Overall, the Office of Science, the area that does the majority of basic research and computing research, would receive a 4% increase over FY10, bringing the research budget to $5.12 billion. The Advanced Scientific Computing Research program does very well in the request with an increase of 8.1% for a total of $426 million. Basic energy sciences would get a 12% increase, a total of $1.835 billion.
Another large request this year in the Office of Science is for Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists. That request is for a 72% increase to $35.6 million. This would include $16 million for additional Early Career Research Program awards and $10 million for additional graduate fellowships.
The FY11 budget request for ARPA-E is $300 million, which is the starting budget since the FY2010 budget did not include funding for ARPA-E, though it did have funding from the ARRA.
The presentations and detailed budget information for the Department is available online.
Despite some early concerns in the science community over some dicey reported funding levels for some key science agencies, the President's FY 2011 budget, released today, demonstrates a continued commitment to doubling the budgets of the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Here's some relevant bits. We'll have more as we plow through it and get briefed by the relevant agencies.
Investment in science and basic research is critical to long-term economic growth. That’s why the Budget invests $61.6 billion in civilian research and development, an increase of $3.7 billion, a 6.4 percent increase, and an amount that continues the commitment to double funding for three key basic research agencies—the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This funding includes $1.8 billion for research in basic energy sciences to discover novel ways to produce, store, and use energy to address energy independence and climate change and $300 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, to accelerate game-changing energy technologies in need of rapid and flexible experimentation or engineering. The Budget includes increased funding for research to help create the foundation for the industries and jobs of the future, such as nano-manufacturing, advanced robotics, and new tools for the design of biological systems.Under the President's plan, NSF would grow by 8 percent to $7.4 billion in FY 11. NSF's research accounts would also grow by 8 percent, $455 million over FY 10.
The Department of Energy's Office of Science would see a 4.6 percent increase to $5.1 billion in FY 11. DOE's new ARPA-E would see $300 million in funding.
Watch this space (and our Twitter) for more info!
Update: More coverage from Science.
]]>Interestingly, the Defense appropriation, which includes research funding at DARPA and the other Defense labs, was held out of this omnibus -- likely because the Democratic leadership wants to save it for the very end of the session as a last-ditch vehicle on which to attach other difficult-to-pass Democratic priorities. Congress faces a Dec 18th deadline for wrapping up appropriations, so we should have some idea of the final numbers in the Defense bill within the next week or so.
We'll also have a full breakdown of all the science funding in the 1088 page bill, including budgets for NASA and NIH, very soon.
Update (12/10): The Joint Explanatory Statement -- the report of the conference committee accompanying the bill -- takes the Administration to task following reports that the President's budget request for NSF in FY 11 will be much less generous than the FY 10 budget:
The conference agreement includes $6,926,510,000 for the National Science Foundation (NSF), consistent with the on-going effort to double the agency's budget over a ten-year period.That's strong show of support for the agency and good indication of how the President's rumored 2.9 percent proposed increase for NSF in FY 11 might be received by Congress. ]]>The conferees are concerned with continuity in the level of support for research and development at the National Science Foundation and reiterate concerns expressed by the House that the request for fiscal year 2011 should represent at least a seven percent increase for NSF over the conference agreement level for fiscal year 2010 in order to sustain the planned doubling of the Foundation's budget.
In the announcement of the challenge, DARPA Director Regina Dugan said, “In the 40 years since this breakthrough, the Internet has become an integral part of society and the global economy. The DARPA Network Challenge explores the unprecedented ability of the Internet to bring people together to solve tough problems.”
Peter Lee, director of the Transformational Convergence Technology Office at DARPA, said at MSNBC.com, "We're learning more and more every day about social networks - how they form, how communities grow and how they change over time. It's become a very interesting field of research ... but when it's a competition, the dynamic changes."
With over 1000 registered teams competing in the challenge, the varying techniques on mobilization, dissemination, and collaboration are already informative though Lee told MSNBC.com that the most original ideas have probably not been revealed yet to maintain the competitive edge. Lee also expects subterfuge, deception, and information selling to show up in the competition.
Registration is still open to participate in the challenge and you can sign up here. It’ll be very interesting to see all the techniques used and to see how long it takes for a team to find all 10 balloons. We’ll link to the announcement of the winner when it is announced.
ScienceWorksForUS, a joint effort by the Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and The Science Coalition (TSC), launched today on Capitol Hill with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in attendance. The interesting and much needed initiative is designed to illustrate how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funding is supporting research across the country and how that research impacts the nation economically, both in the short and long term. The website of the initiative gives researchers a chance to tell their stories and to share their research with a wider public audience.
As weve mentioned here before, the ARRA included over $21 billion in science funding, including money to build research facilities, buy equipment, and conduct research. The immediate impact is to continue or increase employment of researchers, equipment manufacturers, and facility construction workers. However, the long-term impact will be more, higher paying jobs in industries that are created from the research or that help solve challenges in energy, healthcare, and other high priority challenges that the US faces in the coming decades.
