House Appropriations Chair Jerry Lewis (R-CA) is apparently proposing the most radical restructuring of the Appropriations Committee in decades, according to an article appearing in today’s Congress Daily (sub. req’d). Peter Cohn, writes (sorry, I can’t find it online), that the proposal would pare the 13 appropriations committees down to 10 and would move NASA and the National Science Foundation out from beneath the veterans’ programs and housing programs in the VA-HUD appropriations and into the Energy and Water Appropriations, where they would join the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy.
The proposal is very similar to the appropriations reorganization originally floated by House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) (which we covered here). The proposal doesn’t quite create the “Science Subcommittee” that was rumored to have been part of Delay’s original proposal — the National Institutes of Health, along with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration won’t be affected by the move. But it’s more ambitious than most predicted.
I think this could potentially raise the prominence of NASA and NSF within the approps process, as they’ll be sharing a subcommittee with agencies with more modest budgets (Corps of Engineers = ~$4.8 billion; DOE = ~$23 billion) than the two behemoths in VA-HUD (VA = ~$65 billion and HUD = ~$38 billion). One potential negative, however, is that the Energy and Water bill tends to be a magnet for congressional earmarks — typically for water projects within home districts.
The plan faces some resistance from Senate Appropriations Chair Thad Cochran (R-MS), who told Congress Daily that he’s “in no rush to make major changes.” One Senator who will surely object to any move to eliminate the VA-HUD subcommittee is Kit Bond (R-MO), who is slated to return as its chairman.
The House leadership apparently plans to go ahead with the change regardless of what the Senate decides. Should the Senate not go along with the move, reconciliation of the bills in conference could be chaotic.
In any case, expect that whatever reorganization will happen will happen soon. As always, keep it tuned here for the latest details…. Update: It appears Rep. David Hobson (R-OH) would be in line to take over the newly constituted Energy and Water subcommittee (with NSF and NASA)….
The British Computer Society, inspired by a similar effort undertaken by CRA, has released a report identifying seven “Grand Challenges” in computing research. The report, the result of a series of workshops and discussions featuring the UK’s top computer academics, calls for the continued development of a long-term research area in each of the following areas:
In Vivo–in Silico (iViS): the virtual worm, weed and bug
Science for global ubiquitous computing
Memories for life: managing information information over a human lifetime
Scalable ubiquitous computing systems
The architecture of brain and mind
Dependable systems evolution
Journeys in non-classical computation
These challenges seem to map nicely with the five challenges identified at CRA’s first Grand Challenge workshop, held in June 2002. That conference focused on Grand Research Challenges in Information Systems (pdf) and identified the following challenges:
Systems you can count on
A teacher for every learner
911.net (ubiquitous information systems)
Augmented cognition
Conquering complexity
For more on the BCS Grand Challenges, here’s the press release marking the release of the report, as well as the BCS Grand Challenges website.
CRA’s Grand Challenges activities (in Information Systems, and in Information Security and Assurance) are linked here.
The Senate Majority and Minority leaders announced yesterday their respective parties’ “legislative priorities” for the new session of Congress, highlighting different perspectives on the relative importance of federal support for R&D.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that “expanding high-speed Internet access, targeting terrorists, ending tax incentives for U.S. companies located overseas and increasing the minimum wage, among other items, top their agenda,” according to Tech Daily (sub req’d). The Senate Democratic agenda includes a fairly prominent mention of support for federal R&D as part of their efforts to promote “Expanding Economic Opportunity” in Senate bill S. 14:
Strengthen and Restore American Innovative Strength through Commitment to Research, Science and Technology. Research and development results in higher quality jobs, better and safer products and higher productivity among American businesses. U.S. economic strength is dependent on its leadership in science and technology, and the U.S. is losing ground to foreign competitors. The U.S. needs to re-commit itself to the value of public investment in research and development, which is being outpaced by investment in the private sector. This bill makes permanent a tax credit for entities that increase their research activities and makes a credit available to consortia of entities that research collaboratively. The bill also expresses support for legislation that will increase federally funded research at the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science at the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Science and Technology so we can better compete in the international economy, as well investment in math, science and technology programs at our secondary education institutions.
