Joint Testimony on CS Research

Download PDF

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE COMPUTING RESEARCH COMMUNITY

FOR THE
HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE
HEARING ON


"The Future of Computer Science Research in the U.S."

May 12, 2005


Thank you, Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon, for convening this hearing
and for your committee's continued support of information technology research and
development. The American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T),
Coalition for Academic Scientific Computing (CASC), Computing Research Association
(CRA), Electrical and Computer Engineering Department Heads Association
(ECEDHA), Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), and U.S. Public
Policy Committee of the Association for Computing Machinery (USACM) join in
endorsing this testimony because we believe the health of the computing research
enterprise to be crucial to the nation's future economic competitiveness, our national
defense and homeland security, the health of our citizens, and further discovery in the
sciences.

The United States, in both the public and private sectors, has done a remarkable job in
forging a leadership role in information technology, due in large part to a healthy
fundamental computing research enterprise. That leadership role has paid great dividends
to the country and the world. However, we are concerned that the U.S. is in danger of
ceding leadership if current trends continue. Fortunately, the U.S. remains in good
position to reverse those trends if we act soon.

Our testimony examines how the U.S. came to assume its dominant position in IT and the
benefits that role conveys to the nation. We also examine why the changing landscape for
federal support of computing research imperils U.S. leadership in IT, and in turn, U.S.
economic performance in the coming decades. Finally, we outline what we believe
should be done to shore up that leadership.

We commend the committee for its interest in this topic and hope this "view from the
community" provides you a valuable perspective on the critical importance of IT on
national prosperity, and how changes to the federal research portfolio impact the IT
sector.

The Impact of New Technologies


The importance of computing research and computational science 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 such as 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 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.

The Information Technology Ecosystem that Gives Birth to New Technologies

A significant reason for this dramatic advance in IT 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," according to a 1995 report by the National Research
Council. 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.

The 1995 NRC report, Evolving the High Performance Computing and Communications
Initiative to Support the Nation's Information Infrastructure, included a compelling

graphic illustrating this spectacular return. The graphic was updated in 2002 and is
included with this testimony. (See figure 1.)

It is worth a moment to consider the graphic. The graphic charts the development of
technologies from their origins in industrial and federally-supported university R&D, to
the introduction of the first commercial products, through the creation of billion-dollar
industries and markets. The original 1995 report identified 9 of these multibillion-dollar
IT industries (the categories on the left side of the graphic). Seven years later, the number
of examples had grown to 19 - multibillion-dollar industries that are transforming our
lives and driving our economy.

The graphic also illustrates the dynamic interplay between federally-supported
university-based research and industrial R&D efforts. In some cases, such as reduced
instruction set computing (RISC) processors (a chip architecture that forms the basis for
processors used by Sun, IBM, HP, and Apple, and has significantly influenced all
microprocessor design) and RAID disk servers ("redundant arrays of inexpensive disks"),
the initial ideas came from industry, but government-supported university research was
necessary to advance the technology. In other cases, such as timesharing, graphical user
interfaces, and the internet, the ideas originated in the universities long before they
matured to a point where subsequent research by industry helped move the technologies
towards commercialization. In each example, the industry/university research relationship
has been complementary. University research, focused as it is on fundamental questions
and long-term problems, does not supplant industry research and development. And
industry, which contributed $190 billion in 2002 (down from $198 billion in 2001) in
overall R&D geared primarily towards short-term development, does not supplant
university research.

This is an important point that bears some development. The great majority of industrybased
research and development is of a fundamentally different character than universitybased
research. Industry-based research and development is, by necessity, much shorter
term than the fundamental research performed in universities. It tends to be focused on
product and process development, areas which will have more immediate impact on
business profitability. Industry generally avoids long-term research because it entails risk
in a couple of unappealing ways. First, it is hard to predict the outcome of fundamental
research. The value of the research may surface in unanticipated areas. Second,
fundamental research, because it is published openly, provides broad value to all players
in the marketplace. It is difficult for any one company to "protect" the fundamental
knowledge gleaned from long-term research and capitalize on it without all players in the
marketplace having a chance to incorporate the new knowledge into their thinking.

