Business Week has a piece that ran yesterday on TechNet's annual innovation summit held earlier this week. The summit brings together TechNet's CEOs and include a few sessions taped with PBS commentator Charlie Rose. I went to the summit last year and was impressed by the event but a little disappointed that the number one focus on the agenda appeared to be the issue of expensing stock options (obviously a big concern to silicon valley CEOs). This year, it appears there's been a lot more emphasis on R&D funding and competitiveness issues, which is a very good thing. Here's a snippet:
Tech leaders fretted that falling R&D spending could cripple the U.S. in the future. "I'm very worried, as we cut back on our R&D, that we will fall behind the rest of the world," said [John] Chambers[, CEO of Cisco]. [Venture capitalist John] Doerr also lamented the lack of open-ended research at organizations like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which currently is more focused on specific programs.I have to say, one of the big reasons we're getting any traction in the science advocacy community for our issues is because industry leaders are stepping up to the plate, using some of their valuable access to decision makers to deliver this important message.Along the same lines, participants in the conference called for fewer limits on immigration. More stringent immigration limits, thanks to post-9/11 security concerns, are a big problem, said Doerr, because they're cutting the U.S. off from foreign research and engineering talent: "Imagine innovation without [former Intel (INTC ) CEO] Andy Grove, without Jerry Yang, without [Google (GOOG ) co-founder] Sergey Brin." Grove hails from Hungary, Yang from Taiwan, and Brin from Russia.
The result of immigration limits is that we're losing more foreign-born people who get educated here, said Esther Dyson, editor of the tech newsletter Release 1.0. "Right now, we're spending resources on people only to send them back to other countries," she said. "They used to stay here."
The most recent positive result of that traction is Tuesday's release of the House Democrats' Innovation Agenda. Their proposal is chock full of good things, including proposals to:
There aren't many things to disagree with in the Democrats' proposal -- indeed, just about all the ideas proposed have strong bipartisan support. The only worrying aspect of this from my perspective is that it comes crafted as a partisan document. While I would enjoy nothing more than to have the two parties battle it out to show who can support these ideas more emphatically, there's an equal risk (maybe more likely, given the current polarization) of creating a partisan divide where there needn't be one (and there isn't one now).
There are a couple of other bipartisan efforts in the embryonic state right now to enact many of these same goals. Sens. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and John Ensign (R-NV) are working to put the finishing touches on legislation for introduction that would implement the recommendations of the Council on Competitiveness' National Innovation Initiative; and Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) are moving to craft legislation in response to the recommendations contained in the recent National Academies Rising Above the Gathering Storm report (which we've detailed previously).
So I hope the Democrats get lots of well-deserved kudos for stating so explicitly the things they're prepared to do to promote American innovation and competitiveness, and I hope it drive Congress generally towards being more supportive of efforts like the bipartisan ones noted above so we can see some real progress moving this agenda forward.
This is why we're concerned with proposed rules that threaten to make the research environment in the U.S. even more hostile to foreign students (from our sister blog, the CRA Bulletin):
Foreign Enrollments in CIS drop by a ThirdCRA's Jay Vegso has got all the data.The number of international students enrolled in Computer and Information Sciences (CIS) at all degree levels in the United States fell 32.5 percent between 2003/04 and 2004/05, according to the Institute of International Education’s Open Doors 2005 report. Foreign students enrolled in CIS numbered 57,739 in 2003/04 and 38,966 in 2004/05.
Among all fields, foreign enrollments declined 1.3 percent. Between 2002/03 and 2003/04, foreign enrollments declined 2.4 percent. Previous to this, foreign enrollments experienced decades of significant growth.
Each of the three most popular fields of study for international students– Business and Management, Engineering, and Mathematics and CIS– reported a decline in enrollments.
The San Diego Union Tribune has a nice piece today on supercomputing, with a particular focus on the San Diego Supercomputer Center. Here's a snippet:
Jean-Bernard Minster wants to know how a magnitude-7.7 earthquake would affect Southern California. J. Andrew McCammon wants to find a cure for AIDS. Michael Norman wants to learn how the universe began.As we reported on Wednesday, Congress restored some of that funding in the FY 06 Energy and Water Appropriations.All of them rely on supercomputers in their quest for answers.
