In a column focusing on China, Tom Friedman notes that cutting NSF will leave us without the kind of workforce the U.S. will need to compete:
Finally, on competition policy, the Bush team and Congress cut the budget of the National Science Foundation for this fiscal year by $105 million. I could not put it better than Congressman Vern Ehlers, one of the few dissenting Republicans, who said: “This decision shows dangerous disregard for our nation’s future … at a time when other nations continue to surpass our students in math and science and consistently increase their funding of basic research. We cannot hope to fight jobs lost to international competition without a well-trained and educated work force.”
Interesting article (sub. req’d) in Tech Daily today about an event hosted by the Semiconductor Industry Association which brought together Intel CEO Craig Barrett, Micron Technology CEO Steve Appleton, and Harvard Economist Dale Jorgenson to talk about the importance of federal support for fundamental research and math and science education. They sounded a theme that’s been heard increasingly from industry groups and policymakers in thelastfewweeks: “American technology leadership is under an assault that can only be countered through improved basic research investment and better science education in American schools.”
“Congress shouldn’t play Sputnik with this; we have to plan in advance,” Intel CEO Craig Barrett said at a press conference convened by the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA). Sputnik was the Russian rocket launched in 1957 that began the “space race” with the United States.
…
For the semiconductor industry, the problem is physics. Current technology uses complementary metal-oxide semiconductors (CMOS) — the ubiquitous silicon chip. But in the race to cram more tiny transistors onto chips, the industry will exhaust the parameters of CMOS and need to make a major technical jump into nanotechnology, which focuses on matter at the atomic level.
“U.S. leadership in nanoelectronics is not guaranteed,” Barrett said. “It will take a massive, coordinated U.S. research effort involving academia, industry, and state and federal governments to ensure that America continues to be the world leader in information technology.”
The press conference once again put the Administration on the defensive for a budget request that cuts basic research in the physical sciences by $39 million in FY 2006. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Marburger repeated what he told a House Appropriations Committee earlier this week, when he said he didn’t believe that U.S. competitiveness was at risk:
Presidential science adviser John Marburger said he hears the warnings but feels that U.S. competitiveness is not facing an immediate crisis. “It’s kind of hard to see into the future,” he said. “The U.S. is so far ahead in these areas that we are going to be able to maintain our competitive strength. I don’t see the same danger signs.”
…And then argued that R&D advocates shouldn’t focus on what the President is proposing this year, they should look at the growth over the last 5 years:
Many high-tech advocacy groups are relying on R&D budget figures that misrepresent the level of true federal investment, Marburger said. Taken in five-year increments, overall basic research spending between fiscal 2002 and fiscal 2006 is up $28 billion over the same period starting in 1997, in constant dollars, according to data from the White House Office of Science and Technology. But for fiscal 2006, the administration has requested cutting spending on basic physical sciences by $39 million, to $2.8 billion.
R&D spending advocates, including the Alliance for Technology Research in America, SIA and TechNet, point to a 25-year flat line on funding for basic research on physical sciences and engineering at $8 billion per year as proof of the problem.
Marburger said they are slicing data to support their case. “We are by far the major investor in basic research in most fields,” he said.
Honestly, Marburger is doing just what he accuses ASTRA of doing. While it’s true that basic research is up in aggregate over the time-period he suggests, almost all of that increase is the result of the doubling of NIH. Every other agency, including those agencies responsible for supporting basic research in the physical sciences, is essentially flat over the period.
(click to enlarge)
Of course, this is exactly the point SIA and ASTRA were trying to make…in addition to the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, Council on Competitiveness, the American Electronics Association, CSPP, TechNet and all the others who have argued in recent weeks that our failure to adequately support fundamental research in the physical sciences reduces our future innovative capacity and ultimately our future competitiveness.
In his first appearance before the newly constituted Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee, John Marburger, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, found himself “rebuked” for “arrogant” and “inappropriate” testimony by the members of the Subcommittee, according to National Journal’sTech Daily (sub. req’d). Marburger apparently had the temerity to highlight an “earmark” from lawmakers creating a science program in his opening statement, prompting subcommittee chair Frank Wolf (R-VA) to interrupt him.
