The New York Timeseditorializes today that, despite the very real threat, the nation continues to be woefully unprepared to defend against a “cyberattack” on our critical infrastructure.
Power grids, water treatment and distribution systems, major dams, and oil and chemical refineries are all controlled today by networked computers. Computers make the nation’s infrastructure far more efficient, but they also make it more vulnerable. A well-planned cyberattack could black out large parts of the country, cut off water supplies or worse. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that in 2003 a malicious, invasive program called the Slammer worm infected the computer network at a nuclear power plant and disabled its safety monitoring system for nearly five hours.
Despite the warnings after 9/11 – and again after the 2003 blackout – disturbingly little has been done. The Government Accountability Office did a rigorous review of the Department of Homeland Security’s progress on every aspect of computer security, and its findings are not reassuring. It found that the department has not yet developed assessments of the threat of a cyberattack or of how vulnerable major computer systems are to such an attack, nor has it created plans for recovering key Internet functions in case of an attack. The report also expressed concern that many of the department’s senior cybersecurity officials have left in the past year. Representative Zoe Lofgren, the California Democrat who was among those who requested the G.A.O. report, said last week that it proved that “a national plan to secure our cybernetworks is virtually nonexistent.”
As we’ve noted previously, the President’s IT Advisory Committee came to a similar conclusion in its report (pdf) on Cyber Security R&D, released last March. That report concluded that the federal government is largely failing in its responsibility to protect the nation from cyberthreats and recommended an immediate increase in the amount of support for cyber security research at NSF, DHS, and DARPA, and greater emphasis on civilian networks in addition to military-oriented networks.
Unfortunately, the early results of this appropriations season show that the recommendations for DHS continue to go largely unheeded…. Update:Ed Felten has a thoughtful post at Freedom to Tinker on the difficulty of addressing the cyberthreat problem with government action.
Career Mentoring Workshops: which bring together junior women in academic careers with women already established in their fields to provide practical information and advice, as well as opportunities for networking and peer support.
Distributed Mentoring Project: which aims to increase the number of women entering graduate school, by matching outstanding female undergraduates with female mentors for a summer of research at the mentor’s institution.
Collaborative Research Experiences for Undergraduates: which aims to increase the numbers of women and minorities who continue on to graduate school, by providing positive research experiences for teams of undergraduates who work during the academic year at their home institutions.
Of course, this isn’t the first award for CRA-W. Last year, the committee was recognized by President George W. Bush as a winner of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring. CRA-W is among the most energized, hardest-working committees of CRA, so it’s great to see them continue to earn plaudits for their efforts. Given the current situation, the effort is surely needed….
ACM’sU.S. Public Policy Committee puts together a great monthly newsletter with all the DC happenings of interest to the tech community. The May edition is out now and chock full of good stuff, including updates on ACM’s Voter Registration Database study, the Real ID Act, spyware legislation, and a look ahead to June.
Check it out here.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been a leader and innovator in basic scientific research and defense science and technology for decades. Originally chartered to prevent technological surprise, DARPA promotes revolutionary technology innovations by focusing on high-risk, high-payoff technologies that offer new military capabilities and complement the military departments’ nearer-term science and technology programs. The committee has supported ever increasing funding for DARPA as the only agency not tied to a military service mission and the demands of a service budget to produce quick results. Recognizing that some of DARPA’s high-risk programs may not be successful, the committee encourages DARPA to continue its focus on the development, demonstration, and transition of high-risk, high-payoff technology to the military departments and to U.S. industry.
At the same time, the committee recognizes that the pursuit of the more futuristic technologies must be tempered by the hard fact that we are a nation at war and our armed forces have immediate needs for innovative technical solutions across a variety of disciplines. The committee commends DARPA on its quick reaction support and fielding of advanced innovative technologies to meet emerging critical operational needs of our forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom and elsewhere in support of the global war on terrorism.
The committee believes DARPA should continue to redirect some of its more futuristic efforts to the solution of today’s combat problems. Those immediate needs involving detection, sensing, protection, surveillance, and a host of other issues that may well be `DARPA hard’ problems that the Agency should be examining, rather than some of the more futuristic efforts in the DARPA program. Therefore, although the committee is pleased with the overall progress in the defense science and technology program, the committee believes that increased priority must continue to be given to the nearer-term requirements of the combatant commanders and U.S. armed forces in the field.
As we, andothers, have noted, DARPA’s long-range vision and willingness to place big bets in university-led, high-risk, high-reward areas of research have have been responsible for a large share of the innovations that drive the U.S. economy and have made our military the most lethal and effective fighting force in history. This vision survived the Vietnam War and the constant pressure of the Cold War. There’s no doubt that DARPA can do much to contribute to solving today’s combat problems, and it may indeed be appropriate for the agency’s focus to shift in that direction. But it is critically important that there remain a home for long-range research vision focused on defense problems somewhere in the federal research portfolio. Failing to invest in the future leaves the country at the risk of suffering the technological surprise DARPA was originally chartered to prevent.
