[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE STATE OF RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AT U.S. UNIVERSITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-77
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-835 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JOHN GARAMENDI, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois, Chair
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
VACANCY
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Subcommittee Staff Director
MARCY GALLO Democratic Professional Staff Member
MELE WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member
BESS CAUGHRAN Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
February 23, 2010
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Minority Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 13
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Witnesses:
Dr. Leslie P. Tolbert, Vice President for Research, Graduate
Studies and Economic Development, University of Arizona
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Biography.................................................... 26
Mr. Albert G. Horvath, Senior Vice President for Finance and
Business, Pennsylvania State University, and Chair, Board of
Directors, Counsel on Government Relations
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 28
Biography.................................................... 47
Dr. John R. Raymond, Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost, Medical University of South Carolina, and Chair, State
of South Carolina EPSCoR Committee
Oral Statement............................................... 48
Written Statement............................................ 49
Biography.................................................... 55
Dr. Thom H. Dunning, Jr., Director of the National Center for
Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign
Oral Statement............................................... 56
Written Statement............................................ 58
Biography.................................................... 69
THE STATE OF RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AT U.S. UNIVERSITIES
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
Committee on Science and Technology
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Daniel
Lipinski [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE
EDUCATION
The State of Research Infrastructure at U.S. Universities
tuesday, february 23, 2010
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
The purpose of this hearing is to examine the research and research
training infrastructure of our universities and colleges, including
research facilities, and cyberinfrastructure capabilities, the capacity
of the research infrastructure to meet the needs of U.S. scientists and
engineers now and in the future, and the appropriate role of the
Federal government in sustaining such infrastructure.
2. Witnesses:
Dr. Leslie Tolbert, Vice President for Research,
Graduate Studies and Economic Development, University of
Arizona
Mr. Albert Horvath, Senior Vice President for Finance
and Business, Pennsylvania State University
Dr. John R. Raymond, Vice President for Academic
Affairs and Provost, Medical University of South Carolina, and
Chair, State of South Carolina EPSCoR Committee
Dr. Thom Dunning, Director of the National Center for
Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign
3. Overarching Questions:
What is the state of the nation's academic research
facilities? Are current academic research facilities keeping U.S.
scientists and engineers competitive with their international
counterparts and are they allowing for cutting edge science? How are
universities and colleges maintaining and improving their research
facilities? How has the economic climate affected short-term and long-
term planning and investments in academic research facilities?
What is the status of the nation's cyberinfrastructure? Do
our research and education networks have the capacity to support
computational, storage, data transfer and scientific exchange needs
that have become critical to performing innovative research? How are
universities and colleges investing in their own cyberinfrastructure?
How are universities partnering with state and local governments as
well as the private sector to build regional cyberinfrastructure
capabilities?
What is the appropriate role of the Federal government in
supporting the research infrastructure of our universities and
colleges? How do Federal agencies such as the National Science
Foundation support research infrastructure that benefits the science
and engineering enterprise? Given the trade-off between support for
research and the support of research facilities should NSF revive their
Academic Research Infrastructure Program? What other options, beyond
targeted programs, are there for Federal science agencies to support
academic research infrastructure?
4. Background
University Research Infrastructure
Since 1988, NSF has conducted a biennial survey on the status of
research facilities at academic institutions, nonprofit biomedical
research organizations and university hospitals. The survey currently
includes data on: the amount of research space, the condition of
research facilities, current expenditures and plans for new
construction as well as the renovation of research facilities, sources
of funds for construction and renovation, and information technology
capabilities.
According to the latest NSF survey,\1\ 77 percent of the
respondents rated the condition of their research space as satisfactory
or superior with the remainder indicating that their research space
needed to be renovated or replaced. The survey also showed that
academic institutions spent $6.1 billion on new construction and $2.4
billion on the repair and renovation of research facilities, but
deferred $10.2 billion in new construction projects and $3.5 billion in
renovation projects. Despite deferred investments, the amount of
research space at academic institutions has steadily increased to 192
million square feet in 2007, although the rate of increase has slowed
to 3.7 percent, down from its peak of 11 percent between 2001 and 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07325/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Academic institutions fund their capital investments through a
combination of sources: the Federal government, state and local
governments, and institutional funds, which include endowments, private
donations, and facilities and administration (F&A) costs recovered from
the Federal government. The Federal share of these capital investments
is generally about five percent, with the state/local governments
accounting for 22 percent, and the institutions themselves contributing
72 percent. As just noted, the institutional share does include F&A
costs reimbursed by the Federal government as part of Federal contracts
and grants, primarily research grants. The reimbursed funds are used
for such activities as operation and maintenance of research
facilities, library expenses, department administration, including
secretaries, academic deans, and grant compliance officers. However,
according to a 2000 RAND study,\2\ the true F&A costs incurred by an
institution are higher than the rate for which they are reimbursed and
analyses indicate that universities are recouping between 70 to 90
percent of the amount they are actually spending on facilities and
administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph-reports/MIR1135-
1/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyberinfrastructure
Advances in information technology have changed the way research is
conducted. In 2005, NSF created the Office of Cyberinfrastructure (OCT)
to ensure a comprehensive vision and set of investments in the
research, development, acquisition, and operation of
cyberinfrastructure across NSF's research directorates.
Cyberinfrastructure, which consists of computing systems, data storage
systems, data repositories, advanced instruments, and the networks and
software that link these systems, has become increasingly important to
all science and engineering disciplines. OCI requested a budget of $228
million in FY 2011, a 6.4 percent increase from FY 2010, with the
largest investment proposed for the development of petascale computing
capabilities.
NSF's recent Science and Engineering Indicators report\3\ shows
that all institutions of higher education have access to the internet,
which was not the case earlier in the decade, but the bandwidth
capability or speed of internet connection varied across institution
type. The overwhelming majority (83 percent) of institutions with a
bandwidth of at least 1 gigabit per second were doctoral degree
granting institutions, and all but one institution with a bandwidth
greater than 2.4 gigabits per second granted doctoral degrees. Despite
the current differences in capabilities, data from NSF indicates that
all colleges and universities are investing heavily in the expansion of
their networks and are improving wireless campus coverage as well as
their external and internal network speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF's Academic Research Infrastructure Program
The Academic Research Infrastructure (ARI) program was originally
authorized by the Science and Technology Committee in 1988, with
funding authorized through 1993. The authorization level grew from $80
million in 1989 to $250 million in 1993. The original ARI program
consisted of two components: support for the acquisition or development
of major research instrumentation and support for the improvement of
research and research training facilities.
ARI was included in appropriations bills from 1990 until 1996. It
was initially funded at $20 million, and rose steadily to $100 million
with an anomalous peak of $250 million in 1995. Beginning in 1997, NSF
continued the instrumentation part of ARI only, and renamed it the
Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) Program. The funding level for MRI
in 1997 was $50 million, half the level the full ART program received
the year before. Today, it receives approximately $100 million annually
with a FY 2011 budget request of $90 million. MRI also received $300
million in the Recovery Act, which helped NSF fill in much of the
backlog in demand from universities.
The long defunct facilities portion of the old ART program received
$200 million in the Recovery Act. NSF stood up a revised version of the
program, the Academic Research Infrastructure Program: Recovery and
Reinvestment (ARI-R2), that does not require cost sharing
and goes beyond physical research facilities, allowing for the
modernization of virtual research space. Last August, NSF received 495
applications for funding under the ARI-R2 program, proposing
a total of $1.2 billion in renovations. NSF plans to award 125 grants
between February and September in three size categories: $250,000-$2
million, $2 million-$5 million, and $5 million-$10 million. According
to NSF, the vast majority. of awards will fall into the $250,000 to $2
million range. Additionally, nearly half of the awards (46 percent)
will go to doctoral degree granting institutions, with the remaining
going to a variety of master's degree granting institutions,
undergraduate institutions, minority serving institutions and non-
profit research organizations. The overall success rate of 25 percent
is similar to the Foundation-wide success rate for its competitive
awards.
NSF Support for Research Infrastructure Broadly
In addition to supporting cutting edge science through research
grants, NSF invests in the infrastructure that enables such research.