Wolf accused Marburger of insinuating that “if it’s an earmark from the Congress, then it’s automatically wrong.”
“I think there is a degree of arrogance in your answer,” said Wolf, who chairs the House Science, State, Justice and Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee. “I think it’s inappropriate.”
Wolf, who was criticized in his re-election campaign last year for supporting earmarked projects in his district, rattled off a list of congressional mandates for science programs and grilled Marburger about whether he believes they were a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Marburger answered that certain earmarks, typically characterized by critics as pork-barrel spending, are “not as bad as others” and then quickly added that “some are better than others.”
Both answers had Wolf and other members on the panel visibly irritated. Several lawmakers lectured Marburger about their constitutional obligation to control the government’s purse strings and create government programs.
While I probably side with Marburger over the issue of earmarks — they’ve increased in number every year and often compete with peer-reviewed, merit-based funding in the budget — I have to side with the committee when they raise concerns over U.S. competitiveness being at risk because of a failure to invest in fundamental research, as they also did in yesterday’s hearing.
Marburger also told the panel that he does not agree with recent reports that the United States is losing its competitive edge in science and technology.
“I think you are in the minority in regard to our competitiveness,” said Wolf, who had announced earlier in the hearing that he would introduce legislation to forgive the interest on student loans for individuals who major in math and science.
Wolf also said he is worried that the Bush administration’s budget request has “zeroed out” some science programs because he argued that the United States is “falling behind” other countries.
At a separate event on Friday, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., echoed Wolf’s sentiments. “This country is sadly slipping behind in its cadre” of scientists and mathematicians, Warner said.
The senator added that he would like to allocate funding from the $13 billion Pell Grant program for math and science education, and give students who major in cyber security a free education in return for public service in the government to combat cyber attacks.
So in the first science-related hearing of the new subcommittee there’s reason for both optimism and concern. Clearly the leaders of the subcommittee have embraced the idea that support for fundamental research and math and science programs will help the U.S. retain its competitive advantage in the global economy. However, they’ve also vigorously defended earmarking the science budget. Wolf, the new committee chair, is sort of a blank slate for the science community, so we need to take the opportunity to make him comfortable with the case for basic research. Expect to see more in the coming weeks….
Following up on a previous post about European efforts to create a National Science Foundation-like agency of their own because of the recognition of that value of the NSF to U.S. competitiveness — and juxtaposing that with our own government’s apparent waning support for fundamental research — I thought I’d just note this article from Science that indicates India has reached a similar conclusion to the EU’s and is hoping to establish an NSF-like agency of its own.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has endorsed the creation of an independent agency to support basic research–with a proposed budget that’s more than three times the amount the government is now spending.
Scientists have long complained about the current process for winning grants, including inflexible rules and funding decisions that take more than a year. Last week Singh attended the first meeting of the new Science Advisory Council to the Prime Minister and embraced its recommendation for a National Science and Engineering Research Foundation with a mandate to “strongly promote and fund research in all fields of science and engineering.” The new foundation “is being patterned on the lines of the acclaimed U.S. National Science Foundation,” says C. N. R. Rao, chair of the council, who has campaigned for more than a decade for such a freestanding body. “A foundation that manages its own accounts and is run by a scientist is the only hope for reversing the rapid decline in Indian science,” he adds.
In a story today, the Washington Post notes that the U.S. power grid remains at risk from cyber security threats that could have real physical effects on the network and that the federal government is stepping up its efforts to make sure utility companies are addressing the threat.
Patrick H. Wood III, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, warned top electric company officials in a private meeting in January that they need to focus more heavily on cyber-security. Wood also has raised the issue at several public appearances. Officials will not say whether new intelligence points to a potential terrorist strike, but Wood stepped up his campaign after officials at the Energy Department’s Idaho National Laboratory showed him how a skilled hacker could cause serious problems.
Wood declined to comment on specifics of what he saw. But an official at the lab, Ken Watts, said the simulation showed how someone could hack into a utility’s Internet-based business management system, then into a system that controls utility operations. Once inside, lab workers simulated cutting off the supply of oil to a turbine generating electricity and destroying the equipment.
Describing his reaction to the demonstration, Wood said: “I wished I’d had a diaper on.”