Also included in the Senate Democratic Agenda (under the same bill) is language aimed at encouraging broadband deployment:
America continues to fall behind our competitors in access to broadband internet service. Most of the communities lacking service are in rural and economically-distressed areas of the country. S. 14 expands broadband availability to these areas by allowing broadband service providers to immediately deduct one-half of the cost of their investment in equipment to provide current generation broadband access to rural and underserved areas.
Of course, these sorts of proposals are a bit easier to make when you’re not in the majority, but it’s encouraging to see them featured so prominently nonetheless.
On the Senate Republican side, overt mentions of support for federal R&D are a little harder to find. Senate bill S.4 in the Senate Republican’s Top Ten (pdf), the “Healthy America Act” recognizes that health information technology can make health care more affordable and supports the adoption of standards that might make Electronic Health Records feasible — but other than noting that the recommendation is similar to a PITAC recommendation along the same lines in the committee’s Health and Information Technology report (pdf), and that the PITAC also recommended significant R&D in the area to address considerable challenges, it’s probably a stretch to call that a ringing endorsement of federal R&D. Tech Daily reports that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) also mentioned
technology initiatives to better prepare for, respond to and prevent terrorist attacks. Frist said Republicans would put forward a bill approved last year that would help transfer advanced technologies from federal departments and agencies to state and local “first responders” to emergencies.
But again, certainly not a ringing endorsement of fundamental research.
Lest I make it seem like this perception of the importance of federal R&D support is strictly a partisan difference, I’ll quote an interesting passage in Newt Gingrich’s new book, Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America. Gingrich still wields some influence in the party, though obviously not nearly the clout he once had as Speaker and the leader of the Republican Revolution that took back the House in ’94. He clearly “gets” R&D:
INVESTING IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
The research budget of the United States should be considered part of the national security budget. Investing in science (including math and science education) is the most important strategic investment we make in continued American leadership economically and militarily. Investing in science has also been the most consistent, powerful, single mechanism for extending life and for improving the quality of life. When developing the federal budget, the investment in science should be considered immediately after operational military requirements and before any of the traditional domestic spending programs.
Congress should consider establishing a separate budget line item for federal research and protecting it from encroachment by all the interest groups who want immediate gratification for their projects. Special interests can find funding for highways, subsidies to farmers, and public housing. For a variety of reasons scientists and those who believe in science have a harder time making a ‘pork barrel’ or special interest appeal for more money.
In the next few years the requirements are pretty straight forward.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) should increase at a rate that allows it to sustain its current research program. Having recently doubled the NIH budget, Congress does not need to double it again immediately. Congress should be aware, however, of the crippling impact of a flat budget when research opportunities and needs are growing.
The National Science Foundation’s (NSF) budget should be tripled over the next five years. The Foundation is the engine of basic research for the United States, and most of our modern medical advances have come as the result of basic research initially funded by the NSF.
The specialized agencies, the laboratories at the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the national Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should all be asked to develop a master plan for the science they could do if properly funded. Funding should follow proportionate to the research they can explain and defend.
The Department of Energy has an opportunity to transform the entire energy economy (and the American balance of trade) through its work on hydrogen. If the Department of Energy succeeds in developing a commercially sustainable hydrogen market, its impact on the environment, the economy, and national security will be extraordinary. This project deserves as big an investment as it can reasonably use.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology has been leading the way in researching quantum mechanics and its work needs to be continued.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has enormous opportunities in ocean science and in understanding global climate change. A society that may end up spending trillions to avoid global climate change should be willing to spend 1 percent as much understanding this topic.
The yardstick should be very simple: What are our children’s future and our grandchildren’s future worth to us? What are the breakthroughs that might accelerate our economy, save our lives, and protect our national worth to us? From that baseline we should develop our research budget each year.