We're in the end game for the FY 2010 appropriations, but no one is really sure exactly how this will end (though there are some good theories). While a number of bills have actually passed through regular order -- including, most relevantly for the computing research community, the Energy and Water appropriations bill, which contains funding for the DOE's Office of Science -- an equal number of key bills remain unsettled. Still unresolved are the Commerce, Justice, Science bill, which includes funding for NSF, NOAA, NIST, and NASA; the Defense bill, which includes funding for DARPA and the Defense labs; and Labor-HHS, which includes funding for NIH. Because we've passed the end of the fiscal year (Sept. 30th), the government is operating under a "Continuing Resolution" that will keep agencies funded at the FY 09 rate through Dec 18th. So, conventional wisdom suggests that these remaining appropriations bills will get taken care of by then (and probably at the last minute). Until then, Congress -- the Senate, in particular -- is more than occupied by the raging debate on reforming health care and will fit in appropriations discussions between now and then only as little blocks of free time appear.
It appears at this point that the remaining bills will end up in an omnibus measure -- that is, they'll be bundled into one bill for passage. (Because it's only seven appropriations bills that would be bundled, rather than the usual twelve, many have taken to referring to the bill as a "minibus" -- though I suppose everything is relative in DC). It also appears that the Defense bill will be the anchor for the minibus, because it's considered the highest priority (a "must pass" bill), and thus many controversial provisions unrelated to defense that don't have homes elsewhere may find their way into the bill (there's been talk of adding a DC voting rights measure to it, though that's now looking unlikely, or some health care-related language). But aside from that, we assume that sometime that week of Dec 14-18, we'll start to see the final agreed-upon numbers for all of the as-yet-unappropriated science programs we care about. Until then, here's what we know:
Department of Energy Office of Science (status: final): The Energy and Water Appropriations was passed and signed by the President on October 28th (P.L. 111-85). In it, DOE's Office of Science received just over $4.8 billion (plus about $77 million in earmarks), a compromise between levels the House and Senate had passed separately, but an increase of 3 percent compared with FY 2009. The appropriation includes funding for the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program (ASCR), which will receive $394 million in FY 10, slightly less than both the Senate original appropriations of $399 million and the House original number of $409 million, but a healthy 6.8 percent increase over FY2009.
National Science Foundation (status: unfinished): Funding for NSF is contained in the FY 10 Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill. The House version of this bill would fund NSF at $6.93 billion in FY 10, an increase of 6.9 percent over FY09 but $108 million lower than the President's request for the agency. The Senate version would fund the agency at $6.9 billion, a 6.6 percent increase. Both the Senate and House bills include healthy increases for NSF's Computer and Information Science and Engineering directorate. The Senate version would provide $620 million in FY 10, 8.1 percent more than FY 09, and the House would provide $623 million, or an 8.6 percent increase. Both levels are less than the $633 million the President requested in his budget.
NSF's Office of CyberInfrastructure (OCI) also fares well in both versions of the bill. The House would provide $216 million for OCI in FY 10, an increase of 8.1 percent, and the Senate $215 million, a 7.7 percent increase. Both are below the President's requested increase of 10.0 percent in FY 10.
NSF's Education and Human Resources directorate would receive a $17.6 million increase over FY 09 in the House, a $12.5 million increase over the Administration request. The Senate passed the President's EHR request of $857.76 million.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (status: unfinished): NIST is also a part of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill. The House passed version includes $587 million for NIST's research efforts, a 1.6 percent decrease from FY 09. The Senate would fund the agency at $684 million (less $47 million in earmarks), a 14.5 percent increase. However, if you remove the earmarked spending, the real increase to NIST in the Senate bill would be 6.1 percent. The Administration requested $652 million for the agency, a 9.2 percent increase over FY 09.
Department of Defense (status: unfinished): The Defense Appropriations bill includes funding for all DOD research, including DARPA and the Defense research labs. There's some concern about the levels included for DARPA in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, but especially for the Senate levels. Both the House and Senate included significant cuts to the President's request for DARPA -- the House trimmed about $200 million from the request, the Senate about $500 million. In the Senate's case, appropriations staffers apparently didn't feel that the agency, given its recent history of under-spending its appropriation -- a behavior linked to policies of the agency's previous leadership -- warranted an increase in FY 10 and instead used that money to fund increases elsewhere in the bill. Many of us in the science advocacy community reacted strongly to this reduction. Under new leadership, the agency appears to be making a serious effort to reverse many of the policies that the university community and Congress shared, and has proposed a number of new efforts designed to reengage DARPA with university researchers. We do not want to see that new approach derailed or hamstrung by this proposed reduction. CRA, along with many partners in the academic and industrial communities have weighed in with Congress in an attempt to mitigate these reductions. We'll know in December how successful those efforts were. (We'll also have much more on the "new" DARPA in future posts...)
There are also significant differences in opinion between the Senate and the House in the overall level of defense basic research (or 6.1 research, in DOD parlance). The House approved bill would fund Defense 6.1 research at $1.798 billion in FY 10, an increase of 10.1 percent over FY 09. The Senate, while still approving an increase, would only include $1.713 billion in FY 10, a 4.9 percent increase. Like the DARPA issue, this disparity will need to get worked out in conference between the chambers.