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, Commerce, Justice, State marked-up it’s FY 2006 appropriations bill earlier today and included increases for NSF and NASA. Details are a little sparse until we see the full committee print next week, but here are the early figures:
NSF would increase 3.1% — $171 million over FY 2005, $38 million more than the President’s request — to $5.64 billion. NSF’s research accounts would grow $157 million over FY 05 to $4.38 billion, and education and human resources would fall to $807 million, from $841 million in FY 05 — but $70 million over the President’s request.
NASA would receive $15 million more than the President’s request, and $40 million that had been cut from the angecy’s aeronautics program in the budget request will be restored.
NIST reportedly would receive $549 million, including $106 million for the controversial Manufacturers Extension Partnership program. (No word on ATP).
We’ll have more details after the bill moves to the full Appropriations committee next week and the committee report accompanying the bill (and explaining the cuts and increases) is published.
The Chronicle of Higher Ed today has coverage (free until 6/2 apparently) of the May 12th House Science Committee hearing on “The Future of Computer Science Research in the U.S.” that’s generally pretty good. But it makes an odd point at the end that doesn’t accurately represent what went on at the hearing. Here’s the paragraph:
[DARPA Director Tony] Tether challenged Mr. [Tom] Leighton [, co-founder and Chief Scientist at Akamai Industries] and Mr. [Bill] Wulf [, President of the National Academies of Engineering] to supply examples of important projects that the agency has refused to support, and they did not immediately offer any. That shows, Mr. Tether said, that the agency’s priorities are properly placed.
At the end of the 2 hour, 19 minute hearing, in response the committee’s very last question, Tether told the panel that in dealing with the university computer science community he saw “a lot of hand-wringing” but didn’t get many “actionable ideas” from the community. Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert then turned to Wulf and Leighton and asked if they could take that as a challenge and provide a list to the committee and to Tether. Both responded that they’d be happy to and Boehlert noted that he’d make that part of the post-hearing questions that will be put to the witnesses (and noted the challenge in his press release).
I understand both Wulf and Leighton are eager to respond to the challenge. Leighton told me after the hearing that he was getting ready to wave the PITAC report on Cyber Security R&D as a start (the focus of much of his testimony), which contains specific recommendations in 10 areas of cyber security research currently under-supported. Both Leighton and Wulf will be reaching out to the community to craft a list that will be most useful to DARPA and DOD and most responsive to the committee’s request (which hasn’t yet been received, as far as I know). There are plenty of resources from which to draw — PITAC’s Cyber Report, Defense Science Board, CRA’s Grand Challenges conferences, National Academies reports, etc.
The idea that either Wulf or Leighton were dumbstruck by the question is just wrong, and the idea that the community lacks an adequate response to the committee’s challenge is equally wrong.
Otherwise, the article does a decent job of summarizing the hearing. From my perspective, the hearing was incredibly useful. I could spend a lot of space here dissecting the testimony of Marburger and Tether — though frequent readers of the blog won’t need my dissection to spot the points of contention in both sets of testimony. Tether essentially argued in his oral testimony (and half of his written testimony) that DARPA has reduced its funding for university-led computer science research because maybe it’s focusing on multi-disciplinary research now; something Tether apparently deduced by looking at university web pages, he says. But in the appendix to his testimony, he provides the response to the same question he gave to the Senate Armed Services Committee, compiled by the DARPA comptroller, which includes these five reasons for the shift:
1. A change in emphasis in the high performance computing program from pure research to supercomputer construction;
2. Significant drop in unclassified information security research;
3. End of TIA-related programs in FY 2004 due to congressional decree, a move that cost universities “a consistent $11-12 million per year” in research funding;
4. Research into intelligent software had matured beyond the research stage into integration;
5. Classified funding for computer science-related programs increased markedly between FY 2001 and FY 2004, but Universities received none of this funding.
From my perspective, having the DARPA director stand before the committee (literally) and affirm that the agency has significantly reduced its support for university-led, long-range computing research was very useful. The community can raise concerns about DARPA’s priorities, but ultimately it’s up to the Director and the Administration to set them as they see fit. What’s more important to me is that the impact of DARPA’s (now undisputed) withdrawal on the overall IT R&D enterprise be adequately assessed and addressed. The gap that DARPA leaves is substantial — both in terms of monetary support and in losing a funding model that has contributed so much to the extraordinarily productive environment for innovation that is the computing research community. NSF is great at what it does — funding individual investigators and research infrastructure at universities — but there was substantial value from DARPA’s approach of focusing on particular problems and nourishing communities of researchers to address them. Without DARPA, that approach is largely absent in the federal IT R&D portfolio.