In our work before Congress and the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (pdf), we’ve tried to emphasize the importance of cyber security R&D, especially long-term R&D, because IT systems constitute the “control loop” of most other elements of our nation’s critical infrastructure (e.g., the electric power grid, the air traffic control grid, the financial grid, the telecommunications grid), and constitute a significant vulnerability. While the federal government has been reasonably quick to warn companies of the risk, it hasn’t done quite as well in ramping up the long-term research to reduce vulnerabilities. Hopefully the imminent release of PITAC’s report (pdf) on the state of cyber security R&D will help move things forward at agencies like DHS and DARPA, and result in increased funding for NSF’s cyber security R&D efforts.
In the meantime, USACM’s Cameron Wilson has more, and Jim Horning has a related post on how the nuclear industry is reacting to new proposed voluntary standards for the increased security of digital systems. Short answer: not well.
TechNet, a “bipartisan, political network of CEOs” of technology companies including Intel, HP, Cisco, 3Com and others, has released its Innovation Priorities for the coming year, which includes a call for an increase for basic research funding at federal agencies. The priorities result from a series of “Innovation Summits” with industry, academia and policymakers the group held over the last half of last year, which found that:
The U.S. education system is not preparing young Americans for the careers of the future;
The United States is no longer assured of attracting and retaining the world’s best innovators;
Global innovation leadership requires a long-term, strategic approach to create an ecosystem that fosters innovation;
We are gravely under-investing in research and development as a nation;
The U.S. lags behind other nations in the deployment of broadband networks that are the foundation of the next wave of technology innovation.
The findings led a series of recommendations, which are worth reading. Here are a couple:
Strengthen education and develop a skilled technology workforce. Specific education recommendations include continued implementation and full funding of the No Child Left Behind Act; making science, math, engineering and technology education a national priority by increasing funding for math and science partnerships; effective retraining for displaced and unemployed U.S. workers; and, efforts to ensure that foreign innovators trained in the United States are able to remain to create technologies, companies and jobs.
TechNet is also announcing today the formation of an CEO Education Task Force. It includes Craig Barrett, CEO, Intel Corporation; Art Coviello, President and CEO, RSA Security; Paul Deninger, Chairman, Broadview – A Jeffries Company; John Doerr, Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers; John Morgridge, Chairman, Cisco Systems, Inc.; Henry Samueli, Chairman and CTO, Broadcom; Stratton Sclavos, President and CEO, VeriSign; Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster Worldwide; and Joe Tucci, President and CEO, EMC Corporation.
And:
Increase federal funding for basic research at key agencies and enact a permanent extension of the R&D tax credit. A sustained public and private investment in R&D will foster a skilled American workforce, stimulate new technologies and maintain U.S. dominance in vital industries. It is critical that Congress enact a permanent R&D tax credit and take steps to achieve a doubling of the basic research budget of the National Science Foundation.
With that, TechNet joins a growing group of companies and industry associations that are drawing attention to the importance of federal investment of basic research in fueling the innovation that drives U.S. competitiveness. In recent weeks, the American Electronics Association, the Council on Competitiveness (pdf), the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation (pdf), and the Computer Systems Policy Project (to name a few) have all put out reports or issued statements affirming the importance of the federal investment in basic research. The message is starting to resonate will policymakers. In the Democratic response to the President’s State of the Union speech this year, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) mentioned the importance of spurring R&D to create “the jobs of the future.” And Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) wrote recently that the U.S. isn’t doing enough to “nuture the next Einsteins.”
The lack of federal investment in basic research and restrictive immigration policies are eroding America’s leadership in the sciences. The ripple effects of these two troublesome trends are enormous: Our future economic competitiveness and quality of life depend on our ability to stay ahead of the scientific and technological curve.
We’ll be working hard this year to make sure that the message does more than resonate — that it results in some real priority in the budget for fundamental research investments. Update: Here’s more coverage. Another Update: MIT’s Technology Review says more companies and industry groups need to step up their advocacy for fundamental research support:
It’s time for those who make their livings by investing in emerging-technology companies to voice concern. Rational voices in the university research community, like [Shirley] Jackson’s [President of AAAS], wont be heard unless financial leaders amplify the message.