As we learn more, we'll post it here. But it's unlikely much will happen until mid-December....
]]>From Netflix’s perspective, the answer is almost certainly yes. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings is quoted telling the New York Times (probably tongue-in-cheek) "You’re getting Ph.D.’s for a dollar an hour."He notes several other examples of prizes that have led to new results and asks:
Are there some major problems in computer science that could be incentivized by prizes – financial or otherwise? What are the potential benefits and risks of this approach? We’re eager to hear your thoughts.Add your two cents (or more) in the comments section. (No prize for doing it, though.) ]]>
Only two amendments to the original bill language were proposed and both were adopted. The first was the manager’s amendment which made technical changes to the bill and clarifies the service requirements for those students participating in the Scholarship for Service program authorized in the bill. The second amendment was introduced by Congresswoman Johnson (D-TX) and seeks to increase the participation of underrepresented groups in the scholarship program and include minority institutions as stakeholders in the strategic plan. We don't yet have copies of either the Manager's amendment or Rep. Johnson's, but when we do, we'll post them here.
Both the chairman of the subcommittee, Congressman Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) and the ranking member, Congressman Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) emphasized the need for cybersecurity research to keep pace with the changing cyber threats and to ensure a sufficient workforce in cybersecurity. Ehlers mentioned that the workforce problem had been personally brought to his attention last year by a computer science professor who visited his office and discussed the drop in computing related undergraduates after the boom, a situation that we have discussed in great detail here in the past, but one that, based on the most recent Taulbee data, we believe is turning around.
One key to strengthening education, entrepreneurship, and innovation in communities like Troy is to harness the full power of the internet. That means faster and more widely available broadband– as well as rules to ensure that we preserve the fairness and openness that led to the flourishing of the internet in the first place. Today, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is announcing a set of principles to preserve an open internet in which all Americans can participate and benefit. I am pleased that he is taking this step. It is an important reminder that the role of government is to provide investment that spurs innovation and common-sense ground rules to ensure that there is a level playing field for all comers who seek to contribute their innovations.We've posted his full remarks in the extended entry. As you'll see in the coming days as we begin to post more on the appropriations process, there's still positive sentiment in the Administration and the Congress for the federal government's role in supporting basic research and its payoff in the economy. But translating that positive sentiment into robust funding for basic research is tricky and there are a number of hurdles along the way. So it helps that the President continues to shine a light on the issue and that articles like this great piece in today's Los Angeles Times continue to highlight the importance of federal support for basic research. Here's a bit from that LA Times article, written by columnist Michael Hiltzik:And we have to think about the networks we need today, but also the networks we’ll want tomorrow. That’s why I’ve proposed grants through the National Science Foundation and through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency – which helped develop the internet – to explore the next communications breakthroughs, whatever they may be. And that’s why I’ve appointed the first-ever Chief Technology Officer, charged with looking at ways technology can spur innovations that help government do a better and more efficient job.
We must also strengthen our commitment to research, including basic research, which has been badly neglected for decades. The fact is, basic research may not pay off immediately. It may not pay off for years. And when it does, the rewards are often broadly shared, enjoyed by those who bore its costs but also by those who did not. That’s why the private sector generally under-invests in basic science, and why the public sector must invest in its stead. While the risks may be large, so are the rewards for our economy and our society. It was basic research in the photoelectric effect that would one day lead to solar panels. It was basic research in physics that would eventually produce the CAT scan. The calculations of today’s GPS satellites are based on the equations Einstein put to paper more than a century ago.
When we fail to invest in research, we fail to invest in the future. Yet, since the peak of the Space Race in the 1960s, our national commitment to research and development has steadily fallen as a share of our national income. That is why I have set a goal of putting a full three percent of our Gross Domestic Product – our national income – into research and development, surpassing the commitment we made when President Kennedy challenged this nation to send a man to the moon. Toward this goal, the Recovery Act has helped achieve the largest increase in basic research in history. And this month the National Institutes of Health will award more than a billion dollars in research grants through the Recovery Act focused on what we can learn from the mapping of the human genome in order to treat diseases that affect millions of Americans, from cancer to heart disease. I also want to urge Congress to fully fund the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, which has since its creation been a source of cutting-edge breakthroughs from that early internet to stealth technology.
As we invest in the building blocks of innovation, from the classroom to the laboratory, it is also essential that we have competitive and vibrant markets that promote innovation as well. Education and research help foster new ideas, but it takes fair and free markets to turn those ideas into industries.
[Bob Taylor's] experience underscores the importance of a government role in fields like basic research, which profit-seeking enterprises tend to shun.]]> Obama's full remarks and the accompanying press release:"Industry generally avoids long-term research because it entails risk," the veteran computer scientist Ed Lazowska told Congress a few years ago. Why? Because it's hard to predict the results of such research, and since it has to be published and publicly validated, corporations can't capitalize on their investments in isolation.