It was also useful for the Science Committee to get exposure to the concerns the community has had with DARPA over the last several years. Tether’s performance — literally standing before the committee (I staffed a lot of hearings for the House Science Committee under two different chairmen and never once saw a witness rise before the committee and wander around the hearing room while testifying…), delivering remarks 15 minutes over the 5 minute time limit imposed by the committee, and most importantly, being largely unresponsive to the three questions the committee posed to him prior to the hearing — confirmed to the committee Chair and staff that the concerns the community had shared with them had merit. The result is that the committee intends to remain engaged on this issue, which is to the community’s great benefit, I think.
The committee plans to proceed with the issue in the coming months in non-hearing venues. I’ll bring you developments as this moves forward during the summer and fall.
Responding to concerns fromthe community (pdf), tworeports, a hearing, and a set of answers from DARPA that all suggested DOD has curtailed much of its university-led long-term efforts in computing, the Senate Armed Services Committee included language in their version of the FY 2006 Defense Authorization bill that calls on DOD to review “the long-term practical and policy implications of the Department’s investment strategy for computing research” and report back to Congress as part of the agency’s FY 2007 budget request. Here’s the language from the committee report accompanying the legislation:
Department of Defense computer science research
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense is reducing its investment in long-term computer science research, without due consideration of the potential negative ramifications of such reductions on the development of next generation networking, information technology, and information assurance systems on which our military will depend in the future. The committee notes that the Presidents Information Technology Advisory Committee and the Defense Science Board have both released reports this year that call attention to the potential impacts of reduced funding on the part of the Department in fundamental computer science.
The committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology to carefully examine the long-term practical and policy implications of the Departments investment strategy for computing research and to provide the outcome of this review to the congressional defense committees with the fiscal year 2007 budget request. The review should include an explanation of the Departments role in the overall federal computing research portfolio and a review of the Departments structure and investment plan for these programs.
The full Senate is slated to take up the bill immediately after the chaos surrounding judicial confirmations subsides.
The House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday completed its markup of the FY 2006 Energy and Water Appropriation bill (HR 2419), which includes funding for the Department of Energy, approving increased funding for DOE’s Office of Science. The House bill would boost the Office of Science budget to $3.67 billion in FY 06, an increase of $66 million over FY 05, and $203 million more than the President requested in his FY 06 budget.
Included in the increase is a $14 million increase to the Advanced Scientific Computational Research program, bringing it to $246 million in FY 06, $39 million above the President’s request. Here is what the committee had to say about the program in the committee report accompanying the bill:
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
The Committee recommendation is $246,055,000, an increase of $39,000,000 over the budget request. The additional $39,000,000 is provided to support the Office of Science initiative to develop the hardware, software, and applied mathematics necessary for a leadership-class supercomputer to meet scientific computation needs; not more than $25,000,000 of this increase should be dedicated to hardware, and $9,000,000 of the total increase should be dedicated to competitive university research grants. The Committee is disappointed that the Department’s fiscal year 2006 budget request did not preserve the increases that Congress provided for this purpose during the past two fiscal years. Consistent with guidance provided in prior years, the Committee has chosen not to earmark these additional funds for a particular laboratory or a particular technology. However, the Committee expects the Department to make full use of the laboratory-industry capabilities that have already been selected competitively in previous years and not `reinvent the wheel’ each fiscal year.
This is the first good news for computing researchers in the FY 2006 appropriations cycle, coming after the House approved a slight cut to cyber security research efforts at the Department of Homeland Security.
The House is scheduled to consider the bill on the floor early next week. The Senate hasn’t yet begun work on its version of the bill. Fortunately, support for the Office of Science in the Senate appears pretty strong. A letter urging Senate Appropriators to approve a significant increase to the Office of Science (to $3.7 billion, slightly more than the House approved), received the endorsement of more than 2/3 of the members of the Senate, a strong symbolic show of support for the agency. We’ll keep you apprised of developments as the bill moves forward.
Retired Chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, Norman Augustine, testified today before a House Committee on Education and Workforce hearing on “Challenges to American Competitiveness in Math and Science.” Augustine, who has also been the former Undersecretary of the Army and a past-chairman of the National Academies of Engineering, put together a great written statement from which I thought I’d cite some snippets.
In addressing the future quality of life in America one cannot help but notice warnings of what appears to be an impending Perfect Storm. The elements which underlie this possibility are, first, the pervading importance of education and research in the fields of science and technology to America’s standard of living, and the disrepair in which we find many of our efforts. Second, the precipitousness with which a lead in science and technology can be lost. Third, the prolonged period of time it takes to recover once a lead has in fact been lost, if indeed it can be regained at all.