The next few months will be crucial, as President Bush’s proposed 2006 federal budget is debated in Congress. While the nation’s enormous deficit will certainly mean greater frugality, legislators need to strengthen, even if only modestly, funding for NSF and NIH. A good starting point would be to hold President Bush and Congress accountable for reneging on 2002 legislation that authorized a doubling of NSFs budget by 2007. That doubling wont happen now: thats clear. But financial leaders who are dependent, one way or another, on government funding of research should ask why not. There should be outrage over the erosion of U.S. research institutions.
[Apologies once again for the lag in posts. I’ve been in babyland.]
The Senate has finally begun to get its act together and organize some key committees, announcing yesterday the chairs and ranking members of the 10 Commerce Committee subcommittees and last week announcing a reorganization of the Appropriations Committee to fall more in line with the House Appropriations revamp (as we predicted).
On the Commerce Committee, the new chairs and ranking members that are likely most relevant to computing researchers are Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) who take over as the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Science and Space; and Sens. John Ensign (R-NV) and John Kerry, chair and ranking member of the new Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation and Competitiveness. The agenda for this new subcommittee hasn’t yet been set, but given that it’s grown out of the work of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force headed by Ensign, chances are good that it will involve itself in issues important to the computing community.
The Senate Appropriations Committee, initially reluctant to adopt the House Appropriations reorganization, ultimately decided that failing to adopt some realignment would guarantee chaos come conference time and agreed to reshape the panel to reflect most of the changes made by the House. Most importantly to computing researchers, the Senate VA-HUD committee, which included responsibility for NASA and NSF, was dissolved and its jurisdiction the two science agencies was placed in the new Commerce-Justice-Science panel, matching the House plan. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) will take the helm of the new subcommittee, meaning that long-term NSF champion Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) will no longer oversee the agency in the appropriations process. It’s not clear how Shelby’s leadership will impact the NSF budget, though he has apparently said that within the committee, NASA and NSF are his number one and two priorities. In any case, a new chairman represents a new opportunity for the science community to make the case for priority. On the minority side, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, long-term NSF champion and former ranking member on VA-HUD, will join Shelby as ranking member on the new panel.
CRA’s Committee on the Status of Women in Computing Research (CRA-W) held its 2005 edition of the Grad Cohort Workshops over the weekend in San Francisco. If you’re not familiar with the program, it aims to increase the ranks of senior women in computing by building and mentoring nationwide cohorts of women through their graduate studies as they make the transition from student to researcher. Here’s how CRA-W describes the workshops:
At the Workshop, [we] welcome Cohort participants – Computer Science and Engineering students in their first or second year of grad school – into the community of computing researchers and provide them with a variety of professional role models. The Grad Cohort Workshop [are] modeled on the CRA-W’s very successful Academic Careers Workshop. Students meet for two days with 10-15 senior researchers who share pertinent information on the transition from student to researcher as well as more personal information and insights about their experiences. The rewards of a research career [are] emphasized. The workshop includes a mix of formal presentations and informal discussions and social events. All participants – students and researchers – [are] present for the whole time, making it possible for students to build mentoring relationships and develop peer networks.
Jim Horning points to a nice writeup of the event in Campus Technology. This is just one of a number of important programs CRA-W runs aimed at addressing the underrepresentation of women in computing research — a complete list is here. And it isn’t the first time they’ve received recognition for their efforts. Just last year, CRA-W was honored by President George W. Bush as “exemplars” for their role as leaders in the national effort to more fully develop the Nation’s human resources in science, mathematics and engineering. Though this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone in the discipline, as CRA-W has been doing great work since 1991.
While CRA-W put this particular event together, they couldn’t have done it without the generous support of Microsoft, Google, and Lucent, as well as federal support from agencies and programs like NSF, EOT-PACI and others.
A group of seventeen computer scientists yesterday filed an amicus brief (pdf) in the MGM v. Grokster case before the Supreme Court, “to call to the Court’s attention several computer science issues raised by Petitioners [i.e., the movie and music companies] and amici who filed concurrent with Petitioners, and to correct certain of their technical assertions.” If you’re not familiar with the case or the potential impact it may have on anyone who creates technology, there’s an interesting summary and some thoughts about what Congress might do as a result at the 463 Communications blog.