Yet once the research reaches a certain point, private industry piles in -- Lazowska cited a National Research Council list of 19 multibillion-dollar industries that had been incubated with federal funding, generally via university grants -- including the Internet, Web browsers and cellphones -- before becoming commercially viable. Taylor's ARPAnet was eventually turned over to the National Science Foundation, which in 1991 opened what was then known as NSFnet to commercial exploitation. Four years later, the dot-com boom was underway.
Thank you, Jill. Dr. Jill Biden has been a teacher for almost three decades and she’s spent most of that time in community colleges. She understands, as you do, the power of these institutions to prepare students for 21st century jobs, and to prepare America for a 21st century global economy. That’s what’s happening right here at Hudson Valley Community College. This is a place where anyone with the desire to take their career to a new level or start a new career altogether has the opportunity to pursue that dream. This is a place where people of all ages and backgrounds – even in the face of obstacles, even in the face of very difficult personal challenges – can take a chance on a brighter future for themselves and their families.]]>I know that here in Troy, you want and need that chance after so many years of hard times. Communities like this one were once the heart of America’s manufacturing strength. But over the last few decades, you’ve borne the brunt of a changing economy which has seen many manufacturing plants close in the face of global competition. So while all of America has been gripped by the current economic crisis, folks in Troy and upstate New York have been dealing with what amounts to a permanent recession for years: an economic downturn that has driven more and more young people from their hometowns.
I also know that while many have come here promising better news, that news has been hard to come by, despite the determined efforts of the leaders who are here today and many who are not. Part of the reason is that while the people of this city work hard to meet their responsibilities, some in Washington haven’t always lived up to theirs. For too long, as old divisions and special interests reigned, Washington has shown neither the inclination nor the ability to tackle our toughest challenges. Meanwhile, businesses were saddled with ever-rising health care costs and the economy was weakened by an ever-growing dependence on foreign oil; our investments in cutting-edge research declined and our schools fell short; growth focused on short-term gains and fueled by debt and reckless risk led to cycles of precipitous booms and painful busts.
Now, after so many years of failing to act, there are those who suggest that nothing government can do will make a difference; that what we’ve seen in places like Troy is inevitable; that somehow, the parts of our country that helped us lead in the last century don’t have what it takes to help us lead in this one. I am here today to tell you that this is just flat out wrong. What we have here is a community filled with talented people, entrepreneurial small businesses, and world-class learning institutions. The ingredients are here for growth and success and a better future.
You are proving that in the Hudson Valley. Students here are training full time while working part time at GE Energy in Schenectady, becoming a new generation of American leaders in a new generation of American manufacturing. IBM has partnered with the University at Albany; their partnership in nanotechnology is helping students train in the industries in which America has the potential to lead. Rensselaer is partnering not only with this institution but with businesses throughout the Tech Valley. And early next year, Hudson Valley Community College’s state-of-the-art TEC-SMART training facility is set to open side-by-side with Global Foundry’s coming state-of-the-art semiconductor plant.
So we know that Upstate New York can succeed. And we know that in a global economy – where there is no room for error and there is certainly no room for wasted potential – America needs you to succeed. As we emerge from this economic crisis, our great challenge will be to ensure that we do not simply drift into the future, accepting less for our children and less for America. Instead, we must choose to do what past generations have done: shape a brighter future through hard work and innovation. That’s how we’ll not only recover, but rebuild stronger than before: strong enough to compete in the global economy; strong enough to avoid the cycles of boom and bust that have wreaked so much havoc; strong enough to create and support the jobs of the future in the industries of the future.
Today, my administration is releasing our strategy to foster new jobs, new businesses, and new industries by laying the groundwork and the ground rules to best tap our innovative potential. This work began with the recovery plan, which devoted well over $100 billion to innovation, from high-tech classrooms to health information technology, from more energy-efficient homes to more fuel-efficient cars, from building a smart electricity grid to laying down high-speed rail lines. But it does not end there. For this strategy is about far more than recovery; it is about sustained growth and widely-shared prosperity. And it is rooted in a simple idea, that if government does its modest part, there is no stopping the most powerful and generative economic force the world has ever known: the American people.
Our strategy begins where innovation so often does: in the classroom and in the laboratory – and in the networks that connect them to the broader economy. These are the building blocks of innovation: education, infrastructure, and research.
We know that the nation that out-educates us today will out-compete us tomorrow. The ability of new industries to thrive depends on workers with the knowledge and know-how to contribute in those fields. Yet, today, our primary and secondary schools continue to trail many of our competitors, especially in key areas like math and science. Hundreds of thousands of high school graduates who are prepared for college do not go to four-year or two-year schools because of the high cost of doing so. And roughly 40 percent of students who start college don’t complete college. All along that education pipeline, too many slip through the cracks. It’s not only heartbreaking for those students; it’s a loss for our economy and our country.
Now, I know that for a long time politicians have spoken of training as a silver bullet and college as a cure-all. It’s not – and we know that. But we also know that in the coming years, jobs requiring at least an associate’s degree are projected to grow twice as fast as jobs requiring no college experience. We will not fill those jobs – or keep those jobs on our shores – without graduating more students, including millions more students from community colleges. That’s why I’ve asked Dr. Biden to travel the country promoting the opportunities that these schools offer. That’s why I’m grateful that Senator Chuck Schumer has shown tremendous leadership on this issue.