Twenty years ago this Monday, the San Diego Supercomputer Center began using what was then the world's most powerful computer. Now, its data-crunching successors worldwide are indispensable to science, engineering, business, even the war on terrorism.
...
Fran Berman, director of the San Diego Supercomputer Center, said one way to think about these high-end tools is to compare them to high-performance race cars.
"It's not easy for you and I to buy an Indy 500 car and to maintain that," she said. "That's where it's important to have government and large-scale investment in these kinds of computers. ... And a real concern from the scientific community right now is that (U.S.) leadership is really falling behind."
In November 2004, Congress passed legislation calling for an additional $165 million a year for research to develop new supercomputers. But President Bush's fiscal 2006 budget didn't allocate any funds. Instead, it requested budget cuts for supercomputing research at the Department of Energy.
Anyway, the article is called "Supercomputing now indispensable" and it's worth a read...
...all things considered.
The House passed the conference version of the FY 06 Energy and Water Appropriations bill (H.R. 2419) today (399-17). Included in the bill is funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and within the Office of Science, the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research. Both the Office of Science and ASCR will see slight increases in FY 06 compared to FY 05. Office of Science will see an increase of $33 million over FY 05 -- $170 million over the Administration's request -- to $3.63 billion. ASCR received $237.1 million, $30 million more than the President's request and $5 million more than FY 05 (an increase of about 2.2 percent).
Neither increase is particularly dramatic, but in a year in which the pressure to cut discretionary spending is relatively severe, DOE computing fared OK.
Here's what the appropriations conferees had to say about the program:
Advanced Scientific Computing Research.--The conference agreement includes $237,055,000 for advanced scientific computing research, an increase of $30,000,000 over the budget request. This increase is provided to the Center for Computational Sciences to accelerate the efforts to develop a leadership-class supercomputer to meet scientific computational needs. Of this $30,000,000, $25,000,000 should be dedicated to hardware and $5,000,000 to competitive university research grantsThe bill is expected to get Senate approval on Thursday.
Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, who will be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom today at the White House, will also be fielding questions as part of a White House online chat at 4 pm ET today. So if you're itching to ask these two networking pioneers their thoughts on the Internet, what it's like to receive a Presidential medal, or anything else the White House webmaster might allow, today's your chance.
Marguerite Reardon writes in CNET News.com what's becoming a very familiar refrain:
An outspoken group of information and communications technology innovators is worried that the United States is falling behind the rest of the world in technological innovation because fewer dollars are being allocated to long-term research.
Many in the research community also believe that the research being conducted today is too focused on short-term, market-oriented results. The current DARPA policy, which mandates 12-month "go, no go" research milestones for information technology, has shortened deadlines, thus discouraging long-term research. And with more research focused on national security, programs formerly open to academics are now classified. DARPA has also slashed spending on academic research.Read the whole thing here. And check here or here for good collections of similar stories that have run this year."Traditionally funding in computer sciences has come from the U.S. government," Kleinrock said. "And it's contributed to some remarkable advances, such as the Internet and artificial intelligence. They (the government) used to step back and with some direction let you go develop something new. But that's not the case today. And DARPA is no longer thinking long-range."
More competition, fewer dollars
The effects have been significant. In the last five years, IT proposals to the National Science Foundation jumped from 2,000 to 6,500, forcing the agency to leave many proposals unfunded. Other agencies, such as NASA, have also reduced spending on communications research. Since most government funding comes only from these two sources, researchers are flocking toward the NSF as DARPA cuts back or changes its priorities.
The House and Senate just reached agreement on the FY 06 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill and it appears NSF will receive just over a 3 percent bump over FY 05. Details are a bit scant at the moment, but it appears NSF will receive $5.65 billion in FY 06 -- that's $10 million more than the House approved in its version of the bill, $50 million over the President's request, and $120 million over the Senate number.
There are still a couple of unknowns at the moment -- whether the agreement means CJS is safe from across-the-board cuts that are still possible, and the disposition of a transfer of Coast Guard ships to NSF that could effect the overall NSF number -- but NSF is in a much better situation at the moment than most of us thought was possible at this point.
More details as they emerge....
Update (4:20 pm, 11/4): Here are some of the specific numbers (compare to this chart for previously approved House and Senate levels):
NSF Overall - $5,653.27 million. That's 3.3 percent above FY05 and nearly one percent about the President's request.
