Just want to note that CRA-affiliate organization ACM’sU.S. Public Policy Committee (USACM) has crafted a sharp analysis of some of the technical pitfalls contained in the controversial Real ID Act, which attempts to set minimum standards for state driver’s licenses and an interstate compact to govern the sharing of driver’s license data between states. The bill has already passed the House and was included in a rider on a must-pass supplemental funding bill to be considered by the Senate. The Senate, however, has indicated they will strip the controversial bill from the supplemental they consider, guaranteeing a fight over the issue in conference.
Cameron Wilson has a summary of the situation as well as a copy of the letter USACM sent to Sen. Lamar Alexander, who recently expressed support for the concept of a national ID (but not this particular bill). USACM adds considerable value to the policy debate with this kind of analysis.
John Markoff writes in detail in Saturday’s NY Times about DARPA’s diminishing investment in university-based computer science research and its potential impact.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency at the Pentagon – which has long underwritten open-ended “blue sky” research by the nation’s best computer scientists – is sharply cutting such spending at universities, researchers say, in favor of financing more classified work and narrowly defined projects that promise a more immediate payoff.
Hundreds of research projects supported by the agency, known as Darpa, have paid off handsomely in recent decades, leading not only to new weapons, but to commercial technologies from the personal computer to the Internet. The agency has devoted hundreds of millions of dollars to basic software research, too, including work that led to such recent advances as the Web search technologies that Google and others have introduced.
The shift away from basic research is alarming many leading computer scientists and electrical engineers, who warn that there will be long-term consequences for the nation’s economy. They are accusing the Pentagon of reining in an agency that has played a crucial role in fostering America’s lead in computer and communications technologies.
“I’m worried and depressed,” said David Patterson, a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley who is president of the Association of Computing Machinery, an industry and academic trade group. “I think there will be great technologies that won’t be there down the road when we need them.”
Markoff’s piece is largely based on answers the agency provided the Senate Armed Services Committee in response to the committee’s questions about DARPA’s historical support of IT R&D and the role of universities. In their response, DARPA noted that their overall support for computer science activites has averaged $578 million a year (inflation adjusted) for the last 13 years and that university participation in that research over the last 4 years has plummeted. (Due to “data constraints” they don’t have figures prior to FY 01.) In FY 01, DARPA funded $546 million in IT research overall, $214 million in universities. By FY 2004, the overall funding had risen to $583 million, and the university share had dropped to $123 million.
DARPA cited five “factors for the decline”:
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.
Essentially, they conceded that their focus in IT R&D is increasingly short-term (at least in the unclassified realm) and that universities are no longer significant performers of DARPA IT R&D (classified or unclassified). Not surprisingly, these are the two major concerns CRA has repeatedlycitedabouttheagency.
Anyway, the article is a must read. Update: (4/3/2005) – Noah Shactman at Defense Tech has a bit more: Darpa may be investing more in super-secret computer science research. But overall, the agency’s proposed classified budget has shrunk by over a third, a Congressional source tells Defense Tech.
Federal Computer Week has a depressing article today on the impact of recent and planned cuts to NASA’s IT programs. The agency’s IT R&D programs are due to decline $66 million in FY 2005, with a further cut of $89 million requested in the President’s FY 2006 budget — a figure that would represent a total cut of 60 percent since FY 2004. The Administration says that NASA’s investments in IT R&D in FY 2006 will be reduced across the board, largely due to redirected funding to the President’s Moon/Mars initiative and the Space Shuttle Return to Flight program — the same reason given for the FY 2005 cuts that are putting pressure on agency supercomputing efforts now.
FCW says the cuts in FY 05 will result in 15 to 20 layoffs of NASA Ames’ supercomputing staff and 20 to 25 layoffs in its robotics staff (currently at 70 and 100, respectively). Buyout packages are being offered.
Chris Knight, vice president for negotiations at Ames Federal Employees Union and a Computational Sciences Division employee, said the buyouts apply to all IT workers except three in visualization and robotics. But the amounts will not be enough to convince most people to leave, he said.
A lot of the research centers are being basically bled dry, Knight said.