The 2005 Richard Tapia Celebration of Diversity in Computing Conference has issued a call for participation seeking submissions for papers, panels, posters, birds-of-a-feather and workshop sessions for the three-day conference.
Tapia 2005, the third in the series, will be held Oct. 19-22, 2005, in Albuquerque under the theme “A Diversity of Scholars a Tapestry of Discovery.”
ComputerWeekly.comnotes today that an EU commission charged with assessing the state of EU IT research efforts has concluded that the effort is failing because of insufficient funding and heavy-handed bureaucracy.
The panel said the research was vital for competitiveness but that it more investment and less bureaucracy are required for success.
The panel was chaired by former Portuguese science minister Jose Mariano Gago, who was one of the authors of the European Commissions 10-year Lisbon Strategy, which aims to make the EU the “world’s most dynamic and competitive economy.”
Viviane Reding, European Commission information society and media commissioner, said, “Fast-changing IST research is, and must remain, a key driver for the rapid economy-wide technological innovation on which Europes skilled jobs ultimately depend.”
As we’ve noted before (Are we taking NSF for granted?), the Europeans are increasingly aware how important US investment in IT R&D has been to US competitiveness and are moving to mirror it. While it appears US industry leaders and academics recognize the value of that investment, unfortunately, it appears the Administration and Congress may not be quitesosure.
Thanks to Dave Farber (via IP) for the story!
Facing heat on the right for excessive spending, President Bush has apparently indicated he will provide a “very tough” spending blueprint to Congress for FY 2006. In a commentary posted today, the Washington Timesquotes members of the Administration saying the President will exert “very, very strong discipline” on next year’s spending.
“That discipline will be there big time,” [White House Chief of Staff Andrew] Card told business leaders.”
The Times is pretty specific in predicting the cuts:
Among the budget-cutting targets: the bloated Agriculture Department, corporate welfare, scientific research, housing, state and local giveaway grants, and other low-priority and no-priority programs that will be slashed or eliminated altogether.
…
The National Science Foundation’s social research grants, long criticized as wasteful, will be cut and NSF’s overall spending is expected to be flatlined. So will the National Institutes of Health, which has seen its budget skyrocket over the past decade, especially in the past four years.
[emphasis added]
This is very disturbing news, not just because of the cuts it portends, but because the attitude on display in the article is a far cry from the very supportive language we’ve seen this Administration use in reference to the National Science Foundation and the rest of the federal basic research effort. My hope is that the article is more reflective of the Heritage Foundation position on the budget than the President’s, but we’ll know for sure on February 7th.
In the meantime, let’s reflect on the President’s feelings about the federal role in R&D as they were expressed in last year’s budget request. Surely the situation hasn’t changed so much in the intervening 12 months that he no longer believes this, has it?
The eminent 19th Century American scientist Joseph Henry once asserted, “Modern civilization depends on science.” This still holds true. Indeed, investments in science and technology have resulted in much of the unparalleled economic growth in the United States over the last 50 years, as well as the standard of living and quality of life we now enjoy. Advances have been possible only with the support of both public and private investment in research and development (R&D).
And we continue to invest. The R&D investments of the United States are unmatched. However, unlike 40 years ago, when Federal R&D expenditures doubled those of the private sector, industry R&D spending now exceeds that of the Federal Government. Still, by a wide margin, the U.S. Government continues to lead the world in R&D spending.
Investments in technological advancement are vital to strengthening our capabilities to combat terrorism and defend our country. The Presidents 2005 Budget continues to focus R&D on winning the war against terrorism, while moderating the growth in overall spending. But the benefits of innovation and discovery are not limited to national security. They are just as critical to economic security. The Administration, recognizing that fundamental research is the fuel for future innovation and technology development, has maintained the highest levels of support for priority R&D areas such as nanotechnology, information technology, hydrogen energy, and space exploration. The non-defense R&D share of the discretionary budget is at a near record high over the last 30 years.
–Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States of America, FY 2005 (p. 47) – (pdf)
The Coalition for National Security Research has begun a blog to note and comment on the latest news in Defense R&D.
CNSR is “a broadly-based coalition united by a commitment to a stronger defense science and technology base. Participants include scientific, engineering, mathematical and behavioral societies, academic institutions, and industrial associations.” And CRA.
Anyway, it’s definitely worth taking a look. Tom Jones, CNSR’s co-chair, has been blogging up a storm already.
Full Disclosure: Any ugly HTML/PHP coding on the CNSR blog is my fault.
The President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) achieved consensus yesterday on the final draft of its report on the status of the federal cyber security R&D effort, finding that support for civilian-oriented, fundamental cyber security research is seriously inadequate, the pool of researchers is insufficient, and that coordination between funding agencies is lacking.
Judging by yesterday’s presentation (delivered by Tom Leighton, the Chair of PITAC’s Subcommittee on Cyber Security), the report will lay out in stark terms the magnitude of the threat posed by vulnerabilities in the information infrastructure. It will also spell out in some detail the difficulties faced by researchers, especially in academic institutions, in finding federal support for the fundamental cyber security research that will address the vulnerabilities long-term. The report will note problems in all three agencies one would expect to be funding critical long-term cyber security R&D: NSF, DARPA and the Department of Homeland Security. I’ve covered these issues before inthisspace, but here are the key points:
DHS sees itself as a supporter of short-term research, funding very near-term technologies in an effort to address the current threat. Of a more than $1 billion science and technology budget for FY05, it will spend less than $18 million on cyber security research, of which only $1.5 million might be called “basic.” DHS says it’s dependent upon DARPA and NSF to provide the long-term research it will need in the future.
Two policies at DARPA have made it very difficult for academic researchers to participate in DARPA-supported research: a short-term focus with an emphasis on weeding out projects that can’t demonstrate measurable results in 12- to 18-month timeframes; and, a move towards classification of a larger percentage of the DARPA research budget, especially in cyber security. As a result, university participation in DARPA-led IT research appears to have dropped significantly.
NSF’s CyberTrust program (its research in cyber security) is heavily over-subscribed as a result. Proposal success rates are 8 percent, vs. a Foundation-wide average of about 25 percent. Proposal success rates that low are damaging to the discipline and to the nation that depends on that research. The Foundation believes about 40 percent of those proposals as good enough to warrant funding, were funding available.
As a quick fix, the committee will recommend an immediate $90 million infusion of funding into NSF’s cyber security research efforts to alleviate some of these funding pressures, while leaving the door open to future funding increases should the situation warrant it.
Rather than summarize Leighton’s whole presentation, I’ll just link to the slides...once they’ve been posted (should be soon). When they appear, they’ll be here. They’re here (pdf).
I’ll recommend again CRA’s own contribution to the report: our testimony (pdf) submitted to PITAC back in July, which mirrors much of what will be in the final report. In fact, it appears that the only major concern we raised which doesn’t get some mention in the report is the chilling effect of various copyright legislation efforts on research in information security and assurance.
CRA’s testimony is here (pdf).
The committee is putting its final touches on the report, which should be ready for final approval at the next meeting of PITAC, which I believe will be in March. We’ll have all the details here.
For the current fiscal year, Congress cut the budget of the National Science Foundation by about 2 percent, to $5.47 billion, and the White House Office of Management and Budget initially proposed a further cut of about 5 percent for 2006. But the agency appealed, with support from allies like Senator Christopher S. Bond, Republican of Missouri, and the White House decided to propose a flat budget, instead of cuts.
The White House budget office initially sought a small cut at the National Institutes of Health, which received an appropriation of $28.4 billion for the current fiscal year. But after an appeal by Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, the White House agreed to propose a small increase, less than 2 percent, which would not be enough to keep pace with the rising costs of biomedical research.
