Computing Research Policy Blog

2008 NSF/AAAS Visualization Challenge

The saying is that a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, NSF and AAAS agree and are sponsoring the sixth annual Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge. There are five awards categories: Photographs/Pictures, Illustrations/Drawings, Informational/Explanatory Graphics, Interactive Media, and Non-Interactive Media. The deadline for entries is May 31.

The premise of the Challenge is that science is often communicated through visuals better than words, particularly in our web and graphics culture. Winning entries in each category will be published in Science Magazine and Science Online as well as at the NSF web site. One of the winners will be on the cover of Science Magazine’s September 26 issue.

More information and winning entries from the previous five years can be found here.

National Academies Convocation on Gathering Storm Two Years Later

The National Academies, in conjunction with the National Math and Science Initiative, will hold a day long convocation today called “Rising Above The Gathering Storm Two Years Later: Accelerating Progress Toward A Brighter Future.” Discussions will include what has happened since the 2005 report was release at the federal, state, and private sector levels and, of course, what still needs to happen. Competitiveness overall, K-12, higher education, and research are all panel and breakout topics throughout the convocation. Frequent readers will remember that the Gathering Storm report, released in October 2005, was a report requested by Sens. Alexander (R-TN) and Bingaman (D-NM) and Reps. Boehlert (R-NY) and Gordon (D-TN) that listed the top 10 actions Congress should undertake to secure America’s competitiveness. The report was a catalyst for news, legislation, and further reports that we have reported on regularly over the last couple of years.

The convocation has spurred a grasstops effort, led by The Science Coalition, to bring the issue of research funding back to the forefront just as Congress begins to consider both a supplemental and the FY09 appropriations bills. The Coalition is encouraging university and association leaders to contact their Congressional members with letters emphasizing the call for increased funding of basic research contained in the “Gathering Storm” report and to contact local media on the ongoing competitiveness issue.

Additional coverage of the convocation can be found at The Chronicle of Higher Education News Blog.

Gates to Testify Before Congress on Innovation

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates will testify before the House Science and Technology Committee tomorrow morning to "share his thoughts on efforts needed to further strengthen our country’s competitiveness in the global marketplace, discuss what policies are needed to encourage innovation, and address the role of technology in our country’s economic growth." (That's according to the hearing charter (pdf)). The hearing is the first in a series planned by House S&T to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the committee, created in the wake of the shock of Sputnik (an event that also motivated the creation of DARPA and NASA and triggered an rapid increase in federal science funding). Expect Gates to talk about the importance of this federal support for fundamental research in driving the nation's incredibly successful innovation ecosystem over that time.

The committee will webcast the 10 am ET hearing from a URL that will be available here, where you can also find the hearing charter and some related information. We'll have our reaction to the testimony here following the hearing.

Rick Adrion Recognized for Distinguished Service to Computing Community

CRA's Distinguished Service Award is presented annually to a person who has made an outstanding service contribution to the computing research community. The award recognizes service in the areas of government affairs, professional societies, publications or conferences, and leadership that has a major impact on computing research.

The CRA Board of Directors has selected W. Richards (Rick) Adrion, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, to receive its 2008 Distinguished Service Award.

Adrion was recognized for his sustained record of effective and significant service contributions spanning more than two decades. He has played a key role in building, nurturing and shaping today’s computer science community. Among these contributions are leadership in the development of the Internet; leadership in setting strategic directions at the National Science Foundation; leadership in developing a stronger political voice for computer science in national politics; leadership in strengthening the software engineering community; leadership in strengthening, modernizing and invigorating computing and information technology programs in Massachusetts public higher education; and overall service to the computer science community. Rick Adrion was general chair of the first ACM/CRB Conference on Strategic Directions in Computing. He also played a leadership role in the formation of CRA and was an active board member for many years, serving on the Executive Committee and Government Affairs Committee.

Rick Adrion is Professor of Computer Science at UMass Amherst, Co-Director of RIPPLES, Co-Director of the Commonwealth Information Technology Initiative (CITI), and Director of CRICCS. He served as Division Director for Experimental and Integrated Activities in the NSF Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) from January 2000 through August 2002 and as a part-time Senior Advisor in CISE until September 2003.