For the last several years, CRA has provided an analysis of computing research in the Administration’s budget request for AAAS’ annual look at R&D in the President’s Budget Request. The book containing the CRA analysis won’t be available until April, but I thought I’d post some of the core of that effort here. After the jump (the “Continue Reading…” link below) you’ll find CRA’s look at the current policy environment — why we’re concerned about the significantly changed landscape for federal IT R&D funding, including an examination of DARPA’s diminished role and NSF’s enhanced one. When the book is released, I’ll post a link to it as well. CRA’s chapter is just one of 26 or so focused on just about every aspect of the overall R&D portfolio.
BBC coverage of the jump to 135.5 teraflops.
ZDNet has more.
The feat won’t show up on the current Top500.org list until they release the next revision of the list, which I think will be in May (the last was released in November at the Supercomputing 2004 conference in Pittsburgh, and it seems to be issued at six month intervals). Update: John West, Director of the ERDC MSRC — one of four DOD HPC program centers — e-mails with a helpful clarification:
Top500 lists are published twice a year: in June and in November. The November list is announced at the annual Supercomputing series of conferences (www.supercomp.org), which is probably part of the reason for its not-quite-six-months timing.
He also notes that the LINPACK score (upon which the Top500 list is based) isn’t the best way to assess a supercomputer’s relative benefit to a discipline, despite it’s popularity — something I probably should have noted in my post.
In my defense, as limited as the LINPACK score is in what it says about a particular machine, it is the one number most people out here (certainly in the policy world) cling to when trying to understand progress in supercomputing. Though it wasn’t the message we sought to convey, the fact that the Japanese Earth Simulator was X teraflops faster than our “best” machine certainly focused the mind of a lot of policymakers in Congress last year, for better or worse. In talking about high-end computing with them, we certainly tried not to emphasize that measure; rather, we tried to talk about the importance of a sustained research effort on a diverse set of approaches to enable progress on a wide range of different problems.
John also notes that there are some interesting efforts to develop a new metric coming out of DARPA’s HPCS program, but those measures are likely to be a bit more complex — almost certainly spelling doom for their adoption over the “one number fits all” of the LINPACK.
The long-awaited PITAC report on Cyber Security, Cyber Security: A Crisis of Prioritization (pdf, 2.2mb) has just been released. The committee spent nearly a year reviewing the federal government’s cyber security R&D effort, a process we’vecoveredinthis space. The resulting report concludes that the IT infrastructure — beyond the public Internet — is a crucial piece of the nation’s critical infrastructures, such as power grids, air traffic control systems, financial systems, and military and intelligence systems. Given it’s importance, the committee finds that the federal cyber security R&D investment is inadequate and “imbalanced” towards short-term, defense oriented research, with little support for fundamental research to address the larger vulnerabilities of the civilian IT infrastructure. As a result the committee recommends changes to the portfolio to:
Increase Federal support for fundamental research in civilian cyber security by $90 million annually at NSF and by substantial amounts at agencies such as DARPA and DHS to support work in 10 high-priority areas identified by PITAC.
Intensify Federal efforts to promote recruitment and retention of cyber security researchers and students at research universities, with an aim of doubling this professions numbers by the end of the decade.
Provide increased support for the rapid transfer of Federally developed cutting-edge cyber security technologies to the private sector.
Strengthen the coordination of the Interagency Working Group on Critical Information Infrastructure Protection and integrate it under the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program.
I’ll have more detail on the report as I work my way through it, but wanted to get a link up to it ASAP. At 72 pages cover-to-cover, the report is a very revealing examination of the federal cyber security R&D portfolio. Update: (3/19/05) – The NY Times’ John Markoff has more on the report today, including this quote from PITAC co-Chair Ed Lazowska:
“The federal government is largely failing in its responsibility to protect the nation from cyberthreats,” said Edward D. Lazowska, chairman of the computer science and engineering department at the University of Washington and co-chairman of the panel. “The Department of Homeland Security simply doesn’t ‘get’ cybersecurity. They are allocating less than 2 percent of their science and technology budget to cybersecurity, and only a small proportion of this is forward-looking.”