…
What, then, must America do? There is but one answer: We must compete. And we must do so while suffering a disadvantage in the cost of labor. We must be more innovative than ever before; we must have a vastly better K-12 educational system then we now have; we must unburden our companies from excessive regulation, litigation and health-care costs; we must significantly increase our federal investment in research.
In between the ellipsis there, he makes a compelling case that the US is at real risk for ceding it’s dominant position in science and technology and the benefits that leadership accrues. I’ve uploaded the testimony (pdf) (it doesn’t seem to be on the committee site yet), so read the whole thing for more details. His testimony lists eight specific recommendations for addressing the problems:
Bringing the “free enterprise system to K-12 education”;
Provide K-12 teaching credentials to subject-matter experts;
Fully fund the undergraduate and graduate education in the physical sciences, math biosciences or engineering of the outstanding 1,000 high school seniors in the nation each year;
Double in five years federal spending on basic research in mathematics, the physical sciences and engineering;
Provide non-citizen graduates of America’s universities in fields of science and technology special consideration for visas, work permits and citizenship;
Provide a tax credit to corporations that fund basic research in science and technology at our nation’s universities;
Provide tax incentives to companies that fund continuing education for their employees in science and technology; and
Revise the capital gains tax law so that assets held a short term are heavily taxed, while long term (ten years or more) are untaxed.
A number of interesting ideas. Augustine’s voice adds to a growing chorus of voices coming from decidedly industrial backgrounds — Craig Barrett of Intel and former Gov. John Engler of the National Association of Manufacturers are two other recent examples — that are really giving some impetus to efforts to increase federal support for basic research, especially in the physical sciences. The issue — as we say here in DC — has some traction. Unfortunately, there isn’t much room to maneuver in the current budget environment, so significant increases are still unlikely. But the longer the chorus continues, and the louder it becomes, the more pressure there will be to address the concerns in future budget cycles.
To that end, I meant to include a note here last week about efforts by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Science, Commerce, Justice, State; Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Chair of the House Science Committee; and Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), Chair of the Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards; to include a provision in the recently passed supplemental appropriations bill that would fund the convening of a “National Innovation Summit” this fall. The purpose of the summit is, according to Wolf, “to bring together the nation’s best and brightest to help develop a blueprint for the future of American science and innovation. It also will look at where there has been slippage and why, and what needs to be done to reverse the trend.”
The summit was inspired by the work of the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation (of which CRA is a member and we’ve mentioned afewtimes in this space). Key to the summit’s moving forward is the involvement of several very influential industrially-oriented groups — including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Electronics Association, the Business Roundtable, and the Council on Competitiveness. They make a compelling case to those in Washington not terribly swayed by the voiced concerns of academics over the state of federal support for research.
So it’s heartening that they all find themselves heavily engaged in this overall effort to advocate to greater support for basic research, and even more heartening that their engagement is capturing the attention of lawmakers on the Hill. However, at this point, the enthusiasm for this case is not shared by the President’s science advisor, John Marburger. In recent weeks, Marburger has found himself on the defensive about these concerns that the U.S. is putting it’s future competitiveness at risk by underinvesting in the physical sciences. He gave a fascinating interview (sub. req’d) to National Journal’sTechDaily last week in which he lashed out at groups like the Task Force for trying to benchmark US competiveness against international competition.
TechDaily: It’s rare in Washington that you get as many groups agreeing on one set of data and one position. They’re all saying the same thing: We are at risk of losing our innovative edge. You seem to have some problems with that position.
Marburger: I would put it differently. I would say we have to be vigilant and we have to spend our money wisely, and we have to make priorities. And we have to learn what this new economy means. And we can’t be lax. Are we in danger? We’re not in any kind of danger we haven’t always been in, namely missing the future and what it’s all about. But we’re very well prepared to face that future. We are going into this enormous global change in technology-based economies with a very high level of accomplishment and capability and we’re going in as the leader.
OK. So what is the country going to do? What is a rational approach for the administration? The United States has enormous capabilities to make changes in the world. This administration has well-defined priorities, they are big challenges. We had a shock we didn’t expect from [the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks] that caused us to incur enormous burdens on our economy and despite that, billions of dollars in new funding, permanent new funding, have been invested in the technical fields, in R&D. There’s just no question about that. The basic sciences include the physical sciences.
You can define deflators and denominators to the funding numbers to get conclusions, but I don’t think that anyone can disagree with the concept that this nation has placed a very high priority on basic science that that’s going to pay off. As the indicators come in after 2001, I expect them to show an impact in publications, in graduation rates, in patents and licenses. I expect those types of indicators to go up in absolute terms. They have to go up because of the enormous money that has been pumped into these areas.
