more on Report Assesses Defense Basic Research

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

I strongly endorse Jon's comments djf

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap () eros-os org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:06:38 -0500
To: <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] Report Assesses Defense Basic Research

[For IP]

In regard to the report by the "Committee on Department of Defense Basic
Research", does anyone else find it difficult to reconcile the
statement:

  "No significant quantities of 6.1 funds (basic research) have been
  directed toward projects that are typical of research funded under
  categories 6.2 or 6.3."

with

  "...there has been a trend within DOD for reduced attention to
  unfettered exploration in its basic research program.  Near-term DOD
  needs are producing significant pressure to focus basic research in
  support of those needs.  DOD needs to realign the balance of its
  basic research effort more in favor of unfettered exploration."

??

I personally find it very difficult to imagine how *any* research
directed toward "near-term DOD needs" (or near-term needs for anyone
else, for that matter) might be honestly characterized as "basic
research."

Historically, the greatest strength of DARPA and DoD was its willingness
to invest in research ideas that combined (long term, high risk, high
payoff). These investments include projects ranging from what is now the
Internet to the stealth bomber to the unmanned reconnaissance vehicles
that are now saving lives in Iraq. In recent years, this funding has
been significantly reduced. Perhaps equally important, over the last two
years the remaining funds have been directed preferentially toward
classified (black) and/or sensitive (unpublishable) projects. While
there are well-motivated black projects going on, all too often the
decision to make a project black is motivated by the desire to avoid
oversight. Certainly, black funding is incompatible with the basic
values of academic research. So is pre-publication approval, a
requirement that has been imposed on nearly *all* DoD contracts in the
last several years.

Over the last 75 years, the inventions that have had the greatest
positive impact on our society and our economy came from open
laboratories -- either projects at universities (often in collaboration
with industrial partners) that were funded openly by DARPA or work done
at Bell Labs, which was unable to exploit many of its inventions and
therefore licensed them for next to nothing. In very large measure,
these kinds of innovations have been the key enablers that allowed
America to sustain its position as a world leading nation. Today, the
only institutions that fill a comparable role are research universities,
and funding for long-term research in these institutions is all but
gone.

So my question: How do we invent the future of America if we won't fund
the inventors? I don't think that the answer needs to be DARPA, or that
the next big push necessarily lies in Computer Science, but for the
academics who have historically relied on DARPA we need an answer *soon*
(i.e. within the next 12 months). In Computer Science, along with a
number of other fields that drive our economy, we are in real danger of
losing an entire academic generation of research faculty in applied
areas. To be sure, we can rebuild that expertise if we choose to do so,
but that could well take 30 years.

Perhaps it is it okay to say that America doesn't need long term
innovation drivers. I suppose it can't be *that* bad to be a second-
world country...


Jonathan S. Shapiro
Assistant Professor
Department of Computer Science
Johns Hopkins University


------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/