Those companies that do make significant fundamental research investments tend to be
the largest companies in the sector. Their dominant position in the market ensures that
they benefit from any market-wide improvement in technology basic research might
bring. But, even with that advantage, the investment of companies like Microsoft and
Intel in fundamental research remains a small percentage of their overall IT R&D
investment (in Microsoft's case, it's estimated at around 5 percent of the company's
R&D budget), and many companies of equivalent size (Oracle, Dell, Cisco) don't invest
in long-term R&D at all.

The chart also illustrates one other important characteristic of the IT R&D ecosystem - it
is very interdependent. Note that the arrows that show the flow of people and ideas move
not only between industry, university and commercial sectors, but between subfields as
well, sometimes in unanticipated ways. Developments in internetworking technologies
led to the development of the Internet and World Wide Web (and the rise of Yahoo and
Google), but also to developments in Local Area Networking and Workstations. Work on
timesharing and client and server computing in the 1960s led to the development of email
and instant messaging. In addition, this interdependence increasingly includes
subfields beyond traditional IT, helping enable whole new disciplines like bioinformatics,
optoelectronics, and nanotechnology.

Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the graphic is its illustration of the long incubation
period for these technologies between the time they were conceived and first researched
to the time they arrived in the market as commercial products. In nearly every case, that
lag time is measured in decades. This is the clearest illustration of the results of a
sustained, robust commitment to long-term, fundamental research. The innovation that
creates the technologies that drive the new economy today is the fruit of investments the
federal government made in basic research 10, 15, 30 years ago. Essentially every aspect
of information technology upon which we rely today - the Internet, web browsers, public
key cryptography for secure credit card transactions, parallel database systems, highperformance
computer graphics, portable communications such as cellphones, broadband
last mile....essentially every billion-dollar sub-market - is a product of this commitment,
and bears the stamp of federally-supported research.

One important aspect of federally-supported university research that is only hinted at in
the flow of arrows on this complex graphic is that it produces people - researchers and
practitioners - as well as ideas. This is especially important given the current outlook for
IT jobs in the coming decade. Despite current concerns about offshoring and the end of
the IT boom times, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics this year released projections that
continue to show a huge projected shortfall in IT workers over the next 10 years. As
figure 2 illustrates, the vast majority of the entire projected workforce shortfall in all of
science and engineering is in information technology. These are jobs that require a
Bachelors-level education or greater. In addition to people, university research also
produces tangible products, such as free software and programming tools, which are
heavily relied upon in the commercial and defense sectors. Continued support of
university research is therefore crucially important in keeping the fires of innovation lit
here in the U.S.

But the impact of IT research on enabling of innovation resonates far beyond just the IT
sector. IT has played an essential - many argue the essential - role in the economic
growth of the U.S. in the past 20 years. Most of the actual economic value of IT does not
come directly from fundamental discoveries in electronics, computers, software,
communications, or algorithms - these are inputs to larger processes of product and
service innovation, most of which happens in the private sector and in competitive
markets. Nevertheless, the seeds of this economic growth are in the fundamental
discoveries, most of which are pre-competitive and occur in the nation•s universities and
research laboratories. The economic growth would not happen without these discoveries.
Our concern is on the precarious state of research that primes the pump of economic
growth, and that puts the U.S. in jeopardy.

The Changing Landscape for Computing


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 federal
agencies arguably most responsible for supporting computing research, the development
of the field and much of the innovation that has resulted are the National Science
Foundation, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Department of
Energy. At the time PITAC began its review, NSF and DARPA bore a leading and nearly
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.

