Reports:
• Congressional Report: Reformulating US Science Policy
• Learning Online
• Roundtable:  Making Science Policy
• Agency Report: The Year 2000 and the Communications Sector

Monday Reports

Congressional Report:
Reformulating US Science Policy

The globalization of science, technology, and economic markets points to several changes that cannot be ignored. First, science policy in the US began as a response to the ensuing Cold War. Competition between countries was primarily based on military power. The shift towards global economic competition in the past twenty years has resulted in the decrease of basic scientific research. Ehlers expressed concern over the increasing preference of industry for applied research and product development funding at the expense of scientific research. Although such projects do lead to greater commercial competition, they do not expand American high-tech power.

A second disturbing trend is the decrease of scientific research entitlements granted by the federal government. Since 1962, there has been a steady decline of congressional discretionary fund resources that are allocated to scientific research. With student loans, Medicare, and health science research taking a large piece of the funding pie, physical science studies are receiving minimal funds. This sets the US and its science policy initiatives adrift. According to Ehlers "we don't have a science policy, but a budget policy." The fact that many Americans do not understand the importance of science-based research makes it very difficult for Congress to support costly projects.

Representative Ehlers hopes that by boosting science and math education today, tomorrow's American workers will be better able to compete in the information technology economy. Average citizens will have greater knowledge of basic scientific concepts, and a better understanding of science in their everyday lives. Ehlers argues that "ultimately, this country needs better science, math, technology, and engineering education. We need to recognize its purpose so that we can produce better workplace training, better American scientists and engineers, and better educated consumers and voters."

US science policy must be coherent, comprehensible, and applicable; otherwise, says Ehlers, "it does not work!" Mid-level research providing a link between basic and applied research is absolutely necessary, if government and industry expect a better return on their investments.

Learning Online

Bernadette McGuire-Rivera of the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP) began the program by explaining how her group, a part of the U. S. Department of Commerce, has helped fund and set up small community networks which grow into large, self-supporting units of activity. One of her goals is to make technology relevant for users, not just in the K-12 community but in the surrounding social communities as well. Functional literacy is changing in an environment where the Internet grows 400 per cent in one year, so that technological literacy is becoming as fundamental as the traditional three R's.

Programs that TIIAP helps fund apply for a grant and need to show a budget for sustainability, a plan to manage cost control, a plan for training teachers, students, and other users, as well as a proof of performance. This last part of an application helps combat what McGuire-Rivera calls a "sugar coating of the facts" of Internet access. Though more and more people are getting access, they tend to be from the more advantaged strata of society. TIIAP helps programs that teach their service communities how to use high tech equipment, so that all people can learn new skills and get better jobs. Users in the groups she oversees have shown that, given the opportunity and training, they will succeed. The next step to take, she says, is for the public sector to commit its resources to investing in and adopting technology so that the volume of applications and bandwidth increases, providing greater access to a greater number of people.

McGuire-Rivera has seen a great impact on the communities where TIIAP has brought in funding. These groups connect teachers with other teachers, as well as connecting them with outside authorities and parents. She offered many examples of successful programs, but the one she was most proud of was a group of hospitals in Washington that linked together and identified a number of abused children who might have otherwise fallen through the cracks. Parents would bring their kids to different hospitals, but through networking, the hospitals were able to see particular patterns of activity.

KG Ouye from the Schools and Libraries Corporation also finds the traditional split between the technological haves and have nots. The increasing division, however, does not fall along lines of willingness to participate.

As with many other presenters heard during this conference, Ouye calls for increased training of those who run networks and access points. "You just can't wire up a school and let it go at that," she said. In addition to training teachers and administrators, we have to get teachers to talk to each other and share their projects. Traditionally, classrooms have been individual units, as have disciplines and districts. This is a paradigm that is no longer viable.

In addition to training teachers, Ouye puts the money that she and her corporation saves in government discounts on software into training new users how to keep up the maintenance, what she calls the "care and feeding," of the machines themselves. People have shown a tremendous willingness to learn the new material, as well as take on the lower-level administrative responsibilities. It is good news such as this that needs to be spread.

Nora Sabelli of the NSF agreed with the goals and drives of McGuire-Rivera and Ouye, and emphasized the need for people who want to instill change in an environment to put their plans into the language of the people in charge. If what they care about is football helmets, she said, then you have to say, "This will cost you 2 football helmets."

Sabelli highlighted the fact that computers do not just offer what has existed in the past only faster, but rather, present a totally new toolbox of capabilities. What teachers must do, now that they can be linked with experts in the field, is to have "deeper content."

Elliot Soloway of the University of Michigan is optimistic about the role of technology and students: "When you give technology to students, they write more and they write better." By offering students a larger audience, via the Internet, they get a sense that they are not just doing work for "the teacher," but that it has larger consequences. This sentiment has been reflected by some other presenters of online education during this conference.