And that is why I’ve set this ambitious goal: by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. And to reach this goal, we’ve increased Pell Grants and created a simplified $2,500 tax credit for college tuition. We’ve made student aid applications less complicated and ensured that that aid is not based on the income of a job you’ve lost. We’ve passed a new GI Bill of Rights to help soldiers coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan begin a new life in a new economy. And the recovery plan has helped close state budget shortfalls – which put enormous pressure on public universities and community colleges – while also making historic investments in elementary and secondary schools. Finally, through the American Graduation Initiative I’ve proposed, we will reform and strengthen community colleges to help an additional five million Americans earn degrees and certificates in the next decade. Because a new generation of innovations depends on a new generation of innovators.
And just last week, the House of Representatives passed a bill that will go a long way to reform the student loan system so that college is more affordable for more people. Right now, the federal government provides a subsidy to banks to get them to lend students money. The thing is, the federal government guarantees the loan in case the student doesn’t repay. So we subsidize the banks to take on the risk of these loans even though taxpayers just absorb the price of that risk anyway. This costs us more than $80 billion. If we simply cut out the middle-man, and lent directly, the federal government would save that money, and we could use it for what it is actually meant for: helping students afford and succeed in college.
That’s what the bill I proposed does. It takes the $80 billion dollars the banks currently get, and uses it to make Pell Grants larger. It uses those funds to focus on innovative efforts to help students not only go to college but to graduate. And, just as important, these savings will allow us to make the largest investment ever in the most underappreciated asset of our education system: community colleges like Hudson Valley, which are so essential to the future of young people and our economy. And we hope to improve on this bill in the Senate to go even further on behalf of students.
Ending this unwarranted subsidy for the big banks is a no-brainer for folks everywhere. Everywhere except Washington, that is. In fact, we’re already seeing the special interests rallying to save this giveaway. The large banks – many who have benefited from taxpayer bailouts during the financial crisis – are lobbying to keep this easy money flowing. This is exactly the kind of special interest effort that has succeeded before and that we cannot allow to succeed again. This is exactly the kind of waste that leaves people wary of government and leaves our country saddled with a trillion dollar deficit with little to show for it. This is exactly what I came to Washington to change. And I look forward to winning this fight in the Senate, as we just have in the House, and signing this bill into law.
One key to strengthening education, entrepreneurship, and innovation in communities like Troy is to harness the full power of the internet. That means faster and more widely available broadband– as well as rules to ensure that we preserve the fairness and openness that led to the flourishing of the internet in the first place. Today, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is announcing a set of principles to preserve an open internet in which all Americans can participate and benefit. I am pleased that he is taking this step. It is an important reminder that the role of government is to provide investment that spurs innovation and common-sense ground rules to ensure that there is a level playing field for all comers who seek to contribute their innovations.
And we have to think about the networks we need today, but also the networks we’ll want tomorrow. That’s why I’ve proposed grants through the National Science Foundation and through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency – which helped develop the internet – to explore the next communications breakthroughs, whatever they may be. And that’s why I’ve appointed the first-ever Chief Technology Officer, charged with looking at ways technology can spur innovations that help government do a better and more efficient job.
We must also strengthen our commitment to research, including basic research, which has been badly neglected for decades. The fact is, basic research may not pay off immediately. It may not pay off for years. And when it does, the rewards are often broadly shared, enjoyed by those who bore its costs but also by those who did not. That’s why the private sector generally under-invests in basic science, and why the public sector must invest in its stead. While the risks may be large, so are the rewards for our economy and our society. It was basic research in the photoelectric effect that would one day lead to solar panels. It was basic research in physics that would eventually produce the CAT scan. The calculations of today’s GPS satellites are based on the equations Einstein put to paper more than a century ago.
When we fail to invest in research, we fail to invest in the future. Yet, since the peak of the Space Race in the 1960s, our national commitment to research and development has steadily fallen as a share of our national income. That is why I have set a goal of putting a full three percent of our Gross Domestic Product – our national income – into research and development, surpassing the commitment we made when President Kennedy challenged this nation to send a man to the moon. Toward this goal, the Recovery Act has helped achieve the largest increase in basic research in history. And this month the National Institutes of Health will award more than a billion dollars in research grants through the Recovery Act focused on what we can learn from the mapping of the human genome in order to treat diseases that affect millions of Americans, from cancer to heart disease. I also want to urge Congress to fully fund the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, which has since its creation been a source of cutting-edge breakthroughs from that early internet to stealth technology.
As we invest in the building blocks of innovation, from the classroom to the laboratory, it is also essential that we have competitive and vibrant markets that promote innovation as well. Education and research help foster new ideas, but it takes fair and free markets to turn those ideas into industries.
