Interesting People mailing list archives
from the CRA re NSF and HPCC Senate Appropriations Message
From: David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 21:34:56 -0500
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 10:11:24 -0400 From: rweingar () cs UMD EDU (Rick Weingarten) To: forsythe () cs UMD EDU Subject: Senate Appropriations Message Friends: You have undoubtedly heard, from various postings, of the recent report from Barbara Mikulski's Senate Appropriations Subcommittee responsible for NSF, which accompanied its recommended appropriation with report language highly critical of NSF in general and HPCC in particular. Things are always more complex and more subtle than they appear -- nowhere more so than in the nation's capital. Here is an attempt at sorting through the current situation: Key aspects of the Appropriations Subcommittee report - ----------------------------------------------------- Although a variety of critiques and directives were made in the report, four seem to stand out in particular: 1. Priorities. The report spends several paragraphs complaining that NSF has not responded to repeated calls to focus its attention on what is refered to as "Strategic Research." Specifically, the report directs NSF to "outline the balance between strategic research objectives and other, more generic, research" and further directs that no less than 60% of its research activities be strategic. 2. Science Board. The committee asks NSF to evaluate the structure and composition of the National Science Board with an eye towards broadening its membership and responsibilities. 3. Research centers. The committee expresses concern over the growth in the number of national centers (Science & Technology Centers, Engineering Research Centers, and Supercomputer Centers) and allocates funds for a National Academy of Public Administration study of the purposes and structure of these centers. 4. HPCC. The committee specifically deletes $50 million from NSF's request for HPCC related activities (none of it to be taken from the NSFNET request), the only program in the budget to be so singled out. The possibility of a reprieve is left open: NSF was given a few weeks to devise a plan that articulates "specific, quantifiable, and measurable goals" for the program. Given the lack of both a permanent NSF director and an AD for CISE, though, the likelihood is not high that a credible plan could be produced in that time frame. Background - ----------- There is a long history to these complaints by the committee. They should come as a surprise to no one who has been paying close attention -- they are simply the next salvo in a long series of warnings made both by friends of science and by those not so friendly. The scientific community has not yet stepped up to the invitation for a dialog on the directions of Federal research support. Many of the most vocal have loudly attacked all who suggest change, viewing any suggested shift away from the 1950's "contract" as an outrageous assault on basic research. Thus, although much in the report may seem ill-informed or even threatening to research funding, the attitudes and concerns that led to the language will take time and patience to deal with. The gulf that exists between Congress on the one hand, and NSF and the scientific community on the other, is far more alarming than the actual language in the report, and this gulf will not be bridged by more shouting. Computing research may be in a unique position to engage in the debate. Surely, when politicians think about "strategic", they are in part thinking about computing. Yet, computing research also contains a strong strand of basic, curiosity-driven research. We stand firmly with one foot in each camp. The HPCC language presents the most immediate direct problem for the computing research community. Because CISE had been targeted for a budget increase, the result will not be a $50M cut from current levels, even if the language is not modified. But the result would certainly be to hold all CISE research programs at or slightly below current levels for the second year in a row. It is ironic that the HPCC budget is the one singled out in the report. The HPCC program is among the most strategically, commercially and socially relevant at the Foundation -- just what Congress says they want. Moreover, another long-standing goal of Congress has been increased inter-agency cooperation; HPCC has been a model of that -- perhaps the most successful of the FCCSET initiatives in that regard. Why did it happen? Sen. Mikulski's staff has let it be known for several months that it cannot understand the NSF and CISE budgets as they relate to HPCC. The phrases in the report are familiar to those who have been listening. What are we doing? - ------------------ Our judgement has been that it is important to understand clearly what is going on, before reacting. It has taken some time to get a handle on these happenings. Concerning the HPCC budget cut, we are proceeding along three lines. First, we need to see that members of the Senate Subcommittee, and of the House/Senate conference committee, understand the implications of report language for computing research, for the computing industry, and, in the longer run, for the viability of multi-agency research programs (if agencies can't make and fulfill long-term commitments). This is being done by means of letters and visits to key congresspeople and staffers. Second, we need to strike a compromise that buys some time for a new NSF Director and CISE Director to open a dialog with the Subcommittee. We have had discussion with Neal Lane and others on this subject. Third, CRA will make itself available as a resource for community input and advice to NSF and its new CISE AD. We are particularly concerned with generating, where possible, a consensus on research policies and priorities among academics, industry, and government. We had already agreed to run a workshop in the spring, in collaboration with CSPP and other organizations, on the computing research agenda related to the NII; this is a key example of the sort of constructive role we can play. The "strategic" question is a much broader, messier issue in which CRA can play only a small role in the short term. In the first place, it is a jurisdictional issue. Serious changes in science and technology policy usually flow from the House and Senate authorizing committees and the Executive Branch, mainly through the Science Advisor's Office and the National Science Board. In this case, the Appropriations Subcommittee is taking the lead. For now, we are writing a letter to those organizations expressing our concern about the process and the state of the (non-)dialog. Experience with the political system teaches that it will have its way. If we engage in the debate we will be able to mitigate damage and, quite likely, even benefit from the changes taking place. If we sit back and throw rocks, we won't like what happens -- guaranteed. Ed Lazowska, Chair CRA Gov't Affairs Committee Rick Weingarten, Executive Director, CRA ------- End of Forwarded Message
Current thread:
- from the CRA re NSF and HPCC Senate Appropriations Message David Farber (Sep 22)