We are concerned about DARPA's diminished role in supporting computing research and
the impact that it will have on the field, DARPA's mission, and the nation as a whole.
Central to these concerns is the idea that the field - and hence, the nation -- benefited
greatly by having 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.
Historically, DARPA program managers could fund individual researchers, or even
"centers of excellence" - typically university research centers - with useful and critically
important flexibility. DARPA program managers had great discretion 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 different approaches has proven enormously beneficial to the
nation, we argue, 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, 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 agency1, 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 primarily on other agencies -
such as NSF and Department of Energy's Office of Science -- to fund the basic research
needed to advance the field.

These changes at DARPA have discouraged university participation in research,
effectively reducing DARPA "mindshare" - the percentage of people working on
DARPA problems - at the nation's universities. This is borne out by a review of
DARPA's support for IT R&D at universities. While DARPA's overall funding for IT
R&D across the agency increased from $543 million in FY 2001 to $586 million in FY
2004 (in unadjusted dollars), DARPA IT research funding for universities dropped by
nearly half - from $214 million in FY 2001 to $123 million in FY 2004 - according to
numbers the agency provided in response to questions from the Senate Armed Services
Committee.

The research community is not alone in noting the potential impact. A DOD Defense
Science Board Task Force report on High Performance Microprocessors in February
2005, noted that DOD - primarily DARPA - "is no longer perceived as being seriously
involved in -- or even taking steps to ensure that others are conducting -- research to
enable the embedded processing proficiency on which its strategic advantage depends.
This withdrawal has created a vacuum where no part of the U.S. government is able to
exert leadership, especially with respect to the revolutionary component of the research
portfolio." The report continues in a remarkable footnote:

This development is partly explained by historic circumstances. Since World War II, the DOD has
been the primary supporter of research in university Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
(EECS) departments, with NSF contributing some funds towards basic research. From the early
1960's through the 1980's, one tremendously successful aspect of the DOD's funding in the
information technology space came from DARPA's unique approach to the funding of Applied
Research (6.2 funding), which hybridized university and industry research through a process that
envisioned revolutionary new capabilities, identified barriers to their realization, focused the best
minds in the field on new approaches to overcome those barriers and fostered rapid
commercialization and DOD adoption. The hybridization of university and industry researchers
was a crucial element; it kept the best and the brightest in the university sector well informed of
defense issues and the university researchers acted as useful "prods" to the defense contractors,
making it impossible for them to dismiss revolutionary concepts whose feasibility was
demonstrated by university-based 6.2 efforts that produced convincing "proof of concept"
prototypes. As EECS grew in scale and its scope extended beyond DOD applications, a "success
disaster" ensued in that EECS essentially "outgrew" the ability of the DOD to be its primary
source of directional influence, let alone funding. Furthermore, DOD never developed a strategy to
deal with this transition. With pressures to fund developments are unique to the Defense (e.g.,
military aircraft, tanks, artillery, etc.), the DOD withdrew its EECS research leadership. Recently,
DARPA has further limited university participation, especially as prime contractors, in its
Computer Science 6.2 programs, which were by far its most significant investments in university
research (vastly outstripping 6.1 funding). These limitations have come in a number of ways,
including non-fiscal limitations, such as the classification of work in areas that were previously
unclassified, precluding university submission as prime contractors on certain solicitations, and
reducing the periods of performance to 18-24 months.

-High Performance Microchip Supply, Defense Science Board, February 2005, Appendix D, p.
87-88


Unfortunately, the other mission agencies have not yet stepped in to fill the gap created
by DARPA's withdrawal. As PITAC members Edward Lazowska and Dave Patterson
noted in a recent Science Magazine editorial, the Department of Homeland Security
spends less than 2 percent of its Science and Technology budget on cybersecurity, and
only a small fraction of that on research. NASA is downsizing computational science,
and IT research budgets at the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health
are slated for cuts in the president's FY 2006 budget. In effect, the national commitment
to fundamental research in IT has waned. Ironically, this began at about the same time the
economists began to understand the huge benefit that such research provided for
economic growth.