CRA Selects Richard Ladner as 2008 A. Nico Habermann Award Winner

CRA's A. Nico Habermann Award is usually presented annually to a person who has made outstanding contributions aimed at increasing the numbers and/or successes of underrepresented members in the computing research community. It honors the late A. Nico Habermann, who headed NSF's Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate and who was deeply committed to increasing the participation of women and underrepresented minorities in computing research.

The CRA board has selected Richard E. Ladner, Boeing Professor in Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Washington, to receive the 2008 Habermann Award. Professor Ladner is recognized for his lifelong, strong and persistent advocacy on behalf of people with disabilities in the computing community.

Ladner's contributions have taken three forms: mentoring of students, research both with and for persons with disabilities, and national advocacy. He is known for his dedicated, one-on-one mentoring of students (both with and without disabilities). Over the past 15 summers, he has worked with 38 severely disabled high school students on week-long summer projects in computing. Ladner has also mentored undergraduates and graduate students with disabilities, often working with them on assistive technology research. His assistive technology efforts have resulted in networking (remote login, email) for Seattle's deaf-blind community, large-print user interfaces for Unix machines, video compression algorithms that are tailored to American Sign Language and simple enough to implement in real-time on a cell phone, and new image processing and enhancement algorithms to convert graphical images--diagrams in math and science textbooks--into tactile images.

Richard Ladner currently co-leads the NSF-sponsored AccessComputing Alliance, a national effort to increase the number of students with disabilities majoring in computing. As part of their effort, the Alliance hosts workshops and summer camps around the country, and Ladner has run many of these, including a three-day Vertical Mentoring Workshop for the Blind in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, and a nine-week summer camp for deaf students. Ladner has also been tireless in his advocacy at the national level: he has spoken to many groups, including department chairs at the CRA Conference at Snowbird, and worked with organizations and departments (through AccessComputing's communities of practice) to make it easier for students with disabilities to fully participate.

Cyber Enabled Discovery and Innovation Web Cast

As NSF’s Cyber-Enabled Discovery and Innovation (CDI) program heads toward its first deadline, the program staff will be launching a web cast on how to take advantage of this new cross-cutting funding initiative. The web cast will be held live on Thursday, November 29 from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and program managers will be taking questions after a presentation on the program.

CDI is a five year initiative to fund research that uses computational thinking across all disciplines. The program includes all NSF Directorates and is focused on three theme areas: From Data to Knowledge; Understanding Complexity in Natural, Built, and Social Systems; and Building Virtual Organizations. The first deadline for letters of intent is November 30 and the first proposal deadline is January 8, 2008.

Innovation Task Force Video Contest

Last July, or maybe even a bit earlier, the members of the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation -- an organization of high-tech companies and academic societies (CRA is a member) devoted to increasing federal support for basic research in the physical sciences, mathematics, computing and engineering -- looked ahead at the calendar and realized that in a few short months the anniversary of one of the most significant events in world history would be upon them. The launch of Sputnik on October 4, 1957 changed the landscape for science and engineering in the U.S. by forcing a focus on improvements to our science and engineering to "close the gap" with the Soviets (whether there really was a gap at the time...a subject for someone else's post). Sputnik led to a significant investment in space-related research and engineering, of course, but it also -- and maybe more importantly -- led to a overall buttressing of the science and engineering ecosystem in the United States. The payoff of that support over the last 50 years has been the United States' leadership position in the global economy, the high standard of living for our citizens, and the dominance of our military. Given the focus of the Task Force, it seemed appropriate to find ways to commemorate the anniversary and the launch's impact.

One of the ideas tossed around was that the Task Force should get a little Web 2.0-ish and sponsor a video contest on YouTube: create a 3-minute video showcasing how federally funded research has changed American life. The winner would get $1,000, plus an all-expense paid trip to Washington, DC, to watch as their video was played a Capitol Hill event.