Michelle Petrovich, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, disputed the criticism. “We take cybersecurity seriously and have taken aggressive measures to address various needs,” she said. “Our cybersecurity budget has gone up every year.”
For the record, it may be true that DHS’ overall budget for “cyber security” activities has gone up, but cyber security R&D — the focus of this report and, one would think, a focus of the DHS Science and Technology directorate — has actually been flat at DHS for the last two fiscal years at a paltry $18 million out of an overall S&T budget of just about $1 billion per year. And of that tiny share only $1.5 million could truly be called “long-term” research — research beyond patching the holes in the current systems. As the report points out, without research into fundamentally new approaches, we’ll be “endlessly patching and plugging holes in the dike” for years to come. It’s also worth noting that the President’s budget for cyber security research at DHS this year actually takes a step backwards. For FY 2006, the President’s budget would cut cyber security R&D at the agency to $17 million, a decrease of $1 million from FY 2005….
The House Science Committeemarked up a series of bills today including H.R. 28, the High Performance Computing Revitalization Act, a bill we covered in depth last year when it was introduced as H.R. 4218. CRA endorsed that bill, and has endorsed H.R. 28. Here’s a summary of today’s activities from the House Science Committee press release.
The bill, which was introduced by Energy Subcommittee Chairman Judy Biggert (R-IL), Representative Lincoln Davis (D-TN), and Chairman Boehlert, would strengthen U.S. supercomputing capabilities by requiring NSF and DOE to ensure U.S. researchers access to high-performance computers, and by prescribing a comprehensive, balanced approach to the nation’s computing strategy. It would also place responsibility with the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to ensure a coordinated, on-going effort among the federal agencies that have a role in high-performance computing. An earlier version of the bill was endorsed by the Bush Administration at a May 13, 2004 Full Committee hearing.
By voice vote, the Committee agreed to an amendment offered by Chairman Biggert that added a finding that emphasizes the importance of commercial application of the results of federal investment in computer science. By a vote of 19 to 17, the Committee rejected an amendment offered by Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA) that would have added a requirement that the National Science Foundation support research into the implications of computers that would be capable of mimicking human abilities to learn, reason, and make decisions.
The Sherman amendment was agreed to by the Committee in the 108th, Congress. Explaining the Majority’s opposition today, Chairman Boehlert said, “We’ve learned that it is adamantly opposed by the bill’s sponsor who happens to be one of our subcommittee chairs. We’ve learned that it is adamantly opposed by both industry and the Administration. We’ve learned that it is an obstacle to dealing with the Senate. And we learned all that the hard way while keeping to our agreement by trying to get this language through on another bill – Mrs. Biggert’s Energy Department computing bill that we got signed into law last year. Now I might be willing to continue to support this amendment despite all that if I thought that it dealt with a crucial and pressing problem. But it doesn’t. All the experts tell us we are nowhere near creating the dystopia that Mr. Sherman fears.”
From here, the bill will advance to the House floor where it’s expected to pass without difficulty, as H.R. 4218 did last year. Unfortunately, the hurdle for reauthorizations of NITRD programs lately has been the U.S. Senate. As Boehlert noted, H.R. 4218 failed to receive consideration by the Senate in the 108th Congress, though that seemed related to time constraints rather than any substantive objection to the bill. Previous efforts in the 107th and 106th Congresses also met a similar fate. However, this time Science Committee staff are optimistic that the earlier start they’ve gotten introducing and marking up the bill combined with its uncontroversial nature (there are, for example, no dollar amounts included in the bill that might earn the wrath of budget hawks — or prove helpful to the computing community in making the case for funding to appropriators…) means that the bill has a serious shot gaining Senate approval.
We’ll keep an eye on all the developments here….
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….
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
USACM Weighs in on Real ID Act
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaJust want to note that CRA-affiliate organization ACM’s U.S. Public Policy Committee (USACM) has crafted a sharp analysis of some of the technical pitfalls contained in the controversial Real ID Act, which attempts to set minimum standards for state driver’s licenses and an interstate compact to govern the sharing of driver’s license data between states. The bill has already passed the House and was included in a rider on a must-pass supplemental funding bill to be considered by the Senate. The Senate, however, has indicated they will strip the controversial bill from the supplemental they consider, guaranteeing a fight over the issue in conference.
