Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Report Assesses Defense Basic Research
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:32:02 -0500
I strongly endorse Jon's comments djf ------ Forwarded Message From: "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap () eros-os org> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:06:38 -0500 To: <dave () farber net> Subject: Re: [IP] Report Assesses Defense Basic Research [For IP] In regard to the report by the "Committee on Department of Defense Basic Research", does anyone else find it difficult to reconcile the statement: "No significant quantities of 6.1 funds (basic research) have been directed toward projects that are typical of research funded under categories 6.2 or 6.3." with "...there has been a trend within DOD for reduced attention to unfettered exploration in its basic research program. Near-term DOD needs are producing significant pressure to focus basic research in support of those needs. DOD needs to realign the balance of its basic research effort more in favor of unfettered exploration." ?? I personally find it very difficult to imagine how *any* research directed toward "near-term DOD needs" (or near-term needs for anyone else, for that matter) might be honestly characterized as "basic research." Historically, the greatest strength of DARPA and DoD was its willingness to invest in research ideas that combined (long term, high risk, high payoff). These investments include projects ranging from what is now the Internet to the stealth bomber to the unmanned reconnaissance vehicles that are now saving lives in Iraq. In recent years, this funding has been significantly reduced. Perhaps equally important, over the last two years the remaining funds have been directed preferentially toward classified (black) and/or sensitive (unpublishable) projects. While there are well-motivated black projects going on, all too often the decision to make a project black is motivated by the desire to avoid oversight. Certainly, black funding is incompatible with the basic values of academic research. So is pre-publication approval, a requirement that has been imposed on nearly *all* DoD contracts in the last several years. Over the last 75 years, the inventions that have had the greatest positive impact on our society and our economy came from open laboratories -- either projects at universities (often in collaboration with industrial partners) that were funded openly by DARPA or work done at Bell Labs, which was unable to exploit many of its inventions and therefore licensed them for next to nothing. In very large measure, these kinds of innovations have been the key enablers that allowed America to sustain its position as a world leading nation. Today, the only institutions that fill a comparable role are research universities, and funding for long-term research in these institutions is all but gone. So my question: How do we invent the future of America if we won't fund the inventors? I don't think that the answer needs to be DARPA, or that the next big push necessarily lies in Computer Science, but for the academics who have historically relied on DARPA we need an answer *soon* (i.e. within the next 12 months). In Computer Science, along with a number of other fields that drive our economy, we are in real danger of losing an entire academic generation of research faculty in applied areas. To be sure, we can rebuild that expertise if we choose to do so, but that could well take 30 years. Perhaps it is it okay to say that America doesn't need long term innovation drivers. I suppose it can't be *that* bad to be a second- world country... Jonathan S. Shapiro Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Report Assesses Defense Basic Research David Farber (Jan 20)