My budget finally makes the research and experimentation tax credit permanent. This is a tax credit that helps companies afford the often high costs of developing new ideas, new technologies, and new products – which often mean new jobs. And this tax incentive returns two dollars to the economy for every one dollar we spend. Time and again, I’ve heard from leaders – from Silicon Valley to the Tech Valley – about how important this is. I’ve also proposed reducing to zero the capital gains tax for investments in small or startup businesses. Because small businesses are innovative businesses, producing thirteen times more patents per employee than large companies.
Now, these tax incentives will spur entrepreneurship. But there are other important steps to foster markets that value and promote the risk takers and idea makers who have always been at the center of our success. That is why it is essential that we enforce trade laws and work with our trading partners to open up markets abroad; that we reform and strengthen our intellectual property system; that we sustain our advantage as a place that draws and welcomes the brightest minds from all around the world; and that we unlock sources of credit and capital which have been in short supply as a result of the financial crisis.
There are other fundamental barriers to innovation and economic growth that we must tackle in order to ensure American leadership and prosperity in the 21st century. For as a nation we face enormous challenges, from ending our dependence on oil to finally providing all Americans with quality, affordable health care. We need to focus on innovations that will help us meet these challenges – innovations that will benefit society while creating new jobs in new industries.
Health care costs, for example, leave our small businesses at a disadvantage when competing with our large businesses, and leave our large businesses at a disadvantage when competing around the world. And we will never know the enormity of the cost to our economy of the countless Americans unable to become an entrepreneur, to start a small business, to follow their dreams – because they’re afraid of losing their health insurance. To lead in the global economy, we must pass health insurance reform that brings down costs, provides more security for people who have insurance, and offers affordable options for those who don’t.
And the recovery plan that we passed earlier this year has begun to modernize our health care system, by taking the long-overdue step of computerizing America’s health records. This will reduce the waste and errors that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives – while protecting patients’ privacy. It’s important to note, too, these records hold the potential of offering patients the chance to be more active participants in the prevention and treatment of illness. And health information technology, if implemented effectively, has the potential to unlock so many unanticipated benefits, as the patterns in data we do not yet collect reveal discoveries we cannot predict.
But in no area will innovation be more important than in the development of new ways to produce, use, and save energy. I firmly believe that the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. That is why we’re doubling our capacity to generate renewable energy and building a stronger and smarter electric grid. We’re investing in technologies to power a new generation of clean-energy vehicles. We’ve helped reach an agreement to raise fuel economy standards. And for the first time in history, we’ve passed a bill to create a system of clean energy incentives which will help make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America – while helping to end our dependence on oil and protect our planet for future generations. The bill has passed the House and now we’re working to pass legislation through the Senate.
That is an overview of our strategy. It is a strategy that is essential for our recovery today and our prosperity tomorrow. And it is a strategy rooted in a deep and abiding faith in the ability of this country to rise to any challenge. That is our history. We are a people with a seemingly limitless supply of ingenuity and daring and talent. And at its best, our government has harnessed those qualities without getting in the way. That is what led to the building of the Erie Canal which helped put cities like Troy on the map, that linked east and west and allowed commerce and competition to flow freely between. That is what led an inventor and shrewd businessman named Thomas Edison to come to Schenectady and open what is today a thriving mom-and-pop operation known as General Electric.
A former Senator from New York, Robert Kennedy, once told us, “The future is not a gift. It is an achievement.” It was not an accident that America led the 20th century. It was the result of hard work and discipline and sacrifice, and ambition that served a common purpose. So it must be in the 21st century. Future success is no guarantee. As Americans we must always remember that our leadership is not an inheritance, it is a responsibility.
From biotechnology to nanotechnology, from the development of new forms of energy to research into treatments of ancient diseases, there is so much potential to change our world and improve our lives – while creating countless jobs all across America. The question is if we are ready to embrace that potential, if we are ready to lead the way once more. And I know that we are ready. I’ve seen it all across America. This generation has an unparalleled opportunity that we are called upon to seize. That is what you are doing at Hudson Valley Community College. And that is what we will do as a nation.
Thank you.
WHITE HOUSE RELEASE
WASHINGTON, DC -- President Obama will visit Hudson Valley Community College today where he will tour a technology classroom, visit a lab and deliver remarks on his commitment to fostering new jobs, new businesses, and new industries by laying the groundwork and the ground rules to best tap our innovative potential.
Since taking office, President Obama has taken historic steps to lay the foundation for the innovation economy of the future. The Obama Innovation Strategy builds on well over $100 billion of Recovery Act funds that support innovation, additional support for education, infrastructure and others in the Recovery Act and the President’s Budget, and novel regulatory and executive order initiatives.It seeks to harness the inherent ingenuity of the American people and a dynamic private sector to ensure that the next expansion is more solid, broad-based, and beneficial than previous ones. It focuses on critical areas where sensible, balanced government policies can lay the foundation for innovation that leads to quality jobs and shared prosperity.
It has three parts:
1. Invest in the Building Blocks of American Innovation. We must first ensure that our economy is given all the necessary tools for successful innovation, from investments in research and development to the human, physical, and technological capital needed to perform that research and transfer those innovations.
