|
Highlights
- Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development (NITRD) funding would fall 4.5 percent in FY 2006 to $2.2
billion across twelve federal agencies, under the President’s budget request.
- The President’s request would increase funding for
computing research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the lead
agency in the NITRD initiative, to $803 million in FY 2006, an increase
of 1.0 percent (see Table I-9).
- Concerns mount that NSF now bears a disproportionate
share of support for computing research as the agency reports that it
was responsible for 86 percent of federal obligations for basic computer
science research at academic institutions in FY 2004.
Introduction
and Background
The importance of computing research in enabling the
new economy is well documented. The resulting advances in information
technology have led to significant improvements in product design, development
and distribution for American industry; provided instant communications
for people worldwide; and enabled new scientific disciplines like bioinformatics
and nanotechnology that show great promise in improving a whole range
of health, security, and communications technologies. Federal Reserve
Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has said that the growing use of information
technology has been the distinguishing feature of this “pivotal period
in American economic history.” Recent analysis suggests that the remarkable
growth the U.S. experienced between 1995 and
2000 was spurred by an increase in productivity enabled almost completely
by factors related to IT. “IT drove the U.S. productivity revival [from
1995-2000],” according to Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson.
Information technology has also
changed the conduct of research. Innovations in computing and networking
technologies are enabling scientific discovery across every scientific
discipline – from mapping the human brain to modeling climatic change.
Researchers, faced with research problems that are ever more complex and
interdisciplinary in nature, are using IT to collaborate across the globe,
simulate experiments, visualize large and complex datasets, and collect
and manage massive amounts of data.
According to a 1995 report by the National Research
Council, a significant reason for this dramatic advance in computing technology
and the subsequent increase in innovation and productivity is the “extraordinarily
productive interplay of federally funded university research, federally
and privately funded industrial research, and entrepreneurial companies
founded and staffed by people who moved back and forth between universities
and industry.” That report, and a subsequent 1999 report by the President’s
Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC), emphasized the “spectacular”
return on the federal investment in long-term IT research and development.
However, in that 1999 report PITAC – a congressionally-chartered,
presidentially-appointed committee charged with assessing the overall
federal investment in IT R&D – also determined that federal support
for IT R&D was inadequate and too focused on near-term problems; long-term
fundamental IT research was not sufficiently supported relative to the
importance of IT to the United States’ economic, health, scientific and
other aspirations; critical problems in computing were going unsolved;
and the rate of introduction of new ideas was dangerously low. The PITAC
report included a series of recommendations, including a set of research
priorities and an affirmation of the committee’s unanimous opinion that
the federal government has an “essential” role in supporting long-term,
high-risk IT R&D. This opinion was buttressed by the inclusion of
a recommendation for specific increases in funding levels for federal
IT R&D programs beginning in FY 2000 and continuing through FY 2004
– an increase of $1.3 billion in additional funding over those five years.
Though the funding levels actually appropriated to
federal IT R&D programs have never approached the level of the PITAC
recommendations – federal agencies received $2.2 billion in FY 2004 for
IT R&D, $476 million short of the PITAC recommendation – the PITAC
report has done much to shape the current federal IT R&D effort. That
effort is now a $2.3 billion multi-agency enterprise called the Networking
and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program and
coordinated by the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Information Technology
Research and Development of the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC). NITRD is the successor of the High Performance Computing and Communications
Program established by Congress in 1991. NITRD agencies coordinate research
in seven Program Component Areas (PCAs): High End Computing Infrastructure
and Applications; High End Computing Research and Development; Human Computer
Interaction and Information Management; Large Scale Networking; Software
Design and Productivity; High Confidence Software and Systems; and Social,
Economic, and Workforce Implications of IT and IT Workforce Development.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the lead agency in NITRD.
Current
Policy Environment
The landscape for computing research funding has changed
significantly since PITAC began its review of the federal IT R&D effort
in 1997. Since the early 1960s, the two federal agencies arguably most
responsible for supporting computing research, the development of computer
science as a discipline and much of the innovation that has resulted are
NSF and DARPA. At the time PITAC began its review, both agencies bore
an about equal share of the overall federal investment in IT R&D.