So, let’s be realistic about this. Even in this year’s budget. This is the first year the administration is really trying to cut the deficit. It’s cutting all of the domestic discretionary programs — except for science. It has left it alone at the top of a base that has been deliberately built.
As we’ve pointed out before, Marburger uses some number tricks as well in his answer. He claims “billions of dollars in new funding, permanent new funding” that have been invested in “the technical fields, in R&D. There’s just no question about that. The basic sciences include the physical sciences.” But this is odd logic. As this graphic shows, the build-up of “new funding” in R&D that Marburger claims credit for is almost entirely basic research in the life sciences funded by the National Instutes of Health. So, arguing that basic research has gone up because basic research in the life sciences has gone up is true, but it doesn’t follow that because overall basic research has gone up that support for basic research in the physical sciences has gone up, too. The graphic shows that, in fact, funding at all the agencies traditionally supportive of basic research in the physical sciences has essentially been flat.
In any case, what this all shows is that despite the traction developing as a result of the increasing involvement of industry in making the case for federal support of basic research, we’ve got a long way to go to convince all the folks who need to be convinced if we’re going to address the problem in any meaningful way.
Despite a $213 million increase to the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate in FY 2006 and a report from a presidential advisory committee noting the dangerous lack of support for cyber security research at DHS, the House approved a cut to cyber security research activities at the agency as part of the FY 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The House approved the President’s request of $16.7 million for cyber security research in FY 2006, a decrease of $1.3 million from the FY 2005 enacted level.
Here’s a handy table showing the additions and cuts to the DHS S&T budget.
FY 2006 DHS Science and Technology Appropriations House Approved Version
Program
FY 2005 enacted
FY 2006 Request
FY 2006 House Approved
$ Change FY 2006 Approps vs. FY 2005 Enacted
Technology Development and Transfer
$0
$0
$10
$10
Biological Countermeasures
$363
$362
$360
-$3
Chemical Countermeasures
$53
$102
$90
$37
Explosives Countermeasures
$20
$15
$55
$35
Radiological and Nuclear countermeasures
$123
$19
$19
-$104
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
$0
$227
$127
$127
Conventional Missions in Support of DHS
$55
$94
$80
$25
Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and Assessment
$66
$47
$47
-$19
Emerging Threats
$11
$11
$11
$0
Standards
$40
$36
$36
-$4
University Porgrams/Homeland Security Fellowship Programs
$70
$64
$64
-$6
Cyber Security
$18
$17
$17
-$1
Critical Infrastructure Protection
$27
$21
$36
$9
Rapid Prototyping Program
$76
$21
$30
-$46
Counter MANPADS
$61
$110
$110
$49
Interoperability and Compatibility
$21
$21
$42
$21
SAFETY Act
$10
$6
$10
$0
Research and Development Consolidation
–
$117
$117
–
Total, Research, Development, Acquisition, and Operations
$1,046
$1,287
$1,259
$213
There will be a couple of opportunities to address the cut to cyber security research as the bill moves through the appropriations process. The Senate has yet to act on its version of the bill. They’ve been briefed on the PITAC report, but it’s not known whether they’ll deviate much from the President’s requested level for the program. This highlights the importance of advocacy efforts that target the President’s budget request in addition to the congressional appropriations cycle, especially when the President and the congressional majority are all the same party…. Update: Cameron Wilson at USACM has a good post on the Dept. of Homeland Security Authorization Act (pdf), which is also likely to make it to the House floor this week. The bill creates a new Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity within the department and authorizes $19 million worth of cyber security R&D within the S&T directorate, including “long-term research.” In essence, the language authorizes spending that’s already going on (see above), though having a higher authorization could make increasing the appropriation a little easier as the appropriations bill moves forward.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
NY Times OpEd on Cyber Security: “Virtually Unprotected”
/In: Funding, R&D in the Press, Security /by Peter HarshaThe New York Times editorializes today that, despite the very real threat, the nation continues to be woefully unprepared to defend against a “cyberattack” on our critical infrastructure.
As we’ve noted previously, the President’s IT Advisory Committee came to a similar conclusion in its report (pdf) on Cyber Security R&D, released last March. That report concluded that the federal government is largely failing in its responsibility to protect the nation from cyberthreats and recommended an immediate increase in the amount of support for cyber security research at NSF, DHS, and DARPA, and greater emphasis on civilian networks in addition to military-oriented networks.
Unfortunately, the early results of this appropriations season show that the recommendations for DHS continue to go largely unheeded….
Update: Ed Felten has a thoughtful post at Freedom to Tinker on the difficulty of addressing the cyberthreat problem with government action.
