Cast it that way.
It's an important piece of--
[SIDE CONVERSATION]
Welcome.
Welcome to the Laboratory for Computer Science Distinguished
Lecture series.
Welcome to all of you here and to those of you
out at Lincoln Labs who are attending by TV.
[INAUDIBLE] is out of town today pushing his book,
which I'm sure he'll--
I'll be happy if you buy a copy of.
So he's not here today.
I'll be standing in for him introducing our speaker.
We're pleased today to have as our distinguished lecturer Dr.
Anita Jones, who is the director of defense, research,
and engineering, the DDR&E. I'll try to take a little of Mike's
style and give the more extended biography
and so on as he likes to do for our distinguished lectures,
in part to give our young students a role model
to follow so they can learn from the experiences
of our distinguished lecturers.
Anita Jones was born in Fort Worth, Texas and educated
in the public school system there.
Her father worked on the mapping of oil and gas reserves.
She recalls having good teachers who
always encouraged her to do math and science
and remembers loving geometry and trigonometry, especially.
She attended Rice University, where
she received a BA in mathematics,
and then attended the University of Texas at Austin
where she received an MA in literature.
Afterwards, she decided that working in technology
would be the best way to support herself
and identified three hot areas that were ready to explode.
One of them was biology.
One was computing.
And one was psychology.
She now figures two out of three wasn't bad.
She chose computing and went to work for IBM's federal system
division in Washington, where she had her first programming
course in 360 assembler and her first programming
assignment working on an operating system for IBM's
dual processor 360-65.
She remembers the way it worked was to just lock out
the second processor when the first was executing
the operating system.
Anyway, she fell in love with operating systems at that time.
After two years there, she decided
to try a University and persuaded IBM to send her
to 545 Technology Square, where IBM had offices at the time,
where she could take courses at MIT at the same time.
While working on programming environment systems
with Marc [? Auslander, ?] she recalls
taking Minsky's AI course and Tony [INAUDIBLE]
operating systems course, as well as
meeting and collaborating with many of the Tech Square CS
folks.
She then decided to get a PhD and chose
to go to Carnegie Mellon.
After having some industrial experience under her belt,
she felt strongly about what she wanted to take
and remembers having arguments with Alan Perlis about getting
excused from some standard, required course in order
to take Nico Habermann's operating system course.
Nico was visiting there at the time.
Her PhD thesis was on capability-based schemes
for controlling access to information,
which had an impact on how HYDRA and later operating
systems at CMU were developed.
She stayed on at CMU as an assistant professor,
turning down an offer from MIT.
She wonders how her life might have been different
if she'd stayed in here.
Although she did spend the summer
of '73 working at Tech Square with Jerry Saltzer,
and Dave Clark, and others.
As for the debatable question which
we hear a lot of talk about about staying on
at one's institution, she says that at Carnegie Mellon,
senior graduate students feel like peers of the faculty.
She felt very comfortable just staying on as a faculty member
there.
She enjoyed CMU immensely as it was an excellent place
to build systems.
And she participated in the multiprocessor [? CM* ?]
and [? STAROS ?] projects, where she even wrote some critical
microcode for the kernel.
She was promoted to associate professor.
She also married Bill Wulf, who was on the faculty there.
And in the early '80s, the two of them
capitalized on Bill's experience in compiler
writing by founding Tartan Laboratories,
which sold optimizing microcode compilers to Intel,
for example.
They both left CMU to do this.
She stayed with this effort for six years
and then undertook another major career shift.
She accepted a position as chairman
of the University of Virginia computer science department,
which she saw as being another wonderful entrepreneurial
experience.
In the meantime, Bill went to the National Science
Foundation.
She ran the department for five years,
saying that she was-- recalling that she
was happy as a clam doing that.
Along the way, she began to get her toe into government
by serving on the Air Force scientific advisory board.
She said that this experience was a tremendous education,
more valuable than a PhD.
She saw some very powerful problem solvers working
with very difficult problems.
She said it was an apprenticeship
in a much broader realm of problems
than she had encountered before.
She later served on the Defense Science Board
as an expansion of these activities.
Then soon after Clinton was elected,
she received a call from our own John Deutch asking her
if she wanted to be director of defense, research,
and engineering.
She had had contact with John before.
As provost, he had asked her to serve on the board of Lincoln
Laboratories and they had served on the Defense Science Board
together.
She felt that this was a request she couldn't refuse
and took leave from the University of Virginia
to go to Washington, where she's done an outstanding job
and has received the DOD award for distinguished
public service.
Her job there involves making policy decisions
that affect how DOD invests in science and technology.
She's won numerous other awards as a member of the National
Academy of Engineering.
As you know, we like to invite our speakers
to sum up their life experiences with an aphorism as guidance
to our young students.
She's offered two of them.
One of them is from her dad.
He said, just do something, something
you like better than fishing.
And her own is, life is more fun if you live multiple lives.
And [? it's cool that ?] she's done that.
So I'm pleased to welcome Anita Jones.
[APPLAUSE]
What I'd like to talk to you about
is the federal funding of science and technology,
an interesting area to study in its own right.
What I'd like to--
I'm going to use a lot of slides which will
have a lot of graphics on them.
What I hope you'll walk away with is
a gestalt of what the major--
who the major players are in terms of funding organizations,
some of the relative sizes of things and what they invest
in-- and maybe a little bit of why--
and some trends about what's happening.
