NSF Wants Your Comments

The NSF is seeking comments by the research community on a draft of their 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. The deadline for comments is July 17, 2006 and comments can be made at the website or by emailing strategicplaninput@nsf.gov.
The draft includes many mentions throughout the plan of the need for cyberinfrastructure and includes a bullet that says:

Develop a comprehensive, integrated cyberinfrastructure to drive discovery in all fields of science and engineering. NSF will initiate the first steps toward the development of a petascale computing facility; investigate the development of a next-generation Internet; and advance a wide variety of generic and domain specific cyberinfrastructure projects supporting global-scale research and education communities.

The new plan also includes a great deal on education at the K-12 and undergraduate levels and on “informal education” through museums, aquariums, and the like.

 

The House today approved increasing funding for two key science agencies called out for increases in the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative last February. The House passed the FY 2007 Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriation bill by a large margin (393-23), approving an increase of nearly 8 percent to the budget of the National Science Foundation and 14 percent to core research programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. With the passage of the SSJC, along with the passage on May 24, 2006, of the FY 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, the House has now approved all of the funding the President requested for the three key agencies targeted by the ACI: NSF, NIST and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
As we noted in our previous coverage of the SSJC, there was some concern expressed by both Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), the sponsor of the bill, and those of us in the science advocacy community that the increases for NSF and NIST called for in the bill might be at risk on the House floor. The fear was that Members of Congress who are fans of programs that received cuts in the bill (as many did) would seek to address those cuts in amendments. Because of the House rules, any amendment seeking to increase funding for one program in the bill must also seek to offset that increase by cutting program funding elsewhere in the bill. Given that the ACI agencies received very healthy increases in an otherwise austere bill, there was a fear that the ACI increases would be juicy targets for Members not as concerned about US innovation and competitiveness. However, that fear appears to have been unfounded, as the funding levels approved by the committee last week emerged unscathed in the floor debate yesterday and today.
As we noted previously, though, those increase remain at risk in the Senate, as appropriators there struggle with how to mitigate significant cuts to NOAA in both the House bill and the President’s budget request. We’ll have more on the Senate appropriations effort as the details emerge.
However, it’s hard to understate the significance of the House action today. The House acted to reverse a long-standing lack of support for research in the fundamental physical sciences, mathematics, computing and engineering. In doing so, they have sent a very clear message that this research forms the core of our economic and scientific future and is worthy of federal support. Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) put it well in his remarks on the House floor:

These agencies, which are not exactly on the tip of everyone’s tongue, are keystones of our nation’s economic future. Our nation will remain strong and prosperous only if we remain innovative. And we will only remain innovative if we have the most robust research and education enterprise in the world. And it is these agencies that help enable the U.S. to lead the world in science, math and engineering education and in research.

So, the community owes big thanks to Rep. Wolf, Ranking Member Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Rep. Boehlert, and Science Committee Ranking Member Bart Gordon (D-TN), as well as to the other 389 Members of Congress who voted in support of securing America’s innovative future.

 

Outsourcing Our Snowbird Coverage

So, having caught my breath a bit after a long few days at CRA’s biennial Snowbird “Chairs’ Conference,” I was just setting out to write up a post with some of the highlights of the conference when I saw that Cameron Wilson of ACM’s Technology Policy Blog had already beaten me to the punch. Cameron’s summary of Rick Rashid’s talk today on bringing the romance back to computer science is right on target and well worth reading…so the first thing you should probably do is go there.
In addition to Rashid’s talk, the other keynotes/plenaries were also very good. Genevieve Bell, Director of Domestic Designs and Technologies Research at Intel, gave a wonderful keynote speech drawing upon her experience as an anthropologist helping Intel understand the needs of its customers. She highlighted the incredibly varied ways different cultures make use of technologies, pointing out how these uses illustrate a whole range of different computing futures. (Her slides, as well as all the others, will be available here as soon as they’re posted.)
As Cameron mentioned, Ed Lazowska laid out the opportunities and challenges ahead for computing — pointing out the unique opportunity the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative presents and the reasons to be optimistic and energized by the intellectual challenges and career opportunities in the field. Ed’s talk (slides available here) helped provide themes that speakers referenced in many of the sessions that followed.
Dan Reed’s “State of Computing” talk was also very effective, I thought, (and not just because he’s CRA’s Chair and my boss) laying out the essential role of computing as an intellectual lever and discussing the need for the computing community to engage in grand visioning and find a compelling, unified voice. When his slides are up, I’ll post the link right here because they’re worth reviewing.
All in all, I hope the attendees left the conference today feeling more energized about the discipline — reminded of the intellectual richness of the field, the promise of the work, the improving budget climate, and with a clearer sense the true opportunities (growing opportunities) in the field — to arrive back at their home institutions more optimistic than ever about the future of computing.