Ed Felten, one of the 17 amici (along with CRA board members Gene Spafford and Jennifer Rexford), has a summary of the arguments in the compsci professor’s brief over at Freedom to Tinker, and a series of good posts on the case. USACM has been tracking the issue as well. Update: USACM joined an amicus brief with sixty law professors in support of Grokster. Cameron Wilson has the details.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) worries (sub. may be req’d?) in the latest issue of Science that the U.S. isn’t doing what it could to continue the pace of innovation and “nuture the next Einsteins.”
All revolutions begin with a seminal moment. This year, we will celebrate one of the greatest in the history of science: the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein’s 1905 landmark papers that introduced the special theory of relativity and the equivalence of mass and energy. As we explore their impact, we must ask ourselves if we as a nation are doing what it takes to spark new scientific revolutions. Are we nurturing the next Einsteins? Regrettably, the answer is no. The lack of federal investment in basic research and restrictive immigration policies are eroding America’s leadership in the sciences. The ripple effects of these two troublesome trends are enormous: Our future economic competitiveness and quality of life depend on our ability to stay ahead of the scientific and technological curve.
The splitting of the atom ushered in an unprecedented era of public investment in basic scientific research after World War II. The National Academy of Sciences (citing the work of Nobel Laureate Robert Solow) estimates that nearly half of our nation’s economic growth since that time can be attributed to advances in science and technology.
However, in recent years investment has shifted away from research in the physical sciences and engineering to the life sciences. The irony is that advances in the life and medical sciences will be impossible without their physical and engineering counterparts. I agree with the recommendation of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology that the funding levels for the physical sciences and engineering be brought to parity with that for the life sciences, which has more than doubled over the past decade. Adequate funding alone, however, will not guarantee that science in the United States maintains its strength.
I’m getting more encouraged by the frequency with which the concept that federal support of R&D leads to innovation, which in turn enables U.S. competitiveness, is showing up in the press and out of the mouths of policy makers on both sides of the aisle. As soon as I get some time, I think I’ll compile all the recent examples I can find — it’s a big list. But in the meantime, you can probably get more than a few examples by browsing the funding and policy categories in the archives on the left.
And the rest of the Alexander editorial is certainly worth reading.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
Even Tom Friedman weighs in on NSF
/In: Funding /by AndyBernatIn a column focusing on China, Tom Friedman notes that cutting NSF will leave us without the kind of workforce the U.S. will need to compete:
Industry Continues to Push for Basic Research, White House Growing Defensive
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaInteresting article (sub. req’d) in Tech Daily today about an event hosted by the Semiconductor Industry Association which brought together Intel CEO Craig Barrett, Micron Technology CEO Steve Appleton, and Harvard Economist Dale Jorgenson to talk about the importance of federal support for fundamental research and math and science education. They sounded a theme that’s been heard increasingly from industry groups and policymakers in the last few weeks: “American technology leadership is under an assault that can only be countered through improved basic research investment and better science education in American schools.”
The press conference once again put the Administration on the defensive for a budget request that cuts basic research in the physical sciences by $39 million in FY 2006. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Marburger repeated what he told a House Appropriations Committee earlier this week, when he said he didn’t believe that U.S. competitiveness was at risk:
…And then argued that R&D advocates shouldn’t focus on what the President is proposing this year, they should look at the growth over the last 5 years:
Honestly, Marburger is doing just what he accuses ASTRA of doing. While it’s true that basic research is up in aggregate over the time-period he suggests, almost all of that increase is the result of the doubling of NIH. Every other agency, including those agencies responsible for supporting basic research in the physical sciences, is essentially flat over the period.
(click to enlarge)
Of course, this is exactly the point SIA and ASTRA were trying to make…in addition to the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, Council on Competitiveness, the American Electronics Association, CSPP, TechNet and all the others who have argued in recent weeks that our failure to adequately support fundamental research in the physical sciences reduces our future innovative capacity and ultimately our future competitiveness.