Approximately 24 percent ($1.8 billion) of NSF's FY 2011 budget is
devoted to research infrastructure. These infrastructure investments
are generally large, multi-user facilities, distributed instrumentation
networks, or large pieces of equipment such as telescopes, research
vessels, or accelerators that benefit an entire scientific discipline
and could not be achieved without significant Federal support. For
example, the Ocean Observatories Initiative, currently under
construction with funding from the Major Research Equipment and
Facilities (MREFC) account, will create a network of sensors for the
continuous and real-time measurement of the physical, chemical,
geological and biological variables of the ocean and seafloor.
In addition to these targeted large-scale investments, NSF also
supports the development of university research infrastructure through
the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
program. EPSCoR was created in 1978 to build research capacity in
States with few research intensive universities; in order to be
eligible a state must receive less than 0.75 percent of the total NSF
funding awarded in the previous three-year period. The intent of the
program is to improve a state's competitiveness for R&D funding
primarily by supporting sustainable research infrastructure
improvements across the states' academic institutions. NSF has
requested $154 million for the program in FY 2011, a five percent
increase from FY 2010. The success of NSF's EPSCoR program in the 1980s
resulted in the creation of six other EPSCoR-like programs within DOE,
DOD, NIH, NASA, EPA, and USDA. In FY 2008, these programs invested a
total of $419 million across the approximately 25 EPSCoR-eligible
states.
5. Questions for Witnesses
Dr. Leslie Tolbert
1. How does the University of Arizona plan for its research
infrastructure needs, including its research facilities? What is the
current state the University of Arizona's research infrastructure and
its plans for the next 5-10 years? How is the University of Arizona
partnering with state and local governments as well as the private
sector to improve the region's research infrastructure and
capabilities?
2. What federal funds currently support the University of Arizona's
research infrastructure, including research facilities? Please include
a description of all sources of funding for your research facilities,
including indirect costs reimbursed from federal research grants. What
are your unmet research infrastructure needs? Would you support funding
for the Academic Research Infrastructure Program if it meant decreasing
NSF's research budget by an equivalent amount? Are there other options
beyond targeted programs for Federal science agencies to support the
research infrastructure of our universities?
Mr. Albert Horvath
1. Please describe how research infrastructure is financed at
Pennsylvania State University, including the financing of research
facilities, cyberinfrastructure and other investments in the
university's research capabilities? What federal funds currently
support Penn State's research infrastructure, including research
facilities? Please include a description of all sources of funding for
your research facilities, including indirect costs reimbursed from
federal research grants. What are your unmet research infrastructure
needs?
2. How is Penn State partnering with state and local governments as
well as the private sector to improve the region's research
infrastructure and capabilities?
3. Would you support funding for the Academic Research
Infrastructure Program if it meant decreasing NSF's research budget by
an equivalent amount? Are there other options beyond targeted programs
for Federal science agencies to support the research infrastructure of
our universities?
Dr. John R. Raymond
1. Please describe the current National Science Foundation EPSCoR
grant awarded to South Carolina. What role have EPSCoR funds played in
facilitating partnerships with state and local governments as well as
the private sector to improve the region's research infrastructure and
capabilities? How have EPSCoR funds been leveraged across institutions
to improve the region's cyberinfrastructure capabilities? Specifically,
how have EPSCoR funds been used by the Medical University of South
Carolina?
2. Please describe the state of Medical University of South
Carolina's research infrastructure, including its research facilities.
What are your unmet research infrastructure needs?
3. Do you have any specific recommendations on how to improve the
EPSCoR program? Are there other options beyond targeted programs for
Federal science agencies to support the research infrastructure of our
universities?
Dr. Thom Dunning
1. Please describe the state of the University of Illinois's
cyberinfrastructure, including the Blue Waters project. How is the
University of Illinois partnering with state and local governments as
well as the private sector to build regional cyberinfrastructure
capabilities?
2. In your opinion, as the lead of one of six task forces
established by NSF's Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure to
address long-term cyberinfrastructure issues, what is the state of the
Nation's cyberinfrastructure? Do our research and education networks
have the capacity to support computational, storage, data transfer and
other scientific exchange needed to perform innovative research? Are we
appropriately prioritizing our investments in cyberinfrastructure?
What, if any, critical investments or opportunities are we missing?
Chairman Lipinski. This hearing will now come to order.
Good afternoon. I want to welcome you to the Research and
Science Education Subcommittee hearing on the state of our
universities' infrastructure for research and research
training. This is one in a series of hearings and roundtables
that we are holding as this Subcommittee works on the bill to
reauthorize the National Science Foundation and the Committee
works on the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. Our
focus on this legislation is a direct acknowledgement of the
fact that America's science and technology enterprise underpins
the long-term economic competitiveness of our country, and we
need to do whatever we can to make sure we maintain that.
Over the past 60 years, a great number of our societal and
economic benefits have come out of the highly successful
partnership between the Federal Government and our Nation's
colleges and universities. Not only do these institutions train
the workforce needed in a modern economy, but they also conduct
the research that generates new knowledge and technologies. It
is a testament to the productivity of this arrangement that 80
percent of the National Science Foundation research dollars go
to academic institutions.
But successful R&D takes more than intellectual freedom and
grant funding. You also need state-of-the-art lab space,
networks, instruments and computing facilities, and I have
heard some concerns from the academic community that this
infrastructure is being neglected. Public institutions
especially are suffering as the recession has eroded state
support. I am worried that unless we actively modernize our R&D
facilities that we could not only be spending federal research
dollars inefficiently, but that we could lose our position as
scientific leaders, finding it harder to attract top scientists
and engineers.
Our competitors are investing in all aspects of their R&D
ecosystems. Only a decade ago, if you asked an exceptional
Chinese graduate student in science or engineering whether they
would rather return home or stay and become an American
citizen, nearly all of them would have chosen the latter. But
that is no longer the case, with the best students increasingly
being lured back home. At least part of the reason for this is
the new availability of cutting-edge facilities and support
they need to succeed as researchers.
Today we want to examine the state of our universities'
research infrastructure and to consider the federal role in
supporting this infrastructure, in particular the appropriate
balance between investing in the research itself and investing
in the infrastructure that underlies and supports both research
activities and workforce training.
Currently, universities maintain and upgrade their own
campus-based facilities with funding from a variety of sources.
Federal agencies such as the NSF directly or indirectly support
some of this infrastructure, but their primary mission is to
support research and multi-user facilities that benefit the
scientific enterprise and society broadly. Historically,
however, the NSF has at times funded merit-based academic
research infrastructure. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s
the NSF ran a laboratory development program, an institutional
science grant program, and a development program for University
Centers of Excellence. In the mid-1980s, this Committee
systematically examined the issue, beginning by requiring the
NSF to prepare biannual reports on the research facilities
needs of universities, and ultimately passing the Academic
Research Facilities Modernization Act. This Act led to both the
NSF's Major Research Instrumentation Program and the Academic
Research Infrastructure Program.
But apart from one-time funding in the stimulus bill last
year, federal programs to modernize scientific infrastructure
have languished in recent years. Perhaps as a result, the 2005
Survey of Science and Engineering Research Facilities found
that academic institutions were deferring $3.5 billion in
needed renovation projects.
During today's hearing, I want to hear our witnesses'
thoughts on whether they think the NSF should once again
directly invest in research infrastructure for universities.
Obviously, even with increases in NSF funding, tradeoffs would
have to be made. I also hope to learn about how academic
institutions are currently leveraging federal investments to
improve the research capacity of their institutions. I would
also like to hear our witnesses' ideas on how best to ensure
that our research infrastructure keeps up with both the
frontiers of the science and our international competitors.
Finally, I am interested in learning about the opportunities to
expand our research and educational capabilities through
growing our cyberinfrastructure.
I want to thank the witnesses for their flexibility in the
rescheduling of today's hearing. The Committee already had a
very full calendar over the next few weeks, and with hearings
postponed by this month's record snowfall, some changes had to
be made, and I want to thank the witnesses for their
flexibility. Thank you for being here this afternoon and I look
forward to your testimony.
