site visit

1
Public Policy and ECEDHA
James H. Aylor Associate Dean-Academic
Programs Louis T. Rader Professor of
ECE University of Virginia
2
Outline

• Computing Research Association
• The University of Virginia
• Funding analysis
• Conclusions

3
Computing Research Association

• Formed in 1972 as the Computer Science Board to
  provide a forum for the chairs of CS departments
• Incorporated as nonprofit 501c3 in 1986 as the
  Computing Research Board, recognizing concern for
  RD in the computing field (including computer
  engineering and computational science)
• Changed it name to the Computing Research
  Association in 1990 opened a staffed operation in
  Washington

4
CRA Mission

• Mission areas
• Information disseminate info to the research and
  policy-making communities
• Human resources assure continuous supply of
  talented people
• Community promote sense of community
• Policy develop a deeper understanding of policy
  issues and their impact, and work for informed
  policies involving computing research and
  computing technology in general
• Influence policy related to computing research by
  improving public and policy maker understanding
  of the nature and role of such research
• Increase the computing communitys awareness of
  and participation in policy issues

Not a lobbying organization!
5
CRA and Policy

• Full-time staff former House Science Committee
  staffer
• Work on wording in legislation relative to
  research and education in computing
• Work on a budget document with AAAS in the area
  of computing
• Government Affairs Committee that meets once a
  year to set the agenda for the policy mission
• Congressional Visit Day local representatives,
  House Science Committee, etc.
• Participate in the Annual Capital Hill Science
  Exhibition

6
The University of Virginia

• Standard policy stuff
• Political positions are personal ones can not
  use letterhead
• Communications with media is as a citizen or must
  be coordinated with the Office of University
  Relations
• Do not accept earmarks
• In general, continues to be extremely passive
  with respect to relations with the Federal
  Government
• Until 1997, we had a single person that followed
  DC issues
• In 1997, hired JordenBurt as an advisor and
  created the Federal Relations Advisory Committee
• Funding opportunities
• Status of general Federal budgets and legislation
• Strategic Federal issues Medicare reimbursement

7
Fiscal Year 2004 Presidents BudgetFederal
Research Development
2004 Total Federal RD 127B
DoE (9B) 7
NSF (4B) 3
Others (9B) 7
NASA (11B) 9
HHS (28B) 22
DoD (66B) 52
Source AAAS
8
Fiscal Year 2004 Presidents BudgetFederal
(basic applied) Research
FY2004 Total Federal Research 56B
NSF (4B) 7
Others (7.3B) 13
DoE (7.5B) 10
An agency may not fund a discipline on which it
depends!
DoD (6.3B) 11
NASA (5.8B) 20
HHS (27B) 48
Source AAAS
9
1994 Federal Research in Selected Disciplines
1,200
1,000
DoD NSF NASA DOE
800
600
M
400
200
0
Computer
Materials
Elec Engr
Aero/Astro
Math
(6.1 6.2 Funding)
Source Federal Funds for RD NSF Report 94-328
10
1999 Federal Research in Selected Disciplines
M
Source NSF Science and Engineering Indicators
2002
(Basic and Applied Research only)
11
DoD Percent of Federal Research to Universities
FY95
FY99
Electrical Engineering Metallurgy
Materials Mathematics Mechanical Engineering All
Engineering Computer Science Civil
Engineering All Federal Funding
69 70 69 41 59 15 56 66 42
38 38 39 24 4 11 7.5
Funding levels change and often due to
misinformed individuals!
Source Federal Funds for RD NSF Report 95-334
and SE Indicators 2002
Note Basic Applied Research Funding only
12
Some Conclusions

• Information is good! Department heads should be
  informed.
• Very few engineers in Washington and the
  legislators should be properly informed
• The ECE community should be involved to protect
  our turf
• The community has highly qualified individuals
  who can be made available visible to the
  legislative community

13
Supported SE Grad Students(1979-1995)
of Grad Students Supported
1995 Total Federal Supported SE Grad Students
59,468
Source NSF Division of Science Resources Studies
14
Estimated Federal Support for RDat Colleges
Universities
FY2000 Estimated Federal Support 15.5B
NSF (2.3B) 15
Others (1.0B) 6
DoE (0.7B) 5
DoD (0.9B) 6
NASA (0.9B) 6
HHS (9.6B) 62
Source AAAS
15
DoD Is The Dominant Investor in Critical
FieldsIn the Technology Base - (FY95)
Electrical Engineering Metallurgy
Materials Mechanical Engineering Computer
Science All Engineering Civil Engineering Mathemat
ics All Federal Funding
82 73 75 57 45 39 28 18
Note Basic Applied Research Funding only
Source Federal Funds for RD NSF Report 95-334
16
Some Conclusions

• Students trained in various disciplines
• No cognizance of relative balance of student
  support is made as part of budget allocations,
  except perhaps in NSF sub-allocations
• An agency may not fund a discipline on which it
  depends