2. Promote Competitive Markets that Spur Productive Entrepreneurship. It is imperative to create a national environment ripe for entrepreneurship and risk taking that allows U.S. companies to be internationally competitive in a global exchange of ideas and innovation. Through competitive markets, innovations diffuse and scale appropriately across industries and globally.
3. Catalyze Breakthroughs for National Priorities. There are certain sectors of exceptional national importance where the market is unlikely to produce the desirable outcomes on its own. These include developing alternative energy sources, reducing costs and improving lives with health IT, and manufacturing advanced vehicles. In these industries where markets may fail on their own, government can be part of the solution.
The article discusses the two times in US history when the government spurred scientific innovation in a short period of time - the Manhattan Project and the Apollo space mission - and the reasons they were so successful. It states, "Their success can be mapped to five crucial success factors: 1) full and sustained Presidential support; 2) effective leadership with a clearly defined mandate; 3) access to resources; 4) parallel paths/processing to save time; and 5) private sector outsourcing."
It also discusses the best basic research model which it says combines universities' research efforts and "a dynamic public-private network of labs and a venture capital industry waiting downstream to commercialize ideas and turn them into large public companies that create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Here's what's needed to get that model back on track:
The article is a good read with good historical background and ideas for the present.
(Watch the archived webcast of the hearing and view copies of witness testimonies at the House S&T Committee website.)
Witnesses included Dr. Wanda Ward, Acting Assistant Director at the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (NSF); Ms. Maggie Daley, Chair of After School Matters; Mr. Michael Lach, Officer of Teaching and Learning, Chicago Public Schools; Dr. Donald Wink, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of Chemistry, and Director of Graduate Studies, Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Illinois at Chicago; Ms. Katherine Pickus, Divisional Vice President, Global Citizenship and Policy, Abbott Laboratories.
Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) framed the day's discussion by recalling recent developments in STEM education: The National Academies Rising Above the Gathering Storm; the 2007 America COMPETES Act; and the passing of the STEM education bill H.R. 1709 in June of this year. From his opening remarks:
In hearings and reports we have repeatedly heard that innovation is key to maintaining a high standard of living for all Americans, and that we need more teachers and more graduates in the STEM fields if we want our country to continue to lead in the global economy. Unfortunately, American students have been lagging their international peers, while American businesses are warning about a wave of retirements without adequately trained young people to fill these vacated positions, especially in engineering fields.Reform of our STEM education system will require coordination on multiple fronts across many diverse stakeholders. In addition to several federal agencies, there are state and local governments, school districts, universities, non-profits, businesses, community organizations, teachers, students, and – if a child is fortunate – their parents.
America needs to be successful in improving STEM education. Without it, we will lose our capacity for innovation and diminish our country’s economic strength and competitiveness in the international marketplace.
Dr. Ward opened her remarks by pointing to NSF’s role in aligning stem priorities in the America COMPETES Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with four foci: innovation, broad participation to improve workforce development, enrichment of teacher education, and fostering cyber learning to enhance STEM education.
Ms. Daly used her opening statement to emphasize the importance of creating learning experiences in informal environments. Using her own program, After School Matters, as an example, Daly noted the successful interaction between hundreds of paid instructors and thousands of students in Block 37 programs where professionals address workforce trends with students, and students are exposed to workplace problems. She pointed specifically to a partnership for students to design and build robots with mentors provided by Motorola. Daly requested that more attention be given to assessment of such efforts; historically, little resources have been used for evaluating non-profit initiatives like After School Matters.
Mr. Lach provided the public school district's perspective, sharing a vision of high quality instruction involving professional development of teachers that partner with local industry and higher educators. One area of strength in Chicago, he noted, are the strong partnerships between the public schools and local universities. In addition, he shared some of the learnings from Chicago's efforts:
Dr. Wink focused his remarks on the relationships, leadership and research that are necessary for the flow between K-12 students and higher education to strengthen STEM education. The most valuable investment, in his view, is made in people and relationships. He recommended to focus work with existing products and on existing research and to incorporate K-12 data on student performance in universities.
Ms. Pickus gave the perspective of a private firm involved in STEM education activities. Abbott, a large pharmaceutical health care company, provides mentors that give real world experience for students. Abbott's involvement in Chicago's public schools represent part of the private science community efforts to creating meaningful, informal experiences for students and training for teachers. Pickus emphasized the need to give public schools access to scientists, start early, and involve parents.
Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) lessened the sanguine tone of the hearing, asking Mr. Lach about dropout rates in Chicago's public schools (above fifty percent). While there have been successes, Ehlers reminded the room of the tremendous work that must still be done.
During questioning, Representative Marcia Fudge (D-OH) asked about NSF's work in developing the role of administrators. Ward responded positively, but did not give any specific examples of programs. Fudge also brought up the significant gap in achievement among minority students asking how STEM efforts can be targeted toward them. Mr. Lach responded that there is no silver bullet for decreasing the achievement gap. However, he felt that minority students can achieve when the supports he mentioned in his above opening remarks testimony are in place.