…
Mr. Bush will try again to end the Advanced Technology Program in the Commerce Department, which is spending $142 million this year to speed development of high-risk technologies in medicine, manufacturing, engineering, computer science and other fields. President Bill Clinton liked the program, but the conservative Heritage Foundation calls it “corporate welfare at its worst.”
The President will start the annual budget cycle on February 7, 2005, with the release of his budget request. It will then be up to Congress to come up with it’s own version in March or April, then begin the process of passing appropriations bills, ideally before the start of the 2006 fiscal year on October 1, 2005 (an ideal it rarely achieves). Appropriations staffers have already made it clear that they don’t expect to be able to provide much help in getting increases for agencies beyond the President’s request, so the FY 06 cycle looks to be another tough one for the science agencies.
Along with the rest of the scientific community, CRA has already been active in the FY 06 budget process, making a direct appeal to White House Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua Bolten for sufficient funding for computing research in the President’s budget request. In that appeal, we noted the particular pressure faced by NSF’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) directorate as a result of the latest funding cuts and the changing funding landscape for university-led computing research — particularly changes at DARPA* that have discouraged university researcher participation in DOD programs.
In part because of that change in support at DARPA, NSF now bears a disproportionate share of the load for funding fundamental IT R&D in universities (about 85%), a fact which has helped contribute to discouragingly low success rates in CISE. In fact, since 1994, while the CISE budget has doubled, the number of proposals submitted to CISE has tripled, and the funding rate has fallen from 36 percent to 16 percent — the lowest of any directorate in the Foundation. In some critical programs like CyberTrust, the award rate is even lower: 8.2 percent. Award rates this low are not only harmful to the vitality of computing community, they are harmful to the nation. As we noted in our appeal, “NSF research funding not only leads to multi-billion dollar industry segments, it also produces the PhDs that industry needs and wants more of for advanced product development and research. This is vital to continuing economic recovery and growth.”
If you haven’t yet joined CRA’s Computing Research Advocacy Network, now would be a good time. As we move through the budget process, we’ll have a number of opportunities to make the case for computing research and could use your help. In the meantime, keep an eye on this space for further developments.
* CRA has been concerned for some time over what we see is a shift at DARPA from a focus on long-term research to shorter-term research. Tony Tether, since taking over as head of the agency in 2001, has been plain in his desire to reshape DARPA in the model of a high-tech venture capital firm – identifying promising technologies early and providing them with the capital needed to turn them into demonstrable technologies on short-timelines. Key to this identification process is DARPA’s implementation of a formal “go/no-go” decision matrix for all DARPA funded research projects. In addition to facing a traditional annual review, in which DARPA managers verify that contract work is proceeding according to plan and on-budget, DARPA contract recipients now face multiple review milestones at relatively short 12 to 18 month intervals, by which their projects must deliver some demonstrable result in order to receive continued funding.
To some, DARPA’s approach appears to represent a reasonably business-like approach to providing good stewardship over taxpayer dollars in the course of developing the technologies necessary for national security in the post-September 11th world. However, for university researchers accustomed to working on basic research problems, the idea of “scheduling” breakthroughs or demonstrable results on 12 month timelines is anathema to the basic research enterprise and nearly impossible to do in an academic environment. CRA believes that DARPA’s new funding regime has constrained university researchers from pursuing DARPA contracts, effectively preventing some of the best minds in the country from working on national security problems. The “go/no-go” decisions result in research that is evolutionary, not revolutionary, with potential grantees only proposing ideas they can be sure to deliver significant progress on in 12 months. Failing to consider long-term research could leave the nation once-again “flat-footed” to the new threats of the 21st Century.