President’s Science Advisor Gets Frosty Reception From Approps Committee
/In: Funding /by Peter HarshaIn his first appearance before the newly constituted Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee, John Marburger, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, found himself “rebuked” for “arrogant” and “inappropriate” testimony by the members of the Subcommittee, according to National Journal’s Tech Daily (sub. req’d). Marburger apparently had the temerity to highlight an “earmark” from lawmakers creating a science program in his opening statement, prompting subcommittee chair Frank Wolf (R-VA) to interrupt him.
While I probably side with Marburger over the issue of earmarks — they’ve increased in number every year and often compete with peer-reviewed, merit-based funding in the budget — I have to side with the committee when they raise concerns over U.S. competitiveness being at risk because of a failure to invest in fundamental research, as they also did in yesterday’s hearing.
So in the first science-related hearing of the new subcommittee there’s reason for both optimism and concern. Clearly the leaders of the subcommittee have embraced the idea that support for fundamental research and math and science programs will help the U.S. retain its competitive advantage in the global economy. However, they’ve also vigorously defended earmarking the science budget. Wolf, the new committee chair, is sort of a blank slate for the science community, so we need to take the opportunity to make him comfortable with the case for basic research. Expect to see more in the coming weeks….
Are We Taking NSF for Granted, Part II
/In: Funding /by Peter HarshaFollowing up on a previous post about European efforts to create a National Science Foundation-like agency of their own because of the recognition of that value of the NSF to U.S. competitiveness — and juxtaposing that with our own government’s apparent waning support for fundamental research — I thought I’d just note this article from Science that indicates India has reached a similar conclusion to the EU’s and is hoping to establish an NSF-like agency of its own.
The whole article is here (sub. may be req’d).
Cyber Security is a Vulnerability for U.S. Power Grid, Wash Post Says
/In: Security /by Peter HarshaIn a story today, the Washington Post notes that the U.S. power grid remains at risk from cyber security threats that could have real physical effects on the network and that the federal government is stepping up its efforts to make sure utility companies are addressing the threat.
In our work before Congress and the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (pdf), we’ve tried to emphasize the importance of cyber security R&D, especially long-term R&D, because IT systems constitute the “control loop” of most other elements of our nation’s critical infrastructure (e.g., the electric power grid, the air traffic control grid, the financial grid, the telecommunications grid), and constitute a significant vulnerability. While the federal government has been reasonably quick to warn companies of the risk, it hasn’t done quite as well in ramping up the long-term research to reduce vulnerabilities. Hopefully the imminent release of PITAC’s report (pdf) on the state of cyber security R&D will help move things forward at agencies like DHS and DARPA, and result in increased funding for NSF’s cyber security R&D efforts.
In the meantime, USACM’s Cameron Wilson has more, and Jim Horning has a related post on how the nuclear industry is reacting to new proposed voluntary standards for the increased security of digital systems. Short answer: not well.
Kudos to TechNet
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaTechNet, a “bipartisan, political network of CEOs” of technology companies including Intel, HP, Cisco, 3Com and others, has released its Innovation Priorities for the coming year, which includes a call for an increase for basic research funding at federal agencies. The priorities result from a series of “Innovation Summits” with industry, academia and policymakers the group held over the last half of last year, which found that:
The findings led a series of recommendations, which are worth reading. Here are a couple:
And:
With that, TechNet joins a growing group of companies and industry associations that are drawing attention to the importance of federal investment of basic research in fueling the innovation that drives U.S. competitiveness. In recent weeks, the American Electronics Association, the Council on Competitiveness (pdf), the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation (pdf), and the Computer Systems Policy Project (to name a few) have all put out reports or issued statements affirming the importance of the federal investment in basic research. The message is starting to resonate will policymakers. In the Democratic response to the President’s State of the Union speech this year, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) mentioned the importance of spurring R&D to create “the jobs of the future.” And Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) wrote recently that the U.S. isn’t doing enough to “nuture the next Einsteins.”
We’ll be working hard this year to make sure that the message does more than resonate — that it results in some real priority in the budget for fundamental research investments.
Update: Here’s more coverage.
Another Update: MIT’s Technology Review says more companies and industry groups need to step up their advocacy for fundamental research support:
Catching Up: Senate Reorganization (Appropriations and Commerce)
/In: Misc. /by Peter Harsha[Apologies once again for the lag in posts. I’ve been in babyland.]
