Policy 103: Challenging the Community to Move Ahead

By Fred W. Weingarten

In the first article in this series, I described the surprisingly wide range of issues that are contained in science policy. In the second, I talked about the number of potential players in the policy debate. I suggested that, in order to precipitate a major change in policy, a lot if not all of these forces have to be aligned behind the change or, in some cases, neutral to it.

In this third "chapter," it's time to discuss how this might play out in trying to change the levels and patterns of computing research support. In a way, this is the most idiosyncratic and subjective piece. My first two articles reflected more or less how many people who work in science policy professionally see the world. There is far more variation in the styles and approaches people use to get things done in this town. So, the views reflected here are mine alone, and I have tried to frame them in a way that will invite discussion within the community.

This isn't a theoretical debate. The Interim Report of the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) last fall, followed by the more recent announcement of the administration's new IT2 program, promise a real opportunity for major increases in support for computing research. But they also challenge the community to take an active part in the debate over science policy in new ways to make the promises materialize. The community's future approach to advocacy must be not only more active, but more proactive in asserting the importance of computing research and the needs of the field. But first, let's take an overly simplified look at how computing research policy making has evolved.

I think that computing research policy is now moving into a new, third, phase of growth.

First, from the '60s until the late '80s, the level of funding, the research agenda, and even which universities could play in the game, were dictated by ARPA and NSF. ARPA was involved because of the importance of computers to defense, even in those early days. NSF support was a somewhat grudging recognition on the part of senior administrators that computer science and engineering were emerging as new research disciplines. During that time, the computing field basically didn't have an organized advocacy group, and had no seat at the science policy table.

The second phase began with the debate leading to the passage of the High Performance Computing Act in 1991 (HPCA). Computing and communications technology came to the fore in the general political debate as technologies critical to the nation's welfare. Again, government led the debate and agenda setting. The justification for computing research was still framed primarily as a response to agency needs and priorities. But that agenda was also much broader, touching more government and societal needs such as health, education, and libraries.

This was a smart strategy. The HPCC, as the program later became known (with the addition of communications), leveraged agency self-interests in order to stimulate a government-wide expansion of investment in computing research. It also managed to open up a broader public debate on the need for research support for the field. High Performance Computing was even mentioned in a presidential debate! It was during this time that CRA opened its doors in Washington, and the field began to develop a formal, organized voice in science policy.

The downside of this approach was twofold. Although broader, the combined agency research agendas did not cover the spectrum of research needs. They maintained the pattern of Washington setting the research priorities for the field. That top-down pattern was brought home to yours truly one day when a senior science official became angry that I had voiced some criticism of the programs (concerns I had heard expressed strongly by the research community). He reminded me that he and his government colleagues would set policy "behind closed doors" and we "troops" (as he called me and the CRA community that I represented) were to support that policy and march in the direction indicated, not ask questions - Yes, Sir!

It is interesting to note that the advisory committee called for in HPCA was not appointed until six years later - after the Act had expired, in fact. The executive branch simply saw no need for outside input in the program and no need to strengthen communication links with the research community (probably the most important function of an advisory committee).

But that was a transitional stage. Now we have arrived at a third phase in which computing research policy making will be made in a three-way dialogue among the research institutes, industry, and government. Computing and communications technologies have simply become too important to too many communities for such a top-down approach. Nurturing political support for higher levels of funding means bringing in many more voices and accommodating many more concerns.

One can see such three-way tensions already occurring in specific public policy debates, such as the domain name debate or the fight over cryptography.

Yet today, a blue ribbon expert advisory committee, not a government agency, pointed out that computing research was underfunded and recommended not only a major increase in funding, but a restructuring of support. The research community said "not enough support directed in the right way," and the administration, generally sympathetic to the needs of information technology, agreed and proposed IT2 in the 2000 budget.

What does this mean to the research community? Its role in science policy must change. It must become more active, more involved with promoting a research agenda to the public and to the political system. It must also be more active in developing alliances and forming coalitions among those who stand to benefit from innovations in computing and communications. In essence, if the promises of the PITAC recommendations and the IT2 initiative are to materialize, the computing research community must develop an active advocacy strategy. It has to take policy into its own hands, working in concert with government science agencies and private sector users. There are many strategies and actions that could be taken. The community has to develop its own agenda reflecting its own style - here are two suggestions:

Create and promote a legislative package.

I know, I know. The agencies will say that they need no authorizing legislation, that any expansion of computing research support can be done within the framework of their current authorizations. And that is true. But there are several reasons why developing and pushing a legislative package could be useful:

It is a useful exercise for the community. It is one thing to say, "Our field needs more support" and quite another to specify what that means. For example, what five actions would the reader like to see written into law to support computing research?

It provides a focus for advocacy. Five minutes with a Member of Congress are better spent stating "We want you to support H. R. XXX," rather than "We want you to support computing research." In Congress, putting one's name on a bill and voting for it is concrete, and it helps develop congressional "champions" for computing research.

It's a rallying point. Coalitions are best organized and motivated around specific language. Empty statements of support for research in general are easy to come by, but it is quite different to support (or even oppose) a specific bill.

One might actually win! And even if a bill doesn't pass, small separable pieces could still be attached to other legislation that has a better chance of passing. That way, some useful legislation, however minor, is passed. Additionally, the political system gets used to voting positively on an issue. Don't underestimate the value of such momentum in politics. Finally, the appropriations committees are more likely to respond favorably when programs requesting funds have been debated and specifically voted for by Congress.

Build coalitions.

The computing research community is far too small to have much influence on legislation and the direction of spending of serious money. It needs the support of industry and the end-user communities-the beneficiaries of research. It also needs the continued goodwill and general support of the public.

Although coalitions require effort to build and sustain, they are essential. For the academic research community, it means broadening programs to encompass a wider range of concerns. It also means that others will want a voice in setting research priorities. The importance of computing research to society is both the great strength and weakness of the field. It is a powerful political and social argument for investment, and it means that lots of cooks want to stir the broth. Harnessing that political energy and engaging the broader community in the policy process, while sustaining a sound, long-term research agenda, is the tightrope to walk.

Facing the Challenge