Representative Russ Carnahan's (D-MO) question about the disconnect that often occurs between world-class institutions and infrastructure in large urban centers and STEM activities in public schools brought out discussion among the panelists about the critical role of the executive support. Each panelist agreed that mayoral support and political capital were vital to the success of STEM efforts in Chicago.
On a side note, when asked about compensation for math and science teachers, all panelists were in favor of increasing salary or stipends in order to attract, train, and retain quality STEM teachers.
]]>Healthcare is clearly a hot topic on the Hill these days and the speakers emphasized that robotic technologies could lower costs, particularly with a growing senior population. All the speakers called for more research in robotics but showed examples of currently deployed healthcare robotic technology and had demonstrations available before and after the presentations.
Trower pointed out that, outside military robotics, the United States research funding for service robotics is limited. He referenced the CCC funded Roadmap for US Robotics which calls for increased research funding, accelerating commercialization of robotics research, and promoting robotics, among other recommendations.
Remsberg discussed the strides already made by the Department of Veterans Affairs to increase the use of rehabilitative robotics for returning wounded veterans but called for wider adoption of the technologies in light of the costs of physical therapy using human therapists. Remsberg points out that therapy using the various robotic technologies allows more patients to get more therapy and have better outcomes than using human physical therapists alone.
Mataric focused on stroke, autism and Alzheimer’s patients and how they can be assisted with robotics. Many autistic children will interact with, and learn from, robots when they cannot do so with people according to Mataric.
Choset spoke on the need for better surgical robotics to lower the invasiveness of surgery and therefore, decrease recovery and hospital stay time for patients. He also stressed that robotic technology in surgery is not meant to replace human surgeons but to assist them in doing the surgery faster and safer.
The presentations will be available online at the Robotics Caucus web site next week.
The agenda is the result of a process initiated in 2008 at the behest of the CCC, who charged the NetSE Council with developing a comprehensive research agenda that would support the development of better networks. Through a series of workshops and much community input, the NetSE council gathered the input to produce this draft, which includes four overarching recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The funding agencies of the United States government must increase investment in research that will lead to a better Internet or risk a marginal future role.Recommendation 2: Funding agencies should rebuild the experimental capabilities of networking researchers, through funding individual systems-building efforts, providing adequate and persistent shared experimental infrastructure, and supporting research that leads to continued improvements in experimental methodology. Experimental work is expensive and long-term; typical NSF awards are insufficient, therefore either NSF will need to change its award portfolio or other agencies will have to play a significantly increased role.
Recommendation 3: Funding agencies should foster and support research activities relevant to network design within the theoretical computer science community, the new Network Science community, and other theoretical disciplines.
Recommendation 4: Funding agencies should support a broad array of interdisciplinary research activities related to understanding the current Internet and designing future networks to include the Internet.
More information on the NetSE effort and the full version of the report are available at the CCC NetSE web site. Also, feel free to comment on the
CCC Blog.
From the press release:
“Cyber-physical systems are "smart" technologies that are beginning to transform our lives. Today's research will lead to tomorrow's autonomous, smart vehicles for safe transportation; homes filled with smart appliances; intelligent, earthquake resistant buildings and bridges; robots that assist us at home, at work, and at play; and unobtrusive assistive technology for healthier living.Cyber-physical systems technologies will affect sectors critical to our well-being, security and competitiveness, including aerospace, automotive, chemical production, civil infrastructure, energy, finance, healthcare, manufacturing, materials and transportation.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid provided opening remarks by praising the efforts of scientists whose work is vital in bringing about smarter technology that will help save lives, improve energy efficiency and transform economic competitiveness. Due to health reasons, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV was unable to attend. Other speakers included Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation; Dr. Cora B. Marrett, Acting Deputy Director of the NSF; Dr. Jeannette Wing, Assistant Director for Computer & Information Science and Technology, NSF; Mr. Don Winter, Vice President of Engineering & Information Technology, Boeing Phantom Works; and Dr. Julian Goldman, Medical Director of Partners HealthCare System Biomedical Engineering.
Dr. Wing spoke about the important function of the NSF in fostering an environment where scientific innovation can flourish and be shared across disciplines. The NSF’s role, she highlighted, is to coordinating these innovations among the sectors of industry and academia so that they can be instantiated in other areas. Dr. Goldman provided a glimpse into the challenges of medical information technology. In high-risk environments like a hospital operating room, system failure can lead to patient injury or death. While CPS Innovations in systems that prevent human error have been developed in some high-risk environments, Goldman explained that the barrier of interoperability has prevented widespread development and deployment of such systems in health care.
Researchers, ranging from Baltimore high school students to professors and graduate students, presented a variety of demonstrations representing the latest research on CPS. Many of the exhibits highlighted robotic and human-machine systems that could help people with disabilities, be used as tools for behavior studies, assist surgeons in operating rooms, drive autonomous vehicles, or be capable of haptic interaction. Other systems included those that could reason about human or environmental activities.
In addition to CRA, other co-sponsors of the event included the Coalition for National Science Funding, the American Chemical Society’s Science & the Congress Project and the Association for Computing Machinery.
]]>