As ought to be known best in Boston,
the Feds fund basic research, and that happens essentially
after World War II when Vannevar Bush convinced Roosevelt
at the time that because of the contributions made,
particularly here at the Rad Lab,
the federal government should invest in long-term research.
He recommended in a brochure, a book
called The Endless Frontier, that there
ought to be one agency, like the National Science
Foundation, that did not exist at that time,
because you can't trust the mission agencies,
places like DOD and other agencies,
because they'll be too mission oriented.
And in fact, his model was partly
followed in that the National Science Foundation was created,
but partly not followed.
And you'll see that reflected in the budget charts
that I'm going to show you.
Who among the feds funds what?
Again, only the bottom lines, not the details,
really matter here.
Many people will tell you that the federal R&D, research
and development budget, is $76 billion
and it changes only slowly, so about $70 billion.
It's half DOD.
The other half is primarily spread among Health and Human
Services, NASA, DOE, and NSF.
But in fact, you should just proceed to forget that,
because that's really not the way I
would argue to think about it.
What's important from the way that we all
think about it is a piece of that that's called the Science
and Technology program--
basic research, applied research,
and the development of technology.
If you think about--
so for the rest of the talk, I'm going
to use R&D to mean both short term and long term.
So in commercial speak, the design and development
of a new car would be R&D. The building of a microelectronics
fabrication plant would be R&D--
very short-term things.
Science and technology is a piece of R&D,
but it is the longer-term investment.
And I'll break that down further.
If you just look at that, it's roughly half of the 70.
For '98, it's about $44 billion.
And I'm only talking about the federal investment.
And the picture looks a bit different.
Health and Human Services, which invests primarily
in the life sciences and medicine,
is the largest by quite a bit.
And again, you have the same players--
DOD, NASA, DOE, and NSF.
If you say, well, I don't care about the late stage
and I want to bring it down further,
the 44 becomes about 28.
And HHS is getting larger.
But NSF is getting larger in their percentage, as well.
And if you look at basic research,
life sciences and medicine is where about 45%
of the federal investment in basic research, the longest
term work, is invested.
And the other players--
NASA, DOE, NSF, and DOD--
are where you go if you're interested in physical sciences
and engineering investment.
And there are some others, like agriculture.
But I'm not going to talk about those.
And so at this point, DOD is about 8%.
How has it changed?
It's gone down.
Here I'm looking at, again, science and technology.
So it's basic research, applied research,
and technology development.
That, by the way, is what I oversee in Defense.
And that's what I think is the most important number
to track from the point of view of creating
new ideas and the country capitalizing on them
for national security, for the citizens,
or for the health of the science and the universities.
[INAUDIBLE]
These are constant dollars, which means buying power,
and the answer is yes.
Where did the 5% go down?
Well, it's quite different in the different agencies.
DOD, I regret to tell you, is the one
that has gone down the most.
And it's 18%.
HHS is the one that has gone up the most.
And that's 12%.
The only other one to go up it is NSF at 5%.
So the agencies are treated somewhat differently
across the years.
And that's a thing to pay attention to.
What's happened across the years in terms
of the budget building up?
First of all started very small.
And these are what are called [? venure ?] dollars,
whatever the budget number is.
And on this slide, inflation is not taken into account.
The bottom coloration in blue is DOD.
And you can see that it's grown over time.
And I'll show you some more DOD charts later.
The area that's grown the most is Health and Human Services.
And so the federal investment in life sciences,
it can't be found back here.
And then it grows quite dramatically.
As you see, NASA has grown fairly dramatically, especially
in later years.
DOE has gone up.
NSF has gone up, as well as the others.
So there's been growth across the board, essentially
the largest amount being in health sciences,
but very healthy growth in some other areas.
If not the Feds, who else?
And the who else is industry.
And let me make what I think is a really very important
comparison.
Let me go back and do two definitions.
R&D, or Research and Development,
is both long term and the short term.
So the design a new car, build a fabrication plant.
And this is the $70, $75 billion that
the federal government puts in.
So there are F-22s and new attack submarines and things
like that in here.
Industry is much larger than the federal investment
by about a factor of 2.
But if you ask of that and if you look at--
going to occasionally change definitions on you.
This is technology based.
This is the DOD term for--
sorry I didn't change that for you--
basic and applied research, the way NSF defines it,
the things that NSF funds and not later technology
development.
So if you look at basic and applied research,
here you have the main players again.
DOD is $4 billion out of that.
And industry is just slightly larger.
And so if you look at the investment in the long term,
industry puts almost nothing in there.
And there are a lot of rules or a lot of reasons for that.
For example, the publicly traded stocks,
the 100% of the stock valuation of publicly traded companies,
changes the equivalent of-- not each of the shares,
but the equivalent of--
changes hands every 12 to 24 months.
Therefore, the board of directors has short-term owners
and makes short-term investment decisions.
In these kind of investment decisions,
industry doesn't know whether there's going to be a benefit,
or if there is, that they will be able to get the payoff.
So there are lots of good reasons
why industry invests a lot in R&D,
but only a very small piece of that is in S&T,
the longer term investment.
Another answer to the "who else does it,"
which is very troublesome.
These are a set of charts came out of a Wall Street Journal
article.
And they basically show substantive reduction
in research labs in some of the large companies
in this country that had--
and in some cases still have--
major research labs.
But there are large drops.
I have a favorite slide.
And so I want to use it here.
Long-term investments have very high payoff
and there are lots of studies that will actually
quantify that for you.