Before I move on and recognize Dr. Ehlers, I just want to
say that I am going to--with the announcement that Dr. Ehlers
made that he will not be running again for reelection, I want
to say how much I will miss having him here. We only had about
a year here on this Subcommittee together but he has always
provided not only his knowledge but his passion for what we are
working on, and we have worked very well together. I know that
things don't always run very well up here on Capitol Hill but
Vern has made things run very well, and I think for the
betterment of this Committee and the betterment of our country,
and I look forward to the next ten more months that we have to
work together on this Committee.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Daniel Lipinski
Good afternoon and welcome to this Research and Science Education
Subcommittee hearing on the state of our universities' infrastructure
for research AND research training. This is one in a series of hearings
and roundtables that we are holding as this subcommittee works on the
bill reauthorizing the National Science Foundation and the committee
works on the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. Our focus on
this legislation is a direct acknowledgement of the fact that America's
science and technology enterprise underpins the long-term economic
competitiveness of our country.
Over the past 60 years, a great number of societal and economic
benefits have come out of the highly successful partnership between the
Federal government and our Nation's colleges and universities. Not only
do these institutions train the workforce needed in a modern economy,
but they also conduct the research that generates new knowledge and
technologies. It is a testament to the productivity of this arrangement
that eighty percent of the National Science Foundation's research
dollars go to academic institutions.
But successful R&D takes more than intellectual freedom and grant
funding. You also need state-of-the-art lab space, networks,
instruments, and computing facilities, and I have heard some concerns
from the academic community that this infrastructure is being
neglected. Public institutions especially are suffering as the
recession has eroded state support. I am worried that unless we
actively modernize our R&D facilities that we could not only be
spending Federal research dollars inefficiently, but that we could lose
our position as scientific leaders, finding it harder to attract top
scientists and engineers.
Our competitors are investing in all aspects of their R&D
ecosystems. Only a decade ago, if you asked an exceptional Chinese
graduate student in science or engineering whether they would rather
return home or stay and become an American citizen, nearly all of them
would have chosen the latter. But that is no longer the case, with the
best students increasingly being lured back home. At least part of the
reason for this is the new availability of cutting-edge facilities and
support they need to succeed as researchers.
Today we want to examine the state of our universities' research
infrastructure and to consider the Federal role in supporting this
infrastructure, in particular the appropriate balance between investing
in the research itself and investing in the infrastructure that
underlies and supports both research activities and workforce training.
Currently, universities maintain and upgrade their own campus-based
facilities with funding from a variety of sources. Federal agencies
such as the NSF directly or indirectly support some of this
infrastructure, but their primary mission is to support research and
multi-user facilities that benefit the scientific enterprise and
society broadly. Historically, however, the NSF has at times funded
merit-based academic research infrastructure. For example, in the 1960s
and 70s the NSF ran a laboratory development program, an institutional
science grant program, and a development program for university centers
of excellence.
In the mid-80s, this Committee systematically examined the issue,
beginning by requiring the NSF to prepare biannual reports on the
research facilities needs of universities, and ultimately passing the
Academic Research Facilities Modernization Act. This Act led to both
the NSF's Major Research Instrumentation Program and the Academic
Research Infrastructure Program.
But, apart from one-time funding in the stimulus bill last year,
Federal programs to modernize scientific infrastructure have languished
in recent years. Perhaps as a result, the 2005 Survey of Science and
Engineering Research facilities found that academic institutions were
deferring $3.5 billion in needed renovation projects.
During today's hearing, I want to hear our witnesses thoughts on
whether they think the NSF should once again directly invest in
research infrastructure for universities. Obviously, even with
increases in NSF funding, trade-offs will have to be made. I also hope
to learn about how academic institutions are currently leveraging
Federal investments to improve the research capacity of their
institutions. I would also like to hear our witnesses' ideas on how
best to ensure that our research infrastructure keeps up with both the
frontiers of the science and our international competitors. Finally, I
am interested in learning about the opportunities to expand our
research and educational capabilities through growing our
cyberinfrastructure.
I want to thank the witnesses for their flexibility in the
rescheduling of today's hearing. The Committee already had a very full
calendar over the next few weeks, and with hearings postponed by this
month's record snowfall some changes had to be made. I thank the
witnesses for being here this afternoon and I look forward to your
testimony.
Chairman Lipinski. I will now recognize Dr. Ehlers for his
opening statement.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate those
kind words, and I am impressed now that we have come back
together after all the snow how many of my colleagues
appreciate me. It is too bad they didn't say that before I
decided not to run again. But at any rate, I appreciate your
comments, and I just think, I have been here 16 years, it will
be almost 17 by the time I leave, and I think that is a good
long time and it is time for someone else to carry the banner,
but I do hope we can get more scientists to run for the
Congress. I have been told that I was the first research
physicist ever to be elected to the Congress. I can't vouch for
the accuracy of that but there is not much evidence to say that
I wasn't. But at any rate, I hope we get a lot more scientists
interested in the political arena because it is desperately
needed.
Thank you for holding this hearing too. It is a very
important issue. And now that I am officially achieving old
fogey status, I thought I might give a little historical
perspective on research institutions, and I want to assure you,
I was not born 200 years ago but that is roughly where I will
start, because back then at the time of Newton and before there
was no such thing as a government grant; occasionally a very
bright individual would get support from the local king,
prince, duke, noble, whatever, provided, of course, he also
devoted some energy and time to developing better instruments
of warfare. But that was a very informal arrangement for many
years.
That continued well into the 19th century, but that is when
things began to change somewhat, and the first person I think
who really has led to the development of modern science was Mr.
Faraday, and there is a marvelous biography of his that is out
there, so I recommend everyone to read that, but an amazing
man. When he got out of school, he went to work in a bookstore
selling books, and part of his pay was to have a room up in the
attic so he literally lived in the bookstore, and proceeded to
read virtually all the books in the bookstore. So he was self-
educated. He did not have any higher education. Then he
discovered scientific books and read them and devoured them and
started doing some experiments on his own in the bookstore at
night and made some interesting discoveries. For example, he
discovered the effect that led to the generation of electricity
by rotating electrical coils in magnetic fields, and he
developed very good scientific techniques. He eventually became
a member of the Academy of Sciences equivalent in the British
Empire, and he popularized science for the people by scheduling
special lectures, I think it was every other week or something
like that, and the public turned out in full force for them. It
was as popular to go to the science lectures as it was to go to
the symphony, and was well respected. Unfortunately, we have
slipped from that. But he really educated a lot of laymen about
science. He also worked on war efforts. He developed an oatmeal
that would last and stay fresh much longer than any he ever had
before and he was awarded medals by the British Navy because
they were out at sea for months and so it was a problem to keep
the food fresh. So he went into many different fields but his
primary contributions were to electricity.
The lectures he established were a real effort to educate
the public and became very popular. But one time he invited Mr.
Ohm to speak, and we are all familiar with the term ohm because
that is the unit of resistance and electricity is named after
him. So he was invited to give a lecture, and when they went
down the stairs to enter the lecture room, and Faraday was
going first because he was going to introduce Mr. Ohm, and when
Mr. Ohm entered the room, looked around and saw 200 people, he
panicked. He was a bit of an introvert. He panicked and ran
back up the stairs and left. So Faraday wrote a little note.
Being the scientist that he was, he had to record all the data,
so there was a little note in his data book, ``When escorting
speakers to the auditorium, be sure to follow them and not lead
them.'' So he was a very good observer.
Well, that is enough of history. Well, let me add just
another bit that is more recent and I am more familiar with
because I did some of my research using the cyclotron that
resulted from that. E.O. Lawrence was hired by the president of
the University of California at Berkeley to teach in the
physics department and he was hired primarily because someone
said that E.O. Lawrence is likely to get a Nobel Prize at some
point. He was very bright. And the president said he wanted a
Nobel Prize winner on the Berkeley campus so he offered him a
job. They now have more Nobel Prize winners there than any
other university, I believe. But in any event, E.O. Lawrence
invented the cyclotron. It was small enough to sit on a kitchen
chair. In fact, I have seen that original cyclotron and the
kitchen chair. And then he realized he could scale up but where
would he ever get a magnet that was big enough, and he
discovered that AT&T, which had planned to send radio waves
across the ocean, the Pacific ocean, a very long distance, and
they were going to send those so that they could get telegrams
across oceans, and they had the magnet and things just didn't
work out right and then they started laying undersea cables so
the magnet was in Palo Alto, and E.O. Lawrence heard about it,
went and saw it, persuaded AT&T to donate it to the University
of California, and that became the 60-inch cyclotron at
Berkeley, which was the biggest accelerator in the world for
quite a few years and enabled us to learn enough about nuclear
physics that we could develop the ultimate weapon that ended
World War II.