"It is unacceptable for students to hate school," he said. As a panacea against apathy, he sites the National Research Council: We need to have "inquiry into authentic questions generated from students' experiences [as] the central strategy for teaching science." We need to have kids ask their own questions, so that they take ownership of their learning process. In order to fuel the resources required to answer the individual questions spawned in a class, he suggested that teachers and students alike turn to the Internet. Though it is a tremendous resource, it is not a universal solution. "We have to get smarter about these resources." Technology, overall, has done little to impact education. Examples include the past attempts to introduce the moving picture, radio, and television into the classroom. None of these changed teaching in any fundamental way. These experiences merely highlight that schools do not simply want technology--they want curriculum, that is, content. "You can write that 100 times," he concluded.

Making Science Policy

The discussion centered on the lack of greater involvement from the scientific community on legislation on computing policy. One such bill is the database bill, or "The Online Copyright Protection Act" (H.R. 2652), which would provide copyright protection for raw data on databases such as Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw. Opponents argue that these restrictions would severely constrain scientific research, and that there is no demonstrable need for such legislation.

Professional computing organizations vary in their degree of activism with regard to affecting legislation. While Rick Weingarten stressed that computer scientists needed to show a greater degree of response to computing policy legislation and recommended that scientists contact their individual representative and explain to them in personal terms what the database bill would mean, Don Heath said that the Internet Society relies on educating the public through informative brochures rather than on lobbying. And not everyone agreed that computing professionals had shown low interest in legislative developments. Al Teich pointed out that the scientific community had held conferences and sent letters to representatives working on the bill, and he expressed irritation that congressional representatives have consistently complained of the community's lack of involvement.

Deborah Rudolph noted that there was an attitude on the hill of "what have you done for me lately?" and suggested that activists make their move early on in the legislative process, before a bill actually hits the floor. But Rudolph pointed out that perhaps part of the problem is that legislators and computing professionals use different modes of communication. She argued that e-mail is not the best way to communicate with representatives, who perceive it as a quick, on-the-fly form of communication that lacks the rigorous thought process and careful composition of a handwritten letter.

Asked whether they had seen a shift in the focus of scientific policy advocacy, panelists identified recent trends in science funding. Bob Park noted that his organization had clearly shifted focus from the top issues of Russian scientific freedom and Star Wars during the cold war, to ensuring funding for scientific research, today. Al Teich identified a disturbing trend towards criminalizing certain types of research. Rick Weingarten pointed to a right-wing ideological stance to internet discussions that is counterproductive towards the goal of educating the public and congressional representatives. Finally, Rudolph and Heath noted that the internet is a powerful tool for scientific research and that scientists should educate their representatives about the proper role of government in internet policy.

In the audience discussion that followed, a member of the audience asked if any of the international computing organizations had ever experienced internal conflict when the goals of US computing policy differed from those of the international community. Don Heath responded that there were few instances where this occurred because of the dominance of the U.S. on Internet issues, and Deborah Rudolph offered that good administration and dialogue had been instrumental in helping resolve conflicts when they had occurred in the past.

Several audience members raised the question of what an individual scientist can do when policy seems to be dominated by heavy financial interest. Bob Park responded that the only power an individual ever has is to personally contact their representative, and noted that in several instances, this had made a significant difference in legislative decisions. The other panelists concurred noting that successful political action takes time and commitment. When asked about the most effective way of communicating with their representatives, the panel concluded that writing a 'letter to the editor' of the local newspaper in the target representative's district was probably the most effective way of influencing votes on the floor.

Agency Report:
The Year 2000 and the Communications Sector

In a nutshell, 80-90% of the telecommunications industry will not be affected by the Y2K problem; it's the 10-20% that will have a problem that pose a concern. However, even the majority of companies with problems will experience only minor glitches. Of great concern to the FCC are the 1-2% that will have fatal flaws.

According to Nelson, the widely quoted Gartner Group estimate of the technological cost of Y2K, $300-$600 billion, may or may not be accurate. While admitting that these are high costs, he estimates worldwide costs resulting from lawsuits related to the Y2K problem close to $2 trillion.

Forecasting the effect of Y2K on the telecommunications industry is particularly difficult because 600 days--the time left to the year 2000--is a long time for an industry as large, complex, and as quickly-developing as telecommunications. Nelson emphasized that solutions to Y2K problems are the responsibility of individual companies in the telecommunications industry. The FCC is not working on any type of solution. He joked that Y2K is not a problem the FCC can regulate away.

Nelson noted that some of the biggest concerns of the FCC are the Emergency Alert System (formerly the Emergency Broadcasting System), and the wireless systems used by the police, fire departments, and Emergency Medical units.

The most crucial problem Nelson foresees, however, is not in the US, but internationally. Nelson noted that many other countries are not taking the Y2K problem seriously enough. Specifically, the developing countries of Asia and Latin America could be particularly hard hit. He sees SE Asia as especially at risk because of the current focus of national resources on the financial crisis in the region. The current crisis makes it difficult to divert resources toward a potential problem two years down the road.

Nelson emphasized that the primary role of the FCC is to facilitate the sharing of information, and to educate on the Y2K problem. The FCC has been involved in some contingency planning, but the agency is counting on the robust competition in the telecommunications sector to place the US is in a good position to handle the problem. Competition provides incentives for companies to come up with solutions to Y2K. By providing alternatives in case some companies fail to address fatal flaws, competition also affords consumer protection.