But it is clearly a fact.
And one of the best ways I know to do it
is to borrow a simplified slide from Fred Brooks and Ivan
Sutherland, who did a study or chaired
a study that the National Academy complex did where they
looked at information technology and took some breakthrough
ideas and looked--
breakthrough ideas that resulted in a billion dollar business.
So what's most important is to look to the right side
where these charts turn blue.
It shows-- the chart shows where--
not how much, but the time period over
which the government invested, the time period over which
industry was doing R&D, maybe long term, maybe short term,
and the time period over which you
had a billion dollar business.
And we start with time sharing, which really came out
of CTSS and MIT.
And so on the top line, you see that the government, in fact--
it was, I think, mostly DOD investing in MIT where
time sharing was invented.
There was industrial participation in and around it.
And there was other work going on at other universities that
likely influenced that.
And long about '80, you have a billion dollar business.
The bottom line of this slide is these developments
all took decades.
They were really important because they generated
a billion dollar business.
They were a complex interaction of government
and industry-funded work--
not just at one University, not just in one company.
And the investment could have started in industry
or it could have started in government.
Typically, one thinks it started with a government investment.
But RIS, the Reduced Instruction Set architecture,
is a good counterexample to that.
It started with IBM and the 801 project.
They, for their own marketing reasons,
stopped the 801 project, did not take that to product.
But boy, it looked like a good idea.
So some universities picked up on that.
And it, indeed, is a--
many processors we have today, especially
commodity processors, are risk instruction set processors.
I added the bottom line because MEMS devices either will be
or will catalyze a million dollar business,
I am absolutely positive.
So I've talked a little bit about the contrast
between industrial investment in basic and applied research
and the federal government.
So let me emphasize the what is invested in.
And one of the things that I think it is very useful to know
is that the different agencies--
now I'm going to focus only on the federal government--
the different agencies invest in different things.
They invest based on what their mission is.
Every agency has a mission--
Department of Defense, Department of Energy
are agencies in this context.
A number of them invest in basic physics or chemistry,
or in this case, mathematics in an even way.
But when you get to the science and the engineering that
underlies a mission, you will find
that a particular agency dominates
the federal investment.
And it's really mission driven.
So if you look at aeronautics, astronautics,
DOD has a couple hundred million dollar investment.
But it's dwarfed by what NASA does.
And DOE doesn't care.
It's not close to their mission.
Why should they?
I picked three things where DOD in the red on the left bar
is the major federal investor in an area.
These happen to be three areas that
are close to the mission of the Department of Defense.
And that is the rationale for making that investment.
Again, the most important point here
is the agencies invest at large differential levels.
I want to talk now about DOD.
That's the one I know the most about.
I want to show you some historic trends
for the Department of Defense.
It's important to understand that this is your agency that
has a reduced budget by about 40% across the last decade.
That's a very large number.
It's a very large percentage, too.
What's being graphed here is investment
across from '78 to '98 in three different areas.
The bottom line is what I most talk--
for the most of the time talking about.
And that's the science and technology budget.
And it's very small compared to other things.
It's only a couple of percent.
This is the development budget, where
you're developing new systems--
again, like the Joint Strike Fighter or the new attack
submarine.
And this is the budget for buying things.
And so what you see charted here is
a slight reduction in development,
but not a lot, basically sustained
when you're looking at this granularity, science
and technology investment, and a dramatic reduction
in what's bought.
And that was a management decision
to particularly take the reduction in that way.
And that's been managed by the secretary and the deputy.
And those are the senior leadership decisions.
Happen to believe it's a good decision, by the way.
An important thing is that defense industry gets--
the easiest way to think about it
is a percentage of this budget back as internal R&D funds,
much of which they use in short term, but some of which
they use in long term.
And that is down 52% with the downturn
in the procurement budget or the buying budget.
Inside the science and technology bucket,
it has been, in Clinton's first term, the priority
to when cuts were made to protect
preferentially basic research.
And this is the constant year dollars, therefore buying
power.
It includes inflation and shows you the three pieces
of that basic applied research and advanced technology
development.
And you see in the '98 budget that is, quote, "on the Hill"
in the president's budget, we have taken it back up.
It's up by 5%, which is a sporty thing to do,
because Congress does not like to see [? ramps. ?]
What we did was we actually restored a '97 11th hour
cut in the basic research budget plus added in inflation
and preferentially took the largest cut out.
If you see that going up, this is the basic--
tech base, remember, is the basic plus applied research
that is slightly down.
And so the largest hit is in the advanced development,
the prototyping budget.
And that was-- after many debates,
I can tell you that was the management decision.
It is of great concern to me that the technology base
budget, the basic and applied research budget, DOD-wide
is at an 18 year low.
It's about a couple hundred million dollars off the 20 year
average back from today.
But even more concern is that in the services,
it's at a 35-year low.
And I consider this a very serious situation.
I have written to the chiefs of service
and the secretaries of the services about this.
And in my belief, it is time to put some of that back.
I beg your pardon?
Could you clarify what services technology base is?
Let's see.
Technology base is basic plus applied research,
the kinds of things that NSF funds.
I'll show you a slide later.
The Department of Defense budget is for--
say, basic research-- is not in one pot.
It's in each of the services.
It's in DARPA.
And it's in some other agencies, like the ballistic missile
defense organization.
And so the last--
this slide tells you that if you look at all of DoD,
it's down less than if you look at the services.
