Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: the CRA response to the HPCC Senate Appropriations Message
From: David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 22:37:58 -0500
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 22:27:00 EDT From: Herb Lin <HLIN%NAS.BITNET () VTBIT CC VT EDU> Subject: Re: the CRA response to the HPCC Senate Appropriations Messa To: farber () central cis upenn edu (David Farber) Dave -- for interesting-persons... tnx herb Folks -- as a former staff scientist to a major Congressional committee (as well as the CSTB staff officer who had to manage the "Computing the Future" flap of last year), I'd like to make just a couple of comments about the Weingarten/Lazowska message. The general thrust of their message is right on target -- the scientific community has as a general rule not been willing to engage the science policy process with anything other than an entitlement argument -- give us money and good things will flow from that; trust us. The Senate report language reflects Congressional frustration with this argument. The term "curiosity-driven" research is their way of saying "we're not willing to support you in pursuing your curiosity without knowing what we'll get from it". Moreover, in a time of hard budget times where everyone has to suffer (the homeless, the sick, the elderly and so on), a claim on resources from the scientific community suggesting that they (i.e., the scientists) should not suffer just makes Congressional staffers mad. CRA is undertaking the following steps: ... 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. In my opinion, the community cannot engage in a power struggle that attempts to establish the merits; that battle it will lose. I believe the best hope at this time is to propose compromise language that accepts the basic philosophy of the Senate report. Specifically, the community should propose that the $50 M for NSF HPCC programs remain in the budget, but that it be "fenced off" (i.e, be unavailable for obligation) UNTIL NSF submits the requested report. Such an action would keep the money in the budget, but would put heat on NSF to come up with the report in a timely manner (a plus from the Senate's point of view). Herb Lin CSTB
Current thread:
- Re: the CRA response to the HPCC Senate Appropriations Message David Farber (Sep 22)