C: To renew or not to renew Fred W. Weingarten Computing Research Association American Library Association

ne day many years ago, when I was a young program director at the National Science Foundation, I was walking down the hall with a

colleague from the Social Sciences Division. The NSF director passed us, looked at me, and said “Hi, Rick.”

My friend looked at me in shock and said, “He knows you by name?” I explained that a few weeks earlier, my boss, Kent Curtis, had asked me to workwith the director on some testimony regarding computers. He looked at me sympathetically and confided with the wisdom of a long- time bureaucrat, “Survival is never letting them know your name.”

Of course, that attitude is not unusual in any large bureaucracy, but in this case it was more understandable. NSF support of social science research funding existed then (as now, in fact) despite much criticism. Some conserva- tive politicians believed that social science research was nothing more than a pretext for expanding social pro- grams. Others in science policy leadership positions, mainly from the physical science disciplines, saw social sci- ence as a “soft” field lacking the rigor and objectivity of “hard science” and certainly unworthy of NSF funding. Given that hostile environment, my friend‘s perspective was rational; every time he stuck his head up, someone would shoot at it.

We in computer science, on the other hand, were in the opposite position. We were trylng to be noticed and taken

seriously in a science community dominated by the same mditional physical scientists, most of whom had never seen or used a computer, and for whom the term “computer sei- ence” seemed an oxymoron. But we were in the earlystages of growth and thought we were riding the wave of the fume. What we thought we needed was visibility and the chance to tell our story. Therefore, it was great news to us that the NSF director wanted to talk about computers.

’

Deja vu all over again I recalled that experience recently while watching the

debate over whether to ask for a reauthorization of the High-Performance Computing Act, which expires in the fall of 1996. The dilemma is similar. With all of those bud- get-cutting knives flying on Capitol Hill, does the commu- nitywant to keep its collective head low or does itwant to take a chance and stand up to tell its story?

To be fair, the issue is certainly more complicated, but the underlying political question of visibility lurks beneath it all, and the proper answer is by no means clear.

Recall that the HPC, as it was originally called (the sec- ond C, standing for communications, was added later), was an attempt to create a coordinated multiagency pro- gram focused on high-end computing. The issue wasn’t so much to get agencies such as NSF or the Advanced Research Projects Agency to fund computing research- they already did that. Rather, it was to establish some broader, government-wide objectives and direct the agen- cies to coordinate their own research programs accord- ingly. By so doing, went the argument, the program would ensure more effective expenditures of computing research

Computer

dollars. In addition, by having those dollars linked with an explicit and politically acceptable public purpose, the program would hopefully provide a basis for increased funding for computing research across the board.

Although they might quibble about details, I think most observers would judge the process a success in terms of those goals. The programs have grown rapidly within some of the participating agencies. And while it is always difficult to attribute cause and effect in politics, there is little doubt in my mind that this budget growth is due in great part to public and political support of HPC. Furthermore, coordination is much tighter among the agencies, although friction and turf battles certainly do still exist. Under the encouragement of HPCC Coordinator Don Lindberg and his successor, John Toole, the agencies have begun to work together much more closely than they have in the past.

Keep a low profile?. . . The basic argument against asking for reauthorization

is that the agency-by-agency HPCC activities by now all fit well within their missions and that the coordination, dependent on White House leadership, has become embedded in agency culture. (That argument, of course, was also made by President Bush to a Democratic Congress, and it was not persuasive to then-Senator Gore.)

The strategic reasons for deferring are twofold. In the first place, the program has broadened in focus immensely, to the point where it covers much of the government’s investment in computing research. It has become much too large and widely framed to be encompassed under a narrow rubric of “high-performance computing.”

Secondly, of course, there is understandable concern about opening up a congressional debate over government

funding of computing research in general. Not only is Congress looking for excuses to cut the budget, but also computing research is one of those fields that sits uncom- fortably close to industry product and application. It is surely easy to argue the importance and economic bene- fits inherent in computing research, but the argument must be framed very carefully to avoid looking like the dreaded “industrial policy.”

Suppose Congress voted down a renewal bill? Would NSF, AFWA, and the other agencies be expected to close down all programs in computing research, programs they now support under existing charters? It’s a scary thought.