Well, that is a lot of history, but the reason I am
bringing that up, because the tradition over the years has been
that universities provided the facilities for research. That
came out of their tuition funds. It came out of their gifts
from alumni and so forth, and the buildings were considered the
university's responsibility. The money for research initially
came primarily from donors, largely industry such as AT&T, and
later on the universities took it upon themselves to also fund
some of the research. Nowadays, universities are in tough
financial times and so more and more they are trying to find
other sources of money to build their buildings and their
laboratories. The Federal Government has been fairly generous
in funding equipment. That has just carried over. That has been
considered a part of the responsibility of the central Federal
Government. State governments contribute some as well but not
as much. But it has always been considered the universities'
requirement that they provide the buildings whether they get it
from contributions or from state government, and that it how it
has been for quite a while.
What we are talking about today is what is the--and I am
not trying to take words out of your mind or rephrase your
objectives, Mr. Chairman, but basically the issue is, should
the Federal Government be more active in providing not just
grants for researchers to pay them or the graduate students or
to buy equipment but should the Federal Government also become
involved in building laboratories outside of the national
laboratories, and that is a very important issue. I have mixed
feelings about it. It would be a change in direction, although
NSF has, by funding its Centers of Excellence, has gotten to a
certain extent into the business of paying for buildings, but
it is a very small part of their budget.
So the issue we are discussing today, Mr. Chairman, I see
as a very important issue and it is good for you to bring it
up, but at the same time recognize that we are plowing new
fields at this point by saying well, maybe the Federal
Government should be providing more money for facilities, not
just for salaries, not just for equipment but for the
facilities that house these devices. And so I just wanted to
emphasize that long history because as I say, it is a very
important issue and we have to understand the history of it.
In my formal statement, I go on to point out that
universities have to have state-of-the-art science and
technology facilities in order to remain at the cutting edge of
research. With proper laboratory buildings, equipment and
computing systems, students will graduate well prepared for the
workforce. As the institutions represented here today know
well, the most innovative students are attracted to
universities with the best facilities. However, it is also
important that we recognize that the National Science
Foundation's expertise lies in the support of peer-reviewed
basic research. They appoint panels of like-minded scientists
to review proposals. These panels take it very, very seriously
and they know that from personal experience because my son is
currently sitting on the panel of the National Science
Foundation and every few months he spends four days here in
Washington, before that reads voluminous numbers of proposals
and takes it very seriously and his colleagues on the panel do
the same. It is not clear that the National Science Foundation
has the expertise nor could it appoint the panels that have the
expertise to research and judge proposals involving specialized
facilities. Those new panels would have to be created, where we
would get the people power to review it. I am just simply
pointing out it would be quite a change for the National
Science Foundation as they get very heavily into providing
funding for facilities, buildings and so forth.
We also recognize that science funding has changed
dramatically in another area, and I apologize for going too
long but I want to bring all these things together. When I was
first elected to the Congress, Newt Gingrich asked me to write
a science policy study to recommend science policy for the next
generation. The last policy was written in 1945 by Vannevar
Bush, and Newt and I both agreed that was a bit outdated, from
1945 to 1995, and so I pointed out that with the increasing
expense of major facilities, the Federal Government was no
longer even going to be able to fund the research facilities,
not just the buildings but also the equipment, because of the
huge cost, and recommended that we should concentrate on
international cooperation to do that, and that is come to an
ITER, which the idea was originated in the United States. When
we dropped it, the Japanese thought they would pick it up, then
decided not to. Now the French are doing it with international
collaboration, and that may be the direction of the future for
the really expensive things such as CERN. CERN is another
cooperative international effort which we are now joining. And
it is very interesting to watch this evolution.
As the projects get bigger and bigger, get more and more
expensive, the buildings get extremely more expensive and so
you are on the forefront of a major issue, Mr. Chairman, in
terms of outlining where is the money going to come from and
whether it is NSF or DARPA or ARPA-E or whatever. I think it is
a major problem that has to be faced and discussed by the
Congress and not just this Committee. So this gives us all a
chance to do that.
With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Universities must ensure they have state of the art science and
technology facilities in order to remain at the cutting edge of
research. With proper laboratory buildings, equipment, and computing
systems, students will graduate well-prepared for the workforce. As the
institutions represented here today know, the most innovative students
are attracted to universities with the best facilities.
However, it is important that we recognize that the National
Science Foundation's expertise lies in the support of peer-reviewed,
basic research. That research often requires the use of various types
of equipment and specialized facilities. Many scientific questions we
are faced with today will only be answered through the use of very
expensive facilities, such as ITER, that often require the
participation of multiple countries to construct. There are also many
smaller facility needs at our research institutions, some of which the
NSF currently funds. However, I have some reservations about expanding
this type of support, because it does not fit well into the primary
mission and expertise of the NSF.
I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing today, and look
forward to hearing from our witnesses how we can support high-quality,
sustainable research and infrastructure at our universities.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. You knew after I
said all those wonderful things about you that I wouldn't gavel
you. I thought maybe you were going to filibuster until the end
of your term.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, that is a very good deductive process.
Chairman Lipinski. I am an engineer, so--as you were
telling that first story about Faraday and Ohm, I was wondering
what the punchline was going to be, and I thought it might be
something about Ohm's second law or something like that.
With that, we are here to hear from the witnesses so maybe
we should move on. We will have more time for this in the Q&A.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for holding today's
hearing on, ``The State of Research Infrastructure at U.S.
Universities''.
The United States' world-class university infrastructure is one of
our greatest strengths that we must sustain to remain competitive in
the 21st century. It is a bastion for academic research and education
and a catalyst for scientific innovation. I am pleased that significant
funding in the budget and the Recovery Act has been set aside towards
expanding and sustaining our research and infrastructure.
I am pleased that in 2010 the majority of our Nation's colleges and
universities have access to high-speed internet. Additionally,
according to the latest National Science Foundation (NSF) survey on the
status of research facilities, 77 percent of universities nationwide
rated their condition as satisfactory or superior. We must strive for
excellence by funding initiatives and seeking new ways to improve our
universities research facilities. Programs such as the Major Research
Instrumentation (MRI) Program and the (ARI-R2) Program among
others are good beginnings.
As you are aware, nationally, our rate of increase in research
space construction has slowed from 11 percent in 2003 to 3.7 today.
These past few years, many colleges and universities have been hit hard
by our recent economic recession, particularly Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCU's). Last year, $85 million in the
additional funding was omitted from the federal budget for HBCU's. Many
struggling universities have been forced to cut faculty and staff,
delay construction, and furlough payrolls in order to survive during
our current economic climate. Increased federal investment in our
nation's research infrastructure is necessary to keep our colleges and
universities competitive during these tough times.
When considering the state of our national research infrastructure
at U.S. universities we must protect those hurting the most first. For
example, Historically Black Colleges and Universities graduate students
in STEM degrees higher than most traditional universities and currently
are conducting world-class research in AIDS and Cancer research. We
must do what we can to help and protect minority serving institutions.
While the topic of today's hearing is focused primarily on the
research infrastructure of Universities, I must emphasize the bigger
issue at hand which is increasing the number of U.S. students who
enroll and graduate from these institutions. What sense does it make to
have a world-class facility that is only half full? The United States
faces a looming shortage of students enrolling in STEM disciplines. The
key problem facing us right now is that we need more students in our
university research infrastructure.
I am interested in hearing from today's witnesses who are experts
from universities across the nation. I thank you for your thoughtful
testimonies as we look to address these issues. I am interested in
hearing from you on how the federal government can strengthen our
national university research infrastructure. I am also curious as to
how our resources can be effectively distributed to institutions of
higher learning that are in need the most.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
So at this time I am going to introduce our witnesses.
First we have Dr. Leslie Tolbert, who is the Vice President for
Research, Graduate Studies and Economic Development at the
University of Arizona. We have Mr. Albert Horvath, who is the
Senior Vice President for Finance and Business at Pennsylvania
State University, as well as the Chair of the Board of
Directors for the Council on Government Relations. I will now
yield to my distinguished colleague, Mr. Inglis, to introduce
our third witness.
