IP: R&D on the edge

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:40:45 -0500 (EST)
>To: dave@farber.net
>From: tom_kalil@hotmail.com
>Subject: R&D on the edge
>
>
>From: Tom Kalil
>  Subject: R&D on the edge
>
>
>  Email a Friend brought to you by BayArea.com and SiliconValley.com
> 
>**************************************************************************
>
>  Mon Mar 12 13:40:45 2001
>  Dave:
>
>Thought you might be interested in the attached.
>****************************************************************************
>  Posted at 11:59 p.m. PST Saturday, March 10, 2001
>
>  BY THOMAS KALIL
>
>   Although President Bush has yet to submit a detailed budget, the 
> document that he released Feb. 28 shows that he plans to cut the research 
> and development investments of some agencies and freeze the budgets of 
> others.  This has set off alarm bells in the research community.
>
>              Although the administration is committed to a hefty $2.8 
> billion increase in the National Institutes of Health budget, support for 
> the physical sciences and engineering is likely to be flat or down.  The 
> National Science Foundation, which has the responsibility of supporting 
> research and education in all science and engineering disciplines, will 
> receive a 1 percent, $50 million increase, not sufficient to keep up with 
> inflation.
>
>      If enacted by Congress, this approach would exacerbate a troublesome 
> trend in federal R&D policy -- the growing imbalance in support between 
> biomedical research and the physical sciences and engineering.  Congress 
> has been very generous with the NIH budget, which has increased from 
> roughly $10 billion in FY93 to more than $20 billion in 
> FY2001.  Unfortunately, support for many other scientific fields has been 
> stagnant.
>
>      For a variety of reasons, allowing this imbalance to continue would 
> be a serious policy mistake.  First of all, the research enterprise is 
> becoming increasingly interdependent.  Medical breakthroughs depend on 
> advances in the physical sciences and engineering.  Physics led to 
> medical imaging technology such as MRI and CAT scans, computer science is 
> reducing the time needed to develop life-saving drugs through 
> sophisticated simulations,  and nanotechnology could lead to much earlier 
> detection of cancerous 
> tumors.
>
>      Second, federal support for research plays an important role in the 
> development of new ideas and innovative technologies, the engine of our 
> knowledge-based economy.  Many of the technologies that are driving 
> today's economy have their origins in federally-sponsored research.
>
>             Although companies invest billions of dollars to develop and 
> market new technologies, they find it very difficult to justify to their 
> shareholders making investments in long-term, risky research that may or 
> may not have any direct payoff for the company.  The payoff to the our 
> economy as a whole, however, is enormous, given the contribution that new 
> technologies have made to increased productivity, faster economic growth, 
> and the creation of high-wage jobs.
>
>      Third, federal R&D supports the education and training of the next 
> generation of scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs.  The university 
> professors who receive federal grants often use it to provide stipends 
> for graduate students, who are integrally involved in performing the 
> research.
>
>      Many companies report that a shortage of workers with technical 
> skills is their number one constraint on growth, and they have been 
> lobbying Congress to increase the number of skilled immigrants under the 
> H1-B temporary visa program.  Increasing university-based research would 
> help expand the pool of Americans that can compete for these high-tech jobs.
>
>      It's no accident that many of America's booming high-tech clusters, 
> such as Silicon Valley, Austin, Boston's Route 128, and North Carolina's 
> Research Triangle Park, have grown up around world-class research 
> universities.  University professors and recent university graduates are 
> often involved in launching high-tech start-ups, and companies locate 
> near universities to take advantage of the skilled workforce that 
> universities help create.
>
>      Silicon Valley is ``Exhibit A'' of this phenomena.  A number of 
> Silicon Valley's most successful companies have their roots in 
> government-sponsored research at world-class universities such as 
> Stanford and UC-Berkeley.
>
>      While Europe and Japan were promoting a computer networking standard 
> drafted by a U.N. committee, the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
> Agency (DARPA), NASA, and the NSF were nurturing the Internet.  This 
> allowed U.S. companies like Cisco Systems (founded by Stanford's Leonard 
> Bosack and Sandra Lerner) to establish a commanding presence in domestic 
> and international markets.
>
>      The work of DARPA-sponsored researchers such as Jim Clark, Bill Joy, 
> Forest Baskett, Andy Bechtolsheim, John Hennessy and David Patterson led 
> to the creation of Sun Microsystems and Silicon Graphics.  The first 
> graphical Web browser was developed by Marc Andreessen and Eric Bina at 
> the NSF-funded National Center for Supercomputing Applications, who 
> together launched Netscape.  More recently, Internet companies such as 
> Google and Inktomi were founded by NSF and DARPA-sponsored researchers at 
> Stanford and Berkeley such as Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric 
> Brewer.
>
>      Study the origins of many of today's information and communications 
> technologies (design tools for computer chips, inexpensive data storage, 
> relational databases, optical networks), and you'll find that 
> government-supported university research played an important role in 
> their creation.
>
>      It's critical that the Congress provide funding for a balanced 
> research portfolio.  Increasing the NIH budget is important, but it 
> should not be the sole objective of U.S. science and technology 
> policy.  Expanded investment in the physical sciences and engineering, 
> such as physics, computer science, mathematics, electrical 
> engineering,  materials science and nanotechnology is essential to 
> maintaining America's economic and technological leadership in the 21st 
> century.
>
>      If Congress and the administration decide to act to correct this 
> imbalance, the National Science Foundation and the Defense Advanced 
> Research Projects Agency would be good places to start.
>
>      The NSF budget is woefully underfunded.  The average grant size at 
> the National Science Foundation is $70,000 per year, which is not enough 
> to support the teams of researchers that are often required to make 
> progress on the toughest scientific and technological challenges.
>
>      Currently, NSF is only able to fund a fraction of the meritorious 
> proposals it receives.  In response to a $90 million solicitation for 
> long-term information technology research, for example, NSF received $3 
> billion in proposals.
>
>      Over the years, DARPA-funded research has had a tremendous payoff 
> for America's military and technological edge.  DARPA needs additional 
> funding so that it can continue to invest in high-risk research while 
> assuming new responsibilities for developing defenses against 
> cyber-terrorism and biological warfare.
>
>      President Bush plans to increase defense R&D by $2.6 billion next 
> year, and by $20 billion over the next five years.  Although much of this 
> will go toward missile defense, Congress and the Administration should 
> devote some of it to increase DARPA's budget and support for long-term 
> defense research more generally.
>
>      This is an issue that can and should attract bipartisan 
> support.   Silicon Valley executives should devote time and energy to 
> educating Washington policy-makers  about the importance of federal 
> funding for long-term research.  If we don't have the national will to 
> increase R&D budgets now, when we are enjoying budget surpluses and the 
> economic payoff from far-sighted federal investments in the 1960s and 
> 1970s -- when will we?
>
>
>
>
>
>  Thomas Kalil is an adjunct fellow with the New America Foundation and a 
> former deputy assistant to the president for technology and economic 
> policy in the Clinton administration.
>
>
>Address of original story:
>http://www.sv.com/docs/opinion/svguest/soapbx031101.htm
>
>
>  **************************************************************************
>
>  SiliconValley.com - Inside The Tech Economy
>
>  **************************************************************************
>
>  You are receiving this email because a friend of yours thought this 
> article might be of interest to you.
>
>



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/