Now, I like to think that I'm a pretty web-savvy guy -- I twitter; I've got a TumbleLog -- but I wasn't at all convinced that this contest would amount to much at all. I could only imagine the sort of the entries that this contest, once unleashed on the YouTube community, might inspire. I was less convinced after my colleagues on the Task Force created the video announcing the contest. I respect the Task Force members as ardent and effective advocates for science, but, uh, videographers we're not. And the first entry to the contest didn't give me much hope.

But we let the contest play out and, remarkably, some good stuff started coming in. A few teams really took some time to come up with interesting approaches. And the eventual contest winner's was just outstanding:

(The director/creator of the video is Adan Vielma, a Junior at Lewis and Clark College in Oregon. He says he spent only 14 hours creating the images and putting it all together.)

Vielma attended a screening of his video at a November 8th briefing of the Congressional R&D Caucus, hosted by Representatives Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Judy Biggert (R-IL), as part of an event called "Sputnik in a YouTube Age." The event, sponsored by the Task Force, featured remarks by two former NASA astronauts -- Mae Jameison, the first African-American woman in space, and Kathryn Sullivan, the first U.S. woman to spacewalk -- focusing on how Sputnik marked the beginning of an investment in science and math that led to the greatest explosion of scientific advancement the world had ever seen. The event, held on an otherwise busy Thursday, was absolutely packed, and I have to think a large part of the draw was the novelty of seeing the YouTube submissions.

So maybe we'll have to explore other Web 2.0-ish ways of making our case.... A Googlemap mashup of innovation? Best innovation-oriented Facebook App? We'll see.

Tapia Conference Coverage

Coverage from the Tapia Conference (previous post)...

Former CRA board member John King kicked off the second day of the Richard Tapia Celebration of Diversity in Computing with a diversity focused plenary emphasizing the evolution of cultural context. Using historical examples Dr. King focused on the changes of the last 200 years in the US that show the progression of society in accepting and celebrating the differences between the majority and the minority groups. He emphasized that the context changes the point of view and different points of view provide more information. That is why diversity is so important.

This echoes strongly the plenary given yesterday afternoon by Norman Johnson of Referentia Systems. His talk discussed the importance of mass knowledge and that the knowledge of large groups is often more accurate than the knowledge of issue area experts. Without diversity, that mass knowledge is, in effect, "dumbed-down."

A panel discussing why computing departments fail to retain underrepresented students if universities care about diversity noted the need for role models and emphasis on getting underrepresented students through the first year by building community and accepting cultural differences.

More to come...

Tapia and Hopper Conferences

The government affairs team here at CRA is headed to Orlando next week! I will be bringing you updates from the Richard Tapia Celebration of Diversity in Computing conference and Peter will let you know what’s happening at the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing conference. The conferences are co-located this year, so it'll be interesting to see how that affects the overall dynamic of both conferences. I'm guessing it'll be a big positive, but we'll see. Stayed tuned!

CRA at CNSF Exhibit on Hill

CRA participated once again in the Coalition for National Science Funding's annual Science Exposition on Capitol Hill last week and it was a great success. The event, a science fair for Congress and staff, had 35 booths manned by researchers representing universities and scientific societies featuring some of the important research funded by the National Science Foundation. This year CRA was ably represented by Lydia Kavraki, a computer science professor from Rice University, whose research into using computational tools to solve problems in a range of areas such as biology was a hit with all those who stopped at the booth.

The exhibit drew a record crowd with 493 attendees, 11 of whom were members of Congress such as Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL) who stopped to talk to Dr. Kavraki about her work. There were also a number of NSF staff members and a large contingent of Congressional staff, particularly from the House Science and Technology Committee.

As we’ve stated before in this space, personal visits to members of Congress and their staff are vital to getting the message about the importance of computing research out. CRA holds or participates in Congressional visit days several times throughout the year and we are always looking for participants. If you are interested in coming to Washington to visit your Representative and Senators, please contact Melissa Norr at mnorr at cra.org.