Mr. Inglis. Well, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is
wonderful to have Dr. John Raymond here today, the Vice
President for Academic Affairs and Provost at the Medical
University of South Carolina, a practicing nephrologist and a
physician with the Department of Veterans Affairs. He has been
with the Medical University since 1996, lending his expertise
in medicine and academia to one of the strongest and oldest
schools of medicine in the South. Dr. Raymond is also a
prolific researcher. He has published over 100 full-length
manuscripts and has received over $25 million in competitive
research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the
Department of Veterans Affairs and various foundations. As
Chair of South Carolina's EPSCoR Committee, he plays a major
role in expanding South Carolina's scientific and technical
research. In 2009, South Carolina received a $20 million award
from the National Science Foundation to work on biofabrication
of human tissues. It is the largest NSF grant in our state's
history. It will bring together the work of diverse South
Carolina institutions including Greenville Tech and Furman
University. The Medical University of South Carolina is playing
a very significant role in this work and I know that Dr.
Raymond shares my excitement about the great step forward this
grant presents for both medical science and the research engine
in South Carolina.
Thank you, Dr. Raymond, for all the work you have done to
expand opportunities in South Carolina and thank you for
sharing your expertise with us today, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the opportunity to introduce this fine South
Carolinian.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Inglis.
And finally we have Dr. Thom Dunning, who is the Director
of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
As our witnesses should know, you will each have five
minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will
be included in the record for the hearing. When you have all
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions.
Each Member will have five minutes to question the panel
So we will start here with Dr. Tolbert.
STATEMENT OF DR. LESLIE P. TOLBERT, VICE PRESIDENT FOR
RESEARCH, GRADUATE STUDIES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, UNIVERSITY
OF ARIZONA
Dr. Tolbert. Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers and
other distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to speak with you today on the state of
research infrastructure in our Nation's universities. I am
Leslie Tolbert. As you heard, I am the Vice President for
Research, Economic Development and Graduate Studies at the
University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona. I am here speaking on
behalf of the University of Arizona and also the Association of
American Universities and the Association of Public and Land
Grant Universities.
The astounding research accomplishments in our universities
have been the backbone of our country's economic
competitiveness, our high living standard and our national
security for over 60 years. In recent decades, though, our
global leadership position in innovation is being threatened.
As the major provider of support for our university-based
research, the Federal Government must act quickly to build on
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to make
continued strategic investments in research itself, and also
the subject of today's hearing, in the physical foundation for
that research, which includes research instrumentation and
cyberinfrastructure as well as bricks-and-mortar laboratories.
In the current economic crisis, state support for research-
related expenses in public universities and charitable giving
and returns on endowment to universities have declined
precipitously. Federal support for research is as important as
ever before. Federal support for research infrastructure comes
in part through the provision of facilities and administration,
or F&A, cost recovery that is included in grant awards. F&A is
intended to reimburse universities for the collective hidden
but real expenses of research. But growing federal mandates,
for research compliance in particular, consume more and more of
those funds, leaving little to support the physical
infrastructure. The Federal Government also has embedded in a
number of agencies mechanisms that are designed specifically to
fund research infrastructure. I will mention some of these in a
moment but first let me discuss the situation at my university,
which I think provides a useful model for study.
The University of Arizona, or UA, is a large comprehensive
land grant university with annual R&D expenditures in science
and engineering amounting to $550 million. We are one of the
top 25 research universities in the Nation, and we are number
one in the physical sciences in the latest NSF rankings. UA
revenues come roughly one-quarter from state appropriations,
one-quarter from student tuition and fees, and half from other
sources, which includes sponsored grants and contracts, which
come primarily from the NIH, the NSF and NASA.
The State of Arizona appropriations for its three public
universities have fallen steeply in the last two years,
precipitating the deepest crisis in recent history. In these
last two years, the UA's annual state appropriation has been
reduced by $100 million. Founded in 1985, the UA has many
science buildings that are old and deeply in need of repair.
State funding for new buildings and for building maintenance
has been very small over the years. For building maintenance
and repair in the last decade, we received $11 million from the
state to address a documented need that now exceeds over $200
million.
Given our constraints, careful planning is essential. Our
current planning efforts are driven by several principles, two
of which are using flexible open design laboratories. That is
economical. They promote collaboration and they allow
individual projects to grow and shrink without the expense of
moving walls. And another thing we do is, we support shared
equipment facilities over facilities that are dedicated to
individual researchers, to maximize the impact of these
facilities.
It has become clear at the UA and across the country that
more federal support is needed for the research infrastructure
that enables federally funded research. My colleagues and I
would recommend that the NSF strive to increase the percentage
of the budget that it spends on infrastructure from 24 to 27
percent by fiscal year 2016. Building to that level gradually
as the overall NSF budget grows should minimize the impact on
funds available for research grants.
The increasing infrastructure support, I would argue,
should go to several programs. One is the Academic Research
Infrastructure program that provides critical funding to
modernize existing research laboratories. Funding from ARRA
this year was very welcome and we point to the importance of
continuing that program beyond ARRA. The Major Research
Instrumentation and Major Research Equipment and Facilities
Construction programs are also essential to provide state-of-
the-art research equipment priced in the range of several
millions of dollars or above tens of millions of dollars. In my
written testimony, I have outlined several specific changes in
these funding mechanisms that would give them greater impact.
Perhaps most importantly, we recommend that OSTP create a
national science and technology working group to assess
instrumentation and infrastructure programs at all federal
agencies, and make recommendations concerning steps that the
government should take to ensure adequate support for its
national research infrastructure. Our researchers, if armed
with direct research funding and a strong research
infrastructure, can continue to lead the world in innovation
and discovery.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Tolbert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leslie P. Tolbert
Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers, and other distinguished
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak
with you today on the state of research infrastructure at our nation's
research universities.
My name is Leslie Tolbert. I serve as the Vice-President for
Research, Graduate Studies, and Economic Development at the University
of Arizona, in Tucson, Arizona. I am honored to have the opportunity to
offer testimony on behalf of the University of Arizona, the Association
of American Universities, and the Association of Public and Land-grant
Universities.
Overview
Our nation's research universities are falling behind in their
ability to provide the physical infrastructure--both the laboratory
buildings and the high-end technical facilities in those buildings--
needed to keep our researchers working at full capacity. As state and
private sources of funding dwindle, even more quickly during the
current economic slump, federal support is growing in importance.
Strategic investments in research infrastructure by the federal
government are absolutely essential to maintaining a global leadership
position for U.S. science. The University of Arizona, with its sharply
declining support from the state, provides a useful model for
understanding the current situation in a large public research
university and the specific remedies that federal resources could
provide.
Background and Context
Funding for University-based Research
The record of research accomplishment of U.S. universities is
astounding. For the past 60 years, at least, these accomplishments have
been the backbone of our economic competitiveness, high living
standard, and national security. As documented in the National
Academies ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report, our leadership
position in education and innovation has been threatened in recent
decades as other countries have sought to emulate us by making huge
investments in their research enterprises. U.S. leadership in science
and engineering will be maintained only if we maintain a modern and
effective research infrastructure.
For many decades, the federal government has assumed the
responsibility of providing the dominant support for university-based
research and research training, providing billions of dollars in
support, virtually all of it on a competitive basis to ensure that the
most meritorious research ideas receive funding. Our system of
competition through review and ranking of applications by peers is the
envy of the world.
In recent years, however, federal support of university research in
science and engineering, while still substantial, had become
essentially flat in real dollars (AAAS Report XXXII Research and
Development FY 2008, Chapter 2: Historical Trends in Federal R&D;
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/08pch2.htm), even while that of other
countries was growing. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 has provided much needed federal funding to reverse this trend for
two years, but it is unclear what the picture of federal research
support will look like after ARRA funding ends.
Adding to the problem, as the states have faced growing economic
challenges, state support for research-related expenses in many public
universities has declined precipitously, and charitable giving and
endowment returns to both public and private institutions have also
fallen sharply (Council for Aid to Education, http://www.cae.org/
content/pdf/
VSE-2009-Press-Relsease.pdf, and
National Association of College and University Business Officers,
http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/
2009-NCSE-Press-Release.pdf). As a
result, American research productivity and scientific advances are
likely to diminish. The private sector spends more than twice as much
as the federal government spends on research and development (National
Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2010), but in tight
economic times, private industry is driven increasingly to focus its
research dollars on applied research and development for short-term
profit, leaving to the universities the basic research--and unexpected
discoveries--that ultimately must form the basis for future
applications.