And the message is the services are cutting more than the rest
of us.
The question is, what's the [INAUDIBLE]??
The Army, and the Navy, and the Air Force.
Excuse me.
[? Doug, ?] thank you for that clarification.
Some people like the Army Research Lab.
If you're looking at basic research,
Army Research Lab had-- no.
The Army Research Lab plus the Army Research Office
is where that money is.
The basic research funds are expended.
What does DOD fund?
Well, let me give you some background.
It really is a change time for national security.
And that has affected-- continues to affect--
what the Department is investing in.
Although the threat of a large war of attrition
is gone at this point, from my point of view, overseeing
the science and technology program,
once we started to focus on regional conflicts,
the technology competition just went up,
because the adversaries that our forces might face now
buy out of the international arms market.
And so they have access to the best missiles
that the French make, the best mines that the Italians make,
the best fighter craft that you can buy in Western Europe.
The Soviets didn't have that.
The Soviets bought from themselves, by and large.
And so the technology competition just heated up.
Besides the former Soviet Union, now we're
concerned about facing the regional countries that
buy wherever the best value is.
And that often is where the best technology is.
And there's a broader mission-- and I'll come back to that
in a moment--
of peacekeeping and countering the proliferation
of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.
And by the way, we're going to a global economy,
and that affects us.
DOD's budget is down.
And we're buying a lot less.
And so we're much more concerned with affordability,
either the cost at the time you buy it or the cost
to own and operate.
Want to amplify the broader missions,
because that really is causing some changes
in what's invested in.
And these are missions that-- they're not new
so much as they are more emphasized.
So evacuation of embassy civilian personnel out
of Albania assuring minimal or no casualties non-lethal
weapons--
we have military leadership asking for non-lethal weapons--
and countering terrorism.
Although we certainly are concerned with terrorism
of military forces--
the bombing of Khobar Towers.
If there were serious incidents in the United States,
of course, the Department of Justice
has primary responsibility.
But if it gets too large or too--
they need some backup, who are they going to call?
And so DOD ought to be ready.
I will unabashedly tell you that I
believe the science and technology program in Defense
is one of the crown jewels of the country.
And I'm talking about the long-term investment, not
the military hardware development.
And here are some examples.
And in defending the science and technology budget,
this is the kind of thing that I turn to.
Major military capability came out of the DOD investment, not
the industrial investment, and not
necessarily-- although it's sometimes
complemented by the investment of the rest of the agencies.
These are notable contributions to protecting and equipping
the--
our forces.
And all those examples I give you had a history whereby
you likely had a decade of research
with a lot of the work being done in the universities,
maybe the key ideas coming from the universities,
followed by applied research and technology development
as the technology matured another decade, and then
another decade of actually developing a system,
buying a system, long out of the science and technology budget.
These things take decades.
It is absolutely crucial that the nation
have a stable investment in science and technology.
And that is of great concern.
As you see, things have gotten much more jagged
in these later years.
I'm talking about what defense invests in.
This is the basic research budget.
And the points to be made here is
that the DOD investment in basic research is broad.
One of our objectives is not to be technologically surprised.
It ought to be the case that if we
hear about an experiment or an idea,
it is a very short period of time
before some laboratory can try that out and see if it works.
And so there is an infrastructure implication
to that.
You'll see basic chemistry and physics here.
You'll see some areas that map closely to serve its interest--
Ocean Sciences, for example.
And you see the different balance
of investment comparative.
So there are some things that we put very little--
this is only basic research.
So there is much more in manufacturing,
but it's not basic research.
And the largest is electronics, John will be glad to know.
If you look at applied research and technology development,
the other portion, the larger portion
of the DOD science and technology program,
here's the same chart.
You're talking about over $6 billion of investment.
The characteristics are, it is again differential.
Actually, if you look down that list
and look at information technologies,
you'll find that that's the largest--
it's made up of several pieces here--
electronic devices, software, human system interfaces,
computers.
If you add that up, that really is the largest single
broad area.
Again, it's comprehensive.
And there's a differential investment.
This is very small, in clothing, textile, and food,
and it's much larger in sensors and electronic devices.
I showed you the compare--
some slides that compared what the different agencies invested
in and showed you, for example, that NASA is,
by far, the largest investor in aeronautics, astronautics.
Let me look now--
we're talking DOD only here.
There are some critical areas, certainly
critical to national security.
DOD technology base-- basic plus applied research,
kind of thing NSF invests in.
DOD is 16% of the total federal investment
in that kind of activity.
But if you look at some particular areas,
like electrical engineering, DOD makes
75% of whole investment made by the federal government.
A particularly important one is engineering research.
This is about a third of all the funds across all the agencies,
all of whom depend on engineering, I would argue,
invested in engineering research, the longer term kind
of things.
And this comes from an agency that's only 16% of the budget.
If you look at the same things and say, well,
what about universities only?
You see essentially the same picture--
DOD provides 11% of all the federal funds that
go to universities for research, but they
are disproportionate in terms of some particular areas,
and again, engineering research across the board--
math and computer sciences and electrical engineering.
The corollary to that is if this agency ever
had a dramatic change in either its investment
portfolio or the amount of funds it had available,
you would see--
potentially, anyway-- differential impact
to these areas.
And I said just a few minutes ago, it
is just crucial that you have a stable investment.
You all know better than anybody else
how long it takes to bring a PhD thesis to fruition, a research
project to fruition.
And so you want stable funding across that.
Let me see where I am.