Research and Related Activities: $4,387.52 million. That's 4 percent above FY05 and 1.2 percent above the President's request.
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction: $193.35 million. Equal to the House and Senate versions.
Education and Human Resources: $807 million. That's equal to the House number, 9.5 percent higher than the President's request, and includes $4 million above the President's request for the Math and Science Partnership.
Salaries and Expenses: $250 million. 12 percent above FY05 but 7 percent below the President's request.
Office of the Inspector General: $11.5 million
National Science Board: $4 million
An across-the-board cut still looms. The Conference appears to have exceeded its spending target for the bill, so there will likely be some across-the-board cut to repair the problem before the bill is actually filed on Monday. According to NSF, appropriations staff indicate that the cut would amount to no more than 0.3 percent at this point (which would mean NSF would lose approximately $17 million of the funding gained above), leaving them with about a 3 percent gain overall.
Even with the possibility of a 0.3 percent across the board cut, NSF fared very well -- exceeding even the high mark originally laid down by the House Appropriations committee last May. Credit for this improvement in fortune has to go to the coalitions and individuals who have advocated strongly for better support for basic science even in the face of an ugly, ugly budget environment. And, of course, thanks are also owed to those members of Congress who worked hard to achieve any increase for NSF in the face of enormous pressures to cut discretionary spending. In the coming weeks we'll single out quite a few of those members, but right off the top it's worth passing along our thanks to Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) who are the Chairs and Ranking Members of the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees with jurisdiction over NSF.
President Bush announced today that Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom -- the Nation's highest civil award -- next Wednesday, November 9th. Kahn, a CRA Board member and member of my Government Affairs committee (I'm proud to say) and Cerf, the only two technologists on today's list, will receive their awards for their work "design[ing] the software code that is used to transmit data over the Internet."
"Dr. Cerf and Dr. Kahn have been at the forefront of a digital revolution that has transformed global commerce, communication, and entertainment."
They join an amazing group of honorees for Wednesday's event, including Muhammad Ali, Alan Greenspan, Aretha Franklin, Frank Robinson, Jack Nicklaus...wow.
Here's the full text of the White House announcement:
Presidential Medal of Freedom RecipientsPresident George W. Bush today announced the recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civil award. Established by Executive Order 11085 in 1963, the Medal may be awarded by the President "to any person who has made an especially meritorious contribution to (1) the security or national interests of the United States, or (2) world peace, or (3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors." President Bush will honor these recipients at a White House ceremony on Wednesday, November 9, 2005.
Muhammad Ali is one of the greatest athletes of all time. He was the first three-time heavyweight boxing champion of the world, successfully defended the title 19 times, and was a Gold Medalist for the United States at the 1960 Olympic Games.
Carol Burnett is one of America's most accomplished comediennes and actresses. She debuted on Broadway in 1959 and starred for more than a decade on The Carol Burnett Show. Ms. Burnett won a special place in the hearts of people across America through her combination of creativity, humor, and compassion.
Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn designed the software code that is used to transmit data over the Internet. Dr. Cerf and Dr. Kahn have been at the forefront of a digital revolution that has transformed global commerce, communication, and entertainment.
Robert Conquest is a historian known for his groundbreaking work on Soviet history, politics, and foreign policy. More than 35 years after its publication, his landmark book, The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties, remains one of the most influential studies of Soviet history and has been translated into more than 20 languages.
Aretha Franklin has brought joy to millions with her music. She has nearly two dozen number-one singles and has won numerous awards. Ms. Franklin was the first woman to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Alan Greenspan has chaired the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve for the last 18 years. Mr. Greenspan has been an extraordinary leader who has made great contributions to America's economic growth and prosperity.
Andy Griffith is an American icon of the stage, cinema, and television. He first achieved national acclaim in the 1950s for his stand-up comedy routines, and he went on to star in television shows such as The Andy Griffith Show and Matlock, as well as numerous Broadway productions and films.
Paul Harvey is one of America's most respected radio personalities and has set a standard of excellence for broadcasters. Since his radio broadcasts first aired nationally in 1951, Mr. Harvey has won the trust of millions of radio listeners.
Sonny Montgomery was a champion for veterans during his 30 years as a Member of the House of Representatives from Mississippi. His signature achievement was the Montgomery GI Bill, which has helped make education affordable for millions of veterans.