Cyber Security Report Released

The National Research Council of the National Academies of Science released a new report on cyber security and research called "Toward a Safer and More Secure Cyberspace." The report is available for free online at the National Academies Press.

The report lists three broad categories that lack of cyber security falls into:

First is the threat of catastrophe-a cyberattack, especially in conjunction with a physical attack, could result in thousands of deaths and many billions of dollars of damage in a very short time. Second is frictional drag on important economic and security-related processes. Today, insecurities in cyberspace systems and networks allow adversaries (in particular, criminals) to extract billions of dollars in fraud and extortion-and force businesses to expend additional resources to defend themselves against these threats. If cyberspace does not become more secure, the citizens, businesses, and governments of tomorrow will continue to face similar pressures, and most likely on a greater scale. Third, concerns about insecurity may inhibit the use of IT in the future and thus lead to a self-denial of the benefits that IT brings, benefits that will be needed for the national competitiveness of the United States as well as for national and homeland security.

It also lists a set of ten provisions that could form a Cyber Security Bill of Rights. The provisions are:

I. Availability of system and network resources to legitimate users.
II. Easy and convenient recovery from successful attacks.
III. Control over and knowledge of one's own computing environment.
IV. Confidentiality of stored information and information exchange.
V. Authentication and provenance.
VI. The technological capability to exercise fine-grained control over the flow of information in and through systems.
VII. Security in using computing directly or indirectly in important applications, including financial, health care, and electoral transactions and real-time remote control of devices that interact with physical processes.
VIII. The ability to access any source of information (e.g., e-mail, Web page, file) safely.
IX. Awareness of what security is actually being delivered by a system or component.
X. Justice for security problems caused by another party.

Graduate Education and Innovation

The Council of Graduate Schools yesterday released a report regarding the role of graduate education in America’s competitiveness. The report makes five key findings:

1. A highly skilled workforce operating at the frontiers of knowledge creation and professional practice is key to America’s competitiveness and national security. Universities, governments, and private industry each play an essential role in providing the expertise and resources necessary to achieve this objective.

2. The expanded participation of U.S. citizens, particularly from underrepresented minority groups, should be a priority in fields that are essential to our nation’s success. Development of STEM careers should be emphasized.

3. Interdisciplinary research preparation and education are central to future competitiveness, because knowledge creation and innovation frequently occur at the interface of disciplines.

4. U.S. graduate schools must be able to attract the best and brightest students from around the world.

5. The quality of graduate programs drives the success of America’s higher education system. Efforts to evaluate and improve all aspects of the quality of the U.S. graduate education enterprise must be advanced and supported in order to foster innovation.

The report makes a series of recommendations for policymakers, calling for:

Collaboration among leaders in government, business, and higher education to develop a highly-educated workforce and encourage entrepreneurship in graduate education.

The creation of incentives for students, particularly from underrepresented groups, to pursue graduate education in STEM fields, the social sciences, and humanities, and identify “best practices” to reduce attrition and shorten the time required to complete a degree.

Support for innovative graduate education programs, such as professional master’s degrees, which respond to workforce needs in such critical fields as science, engineering, technology and mathematics (STEM), as well as in social sciences and the humanities.

Expanding opportunities for graduate students to pursue interdisciplinary study at the frontier of knowledge creation, using models such as those pioneered by the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health.

Continuing to improve and reform the visa process so that the world’s top international talent can pursue graduate study in the U.S. and contribute to our nation’s research and innovation.

Increasing federal funds for graduate education programs by at least 10% at every agency.

Enhancing the quality of graduate education through ongoing evaluation and research, and supporting risk-taking research programs that prepare highly-trained professionals for a knowledge-based global economy.

While the findings and recommendations echo a lot of recent reports -- the National Academies Rising Above the Gathering Storm, the Council on Competitiveness' Innovate America, the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation's Measuring the Moment -- it's very useful to have another perspective on innovation policy from another "sector" of the U.S. innovation ecosystem. And as innovation policy continues to swirl around the Hill, these reports provide the sort of buttressing policymakers need to continue to champion pro-innovation ideas.