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. Programs in critical areas like information security and assurance are
experiencing even lower success rates - NSF's CyberTrust program reported an 8.2
percent success rate for FY 2004. Other fundamental areas, where long-term advances are
critical to broad research advances, are also suffering neglect. In particular,
computational science, which was the raison d'etre for the entire Federal High
Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program, has become an
expanding area for all sciences, however, it has been without any focal point in the
overall Federal HPPC Program (now renamed as NITRD). Moreover, even at NSF,
support for mathematics and computing sciences - which underlie the health of
computing research - has been declining in real terms since FY 2004. Such budget and
program management decisions, we argue, are harmful to the field and to the nation as a
whole.

To be clear, our concern is not just with the impact of changes at a single agency. Rather,
our concern is that the total level of national investment in fundamental IT research rise
to the need that our economy requires in an increasingly competitive world.

As Lazowska and Patterson note: "At a time when global competitors are gaining the
capacity and commitment to challenge U.S. high-tech leadership, this changed landscape
threatens to derail the extraordinarily productive interplay of academia, government, and
industry in IT. Given the importance of IT in enabling the new economy and in opening
new areas of scientific discovery, we simply cannot afford to cede leadership."

Maintaining Leadership


The U.S. still has the world's strongest capability in fundamental research in IT, and the
most experience in how to leverage that capability toward economic growth. This is a
robust system that can take stresses from decreased funding for a short time as we
determine our strategy. But we run a grave risk in letting the uncertainty about funding
for fundamental IT research go on too long. The first causalities are the brilliant young
people, many of them from other countries, who come to the U.S. to learn from and
contribute to our global lead in this area. Already, tightened visa rules and a perception of
a more hostile environment in the U.S. encumber our ability to attract many of these
brilliant minds. Without support, they will go to Canada, Europe, Australia and other
countries that are actively courting them. Those other countries know the value the U.S.
has realized from its system of fundamental research - and want it for themselves. Even
with their own economic difficulties, those countries are increasing their investments in
such research.

The U.S. took a critical step some years ago in doubling the nation•s investment in health
research, and, at the urging of your committee, agreeing to double its investment in other
areas of research, including IT research. We believe that was the right decision. The
current delays in that process of doubling are understandable, but the costs of delaying
too long are very high. We taught the rest of the world how to grow from such investment
and they learned the lesson well.

That federal investment helps fuel the innovation that insures the U.S. remains the world
leader in business, that we have the strongest possible defense, and that we continue to
find ways to live longer, healthier lives. To keep the fires of innovation lit, we should
continue to boost funding levels for fundamental IT R&D. We should insure that NSF,
DARPA, and the Department of Energy have broad, strong, sustained research programs
in IT independent of special initiatives. And we should work to maintain the special
qualities of federally-supported university research.

Internet
National Research Council, 2003
Figure 1
10
Figure 2
11

Appendix A


What others are saying:

Council on Competitiveness, Innovate America report on the National Innovation
Initiative, released December, 2004. Available online at: http://www.compete.org

To Out-Compete Is to Out-Compute

Few areas of technology hold more promise for stimulating innovation and propelling
competitiveness than high performance computing. Along with theory and experimentation,
modeling and simulation with high performance computers has become the third leg of science
and path to competitive advantage. There's now in vivo, in vitro and in silica. A recent survey by
the Council on Competitiveness of U.S. chief technology and chief information officers revealed
that nearly 100 percent consider high performance computing tools essential to their business
survival. And they are realizing a range of strategic competitive benefits from using this
technology, such as shortened product development cycles and faster time to market (in some
cases more than 50 percent faster), all of which improve a company's bottom line.