Cameron Wilson has a summary of the situation as well as a copy of the letter USACM sent to Sen. Lamar Alexander, who recently expressed support for the concept of a national ID (but not this particular bill). USACM adds considerable value to the policy debate with this kind of analysis.
Must Read: NY Times – “A Blow to Computer Science Research”
/In: Funding, Policy, R&D in the Press /by Peter HarshaJohn Markoff writes in detail in Saturday’s NY Times about DARPA’s diminishing investment in university-based computer science research and its potential impact.
Markoff’s piece is largely based on answers the agency provided the Senate Armed Services Committee in response to the committee’s questions about DARPA’s historical support of IT R&D and the role of universities. In their response, DARPA noted that their overall support for computer science activites has averaged $578 million a year (inflation adjusted) for the last 13 years and that university participation in that research over the last 4 years has plummeted. (Due to “data constraints” they don’t have figures prior to FY 01.) In FY 01, DARPA funded $546 million in IT research overall, $214 million in universities. By FY 2004, the overall funding had risen to $583 million, and the university share had dropped to $123 million.
DARPA cited five “factors for the decline”:
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.
Essentially, they conceded that their focus in IT R&D is increasingly short-term (at least in the unclassified realm) and that universities are no longer significant performers of DARPA IT R&D (classified or unclassified). Not surprisingly, these are the two major concerns CRA has repeatedly cited about the agency.
Anyway, the article is a must read.
Update: (4/3/2005) – Noah Shactman at Defense Tech has a bit more: Darpa may be investing more in super-secret computer science research. But overall, the agency’s proposed classified budget has shrunk by over a third, a Congressional source tells Defense Tech.
Budget Cuts Mean Layoffs for Supercomputing Staff at NASA
/In: Funding, People, Policy, R&D in the Press /by Peter HarshaFederal Computer Week has a depressing article today on the impact of recent and planned cuts to NASA’s IT programs. The agency’s IT R&D programs are due to decline $66 million in FY 2005, with a further cut of $89 million requested in the President’s FY 2006 budget — a figure that would represent a total cut of 60 percent since FY 2004. The Administration says that NASA’s investments in IT R&D in FY 2006 will be reduced across the board, largely due to redirected funding to the President’s Moon/Mars initiative and the Space Shuttle Return to Flight program — the same reason given for the FY 2005 cuts that are putting pressure on agency supercomputing efforts now.
FCW says the cuts in FY 05 will result in 15 to 20 layoffs of NASA Ames’ supercomputing staff and 20 to 25 layoffs in its robotics staff (currently at 70 and 100, respectively). Buyout packages are being offered.
Read the whole article.
Concerns about the Status of the Federal Effort in IT R&D
/In: CRA, Funding, Policy /by Peter HarshaFor the last several years, CRA has provided an analysis of computing research in the Administration’s budget request for AAAS’ annual look at R&D in the President’s Budget Request. The book containing the CRA analysis won’t be available until April, but I thought I’d post some of the core of that effort here. After the jump (the “Continue Reading…” link below) you’ll find CRA’s look at the current policy environment — why we’re concerned about the significantly changed landscape for federal IT R&D funding, including an examination of DARPA’s diminished role and NSF’s enhanced one. When the book is released, I’ll post a link to it as well. CRA’s chapter is just one of 26 or so focused on just about every aspect of the overall R&D portfolio.
Read more →
DOE/IBM’s Blue Gene Nearly Doubles its Speed Record
/In: R&D in the Press, Research /by Peter HarshaBBC coverage of the jump to 135.5 teraflops.
ZDNet has more.
The feat won’t show up on the current Top500.org list until they release the next revision of the list, which I think will be in May (the last was released in November at the Supercomputing 2004 conference in Pittsburgh, and it seems to be issued at six month intervals).