Innovation Briefing Event

The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation and the House R&D Caucus are hosting a lunch briefing on Tuesday, April 17 at noon. The Role of Basic Research in Innovation, Economic Competitiveness and National Security will include speakers from industry and academia and will be based on the second Benchmarks report, “Measuring the Moment: Innovation, National Security, and Economic Competitiveness” that we have previously covered in this space.

Speakers will include:

Dr. Anita Jones from the University of Virginia giving a presentation called, “The Role of Defense Research in the Innovation and Competitiveness Debate”

Dr. C. Dan Mote, President of the University of Maryland . His presentation is “Progress Since the Rising Above the Gathering Storm Report and What Still Needs Attention”

Amy Burke from Texas Instruments speaking on “Industry Perspective on the Importance of Federal Investment in Basic Research”

Task Force Chair Doug Comer, the director of legal affairs and technology policy at Intel, will do the welcome, introductions, and speak to the Benchmark’s report.

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL), the co-chairs of the House R&D Caucus will also make remarks at the briefing.

Anyone with an interest in innovation and competitiveness is welcome to attend. RSVP to Jessica Delucchi at 202.646.5046 or delucchij@battelle.org by Monday, April 16. Space is limited so reservations are on a first come basis.

Update: Doug Comer, Dr. Mote, and Amy Burke spoke to a packed room at the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation and House R&D Caucus briefing " The Role of Basic Research in Innovation, Economic Competitiveness and National Security." Over 100 people attended from industry, academia, and the Hill, including Representatives Judy Biggert (R-IL), Rush Holt (D-NJ), and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA).

Comer discussed the Measuring the Moment report issued last year by the Task Force and gave an overview of the continued importance of federal funding for basic research to the economy as a whole.

As one of the Rising Above the Gathering Storm authors, Dr. Mote discussed the impact the report has had and what is still undone. He emphasized that the states need to be actively engaged in support of basic research at the university level and vocal about their support to their federal delegations.

Burke presented a specific picture of why federally funded basic research is important to Texas Instruments and how that translates to industry as a whole. She gave specific examples of technologies that have had major economic impact and were begun through basic research.

Maybe just as importantly, each attendee left with a copy of the Benchmarks report (pdf) and other Task Force material and at least one Member of Congress was seen toting the report around later that day....

All in all, a good, well-attended event.

Visiting Congress At Home

While CRA highly encourages all computing research community members to attend the annual Congressional Visit Days held in Washington, DC throughout the year, we know it is sometimes difficult to take two or three days to come to the Capitol. Since it is important that everyone be involved in the process and meet with their Representative and Senators, we are adding a space to the CRA Government Affairs web site regarding advocacy through district visits. Visiting your members of Congress while they are in your neighborhood is an equally effective and less time consuming way to express how important federal funding for computer research is to you and your community and is usually more low-key and less chaotic than similar meetings in DC. In doing a district visit, please be sure to keep your institutions government affairs contact informed as he or she can give valuable advice and assistance. To find out who your Representative is, visit Write Your Representative.

The 2007 Congressional and Senate calendars have not been published and things are a bit up in the air regarding sessions at the end of this year. As soon as recess schedules are announced we will list them on the web site. Please visit the new District Visits portion of the web site for updates to the recess listings and as always if you have questions or need assistance with making an appointment, contact Melissa Norr in CRA's Government Affairs office at mnorr@cra.org or 202.234.2111 ext. 111.

Getting Scientists and Congress to Mingle...

One of the most effective "tools" the science advocacy community has in making the case for federal support of science is, well, scientists. Those occasions in which researchers are able to sit down with Members of Congress and discuss their own work do more to advance the cause of science than five meetings with staff like me. There are a couple of reasons for this. One, scientists tend to be pretty smart and well-spoken. They've thought a lot about their work and usually understand how to explain it to lay people (despite the usual stereotypes about scientists, it's a rare exception to this rule). More importantly, they're usually pretty good at conveying why their work matters, and to do it in a way that makes any passion they feel for the research palpable. If they have the opportunity to spend 5, 10, 15 minutes with a Member, it's pretty good odds that Member will leave the meeting with a better appreciation for the work and a sense of connection to the researcher.