CRA-W Wins NSB Public Service Award
/In: CRA /by Peter HarshaCRA’s Committee on the Status of Women in Computing Research received one of two 2005 Public Service Awards presented by the National Science Board in recognition of CRA-W’s dedication “to increasing the number and success of women participating in Computer Science and Engineering research and education.” The board noted three CRA-W projects in particular:
Of course, this isn’t the first award for CRA-W. Last year, the committee was recognized by President George W. Bush as a winner of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring. CRA-W is among the most energized, hardest-working committees of CRA, so it’s great to see them continue to earn plaudits for their efforts. Given the current situation, the effort is surely needed….
ACM Washington Update: May 2005
/In: Misc. /by Peter HarshaACM’s U.S. Public Policy Committee puts together a great monthly newsletter with all the DC happenings of interest to the tech community. The May edition is out now and chock full of good stuff, including updates on ACM’s Voter Registration Database study, the Real ID Act, spyware legislation, and a look ahead to June.
Check it out here.
HASC Believes DARPA Should Focus on Short-term Development
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaSo, while the Senate Armed Services Committee generally has been very supportive of the idea that there’s much value to the nation and the Department of Defense in a DARPA that funds long-term, risky research, the House Armed Services Committee hasn’t been quite so enamored with that position. In the committee report accompanying the House version of the FY 2006 Defense Authorization Act (HR 1815) that passed the House yesterday, the committee lays out its short-term vision for the agency:
As we, and others, have noted, DARPA’s long-range vision and willingness to place big bets in university-led, high-risk, high-reward areas of research have have been responsible for a large share of the innovations that drive the U.S. economy and have made our military the most lethal and effective fighting force in history. This vision survived the Vietnam War and the constant pressure of the Cold War. There’s no doubt that DARPA can do much to contribute to solving today’s combat problems, and it may indeed be appropriate for the agency’s focus to shift in that direction. But it is critically important that there remain a home for long-range research vision focused on defense problems somewhere in the federal research portfolio. Failing to invest in the future leaves the country at the risk of suffering the technological surprise DARPA was originally chartered to prevent.
Appropriations Update: FY 2006 Science, Commerce, Justice, State
/In: Funding, FY06 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaThe House Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, Commerce, Justice, State marked-up it’s FY 2006 appropriations bill earlier today and included increases for NSF and NASA. Details are a little sparse until we see the full committee print next week, but here are the early figures:
NSF would increase 3.1% — $171 million over FY 2005, $38 million more than the President’s request — to $5.64 billion. NSF’s research accounts would grow $157 million over FY 05 to $4.38 billion, and education and human resources would fall to $807 million, from $841 million in FY 05 — but $70 million over the President’s request.
NASA would receive $15 million more than the President’s request, and $40 million that had been cut from the angecy’s aeronautics program in the budget request will be restored.
NIST reportedly would receive $549 million, including $106 million for the controversial Manufacturers Extension Partnership program. (No word on ATP).
We’ll have more details after the bill moves to the full Appropriations committee next week and the committee report accompanying the bill (and explaining the cuts and increases) is published.
Chronicle of Higher Ed Article on Computer Science Hearing, and Some Thoughts
/In: Policy, R&D in the Press /by Peter HarshaThe Chronicle of Higher Ed today has coverage (free until 6/2 apparently) of the May 12th House Science Committee hearing on “The Future of Computer Science Research in the U.S.” that’s generally pretty good. But it makes an odd point at the end that doesn’t accurately represent what went on at the hearing. Here’s the paragraph:
At the end of the 2 hour, 19 minute hearing, in response the committee’s very last question, Tether told the panel that in dealing with the university computer science community he saw “a lot of hand-wringing” but didn’t get many “actionable ideas” from the community. Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert then turned to Wulf and Leighton and asked if they could take that as a challenge and provide a list to the committee and to Tether. Both responded that they’d be happy to and Boehlert noted that he’d make that part of the post-hearing questions that will be put to the witnesses (and noted the challenge in his press release).
I understand both Wulf and Leighton are eager to respond to the challenge. Leighton told me after the hearing that he was getting ready to wave the PITAC report on Cyber Security R&D as a start (the focus of much of his testimony), which contains specific recommendations in 10 areas of cyber security research currently under-supported. Both Leighton and Wulf will be reaching out to the community to craft a list that will be most useful to DARPA and DOD and most responsive to the committee’s request (which hasn’t yet been received, as far as I know). There are plenty of resources from which to draw — PITAC’s Cyber Report, Defense Science Board, CRA’s Grand Challenges conferences, National Academies reports, etc.
The idea that either Wulf or Leighton were dumbstruck by the question is just wrong, and the idea that the community lacks an adequate response to the committee’s challenge is equally wrong.