What the heck.
Technology priorities-- information technology
is the most important investment for DOD across the board.
And that's a very large area.
That's software.
That's electronics lithography, optoelectronics, systems,
networks, high performance computers.
These are some issues that are particularly important
as-- to DOD--
as it tries to move toward harnessing information
technology.
And there are a lot of military advantages,
military applications, that are advantaged
by information technologies.
But there are a bunch of other technology priorities, as well.
And I'm not going to go into that in order to speed up.
I said earlier in response to your question
that the DOD budget resides in several places.
And again, if you're looking for money
out of the federal government, out of the DOD,
it is helpful to know that.
And many people don't.
Most assistant professors, for example, don't.
It's important to know, I would argue.
Here are the three military departments.
The blue, bottom-striped portion is basic research.
The middle one is applied research.
And the top bar is technology development prototypes--
fly a radar, build an unpiloted vehicle.
And you can see that the agencies or the components
are quite different.
I bet a bunch of you think that DARPA
is a big investor in basic research.
Well, it doesn't have a lot of basic research colored money.
It's about $82 million out of $2-plus billion.
There's much more over in the services.
And by the way, the Navy is much larger.
And that's for historic reasons, because the Navy has
NRL, which is a world-class laboratory,
and because the Office of Naval Research
was really the first organization
in the federal government that did
substantive and sustained investment, particularly
the universities in the federal government.
It was Thomas Edison who suggested to the Navy
that they ought to have an ONR.
This is basically my office.
And so you see that in my office,
there's actually a great deal more research money
than there is in DARPA.
I mean, DARPA works for me, but I think of them
as two different things.
And in fact, this investment is made differently.
For example, there's a pure instrumentation program there,
where each year we have a competition.
The money isn't for research projects.
It's for instrumentation.
We have another project in here that just funds students.
It adds graduate students to other DOD projects.
And so it's a little different than what the first four
components invest in.
Yes, ma'am?
[INAUDIBLE]
That's DDR&E. Yes, I'm sorry.
OSD stands for Office of Secretary of Defense.
But it's really accounts that are in my office,
because I work in that office.
I'm sorry.
Boy, I don't translate your questions so well.
Carl?
Is it possible some of the red money in DARPA
really is blue in the skies?
[LAUGHTER]
[INAUDIBLE]
Carl, either that's true or some of what
the universities are doing is called applied research.
I didn't look, but I bet you a bunch of LCS money
is colored applied research.
These accounts are very clear to the green eyeshades.
The boundaries are somewhat fuzzy.
And there's a little bit of fuzz going both ways.
In characterizing the DOD investment,
many of you likely have a model of a--
somebody writes, whether it's DOD or National Science
Foundation, they write a broad agency announcement.
They take all proposals and they fund
the best stuff for a while.
And then they start all over.
Well, I think that is the model that NSF uses--
basically, simplistically-- for much of their investment.
They say something's important and they just
want to fund the best ideas.
That is not the only model used by the Department of Defense.
I don't have a lot of time.
But I wanted to show you one other model.
I defend the science and technology budget based on,
it is going to somehow--
if the investment is successful--
advantage the US military.
And there are times and places where
you want to create something that wasn't there before.
And I want to give you one example of that.
There is something called multichip modules based
on a very sage observation.
Most ships that are built are immediately
wrapped in an overcoat.
They're packaged.
But then you want to use them in conjunction with other chips.
And so you've got to--
in a simplistic version of the world--
you've got to solder them together
to get something that works.
And somebody made the observation, well,
why do you want to package them and solder them?
Why don't you just bond them, glue them
to a communications substrate, and use them that way?
And in fact, for a harsh environment,
like the electronics that is in a missile that is going Mach 1
and getting shaken up, solder joints are a site for failure.
And so multichip modules look like a very good idea--
looked like a very good idea.
This is a complex chart, but it's very interesting.
What this line depicts on the right hand
vertical axis is the size of the merchant multichip modules.
Merchant means one company builds and sells it to another.
Some companies build them and use them all.
And so those are not counted here.
This goes a decade, from 1990 to 2000.
And the left vertical axis is percentage of the market
that these application areas had.
And so you look back at 1990, and the marketplace was tiny.
But DOD had it all.
And the observation was, this looks
like a very useful technology for lots
of military applications.
We would like there to be an industrial marketplace there.
And I'll show you a DOD contribution
to making that happen in the next slide.
But that has happened.
And so you see that DOD is today--
where's today?
Today is right here.
Is at 20%, headed toward 10%, and maybe to something smaller.
And that's success, because other applications, namely
consumer and computer applications, have come in,
and they buy the bulk of the MCMs today.
But that means there's a big market.
And that's good because it's stable.
It's large.
It can reinvest in itself.
Anytime you get large a market, you get economy of scale.
So the price to DOD went down.
Well, how did that get there?
This is a DARPA investment in MCMs.
It started back in the very late '80s.
It has peaked and is going down.
In '98 it goes low and then stops.
Early on, the investment was in new generation technologies,
partly in the universities, partly in industry.
That started ramping down in '92, '93.
But in fact, then the flexible access--
so that many people had their hands
on this kind of technology, for example, Moses
or a MUMPS kind of process, if that's a familiar term to you,
familiar acronym to you.
And that's ramping down.
In the later stage in a larger investment in any given
year than the early technology investment
was maturing the manufacturing process.
And then DOD's out of the business.
But again, that's the definition of success.