Update: John West, Director of the ERDC MSRC — one of four DOD HPC program centers — e-mails with a helpful clarification:
He also notes that the LINPACK score (upon which the Top500 list is based) isn’t the best way to assess a supercomputer’s relative benefit to a discipline, despite it’s popularity — something I probably should have noted in my post.
In my defense, as limited as the LINPACK score is in what it says about a particular machine, it is the one number most people out here (certainly in the policy world) cling to when trying to understand progress in supercomputing. Though it wasn’t the message we sought to convey, the fact that the Japanese Earth Simulator was X teraflops faster than our “best” machine certainly focused the mind of a lot of policymakers in Congress last year, for better or worse. In talking about high-end computing with them, we certainly tried not to emphasize that measure; rather, we tried to talk about the importance of a sustained research effort on a diverse set of approaches to enable progress on a wide range of different problems.
John also notes that there are some interesting efforts to develop a new metric coming out of DARPA’s HPCS program, but those measures are likely to be a bit more complex — almost certainly spelling doom for their adoption over the “one number fits all” of the LINPACK.
PITAC Cyber Security Report is Out!
/In: R&D in the Press, Security /by Peter HarshaThe long-awaited PITAC report on Cyber Security, Cyber Security: A Crisis of Prioritization (pdf, 2.2mb) has just been released. The committee spent nearly a year reviewing the federal government’s cyber security R&D effort, a process we’ve covered in this space. The resulting report concludes that the IT infrastructure — beyond the public Internet — is a crucial piece of the nation’s critical infrastructures, such as power grids, air traffic control systems, financial systems, and military and intelligence systems. Given it’s importance, the committee finds that the federal cyber security R&D investment is inadequate and “imbalanced” towards short-term, defense oriented research, with little support for fundamental research to address the larger vulnerabilities of the civilian IT infrastructure. As a result the committee recommends changes to the portfolio to:
I’ll have more detail on the report as I work my way through it, but wanted to get a link up to it ASAP. At 72 pages cover-to-cover, the report is a very revealing examination of the federal cyber security R&D portfolio.
Update: (3/19/05) – The NY Times’ John Markoff has more on the report today, including this quote from PITAC co-Chair Ed Lazowska:
For the record, it may be true that DHS’ overall budget for “cyber security” activities has gone up, but cyber security R&D — the focus of this report and, one would think, a focus of the DHS Science and Technology directorate — has actually been flat at DHS for the last two fiscal years at a paltry $18 million out of an overall S&T budget of just about $1 billion per year. And of that tiny share only $1.5 million could truly be called “long-term” research — research beyond patching the holes in the current systems. As the report points out, without research into fundamentally new approaches, we’ll be “endlessly patching and plugging holes in the dike” for years to come. It’s also worth noting that the President’s budget for cyber security research at DHS this year actually takes a step backwards. For FY 2006, the President’s budget would cut cyber security R&D at the agency to $17 million, a decrease of $1 million from FY 2005….
House Science Passes HPC Authorization
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaThe House Science Committee marked up a series of bills today including H.R. 28, the High Performance Computing Revitalization Act, a bill we covered in depth last year when it was introduced as H.R. 4218. CRA endorsed that bill, and has endorsed H.R. 28. Here’s a summary of today’s activities from the House Science Committee press release.
From here, the bill will advance to the House floor where it’s expected to pass without difficulty, as H.R. 4218 did last year. Unfortunately, the hurdle for reauthorizations of NITRD programs lately has been the U.S. Senate. As Boehlert noted, H.R. 4218 failed to receive consideration by the Senate in the 108th Congress, though that seemed related to time constraints rather than any substantive objection to the bill. Previous efforts in the 107th and 106th Congresses also met a similar fate. However, this time Science Committee staff are optimistic that the earlier start they’ve gotten introducing and marking up the bill combined with its uncontroversial nature (there are, for example, no dollar amounts included in the bill that might earn the wrath of budget hawks — or prove helpful to the computing community in making the case for funding to appropriators…) means that the bill has a serious shot gaining Senate approval.
We’ll keep an eye on all the developments here….
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….