Tether Era at DARPA Coming to an End

On February 9, 2009, In People, By Peter Harsha

Dr. Tony Tether, the longest-tenured Director in DARPA’s 50+ year history and a target of frequent criticism from the computing community and the university community for the direction the agency has taken under his leadership, is apparently out as of February 20, 2009. Tether made the announcement in an email to DARPA staffers:

The Time to Go has Been Settled
As you know, I had said that I was asked to stay on at DARPA until replaced.
It turns out that that was not the case.
I was informed last week that the Administration had decided that I was to leave now with February 20th as a two week notice.
So it’s over.
But it has been a good ride and we have many, perhaps thousands, of technology developments most of which are yet to come, but also many which are out being used saving our Soldiers lives yet making them far more effective than the adversaries they face.
I want you to know that I am proud of all of you, current and past, and will never forget what you have done.
Once I know what I am doing, I will let you know.
God bless all of you, and most of all, God Bless America.
Tony

It’s not yet known who will replace Tether. A number of folks from the computing community have done some thinking about what a “re-envisioned” DARPA might look like. CMU CS Department Chair and CRA’s Government Affairs Committee Chair Peter Lee and Berkeley’s Randy Katz put together those thoughts in a piece for the CCC in December called Re-envisioning DARPA (pdf) that certainly seems worth reading again.
As we learn more about this change in leadership at this critical agency, we’ll post it here!

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Senate Deal Protects Much of NSF Increase in Stimulus

On February 7, 2009, In Economic Stimulus and Recovery, By Peter Harsha

Late last night, the Senate leadership and a coalition of moderate Senators led by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) reached an agreement on a package of reductions to the increases proposed in the Senate version of the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act (otherwise known as the “stimulus bill”). The agreement would preserve $1.2 billion of the Senate’s proposed $1.4 billion increase for the National Science Foundation.
The agreement does reduce the increase in the Department of Energy’s Office of Science by $100 million (so, +$330 million instead of +$430 million), and NIST’s increase would be reduced by $100 million (so +$495 million instead of +$595 million). But given the reports we were receiving as recently as yesterday evening about the possibility of no increase for the science agencies in the bill, this is a remarkable turn of events.
The increase for NSF in the Senate bill will still be far less than the $3 billion called for in the House version of the bill, but NSF will be in far better shape in the conference between the two chambers coming in with $1.2 billion from the Senate instead of zero.
The Senate expects to vote on the bill on Tuesday and then the bill will move to a conference with the House to negotiate the differences. Given Congress’ desire to wrap this up by President’s Day, which starts a week-long district work period, the conference is expected to move quickly.
We’ll have all the details on the conference and the final bill as we get them. But for now, an encouraging result for advocates of greater federal investment in the physical sciences!

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Microsoft’s Ballmer Tells House Dems We Need STEM Ed, Research Investments

On February 6, 2009, In Economic Stimulus and Recovery, Funding, FY09 Appropriations, People, By Peter Harsha

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer spoke today at the House Democratic Caucus Retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia, and urged the Members present to support investments in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and increase federal support for basic research. The STEM ed investments are really the government’s investments in human capital, he said, which are necessary because in “today’s knowledge-driven world, innovation will depend on people who are actually technologically sophisticated, have strong critical thinking skills, and have expertise in math and science and engineering.”
He also called for greater investment in the nation’s science and technology infrastructure — in the basic research that powers innovation.

I came in, flew in red eye, was a little groggy this morning when I got here.  I sat down with the speaker at 8:00 AM, and she woke me right up.  She said there are four things I want you to make sure you understand are a priority: science, science, science, and science.  I was awake by the end of the fourth science for sure, and I couldn’t agree more wholeheartedly.
Science and technology is the backbone for productivity and innovation; has been, not always information technology, but science and technology has been a driver of economic success.  Government investment in science and engineering as a percentage of GDP is half, in this country, what it was in 1970, and it would be growing rapidly, particularly in countries in Asia, off a small base albeit, but in places like India and China and Korea the trend is the other direction.
We need to pursue breakthroughs over the coming years in green technology, alternative energy, bioengineering, parallel computing, quantum computing.  Without greater government investment in the basic research, there is a danger that important advances will happen in other countries.  This is truly I think not only an issue of competitiveness, but also in a sense of national security.  Companies like ours and others can do our fair share in terms of funding of basic research, but government needs to take the lead.

The whole speech is worth reading. It’s great. I only wish that it could have been heard by members of the Senate who are still debating whether science funding — including a $1.4 billion increase for NSF — ought to be included in the Senate version of the stimulus package.
Basic research is the most powerful engine for innovation in the U.S. economy. Allowing it fall out of a stimulus bill designed to jumpstart our short and long-term economic recovery is just shortsightedness of the worst kind.
Update: (2/7/09) — Maybe the Senate was listening.

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response
« Previous Entries Next Entries »
Go To Top »