The Senate has finally begun to get its act together and organize some key committees, announcing yesterday the chairs and ranking members of the 10 Commerce Committee subcommittees and last week announcing a reorganization of the Appropriations Committee to fall more in line with the House Appropriations revamp (as we predicted).
On the Commerce Committee, the new chairs and ranking members that are likely most relevant to computing researchers are Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) who take over as the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Science and Space; and Sens. John Ensign (R-NV) and John Kerry, chair and ranking member of the new Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation and Competitiveness. The agenda for this new subcommittee hasn’t yet been set, but given that it’s grown out of the work of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force headed by Ensign, chances are good that it will involve itself in issues important to the computing community.
The Senate Appropriations Committee, initially reluctant to adopt the House Appropriations reorganization, ultimately decided that failing to adopt some realignment would guarantee chaos come conference time and agreed to reshape the panel to reflect most of the changes made by the House. Most importantly to computing researchers, the Senate VA-HUD committee, which included responsibility for NASA and NSF, was dissolved and its jurisdiction the two science agencies was placed in the new Commerce-Justice-Science panel, matching the House plan. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) will take the helm of the new subcommittee, meaning that long-term NSF champion Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) will no longer oversee the agency in the appropriations process. It’s not clear how Shelby’s leadership will impact the NSF budget, though he has apparently said that within the committee, NASA and NSF are his number one and two priorities. In any case, a new chairman represents a new opportunity for the science community to make the case for priority. On the minority side, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, long-term NSF champion and former ranking member on VA-HUD, will join Shelby as ranking member on the new panel.
Nice Writeup for CRA-W’s Grad Cohort Program
/In: People /by Peter HarshaCRA’s Committee on the Status of Women in Computing Research (CRA-W) held its 2005 edition of the Grad Cohort Workshops over the weekend in San Francisco. If you’re not familiar with the program, it aims to increase the ranks of senior women in computing by building and mentoring nationwide cohorts of women through their graduate studies as they make the transition from student to researcher. Here’s how CRA-W describes the workshops:
Jim Horning points to a nice writeup of the event in Campus Technology. This is just one of a number of important programs CRA-W runs aimed at addressing the underrepresentation of women in computing research — a complete list is here. And it isn’t the first time they’ve received recognition for their efforts. Just last year, CRA-W was honored by President George W. Bush as “exemplars” for their role as leaders in the national effort to more fully develop the Nation’s human resources in science, mathematics and engineering. Though this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone in the discipline, as CRA-W has been doing great work since 1991.
While CRA-W put this particular event together, they couldn’t have done it without the generous support of Microsoft, Google, and Lucent, as well as federal support from agencies and programs like NSF, EOT-PACI and others.
Seventeen Computer Scientists File Amicus in Grokster
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaA group of seventeen computer scientists yesterday filed an amicus brief (pdf) in the MGM v. Grokster case before the Supreme Court, “to call to the Court’s attention several computer science issues raised by Petitioners [i.e., the movie and music companies] and amici who filed concurrent with Petitioners, and to correct certain of their technical assertions.” If you’re not familiar with the case or the potential impact it may have on anyone who creates technology, there’s an interesting summary and some thoughts about what Congress might do as a result at the 463 Communications blog.
Ed Felten, one of the 17 amici (along with CRA board members Gene Spafford and Jennifer Rexford), has a summary of the arguments in the compsci professor’s brief over at Freedom to Tinker, and a series of good posts on the case.
USACM has been tracking the issue as well.
Update: USACM joined an amicus brief with sixty law professors in support of Grokster. Cameron Wilson has the details.
Sen. Alexander Frets That U.S. Isn’t Nurturing Next Einsteins
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaSen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) worries (sub. may be req’d?) in the latest issue of Science that the U.S. isn’t doing what it could to continue the pace of innovation and “nuture the next Einsteins.”
I’m getting more encouraged by the frequency with which the concept that federal support of R&D leads to innovation, which in turn enables U.S. competitiveness, is showing up in the press and out of the mouths of policy makers on both sides of the aisle. As soon as I get some time, I think I’ll compile all the recent examples I can find — it’s a big list. But in the meantime, you can probably get more than a few examples by browsing the funding and policy categories in the archives on the left.
And the rest of the Alexander editorial is certainly worth reading.