In FY 1998, DARPA funding constituted 30 percent of federal IT R&D
spending, compared to NSF’s 27 percent share. However, as the overall
investment has increased, DARPA’s share of the research – both as a percentage
of the overall effort and in absolute dollars – has declined. While NSF’s
$795 million investment in IT R&D in FY 2005 represents 35 percent
of overall federal IT R&D (an increase in its total share since FY
1998), DARPA’s $143 million in FY 2005 represents just 6 percent of the
overall IT R&D budget, a significant decrease in its share since FY
1998.
There are concerns within the computing research community
about the reasons for DARPA’s diminished role in supporting computing
research and the impact that it will have on the discipline, DARPA’s mission,
and the nation as a whole. Central to these concerns is the idea that
the discipline – and hence, the nation – benefited greatly by having the
two different approaches to funding computing research represented by
the NSF model and the DARPA model. While NSF has primarily focused on
support for individual investigators at a wide range of institutions –
and support for computing infrastructure at America’s universities – DARPA’s approach
has varied over the years. DARPA has had a number of “freedoms” that other
funding agencies like NSF have not. Historically, DARPA program managers
could fund individual researchers, or even “centers of excellence” – typically
university research departments – without the requirement for equitable
distributions of funding based on geography or any other factor beyond
scientific capability. DARPA’s requirement for competitive selection did
not involve peer review in the same way that competitive grants at NSF
were evaluated. DARPA program managers had great flexibility in funding
projects they believed to be promising. In this way, DARPA was able to
create and nourish communities of researchers to focus on problems of
particular interest to the agency and to the Department of Defense, with
great success.
The combination of the two different approaches has
proven enormously beneficial to the nation, the community argues, and
to DARPA’s overall mission of assuring that the U.S. maintains “a lead in applying
state-of-the-art technology for military capabilities and [preventing]
technological surprise from her adversaries.” DARPA-supported research
in computing over a period of over four decades, beginning in the 1960s,
has laid down the foundations for the modern microprocessor, the internet,
the graphical user interface, single-user workstations, and a whole host
of other innovations that have not only made the U.S. military the lethal
and effective fighting force it is today, but have driven the new economy
and enabled a whole range of new scientific disciplines.
However, the computing research community argues that
through a series of policy changes, including the use of “go/no-go” decisions
applied to critical research at 12 to 18 month intervals and the increasing
classification of research sponsored by the agency, DARPA has shifted
much of its focus in IT R&D from pushing the leading edge of computing
research to “bridging the gap” between basic research and deployable technologies
– in essence relying on NSF to fund the basic research needed to advance
the field.
These changes at DARPA, the community argues, have
discouraged university participation in research, effectively reducing
DARPA “mindshare” – the percentage of people working on DARPA problems
– at the nation’s universities. This fact, combined with an overall growth
in the number of researchers in the field and an increase in the breadth
of the discipline, has placed a significant burden for funding basic IT
R&D on NSF. The agency reports that in FY 2004, NSF supported 86 percent
of federal obligations for basic research in computer science at academic
institutions – and the agency’s Computing and Information Science and
Engineering Directorate (CISE) is beginning to show the strain. In FY
2004, the funding rate for competitive awards in CISE fell to a decadal
low of 16 percent, lowest of any directorate at NSF and well below the
NSF average of 25 percent. Programs in critical areas like information
security and assurance are enduring even lower success rates – NSF’s CyberTrust
program reported an 8.2 percent success rate for FY 2004. Such low success
rates, the community argues, are harmful to the discipline and to the
nation as a whole.
PITAC began to explore these issues in 2004 as a result
of its work on its report on the current state of the federal investment
in cyber security R&D, Cyber
Security: A Crisis in Prioritization, due for release in early 2005.
The committee found that DARPA’s cyber security efforts were too short-term
focused and that its increasing use of classification was limiting the
participation of university researchers and likely limiting the benefits
of the research. The committee also recommended that the federal budget
for fundamental research in civilian cyber security must be dramatically
increased or the nation’s security and technological edge will be seriously
jeopardized. As a first step, the committee agreed to recommend an immediate
increase of $90 million per year to NSF’s Cyber Trust program.
Because the cyber security report exposed the PITAC
members to concerns about how the changed landscape of funding for computing
research has impacted cyber security R&D, it also suggested that the
problems likely go beyond cyber security R&D and extend to the overall
IT R&D effort. As a result, it is likely that the committee will push
forward with some effort to review the overall federal IT R&D program
in the coming year. How that effort will move forward is unclear, and
there is additional uncertainty whether the committee will be re-appointed
when its current charter expires on June 1, 2005.
