommends an increase of 10 percent a year for the next seven years for “long-term basic research…with special attention paid to the physical sciences, engineering, mathematics, and information sciences.” This is the approach taken in both the National Innovation Act introduced by Sens. John Ensign (R-NV) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and the new “Protecting America’s Competitive Edge” (PACE) Act, introduced last week by Sens. Pete Domenici (R-NM), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).
The strong bipartisan support accorded both bills in the Senate is indicative of the traction the “competiveness and innovation” case has in Congress. A year’s worth of reports — most familiar to readers of this blog — by some of the most influential academic and industrial entities, all making the same essential points that the world has become an increasingly competitive place and that the US isn’t currently doing enough to ensure our future scientific and innovative leadership, has clearly had an impact on Members of Congress — and now, hopefully, the Administration.
But even if the President does include signficant increases for basic research in his budget, there will be a lot of work remaining. As Congress is fond of pointing out, “the President proposes, Congress disposes.” This is, after all, a time of incredibly tight budgets, with lots of pressure in place to hold down increases in discretionary spending. So, step one will be making sure that the Congressional Budget Resolution includes the same support for fundamental research that we hope will be present in the President’s budget. This is turn will aid in getting “302(b) allocations” (essentially, the amounts each of the 10 or 12 (House v Senate) appropriations subcommittees are allowed to spend for the bills under their control) that are robust enough to let the subcommittees that oversee the science agencies provide the any increases called for in the budget. Then it will be up to this same coalition of partners in university and industry to make the case to appropriators. In past years, the lack of a budget “cap” room has prevented even some of the most ardent congressional champions of research from providing significant increases. A strong budget request and good 302(b) allocations would remove that constraint.
So, I’m cautiously optimistic and very eager to hear the President’s words tomorrow night. If the Adminstration comes through with a proposal that embraces the best of the Augustine report recommendations, it is hugely important that they, and Congress, hear from the community in support of the idea. As we’ve noted in the past, the case for bolstering U.S. competitiveness by bolstering U.S. innovation finds strong support in both parties. Supporting the plan need not commit you to supporting any one party.
But let’s see what’s in the plan, first.
The President will deliver the State of the Union at 9 pm, Tuesday, January 31st.
We’ll have more after the speech (or earlier, if we get some scoop…).
New BLS Projections: IT jobs to grow by more than a million between 2004 and 2014
/In: CRA, People /by Peter HarshaAt the CRA Bulletin, Jay Vegso has the first part of what will be a three-part look at the new Bureau of Labor Statistics workforce projections for 2004-2014. Some noteable bits:
Of course, the usual caveats for long-term projections of anything should apply here (“notoriously unreliable,” “a crap shoot,” etc) but this is the current “best guess” of your Federal Government.
We’ve put some additional IT workforce data over at our IT Workforce page. There you’ll also find a link to an article written by John Sargent, a senior policy analyst at the Department of Commerce’s Office of Technology Policy for Computing Research News on the last set of projections. And to top it off, Jay also has a number of good posts on the IT workforce debate at the CRA Bulletin.
PCAST to get NITRD Brief
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaThe first meeting of the President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology (PCAST) since the committee absorbed the functions of the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) last October 1st will be held tomorrow in Washington, DC. The committee will hear for the first time in detail about the Networking and Information Technology R&D program — the $2 billion per year, multi-agency program that constitutes the federal IT R&D effort. Simon Szykman, who now runs the National Coordinating Office for IT R&D and oversees the NITRD effort, will spend 90 minutes providing an overview of the NITRD program for the committee — though the President hasn’t yet named the additional members to the committee he authorized “to buttress PCAST’s Information Technology (IT) assessment functions.”
You’ll recall when the news first broke that the President was consolidating PITAC’s function under PCAST, I was decidedly mixed about it, but leaning towards the positive. The move was spun in Administration press releases as an “elevation” of IT policy issues — and indeed, the membership of PCAST is august and influential. However my concern then was that the charter of PCAST was becoming too broad for the committee to really spend the time to evaluate the federal IT R&D portfolio in sufficient depth.