And that's no small thing. When the time comes to make decisions about priorities, a Member's personal connection to a researcher, an understanding of what research goes on in his or her district, and an understanding of the long-term benefits of that research all can help swing the balance in favor of science. They are by no means the only factors that go into that decision, but they're certainly weights we want to have on our side of the balance.

So I'm especially pleased to point out occasions when members of our community take time out of their schedules to spend time in Washington, mingling with policymakers and trying to convey a little of what it is they do. One occasion CRA tries to take advantage of every year is the Coalition for National Science Funding's Capitol Hill Science Exhibition and Reception, held this year on June 7th.

Each year, CNSF brings together 30-35 of its members to stage a science fair of sorts on Capitol Hill for Members of Congress and their staff as a way to highlight the important and interesting work enabled by the federal investment in basic research at the National Science Foundation. This year, CRA was well-represented at the Exhibition by Lucy Sanders and Katie Ertz from the National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT).

The NCWIT display occupied a unique niche at this year's exhibition. While the great majority of booths highlighted particular research efforts of NSF, NCWIT's was one of the few (if the only) to focus on NSF's broader role of developing the science and engineering workforce. In particular, Lucy and Katie were able to bring some attention to the continued need to focus on increasing the participation of underrepresented populations within that workforce.

The event was quite well-attended and Lucy and Katie found a number of willing listeners among Members of Congress (like Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), seen at left), key congressional staffers, and a surprising number of agency personnel. There were times when it was quite difficult to move around the room, the bodies were packed so tightly. CNSF counted more than 300 attendees this year, including six Members of Congress, despite a very busy day in the House -- a very encouraging symbolic display of support for science.

Thanks to Lucy and Katie for their willingness to travel to DC and participate and for making the case so effectively. They join a growing list of CRA member institutions who have participated in CNSF Exhibitions, including James Hendler and his colleagues from the Mind Lab at the University of Marylandin 2005, DK Panda and his students from Ohio State University in 2004, Tim Finin and his colleagues and students from the University of Maryland Baltimore County in 2003, and Thad Starner and Janet Kolodner of Georgia Tech in 2002. If you're at a CRA-member institution and are interested in showing of your NSF-sponsored research at a future Hill event, drop me a line!

This is also a reminder that it's not too late to participate in CNSF's upcoming Fall Congressional Visits Day, scheduled for September 13, 2006 (with an orientation session on September 12th). This is a great opportunity to make sure computing researchers are represented as the research community goes up to the Hill to speak with one voice about the importance of the federal role in supporting research. CRA's Melissa Norr has all the details.

Hill Visits

CRA is a member of the Coalition for National Science Funding -- an organization comprising over 100 different scientific societies, universities, and industrial advocates for federal support of fundamental research. As part of their advocacy efforts, CNSF sponsors a "Hill Visits Day," which is an opportunity for members of the research community to come to Washington and chat with Members of Congress and their staff about the importance of the federal role in supporting long-term research.

CNSF will hold its second annual Hill Visits Day on September 13, 2006 with orientation on September 12. CRA invites researchers from its member institutions to take part. 

With President Bush's introduction of the American Competitiveness Initiative calling for a doubling of federal support for fundamental research in the physical sciences, computing, mathematics and engineering over the next 10 years, and the House of Representatives endorsement of that plan, the opportunity for seeing significant increases at agencies important to our community -- NSF, DOE Office of Science, and NIST, in particular -- is better than at any time in recent memory. But it's important that Congress continue to hear from researchers about the importance of sustained support for research. 

CNSF Hill Visits Day presents the unique opportunity for the research community to speak with one voice. Participating in CNSF Hill Visits Day gives us the opportunity to make our case again to Congress, but to do so as part of a larger and multidisciplinary group with even greater impact. 