The committee could get further impetus to undertake
an overall review of federal IT R&D from legislation introduced in
January 2005, by Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL), Rep. Lincoln Davis (R-TN),
and House Science Committee Chair Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY). The High-Performance
Computing Revitalization Act of 2005 (H.R. 28) would require PITAC to
review NITRD every two years and report to Congress, in addition to helping
assure researchers have access to high-performance computer systems and
assuring “balanced progress” in high-performance computing research. The
bill is identical to H.R. 4218, introduced by the same Members in the
108th Congress, which passed the House but failed to get consideration
in the Senate. Previous efforts to reauthorize NITRD programs in the 106th
and 107th Congress also failed to gain the approval of both
chambers. Prospects for passage this year are better, given the early
start and the uncontroversial nature of the legislation.
In addition to efforts to revitalize high-performance
computing, Congress is likely to take an interest in cyber security, though
congressional reorganization has made the question of who will take the
lead in coordinating cyber security policy difficult to answer. For now,
the fact that four House committees share jurisdiction over the issue
– Energy and Commerce, Government Reform, Science, and Homeland Security
– likely means that prospects for any overarching legislation are slim.
However, the release of the PITAC cyber security report will probably
generate action in Congress and may lead to oversight hearings for the
key agencies involved (NSF, DARPA and DHS).
Budget
Request
Seven agencies included requests for FY 2006 funding
as part of the NITRD activity. Under the President’s plan, NSF, as the
recipient of the largest amount of NITRD funds, would once again be designated
as the lead agency for the initiative, with NSF Computing and Information
Systems and Engineering (CISE) Directorate head Dr. Peter Freeman serving
as the head of the NITRD Interagency Working Group. For FY 2006, the President
has requested $2.2 billion for the NITRD initiative, a decrease of 4.5
percent over the FY 2005 enacted level (see Table
I-9). Under the President’s plan, NSF, Commerce, Defense, and EPA
would see small to moderate increases in FY 2006, while Energy, HHS and
NASA would see cuts of 7.8, 3.4 and 54.6 percent respectively. National Science
Foundation (NSF): NSF has requested $803 million in NITRD-related funding, an increase
of $8 million or 1.0 percent over FY 2005. The bulk of IT-related funding
in the NSF request is contained within the request for the CISE directorate,
which would grow 1.1 percent over FY 2005 to $621 million. CISE program
funding is detailed in Table II-7. The Foundation’s Information Technology
Research (ITR) activity ended in FY 2004, so funding included in the ITR
line reflects commitments to multi-year grants awarded prior to FY 2004.
As with last year, NSF continues to invest the funding “freed up” from
the ITR activity as grants end back into the “core” research activities
of the directorate.
CISE has also adopted a number of strategies to cope
with the low success rate the directorate is currently experiencing (detailed
above) due to the significant increase in proposal pressure, an increase
in annual award amounts, and budget growth that has not kept pace with
demand. In some heavily subscribed programs, CISE plans to delay FY 2005
solicitation deadlines and use FY 2005 money to fund some meritorious
FY 2004 solicitations it was unable to fund, and use expected FY 2006
money to fund some FY 2005 solicitations. In addition, CISE will limit
the number of proposals that a researcher may submit to some competitions,
while enforcing regulations that prohibit sending virtually identical
proposals to multiple competitions simultaneously.
NSF remains active in every aspect of the NITRD program
component areas and continues in its role as the principal source of federal
funding for university-based basic research in computer science, computer
engineering, information science, networking and the computational science
disciplines. NSF’s request of $803 million is significantly larger than
the next largest NITRD participant (HHS, $569 million).
Department of
Defense (DOD): The DOD request of $299 million for NITRD-related activities department-wide
represents an increase of $21 million from the FY 2005 level. DARPA constitutes
the largest share of NITRD-related defense funding at $176 million in
the President’s request, an increase of $28 million over FY 2005, with
the bulk of that effort taking place within the Information Processing
Technology Office (IPTO). DARPA efforts in High End Computing would increase
by $17 million (to $81 million) to support the High Productivity Computing
Systems program, consistent with the recommendations of the Administration’s
High End Computing Revitalization Task Force released last year. Human-Computer
Interaction and Information Management would see a $13 million increase
(to $74 million) for research aimed at improving information access and
analysis for warfighters.