But we are only beginning to reap the potential innovation and competitive benefits that use of this
technology promises. With dramatically more powerful systems, companies can extract trillions of
dollars in excess cost through business enterprise transformation. We can revolutionize
manufacturing through advanced modeling and simulation of the entire process from raw resource
to finished product. We can dramatically accelerate the drug discovery process, and substantially
increase oil recovery rates by modeling entire oil fields. By shrinking "time to insight" and "time
to solution" through the use of high performance computing, companies in virtually every sector
will be able to accelerate the innovative process in ways simply not seen in the past, resulting in
new capabilities and revolutionary products and services that capture and cement global market
share. As Robert Bishop, CEO of Silicon Graphics, notes, "In the 21st century, to out-compete is
to out-compute."

Because of the IT revolution - especially in software - a major component of manufacturing is
service-based. As the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment noted: "Software is...a
marriage of manufacture and service, since it has the character of both a good (it can be stored and
shipped) and a service (computer programs are not immutably fixed)." But, we classify software
as a service, not a manufacture. Consider how it is being applied:

• Manufacturers like Xerox are installing service capabilities in their machines - diagnostic
software that is capable of signaling to the manufacturer when a part is nearing the end of
its useful life, before the problem is ever visible to the customer.
• In 1985, when Ford Motor Company wanted safety data on its vehicles, it spent $60,000
to slam a vehicle into a wall. Today, that frontal crash is performed virtually on high
performance computers - at a cost of around $10.
• To design the 777, Boeing developed a software program that allowed its engineers to
"fly" in a computerized prototype of the aircraft and iterate the design in virtual space.
• Wal-Mart has installed miniature tracking devices on its products, enabling computerized
inventory tracking and controls.

Goal No. 1 Revitalize Frontier and Multidisciplinary Research


----
Nowhere is the need for new multidisciplinary approaches clearer than in the area of emerging
"services science" - the melding together of the more established fields of computer science,
operations research, industrial engineering, mathematics, management sciences, decision sciences,
social sciences and legal sciences that may transform entire enterprises and drive innovation at the
intersection of business and technology expertise.
-Page 30-31

A 21st Century Infrastructure
In the late 19th and 20th centuries, the United States pioneered the world's most advanced
infrastructure in transportation (railroads, highways, air travel), telecommunications, energy, water
and waste management.
---
Even the Internet, the marvel of modern communications, needs an upgrade. In 1985, the Internet
connected 2,000 computers. Today, there are more than 233 million Internet hosts and more than
812 million users.105 The Internet of the future must be able to connect billions of information
appliances, like computers, portable devices, wireless modems, GPS locators and sensors. The
current infrastructure was not designed to support this explosion of users and devices - and much
more investment will be needed to transform the technology and support innovation.
-Page 50

Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, The Knowledge Economy: Is The
United States Losing Its Competitive Edge?, released February, 2005. Available on-line
at http://futureofinnovation.org

Federal support of science and engineering research in universities and national laboratories has
been key to America's prosperity for more than half a century. A robust educational system to
support and train the best U.S. scientists and engineers and to attract outstanding students from
other nations is essential for producing a world-class workforce and enabling the R&D enterprise
it underpins. But in recent years federal investments in the physical sciences, math and
engineering have not kept pace with the demands of a knowledge economy, declining sharply as a
percentage of the gross domestic product. This has placed future innovation and our economic
competitiveness at risk.
---
It is essential that we act now; otherwise our global leadership will dwindle, and the talent pool
required to support our high-tech economy will evaporate.
-Page 1-2

U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (Hart-Rudman Committee), Road
Map for National Security: Imperative for Change. Phase III, January 2001. Available
online at: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/nssg/PhaseIIIFR.pdf

...[T]he U.S. government has seriously underfunded basic scientific research in recent years...
[T]he inadequacies of our systems of research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national
security over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might imagine.
American national leadership must understand these deficiencies as threats to national security. If
we do not invest heavily and wisely in rebuilding these two core strengths, America will be
incapable of maintaining its global position long into the 21st century.
-Page ix


About the Endorsing Organizations



American Society for Information Science and Technology (http://www.asist.org) --
Since 1937, the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T)
has been the society for information professionals leading the search for new and better
theories, techniques, and technologies to improve access to information.