A CNSF subcommittee will create interdisciplinary teams of visitors and make all the appointments, so if you would like to participate, please contact Melissa Norr at mnorr@cra.org by August 16 with your name and full contact information. 

For more information please visit our previous blog postings and the CNSF web site.

To join the Computing Research Advocacy Network (CRAN) sign up here.

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.

Cerf and Kahn to "Chat" from White House

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.

House Science Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructures Hearing Wrapup

As mentioned previously, the House Science Committee met yesterday to focus on the threat cyber security vulnerabilities pose to various critical sectors of the Nation's critical infrastructure. Representatives from the oil and gas, chemical, electrical and communications sectors all testified that their industries are becoming more and more dependent upon public networks, those networks are under serious threat from cyber attack, and the federal government has a clear role both in supporting information exchange and coordination among all the industry stakeholders, and supporting a research agenda aimed at addressing the threat, primarily in the long-term. I'm not sure there's much more I need to add to that, other than to point to the archived video, the hearing charter (pdf), and the testimony of the five witnesses.

A few observations:

Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) set the tone for the hearing in his opening statement by declaring that despite everything else that was taking place on the Hill that day -- including the Roberts confirmation hearing and the party caucus meeting to choose a new Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee (Rep. Peter King (R-NY) was the choice) -- he couldn't think of another event more important than this hearing on cyber security.

We shouldn’t have to wait for the cyber equivalent of a Hurricane Katrina - or even and Hurricane Ophelia might serve - to realize that we are inadequately prepared to prevent, detect and respond to cyber attacks.

And a cyber attack can affect a far larger area at a single stroke that can any hurricane. Not only that, given the increasing reliance of critical infrastructures on the Internet, a cyber attack could result in deaths as well as in massive disruption to the economy and daily life.
...
So our goal this morning is to help develop a cybersecurity agenda for the federal government, especially for the new Assistant Secretary. I never want to have to sit on a special committee set up to investigate why we were unprepared for a cyber attack. We know we are vulnerable, it’s time to act.

Despite federally-supported research and development in cyber security being cited as a critical need by each one of the industry witnesses, the only federal witness -- Andy Purdy, Director of the National Cyber Security Division at DHS -- didn't mention R&D in his oral remarks other than to hope that he'd get a chance to talk about it during questioning (alas, he didn't). In his written testimony, Purdy noted that DHS' R&D goals are almost exclusively short-term:

Perform R&D aimed at improving the security of existing deployed technologies and to ensure the security of new emerging systems;

Develop new and enhanced technologies ofr the detection of, prevention of, and response to cyber attacks on the nation's critical infrastructure; and

Facilitate the transfer of these technologies into the national infrastructure as a matter of urgency.

Of course, as PITAC found in its review of the nation's cyber security R&D portfolio, even this narrow commitment to the short-term suffers from a severe lack of priority within the agency. The agency has requested only $17 million for FY 06 ($1 million less than last year) for cyber security research, out of a total S&T budget of over a billion dollars. I was disappointed that the members of the committee didn't spend more time questioning DHS' priority when it comes to funding cyber security R&D.

The hearing was well-attended by members of the committee. Despite lots of other events on the Hill, the hearing drew at least 23 different Members of Congress, with many sticking around to ask questions. There was plenty of room in the audience and the sections reserved for press however, which led Chairman Boehlert to complain that cyber security is still greeted with a "muffled yawn" outside his committee room and that he hoped it wasn't going to take a "cyber Katrina" to wake people up about the dangerous threat.

I was pleased that Boehlert took a few minutes out of the question period to suggest to the industry representatives (SBC, British Petroleum, Dow Chemical, and American Electric Power were all represented) that they make use of their exceptionally persuasive "hired guns" in DC to advocate for more R&D and better coordination. The lobbyists need to be out there putting focus on the importance of this subject, he said.