Otherwise, the article does a decent job of summarizing the hearing. From my perspective, the hearing was incredibly useful. I could spend a lot of space here dissecting the testimony of Marburger and Tether — though frequent readers of the blog won’t need my dissection to spot the points of contention in both sets of testimony. Tether essentially argued in his oral testimony (and half of his written testimony) that DARPA has reduced its funding for university-led computer science research because maybe it’s focusing on multi-disciplinary research now; something Tether apparently deduced by looking at university web pages, he says. But in the appendix to his testimony, he provides the response to the same question he gave to the Senate Armed Services Committee, compiled by the DARPA comptroller, which includes these five reasons for the shift:
1. A change in emphasis in the high performance computing program from pure research to supercomputer construction;
2. Significant drop in unclassified information security research;
3. End of TIA-related programs in FY 2004 due to congressional decree, a move that cost universities “a consistent $11-12 million per year” in research funding;
4. Research into intelligent software had matured beyond the research stage into integration;
5. Classified funding for computer science-related programs increased markedly between FY 2001 and FY 2004, but Universities received none of this funding.
From my perspective, having the DARPA director stand before the committee (literally) and affirm that the agency has significantly reduced its support for university-led, long-range computing research was very useful. The community can raise concerns about DARPA’s priorities, but ultimately it’s up to the Director and the Administration to set them as they see fit. What’s more important to me is that the impact of DARPA’s (now undisputed) withdrawal on the overall IT R&D enterprise be adequately assessed and addressed. The gap that DARPA leaves is substantial — both in terms of monetary support and in losing a funding model that has contributed so much to the extraordinarily productive environment for innovation that is the computing research community. NSF is great at what it does — funding individual investigators and research infrastructure at universities — but there was substantial value from DARPA’s approach of focusing on particular problems and nourishing communities of researchers to address them. Without DARPA, that approach is largely absent in the federal IT R&D portfolio.
It was also useful for the Science Committee to get exposure to the concerns the community has had with DARPA over the last several years. Tether’s performance — literally standing before the committee (I staffed a lot of hearings for the House Science Committee under two different chairmen and never once saw a witness rise before the committee and wander around the hearing room while testifying…), delivering remarks 15 minutes over the 5 minute time limit imposed by the committee, and most importantly, being largely unresponsive to the three questions the committee posed to him prior to the hearing — confirmed to the committee Chair and staff that the concerns the community had shared with them had merit. The result is that the committee intends to remain engaged on this issue, which is to the community’s great benefit, I think.
The committee plans to proceed with the issue in the coming months in non-hearing venues. I’ll bring you developments as this moves forward during the summer and fall.
SASC Expresses Concerns with DOD Computer Science Research
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaResponding to concerns from the community (pdf), two reports, a hearing, and a set of answers from DARPA that all suggested DOD has curtailed much of its university-led long-term efforts in computing, the Senate Armed Services Committee included language in their version of the FY 2006 Defense Authorization bill that calls on DOD to review “the long-term practical and policy implications of the Department’s investment strategy for computing research” and report back to Congress as part of the agency’s FY 2007 budget request. Here’s the language from the committee report accompanying the legislation:
The full Senate is slated to take up the bill immediately after the chaos surrounding judicial confirmations subsides.
Appropriations Update: FY 2006 House Energy and Water
/In: Funding, FY06 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaThe House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday completed its markup of the FY 2006 Energy and Water Appropriation bill (HR 2419), which includes funding for the Department of Energy, approving increased funding for DOE’s Office of Science. The House bill would boost the Office of Science budget to $3.67 billion in FY 06, an increase of $66 million over FY 05, and $203 million more than the President requested in his FY 06 budget.
Included in the increase is a $14 million increase to the Advanced Scientific Computational Research program, bringing it to $246 million in FY 06, $39 million above the President’s request. Here is what the committee had to say about the program in the committee report accompanying the bill:
This is the first good news for computing researchers in the FY 2006 appropriations cycle, coming after the House approved a slight cut to cyber security research efforts at the Department of Homeland Security.
The House is scheduled to consider the bill on the floor early next week. The Senate hasn’t yet begun work on its version of the bill. Fortunately, support for the Office of Science in the Senate appears pretty strong. A letter urging Senate Appropriators to approve a significant increase to the Office of Science (to $3.7 billion, slightly more than the House approved), received the endorsement of more than 2/3 of the members of the Senate, a strong symbolic show of support for the agency. We’ll keep you apprised of developments as the bill moves forward.
Norm Augustine, Frank Wolf, and John Marburger on the Future of US Competitiveness
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaRetired Chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, Norman Augustine, testified today before a House Committee on Education and Workforce hearing on “Challenges to American Competitiveness in Math and Science.” Augustine, who has also been the former Undersecretary of the Army and a past-chairman of the National Academies of Engineering, put together a great written statement from which I thought I’d cite some snippets.