The other policy concern surrounding DARPA is the increased use of classification to limit the dissemination of its research, particularly its cyber security research underway. Tether has stated in a number of public forums – including at CRA’s Computing Leadership Summit in February 2004 and the April 2004 meeting of PITAC – that the move towards increasing the amount of research under classification is justified given the Department of Defense’s increasing reliance on “network-centric” operations for its warfighting capability. There are, of course, important reasons for classifying federal research, especially when it is clear that the research might reveal our capabilities or vulnerabilities. However, it should also be understood that there are real costs – including that the research is unavailable for public dissemination and scrutiny, and that many university researchers, arguably some of the best minds in the country, are no longer able to contribute to the work. In the case of DARPA’s cyber security research, there is another significant cost to bear as well. The military (and the government overall) has a huge dependence on our nation’s commercial infrastructure, but classifying the research in information security means that it is largely unavailable for use in protecting this commercial infrastructure.
Jim Horning uses the frustration he and I faced yesterday trying to figure out why he was having trouble with a link in Wednesday’s post on R&D funding to make some observations about the risks of lenient parsing. He’s got the whole story there.
His interesting blog is Nothing is as simple as we hope it will be.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
Appropriations Reorganization Update: NSF and NASA to Energy and Water?
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaHouse Appropriations Chair Jerry Lewis (R-CA) is apparently proposing the most radical restructuring of the Appropriations Committee in decades, according to an article appearing in today’s Congress Daily (sub. req’d). Peter Cohn, writes (sorry, I can’t find it online), that the proposal would pare the 13 appropriations committees down to 10 and would move NASA and the National Science Foundation out from beneath the veterans’ programs and housing programs in the VA-HUD appropriations and into the Energy and Water Appropriations, where they would join the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy.
The proposal is very similar to the appropriations reorganization originally floated by House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) (which we covered here). The proposal doesn’t quite create the “Science Subcommittee” that was rumored to have been part of Delay’s original proposal — the National Institutes of Health, along with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration won’t be affected by the move. But it’s more ambitious than most predicted.
I think this could potentially raise the prominence of NASA and NSF within the approps process, as they’ll be sharing a subcommittee with agencies with more modest budgets (Corps of Engineers = ~$4.8 billion; DOE = ~$23 billion) than the two behemoths in VA-HUD (VA = ~$65 billion and HUD = ~$38 billion). One potential negative, however, is that the Energy and Water bill tends to be a magnet for congressional earmarks — typically for water projects within home districts.
The plan faces some resistance from Senate Appropriations Chair Thad Cochran (R-MS), who told Congress Daily that he’s “in no rush to make major changes.” One Senator who will surely object to any move to eliminate the VA-HUD subcommittee is Kit Bond (R-MO), who is slated to return as its chairman.
The House leadership apparently plans to go ahead with the change regardless of what the Senate decides. Should the Senate not go along with the move, reconciliation of the bills in conference could be chaotic.
In any case, expect that whatever reorganization will happen will happen soon. As always, keep it tuned here for the latest details….
Update: It appears Rep. David Hobson (R-OH) would be in line to take over the newly constituted Energy and Water subcommittee (with NSF and NASA)….
British Computer Society Releases Grand Challenges
/In: Research /by Peter HarshaThe British Computer Society, inspired by a similar effort undertaken by CRA, has released a report identifying seven “Grand Challenges” in computing research. The report, the result of a series of workshops and discussions featuring the UK’s top computer academics, calls for the continued development of a long-term research area in each of the following areas:
These challenges seem to map nicely with the five challenges identified at CRA’s first Grand Challenge workshop, held in June 2002. That conference focused on Grand Research Challenges in Information Systems (pdf) and identified the following challenges:
For more on the BCS Grand Challenges, here’s the press release marking the release of the report, as well as the BCS Grand Challenges website.
CRA’s Grand Challenges activities (in Information Systems, and in Information Security and Assurance) are linked here.
R&D and Legislative Priorities: Senate Edition
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaThe Senate Majority and Minority leaders announced yesterday their respective parties’ “legislative priorities” for the new session of Congress, highlighting different perspectives on the relative importance of federal support for R&D.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that “expanding high-speed Internet access, targeting terrorists, ending tax incentives for U.S. companies located overseas and increasing the minimum wage, among other items, top their agenda,” according to Tech Daily (sub req’d). The Senate Democratic agenda includes a fairly prominent mention of support for federal R&D as part of their efforts to promote “Expanding Economic Opportunity” in Senate bill S. 14:
Also included in the Senate Democratic Agenda (under the same bill) is language aimed at encouraging broadband deployment:
Of course, these sorts of proposals are a bit easier to make when you’re not in the majority, but it’s encouraging to see them featured so prominently nonetheless.
