from the CRA re NSF and HPCC Senate Appropriations Message

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

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