Finally, an odd tack during the question and answer portion of the hearing: Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) used his five minutes to berate DHS and the industry representatives for failing to plan and prepare adequately for the "ultimate low-probability, high-impact event" threatening the nation: a nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack. An EMP attack (by detonating a large yield nuclear weapon many miles in the atmosphere above the US) would potentially render every non-hardened microprocessor in the country completely inoperable, which given the ubiquitousness of microprocessors in just about everything, would have a devastating effect on the country. Bartlett was especially interested in hearing how the energy companies would cope, given that every transformer they operate would likely be destroyed, including ones we no longer have the ability to manufacture domestically. None of the witnesses could point to any significant preparation in their sectors.

Posted by PeterHarsha at 05:02 PM | TrackBack
Posted to Events | Policy | Security

Things Will Get Busier...

Apologies for the dearth of timely updates recently. As many readers familiar with the congressional calendar are aware, Congress disappears for the entire month of August so that members can find their way back to their home districts, partake in a few county fairs and local parades, and generally get a longer-than-usual glimpse of how people outside the Beltway actually live. Consequently, you can see the tumbleweeds blow through the streets of DC until about Labor Day.

Now that Congress is back in town and focused on confirming a Chief Justice, dealing with the aftermath of Katrina, and finishing all the must-pass appropriations bills -- ideally before the end of the fiscal year on Sept 30th (they've finished just 2 of 12) -- things are already heating up quickly, so expect this space to get a bit busier as well.

For example, three events worthy of note are scheduled for this Thursday (September 15th). First, at 10 am, the House Science Committee will revisit federal support for cyber security R&D in a hearing that will focus on the risk cyber vulnerabilities pose to critical industries in the U.S. and what the federal government can do to help. Scheduled to testify are:

Mr. Donald "Andy" Purdy, Acting Director, National Cyber Security Division, Department of Homeland Security;

Mr. John Leggate, Chief Information Officer, British Petroleum Inc.;

Mr. David Kepler, Corporate Vice President, Shared Services, and Chief Information Officer, The Dow Chemical Company;

Mr. Andrew Geisse, Chief Information Officer, SBC Services Inc.; and

Mr. Gerald Freese, Director, Enterprise Information Security, American Electric Power.

Presumably, the committee hopes to hear from the industry representatives how significant the cyber threat is to their industries what the Department of Homeland Security is doing about it. Hopefully the committee and the industry witnesses press DHS about its minimal efforts to engage in long-range research to counter the threats. The hearing, like all Science Committee hearings, will be webcast live (10 am to noon) and archived on the Science Committee website.

Also on Thursday are two policy lunches on Capitol Hill relevant to federal support for R&D. The Forum on Technology and Innovation, an offshoot of the Council on Competitiveness and co-chaired by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), will hold a policy briefing on "Basic Research -- The Foundation of the Innovation Economy." Scheduled to speak are George Scalise, president of the Semiconductor Industry Association; Carl A. Batt, Director of the Cornell University/Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Partnership; and Brian Halla, Chairman of the Board and CEO of National Semiconductor. The event is scheduled from 12:30 pm - 2:00 pm, in the Senate Hart building, room 209. Readers in DC can register to attend here. It looks like the forum archives video of their events, so those unable to attend might want to check afterwards for the video stream.

Over on the House side, unfortunately at exactly the same time, is a briefing put on by the House R&D Caucus (CRA is a member of the advisory committee for the caucus) focused on the R&D tax credit. The event is sponsored by the R&D Credit Coalition, which is chock full of industry representatives. From the invite:

Microwaves, laptops, car airbags, life-saving medical technologies and even your MP3 player have one thing in common.

U.S.-based research helped create these innovative products. Research makes our lives better.
...
Come learn how we can encourage U.S.-based research through the strengthening and extension of the R&D Credit. See real examples of how research continues to improve America.

The briefing will be in 2325 Rayburn House Office Building, from Noon - 1:30 pm. DC-area folks wishing to attend can find the RSVP info here (pdf). Apparently attendees can also sign-up to drive "the latest hydrogen fuel cell cars," which could be fun.

The presence of so many U.S. manufacturers and companies on the panels and sponsor-cards for the briefings should add a little heft to the message of both events. I only wish that they hadn't been scheduled for almost exactly the same time....