Maintaining America's universities' competitiveness in fundamental
research and research-enriched education has become a serious
challenge. Meeting this challenge will require strategic investments in
the physical infrastructure for research as well as in the research and
educational activities themselves.
Funding for Physical Infrastructure for Research in Universities
The physical infrastructure for research includes not just bricks-
and-mortar buildings, but also research instrumentation and a robust
cyberstructure (for internal and external communication and for
research requiring high-performance computing). The increasing
complexity of science and engineering requires advanced technical
equipment and tools, as well as specialized workspaces that encourage
and enhance collaboration and interdisciplinary pollination of ideas.
The physical infrastructure that must be in place for cutting-edge
research was historically provided by a combination of federal and
state government and university funds. Federal dollars for
infrastructure have decreased, however. As described by Homer Neal,
Tobin Smith, and Jennifer McCormick in their book, Beyond Sputnik--U S.
Science Policy in the 21st Century (U. Mich. Press, 2008):
``In the years following World War II and immediately after
Sputnik the .US government invested heavily in the development
and funding of scientific infrastructure at universities,
national laboratories, and other federal research facilities.
However, by the early 1970's many federal programs that had
previously existed to support construction and renovation of
research facilities ended, and federal obligations for research
facilities and large equipment in colleges and universities
dropped significantly. During this period, the neglect of
laboratory instrumentation and the erosion of the physical
infrastructure for research threatened the long term vitality
of even leading universities.''
Today, federal dollars are directed primarily to supporting
research operations, with little targeted directly to the costs of
providing the necessary research infrastructure. To fill this gap,
universities have relied heavily upon state support, endowments, gifts,
and other institutional resources to support their physical research
infrastructure needs. However, declines in state support for public
universities and in endowments and gifts for public and private
universities, have made it increasingly difficult for us to sustain and
renovate existing laboratories or to build the new facilities that are
required for increasingly sophisticated research.
As a result, universities are falling behind the need to provide
the physical facilities to do the research that will propel our economy
forward. According to the National Science Board's 2010 report of
``Science and Engineering Indicators:''
``Research performing colleges and universities continued a
two-decade trend of increasing the amount of research space at
their institutions. [. . .] In recent years though, the rate of
increase in research space has begun to slow. [. . .] The rate
of increase peaked in FY 2001-03 at 11%. Since then, the rate
of increase has gradually declined [. . .] In conjunction with
the slowdown in the increase in research space, the total
amount of newly constructed research space also began to slow
at the beginning of the decade (table 5-5). Since FY 2002-03,
the total amount of new research space constructed declined by
approximately 45%.''
Current Situation Regarding Federal Support for Research Infrastructure
The federal government provides support for research infrastructure
in several ways. Some support for research facilities comes through the
provision of Facilities and Administration (F&A), or ``indirect,'' cost
recovery that is included in grants and contracts awards. F&A cost
recovery is intended to reimburse universities for expenditures on the
buildings, utilities, equipment, libraries, and administration that
collectively support their research.
A large portion of the funds awarded for F&A costs are, in fact,
not available for the kinds of infrastructure projects I have
mentioned. Most notably, growing federal mandates and research
compliance requirements have pulled institutional funds away from
support of research facilities. A 2004 report from the Council on
Government Relations (``A New Research Business Model: Incentivizing
Research'') points out that universities actually provide significant
cost-sharing:
``Universities contribute to the direct costs and the indirect
(i.e., F&A) costs of federal research. The National Science
Foundation's (NSF) annual survey on Research and Development
(R&D) Expenditures at Universities and Colleges shows the
significant and increasing financial contributions made by all
colleges and universities, in total, to the research enterprise
over the past sixty years. [. . .] when shown as a percentage,
the important role of Institutional Funds is clear. Over the
period from 1976 to 2006, the share of R&D expenditures in this
category has grown faster than any other category. According to
the 2006 NSF Survey, Institutional Funds account for 19.0% of
all R&D expenditures, compared to 12.0% of all R&D expenditures
in 1976. To put this in another context, the increased share
from 12.0% to 19.0% represents a growth factor of 58%.''
In addition, there are a limited number of federal mechanisms
designed specifically to fund research infrastructure. These include
NSF's Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)
program and their Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program; NIH's
Shared Instrumentation Grants and High-End Instrumentation Grants; the
NCRR Animal Facility, Research Facility Improvement (C06), and Core
Facility Renovation, Repair, and Improvement (G20) programs; research
facility construction funds from the National Institute of Standards
and Technology; and the Department of Defense's University Research
Instrumentation Program. Some of these infrastructure programs and
their scopes were temporarily expanded with the use of American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funds. One program that was
revived with ARRA funds was the NSF's Academic Research Infrastructure
(ART) program, which I will discuss further in my recommendations.
How the University of Arizona Supports Research Infrastructure
At the University of Arizona, one can see firsthand the impact of
all the aforementioned issues, including the precipitous decline in
state funding as well as the shrinking funding for research
infrastructure from federal sources. I think you will find the UA to be
a useful case study.
The University of Arizona is a large, comprehensive land-grant
university that includes, together on one campus, liberal arts colleges
and colleges of medicine, pharmacy, nursing, public health,
engineering, optical sciences, and law. On a separate campus, we have a
Science and Technology Research Park. We are one of the top 25 research
universities in the nation and a member of the Association of American
Universities. In FY 2008, our Science and Engineering Research and
Development expenditures amounted to $546 million; we were ranked #1 in
total R&D expenditures in physical sciences by the NSF. Approximately
27% of our operating expenses are in support of research.
In FY 2010, 22% of UA revenues were from state-appropriated funds;
27% were from student tuition and fees; and the remaining 51% were from
other sources, including sponsored grants and contracts, auxiliary
funds, gifts, and investment income. [See Table 1 below.] Each year,
sponsored grants and contracts come primarily from the federal
government, with the remainder from industrial sponsors, foundations,
and private contributions. Among federal sponsors, the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) provides the largest single share of
sponsored grants and contracts (primarily via the National Institutes
of Health), followed by NASA, National Science Foundation, Department
of Defense, and Department of Agriculture.
To date, we have been awarded $83.7 million (including anticipated
year 2 amounts) in ARRA federal stimulus funds for a wide range of
important projects on topics ranging from solar electric materials to
optical imaging methods for cancer detection to methods for monitoring
soil moisture in arid lands. Most of the ARRA support is for research
projects; $4.7 million from the U.S. Department of Commerce supports a
new biotechnology park; and just under $1 million from NSF is for
research equipment.
Another federal funding source from which we will receive support
in the near future is the MREFC program at NSF. We will serve as the
Southwest's core site for the National Ecological Observatory Network,
or NEON, for regional--to continental-scale ecological research. The
project has recently passed its Final Design Review and the President's
FY 2011 budget proposes $433M in MREFC funds to begin the construction
phase of NEON. The exact amount of funding that will flow to the UA is
not yet determined.
In contrast to federal funding, State of Arizona support of its
public universities has fallen steeply in the last two years,
precipitating a crisis deeper than any other in recent history. As
shown above in Table 1, the percent of the UA budget that comes from
the state has fallen from 34% to 22% in the past decade. Table 2 below
shows the dramatic decline in just the last three years, from $443
million appropriated to the UA in FY 2008 to $348 million appropriated
in FY 2010.
Our research buildings range from modern and well-equipped to
outdated and deeply in need of maintenance. The university was founded
in 1885, and most of our science related buildings were built in the
1960s through the 1990s. Our older buildings do not meet current safety
codes, limiting their utility for research involving hazardous
biological or chemical agents. With their small, compartmentalized
spaces, they certainly are not conducive to current modes of
collaborative research. We struggle to find the resources to update
those buildings, as well as to build new research buildings that can
provide the new lab space that we need.