General Richard B. Myers served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during one of the most challenging and dangerous periods in American history. General Myers was at the forefront of preparing America's armed forces to meet the threats of the new century. His tenure was marked by the toppling of brutal dictatorships in Afghanistan and Iraq and the liberation of more than 50 million people.
Jack Nicklaus is the greatest professional golfer of all time. He won 18 majors as a professional, the first in 1962 and the last in 1986, and he won more than 70 PGA Tour events.
Frank Robinson is one of the greatest baseball players ever. Among his awards are National League Rookie of the Year, Most Valuable Player in both the American and National Leagues, and the American League Triple Crown in 1966. He also has been a top manager and earned Manager of the Year in the American League in 1989. He broke the color barrier for managers, becoming Major League Baseball's first African-American manager in 1975.
Paul Rusesabagina demonstrated courage and compassion by sheltering people at the hotel he managed during the 1994 Rwandan genocide. By risking his own life, he helped to save the lives of more than 1,000 fellow Rwandans. Mr. Rusesabagina's selfless acts have inspired millions, and he represents the best of the human spirit.
# # #
Congratulations, Bob and Vint!
Update: (November 12th) - CRA's press release congratulating Bob and Vint appears after the jump.
***PRESS RELEASE***
Press Contact:
Peter Harsha, 202-234-2111 ext 106
harsha@cra.org
November 9, 2005
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Computing Research Association congratulates Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn on receiving the Presidental Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian award, for their role in developing the software protocols used to transmit data over the Internet.
Cerf and Kahn received the award this afternoon at the White House for their work on the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) more than 30 years ago. TCP/IP became the lingua franca of the Internet and enabled the digital revolution that has transformed global commerce, communication, and entertainment.
"The recognition of Cerf and Kahn's work shows the critical role science and technology, and particularly information technology, play in all sectors of the national interest - from enabling better health care, to securing the homeland, to improving communications and productivity, and advancing all fields of science," said Daniel Reed, Chair of the Computing Research Association and Director of the Renaissance Computing Institute at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
"The fact that they are being rewarded for research conducted more than 30 years ago also demonstrates an important, but too-often forgotten point about Federal support for fundamental research: it's a long-term investment, but one that yields extraordinary returns," Reed said.
Both Cerf and Kahn have ties to the Computing Research Association. Kahn currently serves as a member of CRA's Board of Directors and is an active member of its Government Affairs Committee. Cerf was the keynote speaker at the most recent CRA "Snowbird" conference - a biennial conference of the leaders of North America's computing research laboratories and academic departments.
"We're thrilled that members of the computing research community are being recognized for their extraordinary contribution to the national and, indeed, global welfare. We hope that the President's award will help inspire others to follow in Cerf and Kahn's footsteps," Reed said.
CRA is an organization of 200 of the Nation's leading industrial computing research labs and university computer science departments. For more information, visit the CRA website at: http://www.cra.org
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) put the President's nominee for Director of Defense Research and Engineering, John Young, on notice at his Senate confirmation hearing last week that she expects the new Director to address her concerns with DARPA (which DDR&E technically oversees), particularly DARPA support for university-led computer science research. Those concerns turns out to be ones shared by the computing research community, including "nonfiscal limitations such as the classification of work in areas that were previously unclassified; precluding university submissions as prime contractors on certain solicitations; [and] reducing the periods of performance to 18 to 24 months."
This kind of short-term focus is not conducive to university programs to address broad fundamental technological and scientific challenges, especially when we know that research in computer science will be at the very core of network-centric warfare.So I would hope, Mr. Young, that you would look into this and, assuming you are confirmed, that you would take this as a very serious charge, because we just had another study by the National Academy of Sciences that basically said the United States is losing its technological and scientific leadership, and that's going to have long-term consequences certainly for defense but also for our standard of living and our economic prosperity.
Clinton rightly notes that these concerns are shared by not just the university researchers directly affected by these policies, but many of the industrial and multi-disciplinary users “downstream” who have come to depend on advances in information technology for their own progress. Additionally, the DOD's own Defense Science Board, the National Academies, the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, and several Congressional committees have all raised concerns about the impact of DARPA's move away from long-term, university-led research in information technology and its implications for the country's long-term health and prosperity.