By the way, the market--
I asked DARPA to upgrade this slide for this talk.
Last slide I had said that the '96 market was at $800 million.
And so I think it's even going faster
than the original projections were.
But the slope is very nice.
That is a decadal DARPA investment.
And that is not an unusual thing for DARPA to do.
That is to say, it's important to develop some science
technology and proceed to sustain
an investment, a crafted investment, these three
kinds of things over time to build that area.
Let me close with, how do universities and education
of new scientists fit in?
Federal government pays to educate students, about 60,000
a year, primarily in these four places,
plus a whole bunch of others.
You may think that NSF funds most students
in physical sciences and engineering.
But that's not the case.
DOD basically educates about 75% of the amount that NSF funds.
And it's consistent over time.
It has been growing.
My belief is, notice this is '91.
This study is hard to get.
You don't get it until years later.
My belief is, it's relatively stable
or there's a slight downturn.
This is the basic research budget for DOD.
Who does the work?
The majority of the work is done by universities.
That grew dramatically in the '80s.
It stabilized and took a jump.
Don't pay any attention to that jump.
That was really a terrible year for earmarks.
And it has come down, but it's still the same amount of work,
even though the dollars have come down.
Industry is a very small player here.
If you look at applied research--
so the bottom line is that for basic research,
the universities are the largest set
of performing organizations, the people that do the work.
And I would expect in DOE you would
see the DOE labs much larger than universities, although I
don't know that.
If you go to applied research, the universities are down quite
a bit to 10, 12%.
And industry and the government labs are about even.
And if you go to the applied technology, and the shorter
term work, universities-- or industry will dominate that.
I'd like to talk to you about one government initiative
because from time to time the federal agencies
will come together.
This is a proposed initiative.
It's called Next Generation Internet.
There is the president's budget that's
on the hill, $100 million that has been, quote, added.
It came from somewhere.
The majority from DOD.
But has been put in the agencies for that explicit purpose.
Congress has to agree to that.
This I think is a very important initiative.
Now is the time to catapult a very small piece
of the community to living in the next generation internet.
And by that, what we mean is connect
a bunch of research universities and federal research sites,
so that you have at least 100 organizations at the end
speeds of a 100 times what they have now.
[INAUDIBLE]
Well, it differs.
What does LCS have now?
At the high end, you have a high end workstation,
if you want to go out to a telescope,
or a high performance computer outside, how fast can you go?
Let's see.
You want a megabit, end to end, from coming out
of a workstation to another workstation.
Second goal is to have 10 organizations at a 1,000 times.
So here, you have to have gigabit backbones, and the end
to end speed, which is what my metric that really matters
to me, you want as high as you can possibly get it in there.
You're going to be pushing the technology.
Second goal is to experiment with, solve,
the really plaguing problems with network technologies.
You want to have survivable networks.
You want to be able to service guarantee the very
high performance customers.
You want to solve whatever is stopping cave to cave
collaboration, for example.
And third, and intended a small percent of the investment
would be to catalyze new applications.
But there is a vast investment in already across the agencies
in their mission applications, and you just
want to catalyze some of them to move up faster.
And here's where the money is.
The DOD money is in DARPA.
DARPA will be focused on goal 1.2, the very high end
infrastructure, and goal 2, the networking technologies.
Let me close.
I'll start with DOD, and talk about some trends,
and then talk about some trends in the federal government
with respect to federal funding of science and technology.
There has been an investment shift
to address the new threats.
Nonlethal.
We've gone to the universities asking for help
with humanitarian demining.
That is an area that is not money limited;
its idea limited.
It's a very hard problem.
And so you see shifts of funds from other areas,
and a shrinking budget, in order to honor
those new missionaries.
Strong emphasis in DOD on information technology.
And I showed you two slides that talk about some
of the elements of that.
When the budgets go down in the three military departments,
the services will protect what is unique to them.
So for example, even though the budget will go down,
the Navy will invest what it, in its corporate mind,
thinks it ought to invest in Ocean Sciences.
And ONR is a very large investor in Ocean Sciences.
Affordability and dual use technology
affect even down into the six one basic research budget.
Let me skip over offset strategy because I have to define it.
Hard problems still attract investment.
Things like detecting and neutralizing
biological agents when they've gotten into the human body.
And we are building a fairly substantive program in DARPA
in that arena.
High density energy storage is always
an issue, both commercially and for the soldier.
You got some trends in the federal government not closed.
I believe the science and technology
budget is going to decline, across the end of the decade,
something like 20%, all told.
I think it will be differential in the agencies along the kind
of lines I showed you earlier.
I believe the agencies will act to,
as the budget drops for those agencies, in which it does,
will align that budget even more closely with their mission.
Multidisciplinary projects will continue to proliferate.
I happen to believe that's a good thing.
Information systems for this decade, information technology,
will continue to be very important.
There will be mission applications systems.
For example, the Department of Energy Nuclear
Stockpile Stewardship Application,
which is ramping up substantially in size.
This next generation internet that I highlighted,
which I think is its infrastructure program,
partially, but I think it's very important
to catapult some of the research universities
up into the future.
Laboratories will remain important,
or be important, emphasis.
Facilities cost more and more, whether it's
Engineering, Laboratory facilities, telescopes.
And you will continue to see collaborations
to be able to buy instruments, and shared facilities.
And the network makes it more possible to work that way.
Like university industry consortia will increase.
It's certainly been encouraged by federal programs.