Having thought about it a bit more, I’m much less optimistic now than I was then. I really don’t think PCAST can serve as PITAC in the way Congress intended. Congress established what would become PITAC in the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (with some additional responsibilities added in the Next Generation Internet Act of 1998), so that an independent panel filled with experts from industry and academia would review the whole of the federal effort every two years and provide guidance to Congress and the President. In fact, here’s what the statute says:
Unfortunately, PITAC hasn’t really met the intent of the statute since the committee released its 1999 report “Investing in Our Future,” a report which found that the US was woefully underinvested in IT R&D, especially given the “spectacular” return on investment that research produced. The most recent incarnation of an independent PITAC, while of suitable composition, was hamstrung by a charter from OSTP that led them to consider only three small subsections of the overall IT R&D portfolio — health and IT, cybersecurity R&D, and computational science. While the committee produced three excellent reports on the topics, as soon as it became clear the committee was prepared to act on their statutory responsibility to consider the state of the overall federal IT R&D program as the previous PITAC had done, their charter was allowed to expire and the committee was disbanded.
Instead, the Administration has subsumed PITAC under PCAST, which has become a one-stop shop for science advisory committees. Since it’s re-chartering in 2001, the committee of 24 has produced reports on Energy Efficiency, Building Out Broadband, Assessing the U.S. R&D Investment, Maximizing the Contribution of Science and Technology Within the Department of Homeland Security, The S&T of Combating Terrorism, Technology Transfer, Science and Engineering Capabilities, IT Manufacturing and Competitiveness, and most recently, under their role as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (another Congressionally-chartered panel whose responsibilities have been turned over to PCAST), The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel.
So, they’ve been busy. Even if the President does make timely appointments of additional members, it’s not clear to me that the members of PCAST will have anywhere near the time to delve into the issues of most concern to the community in anywhere near sufficient depth. (PCAST intends to devote 90 minutes of tomorrow’s 8 hour meeting to IT issues, splitting the rest of the time with sessions on nanotechnology (20 minutes), US-China S&T (60 minutes), and 3 hours of Advanced Energy Technologies.) Instead, it’s likely the committee will adopt the “technical advisory group” (TAG) approach, naming 50 “government and private sector” scientists to assist the members of PCAST carry out their PITAC responsibilities.
It’s hard to reconcile this approach — a large TAG comprised of government and private sector IT experts (though probably not of comparable stature to even the previous incarnation of PITAC), reporting up to a PCAST whose IT-oriented members are in the decided minority — with the intent of Congress in chartering an independent advisory committee staffed with some of the most-respected members of the field, focused solely on IT R&D. So, given that, and the fact that we’re now in the fourth month after the President’s order and no new members to the PCAST have been named, despite the fact that the committee is moving forward…well, color me pessimistic. For now, anyway.
In any case, I’ll be at tomorrow’s meeting and will have all the details. Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised.
Update: (Jan 11) — No big surprises, unfortunately. OSTP Director John Marburger (who serves as co-chair of PCAST) noted that the committee will be expanded to accommodate the additional expertise required to take on the PITAC role, but that no new members were ready to be named yet (“in process,” he said). They decided to tape the proceedings and will make a copy for the new members to help bring them “up to speed.”
Simon Szykman gave a good overall presentation of the history of NITRD and PITAC and made the case that it was time for another focus on taking an overall look at NITRD, similar to the “Investing in Our Future” report by PITAC in 1999 (which led to structural and budgetary changes in the program) — as opposed to the narrower focus of the previous PITAC.
PCAST was in general agreement that that’s the sort of study that’s required, and Marburger seemed to agree.
So in that sense, I’m pleased. The committee seemed very engaged, though the audio was awful in the room so it wasn’t always possible to hear everyone’s contribution. There was a lot of talk about the committee needing to figure out a way to assess the state of the US leadership in IT. Also some question about whether the NITRD Interagency Working Group prioritizes research areas within IT, or just reacts to what the agencies are already doing. PCAST Member (and former NSF Director) Eric Bloch wanted to know if the NITRD IWG was the group that originates IT strategy or is it just “a recording group” for strategies upon which the agencies have already decided. “This question of originating the strategy versus recording is an issue we need to get into.”
If the committee stays this engaged in the process, they could produce a very valuable report. Much will depend on how much work they turn over to the TAG, I suppose, and the level of engagement the TAG membership brings to the issues. One possible warning sign came during the update on the committee’s nanotech advisory efforts. PCAST Executive Director Celia Merzbacher reported slightly disappointing response rates from the nanotech TAG to some issues of concern from PCAST — something like only 17 responses out of 40 or 50 TAG members. But that’s probably just the hazard of working with large groups of busy people.
Anyway, I was encouraged by the emphasis on the scope of the review. This PCAST has a lot on their plate, but they’re certainly looking at the issue at the right level I think. We’ll see how things move forward as the President starts appointing new members.
Aliya Sternstein of Federal Computer Week, has more coverage of yesterday’s meeting.