On the Senate Republican side, overt mentions of support for federal R&D are a little harder to find. Senate bill S.4 in the Senate Republican’s Top Ten (pdf), the “Healthy America Act” recognizes that health information technology can make health care more affordable and supports the adoption of standards that might make Electronic Health Records feasible — but other than noting that the recommendation is similar to a PITAC recommendation along the same lines in the committee’s Health and Information Technology report (pdf), and that the PITAC also recommended significant R&D in the area to address considerable challenges, it’s probably a stretch to call that a ringing endorsement of federal R&D.
Tech Daily reports that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) also mentioned
But again, certainly not a ringing endorsement of fundamental research.
Lest I make it seem like this perception of the importance of federal R&D support is strictly a partisan difference, I’ll quote an interesting passage in Newt Gingrich’s new book, Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America. Gingrich still wields some influence in the party, though obviously not nearly the clout he once had as Speaker and the leader of the Republican Revolution that took back the House in ’94. He clearly “gets” R&D:
Thanks to Barry Toiv of AAU for the quote.
Tapia Conference on Diversity in Computing CFP
/In: Research /by Peter HarshaHere’s the scoop:
All the details here.
EU Says Bureaucracy Hurting IT Research Efforts, Competitiveness
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaComputerWeekly.com notes today that an EU commission charged with assessing the state of EU IT research efforts has concluded that the effort is failing because of insufficient funding and heavy-handed bureaucracy.
As we’ve noted before (Are we taking NSF for granted?), the Europeans are increasingly aware how important US investment in IT R&D has been to US competitiveness and are moving to mirror it. While it appears US industry leaders and academics recognize the value of that investment, unfortunately, it appears the Administration and Congress may not be quite so sure.
Thanks to Dave Farber (via IP) for the story!
President Will Target “Scientific Research” in New Budget, Wash Times Says
/In: Funding /by Peter HarshaFacing heat on the right for excessive spending, President Bush has apparently indicated he will provide a “very tough” spending blueprint to Congress for FY 2006. In a commentary posted today, the Washington Times quotes members of the Administration saying the President will exert “very, very strong discipline” on next year’s spending.
The Times is pretty specific in predicting the cuts:
This is very disturbing news, not just because of the cuts it portends, but because the attitude on display in the article is a far cry from the very supportive language we’ve seen this Administration use in reference to the National Science Foundation and the rest of the federal basic research effort. My hope is that the article is more reflective of the Heritage Foundation position on the budget than the President’s, but we’ll know for sure on February 7th.
In the meantime, let’s reflect on the President’s feelings about the federal role in R&D as they were expressed in last year’s budget request. Surely the situation hasn’t changed so much in the intervening 12 months that he no longer believes this, has it?
Sigh.
New Defense R&D Blog Worth Checking Out
/In: Misc. /by Peter HarshaThe Coalition for National Security Research has begun a blog to note and comment on the latest news in Defense R&D.
CNSR is “a broadly-based coalition united by a commitment to a stronger defense science and technology base. Participants include scientific, engineering, mathematical and behavioral societies, academic institutions, and industrial associations.” And CRA.
Anyway, it’s definitely worth taking a look. Tom Jones, CNSR’s co-chair, has been blogging up a storm already.
Full Disclosure: Any ugly HTML/PHP coding on the CNSR blog is my fault.
PITAC Approves Cyber Security Report Calling For Significant Increases in Basic Cyber R&D
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaThe President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) achieved consensus yesterday on the final draft of its report on the status of the federal cyber security R&D effort, finding that support for civilian-oriented, fundamental cyber security research is seriously inadequate, the pool of researchers is insufficient, and that coordination between funding agencies is lacking.
