[IP] Are We Taking NSF For Granted?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Peter Harsha <harsha@xxxxxxx>
Date: December 1, 2004 2:02:54 PM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Are We Taking NSF For Granted?
Given the coverage of the NSF cut in the FY 2005 Omnibus, thought you
might be interested this recent blog post of mine [
http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/blog/archives/000191.html ]:
Are We Taking NSF for Granted? (no pun...)
Stumbled upon this interesting article
[http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/
0,12243,1360897,00.html ] from the UK's Guardian detailing the
recognition growing in the EU about the need for an agency similar to
the US' National Science Foundation as a way to help the union
"radically improve its knowledge economy." The article describes a
European commission report earlier this month that noted U.S. R&D
funding, currently at about $395 billion (£210 billion) total (that's
industry and federal), has been a key reason for continued US dominance
in innovation and hi-tech industries.
"As things stand, the 25 member states of the EU spend about £120bn a
year investing in research and development. While that sounds like a
lot, it pales beside the more than £210bn spent by the United States.
This imbalance is one of the factors that have created a 'brain drain'
of scientific talent from Europe to the US, identified recently by the
Royal Society as "particularly noticeable" in the standing of
top-quality research teams. Generous research grants, better salaries
and conditions in both the private sector and universities have sucked
the best and brightest - and not just in science - across the Atlantic
and put them to work in the service of the US economy. This reinforces
the US's lead in innovation and hi-tech industries, giving it a
strategic and commercial edge.
...
"The Kok report noted glumly that nearly three-quarters of the world's
leading IT companies were from the US, and concluded that 'Europe has
no option but to radically improve its knowledge economy'. To tackle
this gap it recommended establishing a European research council,
modelled on the National Science Foundation of the US, as an
independent funding body run by scientists and academics, making grants
in pure science as well as applied areas such as engineering and social
sciences. Yesterday, the issue was debated by EU research ministers, as
a first step towards setting up an ERC.
"To many interested parties it goes without saying that Europe needs
such a body, if only to rid itself of the current cumbersome EU-wide
arrangements for research funding. Yet the funding gap between the US
and the EU is caused by lower research spending by Europe's business
sector. There is a chicken and egg connection at work: better-targeted
and more generous research funding should cause a virtuous spillover
into more industrial investment."
It's discouraging to juxtapose this European perspective of the value
of the National Science Foundation and the role of fundamental research
in enabling the knowledge economy with recent actions
[http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/blog/archives/000190.html ] in this
country that demonstrate our support for science is waning. One need
not look far to see the evidence that federally-supported research has
played a key role in the remarkable success of U.S. innovation. My
favorite example comes from IT R&D (no surprise). It's the Computer
Science and Telecommunications Board "tire tracks" chart
[http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/images/fig1_big.jpg ], which shows 19
areas of research in IT that, with an interplay of federal and
industrial support for R&D, became billion dollar markets. The recent
cuts by Congress to NSF and other science agencies as part of the FY
2005 Omnibus Appropriations Bill show a disturbing lack of
understanding and support of that crucial federal role.
And, if that weren't bad enough, we're doing our best to stem the
"brain drain" the Europeans show such great concern about by enacting
visa policies that do a fair job of keeping the world's best and
brightest away from our shores. Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria has an
interesting piece this week on just that subject: "Rejecting the Next
Bill Gates". [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6542347/site/newsweek/ ]
In order to stay competitive we need to remember what made us
competitive, and I fear we're losing sight of that. Clearly, our
competitors aren't.
-Peter
--
Peter Harsha
Director of Government Affairs
Computing Research Association
1100 17th St. NW, Suite 507
Washington, DC 20036
p: 202.234.2111 ext 106
c: 202.256.8271
CRA's Computing Research Policy Blog: http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/blog
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/