. . . or take a !stand? On the other hand, it’s hard to argue for standing pat

on the status quo, which quite frankly looks dreadful for science. Under most budget proposals, overall science funding will drop by about 30-40 percent over the next five to seven years. Some of the science agencies have been spared deep cuts this year, but that is for two reasons. First, the budget cutters went after some particular targets this year-the Advanced Technology Program of the Department of Commerce, for instance, and certain envi- ronmental and energy research programs. Those easy tar- gets will not likely be available in the future. Second, in the budget plari-surprise, surprise!-the deepest cuts are saved for a few years downstream.

This line of argument says that unless the field’s sup- porters begin to make very public and political arguments, US science will die a slow, lingering death of a thousand cuts. Computin,p research has a particularly good story to tell. Some form of renewal would be a good framework under which to itell that story. Probably the renewal would not be focused on HPCC per se, but on some broader, more

January 1996

general framework-for instance, “Information Infrastructure and Applications,” to borrow a term from the administration.

t’s a dilemma . . . a difficult choice, and our friends in the White House and on the Hill are wrestling with it

now. Do we hunker down and hope the winds shift before severe damage is done, with all the risks this entails, or do we stick our heads up and engage in a fight that could well be lost? Does it even make sense to try to “sell” computing research funding on such programmatic concepts, or is it now an established discipline that should be viewed as simply part of the nation’s portfolio? We’ve got to decide on our answers to this soon.

Fred W. Weingarten is director, government affairs, for the Computing Research Association and senior policy fel- low with the American LibraryAssociation. Readers can con- tact him at rick@cra.org.

The IEEE Computer Society is accepting nominations for the 1996 Sidney Fernbach Award, which is presented annually to an individual who makes an outstanding con- tribution with an application of high-performance com- puters that uses innovative approaches.

The award winner will receive a certificate and a $2,000 honorarium at the Supercomputing 96 conference, to be held November 17-22 in Pittsburgh. Nominations must be submitted by April 22. Paul Woodward of the University of Minnesota will chair the award selection committee.

For more information or nomination instructions, con- tact Lynne Harris at the IEEE Computer Society, 1730 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036-1992; e-mail l.harris@computer.org.

The Sidney Fernbach Award was established in 1992 by the IEEE Computer Society Board of Governors. It was named after one of the pioneers in the development and application of high-performance computers for the solu- tion of large computational problems.

At its December 8 meeting, the IEEE Computer Society Board of Governors approved the appointment of 1996 Executive Committee officers. The committee’s first and second vice presidents were elected by the society’s mem- bership. The other officers were appointed. The 1996 Executive Committee is

President: Mario R. Barbacci President-elect: Barry W. Johnson Past President: Ronald G. Hoelzeman First vice president, press activities: Joseph Boykin Second vice president, educational activities:

Vzcepresident, conferences and tutorials: I. Mark Haas Vice president, standards activities: Jim Isaak Vice president, membership activities: John A.N. Lee Vice president, technical achvities: Leonard L. Tripp Vice president, publications: Ronald D. Williams Secretary: Richard H. Eckhouse Treasurer: Guylaine M. Pollock

Doris L. Carver

__

systems and software for measuring human brain blood perfusion for contributions to computational hybric finite-element and high-frequency methods (Antennas

San Francisco, California, for coiiti ibutions to software enyi- neerhg, including Lhe development of computer-aided soft-

Chariottesville, for contributions to the design of computer

Che-Ho Wei, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan, ROC,

and Propagation)

ware engineering (CASE) tools. (Computer) Alfred Charles Weaver, University of Virginia,

communications protocols. (Industrial EleCtronIcs)

for contributions to circuits and sy5tems for communications and g. (Circuits and Systems)

R IBM Almaden Kesearch Ctr, ban jose, California, .for leadership in computer vide‘o, image, and greph-

Anthony 1. Waserman, Interactive Develop Environments,

in cross section (Engineering in Medicine and Biology)

leadership in the development and progress of high-voltage direct current transmission technology in Brazil. (Power Engineering)

Steven Larry Tanimoto, University of Wdshington, Seattle, for contributions to data structures and architectures for image processing (Computer)

Minneapolis, foi contributions to wavelet theory and fractal signal processing and ?heir applications. (Signal Processing)

Calrfamra, foi the design and impletitenrattion of the execution unit and controller of the MC68000 workstation microproces- sor (Computer) Ics systems, (Computer)

Marcio Szechtman, CEPEL, Brazil, for contributions to and

Ahmed Hossam Tewfik, University of Mitmemta,

Harry Leslie Tredennick 111, Altera Carp,, San Jose,

Louise H. Trevillyan, IBM TJ Watson Resed

Computer