Judging by yesterday’s presentation (delivered by Tom Leighton, the Chair of PITAC’s Subcommittee on Cyber Security), the report will lay out in stark terms the magnitude of the threat posed by vulnerabilities in the information infrastructure. It will also spell out in some detail the difficulties faced by researchers, especially in academic institutions, in finding federal support for the fundamental cyber security research that will address the vulnerabilities long-term. The report will note problems in all three agencies one would expect to be funding critical long-term cyber security R&D: NSF, DARPA and the Department of Homeland Security. I’ve covered these issues before in this space, but here are the key points:
As a quick fix, the committee will recommend an immediate $90 million infusion of funding into NSF’s cyber security research efforts to alleviate some of these funding pressures, while leaving the door open to future funding increases should the situation warrant it.
Rather than summarize Leighton’s whole presentation, I’ll just link to the slides..
.once they’ve been posted (should be soon). When they appear, they’ll be here.They’re here (pdf).I’ll recommend again CRA’s own contribution to the report: our testimony (pdf) submitted to PITAC back in July, which mirrors much of what will be in the final report. In fact, it appears that the only major concern we raised which doesn’t get some mention in the report is the chilling effect of various copyright legislation efforts on research in information security and assurance.
CRA’s testimony is here (pdf).
The committee is putting its final touches on the report, which should be ready for final approval at the next meeting of PITAC, which I believe will be in March. We’ll have all the details here.
President to Propose Flat-funding for NSF, Increase for NIH, NY Times Reports
/In: Funding /by Peter HarshaThe New York Times appears to have some detail about what the President will propose as part of his FY 2006 Budget Request for the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. It doesn’t look good.
The President will start the annual budget cycle on February 7, 2005, with the release of his budget request. It will then be up to Congress to come up with it’s own version in March or April, then begin the process of passing appropriations bills, ideally before the start of the 2006 fiscal year on October 1, 2005 (an ideal it rarely achieves). Appropriations staffers have already made it clear that they don’t expect to be able to provide much help in getting increases for agencies beyond the President’s request, so the FY 06 cycle looks to be another tough one for the science agencies.
Along with the rest of the scientific community, CRA has already been active in the FY 06 budget process, making a direct appeal to White House Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua Bolten for sufficient funding for computing research in the President’s budget request. In that appeal, we noted the particular pressure faced by NSF’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) directorate as a result of the latest funding cuts and the changing funding landscape for university-led computing research — particularly changes at DARPA* that have discouraged university researcher participation in DOD programs.
In part because of that change in support at DARPA, NSF now bears a disproportionate share of the load for funding fundamental IT R&D in universities (about 85%), a fact which has helped contribute to discouragingly low success rates in CISE. In fact, since 1994, while the CISE budget has doubled, the number of proposals submitted to CISE has tripled, and the funding rate has fallen from 36 percent to 16 percent — the lowest of any directorate in the Foundation. In some critical programs like CyberTrust, the award rate is even lower: 8.2 percent. Award rates this low are not only harmful to the vitality of computing community, they are harmful to the nation. As we noted in our appeal, “NSF research funding not only leads to multi-billion dollar industry segments, it also produces the PhDs that industry needs and wants more of for advanced product development and research. This is vital to continuing economic recovery and growth.”
If you haven’t yet joined CRA’s Computing Research Advocacy Network, now would be a good time. As we move through the budget process, we’ll have a number of opportunities to make the case for computing research and could use your help. In the meantime, keep an eye on this space for further developments.
Turning My Bad HTML into a Teachable Moment
/In: Misc. /by Peter HarshaJim Horning uses the frustration he and I faced yesterday trying to figure out why he was having trouble with a link in Wednesday’s post on R&D funding to make some observations about the risks of lenient parsing. He’s got the whole story there.
His interesting blog is Nothing is as simple as we hope it will be.