Computing Research Policy Blog

Sen. Clinton Raises Concerns About DARPA Computer Science

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) put the President's nominee for Director of Defense Research and Engineering, John Young, on notice at his Senate confirmation hearing last week that she expects the new Director to address her concerns with DARPA (which DDR&E technically oversees), particularly DARPA support for university-led computer science research. Those concerns turns out to be ones shared by the computing research community, including "nonfiscal limitations such as the classification of work in areas that were previously unclassified; precluding university submissions as prime contractors on certain solicitations; [and] reducing the periods of performance to 18 to 24 months."

This kind of short-term focus is not conducive to university programs to address broad fundamental technological and scientific challenges, especially when we know that research in computer science will be at the very core of network-centric warfare.

So I would hope, Mr. Young, that you would look into this and, assuming you are confirmed, that you would take this as a very serious charge, because we just had another study by the National Academy of Sciences that basically said the United States is losing its technological and scientific leadership, and that's going to have long-term consequences certainly for defense but also for our standard of living and our economic prosperity.

Clinton rightly notes that these concerns are shared by not just the university researchers directly affected by these policies, but many of the industrial and multi-disciplinary users “downstream” who have come to depend on advances in information technology for their own progress. Additionally, the DOD's own Defense Science Board, the National Academies, the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, and several Congressional committees have all raised concerns about the impact of DARPA's move away from long-term, university-led research in information technology and its implications for the country's long-term health and prosperity.

Unfortunately, as we've noted recently, at the same time these concerns about the state of computer science research at DARPA are being raised, one of the agency's truly positive activities - its Cognitive Computing program - is imperiled by a sizeable cut approved in the Senate version of the FY 2006 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 2863). The Senate bill would cut $55 million from DARPA's $114 million “Learning, Reasoning, and Integrated Cognitive Systems” account, a move that would hamper advancements in defense-related information technology in the short- and long-term and would also slow technological advancement essential to current and future military operations in Iraq and around the globe. We at CRA hope that Clinton will help urge her colleagues on the conference committee negotiating the bill to abandon the cut and provide the President's requested funding level, the level approved in the House version of H.R. 2863.

I've included the whole of her statement -- which is very good -- after the jump. The importance of her remarks are multi-fold. One, she's placed an important marker down for the computing research community -- the concerns of the community will be on the new DDR&E's plate as soon as he takes the job. Second, she's raised the profile of the concerns among the rest of the members on the Senate Armed Services Committee and staff (though they're already pretty sympathetic). And finally, it never hurts to have the current frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008 using her five minutes at a confirmation hearing to talk about your concerns.

Anyway, read the whole thing after the jump -- and if you get a chance, especially if you're at a NY institution, drop Senator Clinton a note of thanks for looking out long-term research....

CLINTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I welcome the nominees and I want to especially express appreciation to Mr. Young, whom I have enjoyed working with in your previous position as assistant secretary of the Navy for acquisition, and appreciated greatly your objectivity and fairness in deciding a number of contentious contracting issues, including the Marine One contract.

Your new position, Mr. Young, will place you in a critical role to help define the DOD research agenda. And, as you may know, the Air Force research laboratory in Rome, New York, is a world leader in the development of revolutionary cybersecurity technologies.

And I would like you to know you're invited to come up and visit Rome labs for yourself and to see what we're doing in cybersecurity. And my invitation is related to a larger concern I have about the direction of funding for science and research within the Department of Defense.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, otherwise known as DARPA, has seen some significant cutbacks in the last several years. The department's science and technology programs are absolutely essential. And what they have historically done is to make investments in our nation's universities and innovative, high-tech small businesses in areas such as robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and the like.

And we've obviously seen the results of that research grow into new capabilities that have been proven effective in the global war on terrorism operations in Iraq and elsewhere, but also in the civilian world with the spinoff.

That's why I'm concerned that the department seems to be systematically underinvesting in fundamental and long-term research programs. The department's science and technology requests for '06 was down $2.8 billion from the '05 appropriated levels, and even $28 million below the original '05 budget request.

In fact, the request is so low it has triggered a congressionally mandated Defense Science Board review of the effects of these lowered science and technology investments on our national security. And I look forward to the results of that review.

But I think it's important that we stop a minute and think about the consequences of these cutbacks. A particular concern with respect to how DARPA is being treated is that we used to have a division between applied research in DARPA and more innovative almost blue sky research.

And in fact, much of the blue sky research is what it's most famous for. And the spinoffs have fueled the economy, not just our national security and military capability.

The National Academy of Sciences, in a recent report requested by the committee, recommended that DOD begin to try to redress the imbalance in its current basic research allocation.

And I've been surprised to have members of the information technology community come and express their concern. They don't have any stake in the DARPA research, but they know how essential it is to keep our overall national research and science and technology edge.

The Defense Science Board has raised concerns over DARPA's funding of computer science, and it's particularly concerning because DARPA has further limited university participation in its computer science programs, including: nonfiscal limitations such as the classification of work in areas that were previously unclassified; precluding university submissions as prime contractors on certain solicitations; reducing the periods of performance to 18 to 24 months.

This kind of short-term focus is not conducive to university programs to address broad fundamental technological and scientific challenges, especially when we know that research in computer science will be at the very core of network-centric warfare.

So I would hope, Mr. Young, that you would look into this and, assuming you are confirmed, that you would take this as a very serious charge, because we just had another study by the National Academy of Sciences that basically said the United States is losing its technological and scientific leadership, and that's going to have long-term consequences certainly for defense but also for our standard of living and our economic prosperity.

So I don't have a question so much as a plea, that we try to address this, because we're moving further and further behind.