As the federal investment goes down--
if it goes down as I predicted-- you'll see industry
become more concerned, and I think more
willing to invest in research.
And I will close with one very bright spot.
About three weeks ago, I signed a memorandum
of agreement between the Department of Defense
and the Semiconductor Industries Association
to jointly fund basic research in the universities.
And the semiconductor companies, and the semiconductor
equipment suppliers, are going to put in $2 for every dollar
that we put in.
And the focus is long term, basic research,
and in the universities.
And I think that is a very positive step
by one industrial sector.
And I'll stop there.
I hope I've given you a bit of a gestalt of what
the federal funding landscape for science and technology is,
and if it makes more sense than it did before you walked in.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
We have time for questions.
On your next generation internet,
it seems like one of the big challenges
may not be technology, it's just affording the long distance,
high bandwidth circuit.
Just paying for it.
That's what some of that money will go to fund.
So in the context of the globalization of everything,
what does that imply about buying S&T results?
Do you argue is the Defense Department turning
more to our allies for science and technology work?
We're doing more collaboration with allies.
More of it is in development of systems
than in the science and technology that I
was talking about here today.
In the science technology world, you
want the best ideas and the best performers.
We do fund--
DOD funds-- science and technology activities
in Russia, in Europe, increasingly
as part of our foreign policy in central Europe,
a little bit over in the Pacific Rim.
It's quite small, quite frankly.
This globalization is a little bit difficult
for I think the National security community
because, on the one hand, you want the best science
and you want the best technology.
On the other hand, surely you want assured access
to it, no matter what, for military purposes--
the DOD does.
And so there is a little bit of ambivalence.
Certainly, the vast bulk of investment
is made in this country.
On the other hand, there are a lot
of companies that are really international
and no longer belong just to one country,
and there are a number of the companies that we do need.
What's the process for figuring out
which technologies you'd like to jumpstart commercially,
like MCMs?
How do you decide which would be good?
Really, I gave you a model you a model that is used
from time to time in DARPA.
Millimeter microwave is another example.
This is another example.
So typically, they come out of DARPA,
and it is the DARPA leadership that
resolves to make that large of, and that kind of investment.
It is typically not something that you
see done by the services.
The services, for example the army,
has been a major proponent for night vision.
This is a three decade investment.
It is a technology that is ripe for commercial application.
There are night vision cameras in routine use
by law enforcement vehicles.
They cost something like $10,000 to $20,000.
And so most people just don't go out and buy them.
TI has a new business unit--
I saw it on CNN.
I think that is true--
aiming to build a $5,000 commercial vehicle camera, so
that you can just see at night.
That wouldn't be thinkable without this three
decades of defense investment.
The army didn't intend to build the commercial market.
They intended to build ground advantage-- well,
some air advantage--
but it turns out that way.
We've heard many arguments made for why
the defense and other research budget should not be cut.
What are the kinds of arguments that
make the most impact on the hill for saying, don't cut as much
[INAUDIBLE] at least when some of these go up.
Let's see.
There's a primary argument that I'll give you
in a second [INAUDIBLE].
The primary argument, the members of Congress
care very deeply about the members of the armed forces.
They believe they are responsible for them--
I mean, as they are--
and they understand that they must be protected and equipped.
And they believe-- when I showed you that stable investment
over time, that's only possible because Congress
votes that budget.
And so they have supported over time investment
in science and technology.
And the argument is we need to develop a technology
advantage in order to support and protect our forces.
Let me define the offset strategy.
The offset strategy comes from the Cold War.
It was how are our forces going to defeat numerically
larger Soviet forces?
And the answer was the offset strategy.
You equip them with better technology.
That's the offset strategy.
I've never heard anybody redefine it, but on the slide,
I've said it's redefined.
It has been redefined to our forces need technology
that, ideally, causes minimal casualties, or no casualties,
and minimal, or controlled, collateral damage.
So that you only destroy what you intend to destroy.
And you saw that in spades in Desert Storm, when
you could destroy a building that
was sitting next to a hospital, and you
didn't hurt the hospital.
And that is today's offset strategy.
But it says you've got to have that technology,
and you must have advantage.
And that's the number one argument.
There's some other arguments that
relate to just national security that they
buy, but let me give you a secondary argument that
is very important.
And that is that a strength of this country
is people, like the students here,
who are educated in physical sciences and engineering,
and who build the things, who go into the universities
and do research in the future, go into industry,
and build the material.
And besides that, the members care deeply
about the universities in their districts.
I mean, they really genuinely do.
And so they are quite sympathetic, particularly
to arguments about their University,
but because of that, to the argument
that it's important for DOD to fund universities in general.
There are lapses, but by and large, that
is an argument that will sway the Congress.
Do you have a view about the Federation Lab Contest,
like TRL is currently pursuing?
I have a strong view on that.
I think it's an excellent idea.
The basic Army Federated Lab Program actually
was started a couple of years ago,
and it is a way of, in essence, outsourcing work
that you would otherwise do in the laboratory.
That's the way the army thinks about it.
It is a way of hiring, literally,
a satellite or a related laboratory,
and you can go to the best place, and industry,
and University to do that kind of work,
and not have it governed by the Civil Service Personnel System.
I thought it was an inspired idea.
It has a checkered record because Congress did not
support it.
I was talking to Arvind earlier about this.
The army asked for money to start five Federated labs
in five different areas.
I certainly went to bat for that along with the army
because I thought it was a very good idea.