We received no State of Arizona funds for new building projects
between the early 1980's and FY 2008. House Bill 2529, signed into law
in 2003, provided significant relief in the form of state
appropriations of over $440 million for Research Infrastructure
Financing for the three state universities over 23 years (FY 2008--FY
2031). From HB 2529, the UA receives $14 million per year for debt
financing. Table 3, below, shows the sources of funding for our ten
most recently constructed research buildings.
A major shortage of state support for Building Renewal at the
universities contributes to the challenges of using existing aging
buildings for research. The state has a formula forcalculating Building
Renewal needs based on the replacement values and ages of our
buildings. The state provided only partial funding for the
universities' Building Renewal needs in 1987-2001, and has failed to
provide any Building Renewal funds for eight of the past nine years.
Over the past five years, FY 2006-10, we should have received $200
million. Instead, we received only $10.9 million, in FY 2007, thus
falling short by $178 million for this period ,alone. Added to the
shortfalls from before 2001, this leaves the UA with an accumulating
Building Renewal need that far exceeds $200 million in FY 2010. Old
chemistry and engineering buildings are in particular disrepair and can
not be used for most types of research in their nominal fields.
In sum, it has become clear that the state cannot fund the
improvements needed to keep pace with emerging research needs, and the
university struggles to fund the improvements needed to comply with
general laboratory safety codes as well as emerging research needs. To
guide that struggling effort, the UA has a Space Committee, chaired by
the Provost and the Senior Vice President for Business Affairs. The
Committee plans building renewal and construction, assessing and
balancing research infrastructure needs against the availability of
funding and a university-wide commitment to safety and environmental
stewardship.
Our conceptual framework for efficient, cost-effective campus
build-out addresses several key issues:
We have accepted an urgent mandate to protect the
environment even as we continue to build. When addressing space
needs, we first consider refurbishment of old buildings. Often
it is too expensive to upgrade existing research facilities, so
older research space is converted to offices and classrooms
instead. When new buildings are needed, we are committed to
building them to at least LEED silver specifications, which is
more expensive in the short run but will provide future energy
savings to help offset the expense. For laboratory research
buildings, which use more energy than office buildings, these
savings over time can be great.
We build out the campus utility infrastructure sector
by sector, rather than building by building, in accordance with
our campus master plan and capital improvement planfor the
coming 5-10 years. This coordinated approach is very
economical, allowing the infrastructure and new buildings to be
constructed as efficiently and inexpensively as possible. For
example, we have applied for a $15M NIH C06 ARRA grant to build
a new research building for imaging sciences. The building
construction cost and schedule are greatly reduced because
utility infrastructure is already in place. Thus, any funding
received will be most effectively used for its core research-
support purposes.
New laboratory buildings generally have a flexible
open-laboratory design. This is economical, promotes
collaboration among research groups, and allows space for
particular projects to grow and shrink as funding waxes and
wanes, without the expense of moving walls or utility spines.
This approach leads to research funding and discovery successes
that would otherwise not occur. Within a few years of the
opening of our new open-configuration, interdisciplinary life
sciences building, our faculty landed a $50M NSF grant (the
largest ever to an Arizona institution) to support
collaboration of molecular plant biologists, ecosystems
biologists, information scientists, earth-imaging specialists,
and others to tackle Grand Challenge problems in plant biology.
Shared equipment facilities are preferable to
facilities under the control of individual researchers. At the
centers of our new open-lab buildings are shared core
facilities for the most expensive instruments they need, such
as those for microscopy, genomic and proteomic analysis, and
high-end computing. These core facilities are an economical way
to provide large numbers of researchers access to the latest
equipment, equipment that they could not afford on their
individual grants.
The UA has built ten new research buildings in the past ten years
and our Capital Plan includes plans to build three more in the coming
two years, to meet our most urgent projected needs. One of these, a
research support building for our new College of Medicine arm in
Phoenix (in partnership with Arizona State University), will be funded
primarily with ARRA funding through an NIH C06 award. Incidentally, the
development of that entire medical campus has been a collaboration of
many entities dedicated to research advancement, including the UA, the
City of Phoenix, and public-private partnerships.
Our recently constructed buildings, in both Tucson and Phoenix, are
funded by a combination of state and local funds. Projected sources of
funds for the next three new research buildings and for research-
related renovations on our Capital Plan are shown in Table 4, below. We
take advantage of the State of Arizona's recently approved Stimulus
Plan for Economic and Educational Development (SPEED), a creative
mechanism whereby the State will provide 80% of annual debt service
payment from state lottery funds, while the universities will cover 20%
of the annual debt service payments through institutional funds (which
include student retained collections; State appropriations; and
indirect cost recovery). Indirect cost recovery alone will be expected
to cover approximately 10% of the debt service.
In addition to building renewal and construction, we track our
expenditures on capital equipment (item cost >$5,000). While the total
investment in capital equipment varies year to year, the percent
contribution from federal funds has declined systematically in recent
years, from 68% in FY 2003 to just 46% in FY 2009. [See Table 5 below.]
Thirteen percent ($10 million) of our equipment purchased with federal
funds in the past ten years has been purchased with funds designated
for shared-use instrumentation.
In addition to our primary campus in Tucson and second medical
campus in Phoenix, we have a Science and Technology Park in the
outskirts of Tucson. With more than 7,000 employees, the UA Tech Park
reflects one aspect of our partnership with the private sector in
regional development and is one of the region's largest employers. It
is home to 40 high-tech companies and business organizations, including
several emerging technology companies, as well as branches of five
Fortune 500 companies. It includes a business incubator, which
currently hosts 12 emerging companies, several of which are spin-offs
from the university. The Park is an independent legal entity [501(c)3].
We currently are developing a second UA Tech Park, focused on
biotechnology, closer to the UA campus, and recently received $4.7
million in ARRA funds from the U.S. Department of Commerce to build the
utility and roadway infrastructure that will allow us to develop the
property.
Gaps in Our Ability to Provide Necessary Research Infrastructure
All of the innovative collaborations and approaches being used to
facilitate leading-edge research require new or upgraded research
facilities, for which there is currently insufficient funding. Under
current conditions, many of these needs will likely go unmet.
As we seek multiple funding sources and new arrangements to fund
building renewal and upgrades, the UA and other universities across the
country face a specific and severely hobbling gap in funding
opportunities. Donors may be willing to help to fund new buildings, but
they are very rarely willing to contribute to ongoing operations,
maintenance, or upgrades. For lack of funds, maintenance and upgrading
are often deferred or neglected. Allowing our universities' older
research buildings to languish raises the future costs of providing the
necessary physical research infrastructure. As discussed earlier, the
University of Arizona has a growing need for refurbishment of its
buildings that exceeds $200 million today.
Beyond a shortage of funds for building renewal, universities face
a confounding problem: a gap in funding opportunities for mid-scale
instrumentation facilities. NSF's Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction (MREFC) program supports the acquisition,
construction, and commissioning of large scale research facilities and
equipment, in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars range, that
uniquely advance the frontiers of science and engineering. Initial
planning and design, as well as follow-on operations and maintenance
costs of the facilities, are provided. NSF's Major Research
Instrumentation (MRI) program funds the acquisition or development of
single pieces of research instrumentation, up to $4 million in cost (or
$6 million, with ARRA funds), that are to be shared by multiple
investigators. The program explicitly does not support acquisition or
development of the whole suite of instruments that is often needed to
outfit high-end research facilities. Similarly, the NIH has a Shared
Instrumentation Grant (SIG) program that supports the purchase of
instruments up to $600,000 in cost. The huge gap between these two
funding mechanisms and the MREFC makes it very difficult to fund
medium-scale infrastructure.
A smaller but still constraining issue arises from the fact that
the MRI and SIG programs support the purchase or development of
expensive pieces of scientific instrumentation, but do not provide for
the renovations that often are needed for installation of the new
instruments and do not provide for personnel, ancillary equipment, and
upgrades to keep the instruments at the cutting edge as technology
advances. In addition, the MRI program requires universities to provide
30% in matching dollars. Because of the difficulty in finding the funds
to fulfill those particular requirements, we are sometimes unable to
apply for needed instruments, and even if we do obtain the funds to
purchase new items, good instrumentation may fall away from the cutting
edge, even when relatively inexpensive upgrades could have kept them up
to date.