In between the ellipsis there, he makes a compelling case that the US is at real risk for ceding it’s dominant position in science and technology and the benefits that leadership accrues. I’ve uploaded the testimony (pdf) (it doesn’t seem to be on the committee site yet), so read the whole thing for more details. His testimony lists eight specific recommendations for addressing the problems:
A number of interesting ideas. Augustine’s voice adds to a growing chorus of voices coming from decidedly industrial backgrounds — Craig Barrett of Intel and former Gov. John Engler of the National Association of Manufacturers are two other recent examples — that are really giving some impetus to efforts to increase federal support for basic research, especially in the physical sciences. The issue — as we say here in DC — has some traction. Unfortunately, there isn’t much room to maneuver in the current budget environment, so significant increases are still unlikely. But the longer the chorus continues, and the louder it becomes, the more pressure there will be to address the concerns in future budget cycles.
To that end, I meant to include a note here last week about efforts by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Science, Commerce, Justice, State; Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Chair of the House Science Committee; and Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), Chair of the Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards; to include a provision in the recently passed supplemental appropriations bill that would fund the convening of a “National Innovation Summit” this fall. The purpose of the summit is, according to Wolf, “to bring together the nation’s best and brightest to help develop a blueprint for the future of American science and innovation. It also will look at where there has been slippage and why, and what needs to be done to reverse the trend.”
The summit was inspired by the work of the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation (of which CRA is a member and we’ve mentioned a few times in this space). Key to the summit’s moving forward is the involvement of several very influential industrially-oriented groups — including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Electronics Association, the Business Roundtable, and the Council on Competitiveness. They make a compelling case to those in Washington not terribly swayed by the voiced concerns of academics over the state of federal support for research.
So it’s heartening that they all find themselves heavily engaged in this overall effort to advocate to greater support for basic research, and even more heartening that their engagement is capturing the attention of lawmakers on the Hill. However, at this point, the enthusiasm for this case is not shared by the President’s science advisor, John Marburger. In recent weeks, Marburger has found himself on the defensive about these concerns that the U.S. is putting it’s future competitiveness at risk by underinvesting in the physical sciences. He gave a fascinating interview (sub. req’d) to National Journal’s TechDaily last week in which he lashed out at groups like the Task Force for trying to benchmark US competiveness against international competition.
As we’ve pointed out before, Marburger uses some number tricks as well in his answer. He claims “billions of dollars in new funding, permanent new funding” that have been invested in “the technical fields, in R&D. There’s just no question about that. The basic sciences include the physical sciences.” But this is odd logic.
As this graphic shows, the build-up of “new funding” in R&D that Marburger claims credit for is almost entirely basic research in the life sciences funded by the National Instutes of Health. So, arguing that basic research has gone up because basic research in the life sciences has gone up is true, but it doesn’t follow that because overall basic research has gone up that support for basic research in the physical sciences has gone up, too. The graphic shows that, in fact, funding at all the agencies traditionally supportive of basic research in the physical sciences has essentially been flat.
In any case, what this all shows is that despite the traction developing as a result of the increasing involvement of industry in making the case for federal support of basic research, we’ve got a long way to go to convince all the folks who need to be convinced if we’re going to address the problem in any meaningful way.
House Passes Homeland Security Approps; Cyber Security Still Not a Priority
/In: Funding, FY06 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaDespite a $213 million increase to the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate in FY 2006 and a report from a presidential advisory committee noting the dangerous lack of support for cyber security research at DHS, the House approved a cut to cyber security research activities at the agency as part of the FY 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The House approved the President’s request of $16.7 million for cyber security research in FY 2006, a decrease of $1.3 million from the FY 2005 enacted level.
Here’s a handy table showing the additions and cuts to the DHS S&T budget.
House Approved Version
enacted
There will be a couple of opportunities to address the cut to cyber security research as the bill moves through the appropriations process. The Senate has yet to act on its version of the bill. They’ve been briefed on the PITAC report, but it’s not known whether they’ll deviate much from the President’s requested level for the program. This highlights the importance of advocacy efforts that target the President’s budget request in addition to the congressional appropriations cycle, especially when the President and the congressional majority are all the same party….
Update: Cameron Wilson at USACM has a good post on the Dept. of Homeland Security Authorization Act (pdf), which is also likely to make it to the House floor this week. The bill creates a new Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity within the department and authorizes $19 million worth of cyber security R&D within the S&T directorate, including “long-term research.” In essence, the language authorizes spending that’s already going on (see above), though having a higher authorization could make increasing the appropriation a little easier as the appropriations bill moves forward.