The DOD request also includes $22 million for research
in High Confidence Software and Systems and Software Design and Productivity
supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the same level
as in FY 2005. The National Security Agency, also a part of the DOD request,
would see its budget drop by $12 million in FY 2006 to $101 million, as
it winds down the developmental support for its Black Widow computer system.
Health and Human
Services (HHS): NIH constitutes the bulk of funding in IT R&D at HHS. For FY 2006,
the President’s plan includes $569 million in IT R&D funding at HHS,
a decrease of 3.4 percent or $20 million from the FY 2005 level. The bulk
of this reduction is due to the completion of testbed projects exploring
medical applications of advanced networks.
Within HHS, NIH participates in NITRD by supporting
research that advances its mission of developing the basic knowledge for
the understanding, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of human disease.
IT research in this area includes applying the power of computing to manage
and analyze biomedical data and to model biological processes. AHRQ focuses
on research into state-of-the-art IT for use in health care applications
such as computer-based patient records, clinical decision support systems,
and standards for patient care data.
Department of Energy (DOE): IT R&D
activities in DOE’s Office of Science and NNSA constitute DOE’s participation
in NITRD. The Office of Science focuses on computational and networking
tools that enable researchers to model, simulate, analyze, and predict
complex physical, chemical and biological phenomena important to the department’s
overall mission. NNSA supports research developing new means of assessing
the performance, safety, and reliability of nuclear weapons systems through
high-fidelity computer models and simulations. Under the President’s plan
DOE NITRD funding would be $341 million for FY 2006, a decrease of 7.8
percent or $29 million from the FY 2005 level. According to the request,
this reduction reflects the completion of the initial leadership-class
computer system acquisition, and consolidation of efforts in networking
research and collaboratory tools into an integrated “Distributed Network
Environment” focusing on basic research in computer networking and middleware.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA): Under the
President’s plan, NASA would see the largest reduction in NITRD funding
both on a percentage and an absolute-dollar basis. The President’s request
includes $74 million for NASA IT R&D in FY 2005, a reduction of $89
million from the FY 2005 level, representing a 54.6 percent decrease.
Though NASA will continue operating its 52-teraflop Columbia computer
acquired in 2004-2005, funding in all aspects of NASA’s IT R&D efforts
will be reduced and redirected to support NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration
and mission needs for returning the Space Shuttle to flight. (See Chapter
10 for details of the NASA budget.)
Department of Commerce (DOC): The DOC
request for FY 2006 contains NITRD-related funding requests from two agencies:
NOAA and NIST. NIST IT R&D efforts include working with industry,
educational, and government organizations to make IT systems more useable,
secure, scalable, and interoperable. In addition, NIST works to apply
IT to specialized areas like biotechnology and manufacturing, and to encourage
industry to accelerate development of IT innovations. The President’s
request includes $42 million for NIST in FY 2006, an increase of $3 million
over FY 2005.
NOAA supports IT research in emerging
computer technologies for improved climate modeling and weather forecasting,
and for improved communications technologies to disseminate weather products
and warnings to emergency responders, policymakers, and the general public.
The President’s request includes $20 million for NOAA in FY 2006, a $1
million increase over FY 2005.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA
would receive $6 million in FY 2006 under the President’s plan, an increase
of $2 million over FY 2005. EPA intends to use that funding to support
IT technologies that facilitate ecosystem modeling, risk assessment, and
environmental decision making at the federal, state, and local levels.
Department of
Homeland Security (DHS): Because the Department of Homeland Security, established in 2003, was
created well after the original passage of the legislation creating the
current NITRD structure (the High Performance Computing and Communications
Act of 1991), the agency is not officially a member of the NITRD Interagency
Working Group. However, the agency has requested $17 million in FY 2006
for cyber security research and development, out of a total Science and
Technology directorate budget request of $1.3 billion (see Table
II-6), a decrease of $1 million compared to FY 2005. In the forthcoming
PITAC report on cyber security R&D, the committee is expected to take
DHS to task for its inadequate support of long-term cyber security research,
given that IT systems constitute the control loop of so much of the nation’s
critical infrastructure. The report will note that of the $18 million
DHS expects to spend in FY 2005 on cyber security R&D, only $1.5 million
of that research can truly be described as long-term. (For
more on DHS R&D, see Chapter 12.)
Other
participating agencies include the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Department of Energy
(DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), DOE Office of Science,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), National Security Agency (NSA), and the DOD Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD).
|