The Congress gave the army money for three.
The Congress remains unconvinced that this is a good idea.
I think they will continue to fund, at least I certainly
hope so, at the level--
it is still an uphill argument with the Congress.
It seems inspired to me, and I don't
know why it's so difficult to convince them.
And I go a step further to get to a completely different
point.
And I remarked, when we're talking about this earlier,
that when we were talking to the Congress,
never was it ever visible to me that anybody from industry,
or anybody from the universities,
knew that the Congress was reacting negatively,
and ever went to talk to them.
That may have happened, and I just never saw it.
I think that is unfortunate.
What's happened over the last couple of years because funds,
particularly basic research funds
have gone down in some areas, that the universities have been
mobilized to talk to members of Congress
about the importance of basic research,
and of University research, and that
is having a positive effect.
I will tell you, I testified twice in the last month,
once in the house and once in the Senate.
And both times, the Chairman of the Committee
opened by chewing me out for the reduction in science
and technology.
And that was music to my ears.
But that was because the universities
and to some extent, industry, who
will go to bat for basic research have gone and talked
to the members, and said, this is important.
DOD is reducing this.
You ought to not let them do that.
And it's that kind of talking to the hill that I think
could have, in fact, caused the Federated Army Program to be
in a better position.
But more of that dialogue is happening.
For example, the American Association of Universities
is sponsoring some demonstrations
of University research projects and products
within the next month.
I don't know whether MIT is involved-- they are
[INAUDIBLE] involved in that.
This has been very successful.
This is about year three.
And it's actually in one of the Congressional buildings,
and the staffers come, and then the members come.
And this didn't used to happen.
It's a very good thing to do.
Yeah.
That may be a good place for my comment.
Namely, for your S&T stuff, the limit to assess it
is not productivity, which is manufacturing and production,
but effectiveness.
And in the past, we had technology transfer.
I notice that your slide had technology insertion.
But a couple of years ago, I started to hear just a few
times-- it hasn't grown enough yet to satisfy me--
technology infusion.
Think of the difference between transfer,
hand it over, drop it at a loading dock,
and go, versus inserted, jab in the arm,
and go, versus pay attention to what's
happening on the other side of that airbase.
And I think that the University--
in particular with the kinds of things you were talking
about in a bunch of years--
environment could really stimulate that.
I like for terminology to reflect
what we're trying to accomplish, I think infusion.
I'll buy that Color of Money slide.
I was looking at that, and I think
those comments proved that some of the red lines over DARPA's
[INAUDIBLE].
I can actually quantify some of that.
Basically, if you don't count the federally funded research
and development centers, like Lincoln Labs,
or what are called University applied research centers,
like Applied Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins DOD--
at least in the last year I know the numbers for,
which is a couple back--
invested $1.1 billion in universities.
But I know from a different data collection
that it was 60% of the six one budget, the basic research
budget, so it was about $650 million.
And so the rest must come out of six two.
I suspect that a reasonable proportion of that
does come out of DARPA.
What I'm curious about is, from this side of the fence,
it's not obvious where the six one
money that the Army, the Navy, and the the Air Force
is actually going.
Is it going to fund things like MRL, or is it--
where does it wind up?
Winds up here.
This is the six one budget.
This is just DOD?
This is only DOD.
Yeah.
This is hard enough to get.
You can't do it through The federal government.
The bulk of the money, say 60%, it
goes to University performers, University organizations.
10% to industry, and the other is something like Lincoln Labs.
Let's say I distinguish between the FFRDC's--
apologies, Walt, wherever you are--
but the university money is different
because that is the investment that is also
training the future scientists and engineers
sort of from the beginning.
And it's important to understand what's happening there.
And so, that's why I make that distinction.
Could you just say a little more and get your input
why that money is seen as grant money out of lab
because [INAUDIBLE].
And similarly exorbitant [INAUDIBLE] properties
are [INAUDIBLE].
I have a question.
The time frame for different kinds of research,
six one, six two, six three, it's very different.
Six one is very long term.
Six two, more [INAUDIBLE].
Six three, very short.
But the mechanisms for funding seem to be all sort of similar.
I was just wondering if there's, again, you
feel this need for other mechanisms
to adapt their funding cycles to this style of research?
When you say mechanism, so generation of grants?
Generation of grants, for example.
Let's see.
I showed you one example where it was a decade investment
to grow something.
That was the multichip module example.
Those are not decade long grants, though, are they?
No, those are not decade long grants.
Let's see.
A good example down at the basic research level
was the early speech recognition projects.
DARPA has had a program in speech recognition
for probably three decades.
And early on, back in the heyday of speech recognition
when we couldn't do anything, when we're just getting
started, there was a goal.
And that goal was 1,000 word vocabulary,
standard microphone, early on, disjointed speech and then
continuous speech, non-heroic processing.
And there was a goal--
I don't know why this is funny.
There must be something I don't know.
But that was the goal, and a number of places were funded.
And then you partly got there.
You all the way got there.
And so there were just sequences of grants.
So while the grants were not really long--
I mean, I assume they were three to five year
kind of time frame--
there were literally decade goals,
and they changed over time.
And so there was a coherent emphasis, over decades,
to get to speech recognition.
And so it's not cast wholly in terms of the mechanisms run,
but setting a goal, and going after it--
Stability in the goals, and funding.
And there is stability of a fair percentage of the goals.
We'll stop here then.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
That was excellent.
I learned a lot.
Thank you.