ASIS&T brings together diverse streams of knowledge, focusing what might be
disparate approaches into novel solutions to common problems. ASIS&T bridges the
gaps not only between disciplines but also between the research that drives and the
practices that sustain new developments.

ASIS&T counts among its membership some 4,000 information specialists from such
fields as computer science, linguistics, management, librarianship, engineering, law,
medicine, chemistry, and education; individuals who share a common interest in
improving the ways society stores, retrieves, analyzes, manages, archives and
disseminates information, coming together for mutual benefit.

Coalition for Academic Scientific Computing (http://www.casc.org) -- CASC is a
nonprofit organization of supercomputing centers, research universities and federal
laboratories that offer leading edge hardware, software, and expertise in high
performance computing resources and "advanced visualization environments." Founded
in 1989, CASC has grown into a national association representing 42 centers and
programs in 28 states.

Coalition members complement traditional methods of laboratory and theoretical
investigation by using high performance computers to simulate natural phenomena and
environmental threats, handle and analyze data and create images - all at performance
levels not available from smaller computers. By applying advanced technology, CASC
members help extend the state of the art to achieve the scientific, technical, and
information management breakthroughs that will keep the U.S. in the forefront of the
21st century information technology revolution.

Computing Research Association (http://www.cra.org) -- The Computing Research
Association (CRA) is an association of more than 200 North American academic
departments of computer science, computer engineering, and related fields; laboratories
and centers in industry, government, and academia engaging in basic computing research;
and affiliated professional societies.

CRA's mission is to strengthen research and advanced education in the computing fields,
expand opportunities for women and minorities, and improve public and policymaker
understanding of the importance of computing and computing research in our society.

Electrical and Computer Engineering Department Heads Association
(http://www.ecedha.org) -- The Electrical and Computer Engineering Department Heads
Association is composed of heads or chairs of departments offering accredited programs
in electrical and/or computer engineering.

The purposes of ECEDHA are threefold: help advance the field, help members exchange
ideas, and improve communication with the profession, industry, government, and others.
ECEDHA membership is open to the official leaders (whether called head, chair, or some
other title) of U.S. university departments offering ABET-accredited electrical and/or
computer engineering (or similarly named) programs. Of about 300 departments offering
such programs, almost 90 percent are currently represented in ECEDHA.

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (http://www.siam.org) -- SIAM has
grown from a membership of few hundred in the early 1950s to over 10,000 members
today. SIAM members are applied and computational mathematicians, computer
scientists, numerical analysts, engineers, statisticians, and mathematics educators. They
work in industrial and service organizations, universities, colleges, and government
agencies and laboratories all over the world. In addition, SIAM has over 400 institutional
members-colleges, universities, corporations, and research organizations.

U.S. Public Policy Committee of the Association for Computing Machinery
(http://www.acm.org/usacm) - USACM is the U.S. Public Policy Committee of the
Association for Computing Machinery, which is widely recognized as the premier
organization for computing professionals, delivering resources that advance the
computing as a science and a profession, enabling professional development, and
promoting policies and research that benefit society. ACM is the world•s first
educational and scientific computing society with almost 80,000 members worldwide.
USACM members include leading computer scientists, engineers, and other professionals
from industry, academia, and government.
_______________________________________________________________
1 There are, of course, important reasons for classifying federal research, especially when it is clear that the research
might reveal our defense capabilities or vulnerabilities. However, it should also be understood that there are real costs -
including that the research is unavailable for public dissemination and scrutiny, and that many university researchers,
arguably some of the best minds in the country, are no longer able to contribute to the work. In the case of DARPA's
cyber security research, there is another significant cost to bear as well. The military (and the government overall) has a
huge dependence on our nation's commercial infrastructure, but classifying the research in information security means
that it is largely unavailable for use in protecting this commercial infrastructure.

Related Articles