Travelogue: Reflections on the Future for Computing Researchers
OK, I admit it. During the past two weeks I got in a bit over my head, time-wise. But, I’ve gotten through it, and I’m feeling pretty satisfied with the results.
As I reported here on March 18, I was in Korea visiting the Korea Advanced Institute for Science and Technology, where I gave a lecture and got to visit some really great faculty members. The determination they have to compete with the very best research institutions in the world is obvious.
I flew home after just a 2-day visit in Korea and then just a day later went to New York City, partly to visit my father and spend a couple of days relaxing with my family, and partly to meet with friends of (i.e., donors to) CMU. Then, back home for just one night and then straight off again, this time to Washington DC, where the main topic of this blog entry begins.
In Washington, I was privileged to attend (and play a role in organizing) a symposium entitled, Computing Research that Changed the World, a fantastic event held at the Library of Congress. It was organized by the Computing Community Consortium (CCC) and co-sponsored by several congressmen, as a way of reviewing some of the successes of past federal investments in IT research and to derive lessons for future investments.
On the CCC Blog, Susan Graham and Ed Lazowska have already written about their experiences at this event, so I won’t go over it in any detail here. The talks were superb and the crowd at the event was very good, including quite a few congressional staffers, funding agency administrators, and reporters. This mix of audience members was important for us, since all of this was, in a sense, contributing ideas to shape future policy in federal investments in computing research. One thing that I thought was particularly enjoyable was that we invited several very promising younger faculty members at the symposium, and they all seemed to have a good time. For example, our own Luis von Ahn and Cornell’s Jon Kleinberg were featured speakers, and Bobby Kleinberg (Cornell) and Shuchi Chawla (Wisconsin), two of this year’s Sloan Fellows, were in attendance. (Luis also won a Sloan fellowship this year, and Jon was a former winner.) Here they are, standing in front of the Library of Congress:
These smart, ambitious, and creative young faculty members represent our best hope for the future of computing research. And while I got a lot of ideas and information from the symposium, in truth the most important thing I got was some inspiration — these young scholars provided motivation to do the best job possible in ensuring a bright future for computing research.
After getting home from the symposium I had a few days filled with promotion/tenure committees, research paper and proposal submissions, and all the other things that go on in normal academic life. Then, off to DC again, this time to testify before the Science and Technology Committee of the US House of Representatives. The purpose of the hearing was to review the proposed Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Act of 2009, a key piece of legislation that provides funding and coordination for computing research across more than 13 federal agencies.
Three of us were testifying: Deb Estrin (UCLA), Chris Greer (NCO director), and me.
The hearing was well-attended. Members dribbled in, with maybe 3 present when Greer starte his testimony but (by my count) 13 Members present by the time I spoke. Greer talked at a pretty high level about NITRD and the NCO. I went next and decided to focus on three themes/recommendations:
- Improve the base of agency support for university-based IT research. I harped on the fact that 86% of academic CS funding comes from NSF — a dangerous over-dependence on a single agency.
- Urge “patience” by the funding agencies; payoff on basic, long-term research can take a long time and patience can make it easier for researchers to take greater risks for greater payoffs.
- Direct some federal attention to computing education, building on NSF initiatives and bringing “computational thinking” to all Americans.
Deb Estrin went last, and spoke at length about the importance of cyber-physical systems.
There were many questions from the Members, most of which were actually quite interesting and, in some cases, challenging. The cyber threat from China and other places was a big theme of much of the questioning. Women and minorities in IT also captured quite a bit of attention. My mention of the massive European investments in “hybrid systems” (aka cyber-physical systems) caught the attention of Chairman Gordon, who asked a fairly deep question that exposed the fact that he had studied this situation himself.
Overall it was a good first experience for me. I received a tremendous amount of help from the CRA Government Affairs Committee, especially Peter Harsha, and also from Cameron Wilson (ACM). Many of my colleagues in the CS Department and in CMU’s government relations office also provided valuable inputs. But, ultimately, what was most in my mind were the junior “rising stars” in the field that I met at the Library of Congress symposium. All the preparation for the testimony was really for them, to ensure adequate government support to allow all of potential in their ideas and creativity to be fully realized. I hope, for their sakes, that it all pays off.
Oh, and I was never asked to give back a salary bonus. ;-)
You can read my written testimony and watch a video of the congressional hearing at http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?newsid=2401.
– Peter
PS: This weekend I am in Chicago for yet another meeting, but this time I’ve brought my son, so that we can go to the Chicago Bulls game. Now, just have to get that paper finished and submitted this week…
Peter Lee @ April 4, 2009