Unfortunately, as we've noted recently, at the same time these concerns about the state of computer science research at DARPA are being raised, one of the agency's truly positive activities - its Cognitive Computing program - is imperiled by a sizeable cut approved in the Senate version of the FY 2006 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 2863). The Senate bill would cut $55 million from DARPA's $114 million “Learning, Reasoning, and Integrated Cognitive Systems” account, a move that would hamper advancements in defense-related information technology in the short- and long-term and would also slow technological advancement essential to current and future military operations in Iraq and around the globe. We at CRA hope that Clinton will help urge her colleagues on the conference committee negotiating the bill to abandon the cut and provide the President's requested funding level, the level approved in the House version of H.R. 2863.
I've included the whole of her statement -- which is very good -- after the jump. The importance of her remarks are multi-fold. One, she's placed an important marker down for the computing research community -- the concerns of the community will be on the new DDR&E's plate as soon as he takes the job. Second, she's raised the profile of the concerns among the rest of the members on the Senate Armed Services Committee and staff (though they're already pretty sympathetic). And finally, it never hurts to have the current frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008 using her five minutes at a confirmation hearing to talk about your concerns.
Anyway, read the whole thing after the jump -- and if you get a chance, especially if you're at a NY institution, drop Senator Clinton a note of thanks for looking out long-term research....
CLINTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.And I welcome the nominees and I want to especially express appreciation to Mr. Young, whom I have enjoyed working with in your previous position as assistant secretary of the Navy for acquisition, and appreciated greatly your objectivity and fairness in deciding a number of contentious contracting issues, including the Marine One contract.
Your new position, Mr. Young, will place you in a critical role to help define the DOD research agenda. And, as you may know, the Air Force research laboratory in Rome, New York, is a world leader in the development of revolutionary cybersecurity technologies.
And I would like you to know you're invited to come up and visit Rome labs for yourself and to see what we're doing in cybersecurity. And my invitation is related to a larger concern I have about the direction of funding for science and research within the Department of Defense.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, otherwise known as DARPA, has seen some significant cutbacks in the last several years. The department's science and technology programs are absolutely essential. And what they have historically done is to make investments in our nation's universities and innovative, high-tech small businesses in areas such as robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and the like.
And we've obviously seen the results of that research grow into new capabilities that have been proven effective in the global war on terrorism operations in Iraq and elsewhere, but also in the civilian world with the spinoff.
That's why I'm concerned that the department seems to be systematically underinvesting in fundamental and long-term research programs. The department's science and technology requests for '06 was down $2.8 billion from the '05 appropriated levels, and even $28 million below the original '05 budget request.
In fact, the request is so low it has triggered a congressionally mandated Defense Science Board review of the effects of these lowered science and technology investments on our national security. And I look forward to the results of that review.
But I think it's important that we stop a minute and think about the consequences of these cutbacks. A particular concern with respect to how DARPA is being treated is that we used to have a division between applied research in DARPA and more innovative almost blue sky research.
And in fact, much of the blue sky research is what it's most famous for. And the spinoffs have fueled the economy, not just our national security and military capability.
The National Academy of Sciences, in a recent report requested by the committee, recommended that DOD begin to try to redress the imbalance in its current basic research allocation.
And I've been surprised to have members of the information technology community come and express their concern. They don't have any stake in the DARPA research, but they know how essential it is to keep our overall national research and science and technology edge.
The Defense Science Board has raised concerns over DARPA's funding of computer science, and it's particularly concerning because DARPA has further limited university participation in its computer science programs, including: nonfiscal limitations such as the classification of work in areas that were previously unclassified; precluding university submissions as prime contractors on certain solicitations; reducing the periods of performance to 18 to 24 months.
This kind of short-term focus is not conducive to university programs to address broad fundamental technological and scientific challenges, especially when we know that research in computer science will be at the very core of network-centric warfare.
So I would hope, Mr. Young, that you would look into this and, assuming you are confirmed, that you would take this as a very serious charge, because we just had another study by the National Academy of Sciences that basically said the United States is losing its technological and scientific leadership, and that's going to have long-term consequences certainly for defense but also for our standard of living and our economic prosperity.
So I don't have a question so much as a plea, that we try to address this, because we're moving further and further behind.