Recommendations
In light of the severity of the issues I have raised, we recommend
the following:
1) The NSF should increase the percentage of its budget that
it spends on infrastructure to 27 percent by FY2016--in
accordance with the recommendation made by the National Science
Board in its 2003 report, ``Science and Engineering
Infrastructure for the 21'' Century: the Role of the National
Science Foundation,'' (http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/
pr0340.htm).
Recent figures suggest that NSF currently devotes some 24 percent
of its funding to infrastructure support. As the Congress and the
Administration seek to double funding for the agency by FY 2016, we
believe the 27 percent target set forth by the National Science Board
is a reasonable goal. Moreover, slowly increasing the percentage of
funding NSF devotes to infrastructure over five years as the overall
NSF budget grows should minimize the negative impact on the funds
potentially available for research grants and awards.
To help to achieve this goal, we specifically recommend that:
a. The Congress and NSF should continue to support the Major
Research Instrumentation (MRI) and Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction (MREFC) programs.
These programs are essential to provide state-of-the-art research
equipment priced in the range of several millions of dollars or above
tens of millions of dollars. It would be especially helpful for MRI
grants in the future (1) to fund not only the purchase of the
equipment, but also renovations, ancillary equipment, and personnel
that may be needed to put those instruments to best use, and (2) not to
require the significant (30%) matching dollars currently required of
universities. Absent that additional support, the full costs of
providing new technical capabilities are so high that some universities
are unable to participate in the MRI program.
b. The Committee should authorize and funds should be
appropriated for the Academic Research Infrastructure (ARIA
program to enable NSF to solicit proposals to make additional
ARI awards beginning in FY 2012.
Renovation of existing facilities is a critical need for which it
is often difficult to find funding solutions. The inability to
modernize existing research facilities often decreases research
productivity, meaning that the value of the research funding provided
is not fully leveraged, as researchers are forced to conduct their
research in suboptimal facilities.
The NSF Academic Research Infrastructure (ARI) program was
originally authorized to try to address this very issue. Unfortunately,
the program was never very well funded and its last solicitation was in
1996 which is, in part, why the funding provided with ARRA dollars this
year for the ARI-R2 program was received so favorably by the
universities I represent here today. The program is right on the mark,
aimed at modernizing existing shared research facilities. It will be
important in helping to ensure that our research infrastructure keeps
pace with our science--that is that the research that NSF funds can be
done in appropriate research facilities--but it is funded for one year
only, at $200 million. In its single solicitation, it received
proposals for $1.02 billion in projects. Extension and expansion of the
ARI program, through authorization and funding in FY 2012 and beyond,
is critical, and the return on this investment will be high. Placing
the emphasis on shared facilities ensures maximum impact per dollar.
c. The NSF should develop a new program to support mid-scale
infrastructure projects not currently eligible for support
through the MRI and MREFC accounts.
Such a program would be a significant means to support major
research infrastructure needs. The National Science Board (NSB) has
identified several specific areas where mid-scale infrastructure is
needed. These areas include: acquisition of an incoherent scatter radar
to fill critical atmospheric science observational gaps; replacement or
upgrade of submersibles; beam line instrumentation for neutron science;
and major upgrades of computational capability.
As the 2003 NSB report on scientific and engineering infrastructure
noted, ``In many cases the midsize instruments that are needed to
advance an important scientific project are research projects in their
own right, projects that advance the state-of-the-art or that invent
completely new instruments.'' Thus, this program would advance the
state of research technology, as well as spread the use of such high-
end technologies.
2) OSTP should convene a National Science and Technology
working group to assess the effects of the serious decline in
state and private funding for university research
infrastructure and recommend steps by the federal government to
ensure adequate support for the nation's academic research
infrastructure.
The need for such analysis and thought on the financial future of
research universities is so dire that, in multiple forums, university
leaders across the country already are convening for discussion of,
among related topics, specific research infrastructure needs and the
most effective solutions that could be implemented. An OSTP working
group could incorporate the perspectives of individual agencies and
these university discussions to move the national conversation forward
with focus, in time for deliberations around the 2012 budget
formulation.
Specifically the OSTP working group should:
a. Assess existing and propose new research instrumentation
and infrastructure programs at all federal agencies, including
those recommended above for the NSF.
In recent years, the funds available for research infrastructure
programs outside of NSF, such as those supported by the NIH's National
Center for Research Resources Division of Research Infrastructure, have
dwindled. Meanwhile, the need and demand for these programs remains
very high. As just one example, NIST's competitive university
facilities construction grant program, which received funding of only
$24 million in FY08, was able to support only three out of 93
proposals. Through additional funds provided to this program in FY 09
and through ARRA, NIST has been able to go further to address some of
the pent up demand for new research facilities, however, the demand is
still very high. Moreover, this demand will only grow as we move to
increase the amount invested in research activities at key agencies
such as the NSF, Department of Energy Office of Science, and NIST, as
called for by the President and in the America COMPETES legislation
which this committee will be looking to reauthorize this year.
b. Conduct a critical review of the increasing financial
pressures that impede the ability of research universities and
other institutions to adequately support critical physical
research infrastructure needs.
In recent years the amount that universities, including the
University of Arizona, have had to spend to ensure compliance with an
increasing array of federal regulations has dramatically increased,
requiring a significant amount of university revenues to go to
supporting a greatly expanded ``research compliance infrastructure.''
Many of these costs are not currently reimbursable by our sponsoring
agencies. Thus, they must be paid out of the universities' own
institutional funds, draining the resource pool that otherwise is
available to help to support the university's physical infrastructure
needs. The increasing financial pressure, as well as the impact of
increasing cost sharing requirements on universities, should be
carefully examined.
Conclusion
The National Academies ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report
had proposed that the government:
``Institute a National Coordination Office for Advanced
Research Instrumentation and Facilities to manage a fund of
$500 million in incremental funds per year over the next five
years--through reallocation of existing funds or, if necessary,
through the investment of new funds--to ensure that
universities and government laboratories create and maintain
the facilities, instrumentation, and equipment needed for
leading-edge scientific discovery and technological
development. Universities and national laboratories would
compete annually for these funds.''
While we stop short of endorsing the specific amount of funding for
infrastructure programs across all government agencies, we feel that
there clearly is a need for a revitalization of existing agency
infrastructure programs as well as the development of new programs. It
is therefore time that the Congress, OSTP, and all federal agencies
work together to conduct a serious assessment of what the government
can do to ensure that research infrastructure needs required to support
government-sponsored research activities are being met adequately.
The significant amount of money devoted to research infrastructure
programs in ARRA provided a critical shot in the arm which helped to
inoculate the nation against the effects of years of neglect of our
research infrastructure. That being said, additional federal support
for research infrastructure is still very much needed after ARRA funds
end, to carry forward our ability to meet the significant needs that
exist for renovation and upgrade of aging facilities across the
country. This is particularly true in light of declining alternative
funding sources that universities have traditionally been able to rely
upon to support their infrastructure needs.
The return on this investment will be high. Our researchers, armed
with direct research funding and supported by a strong research
infrastructure, will be able to continue to lead the world in
innovation and discovery. At my own institution, we have seen what can
happen when modem infrastructure is made available: our faculty members
almost certainly would not have landed the $50 million grant from the
NSF to address major global issues in plant biology if they had not
been located in well-outfitted facilities that were designed to enhance
cross-disciplinary collaboration.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
Biography for Leslie P. Tolbert
Leslie P. Tolbert, Ph.D., has been the Vice President for Research,
Graduate Studies, and Economic Development of the University of Arizona
since 2005. In this role, she supports the research and other scholarly
activities of a $565M research enterprise, promotes technology transfer
and commercialization, and oversees the graduate programs of the
university. Dr. Tolbert received her undergraduate and Ph.D. degrees
from Harvard University and obtained postdoctoral training at Harvard
Medical School. She has been on the neuroscience faculty of the
University of Arizona since 1987. She currently is a Regents' Professor
with appointments in the College of Science and in the College of
Medicine. For over 25 years, she has led a research group that
investigates the critical role of sensory input in guiding the
development of the brain. Dr. Tolbert has served as president of the
Association of Neuroscience Departments and Programs and of the
Association for Chemoreception Sciences, is active in the Society for
Neuroscience and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, and is a member of numerous boards, including those of the
Arizona Center for Innovation, the Arizona Alzheimer's Consortium, and
the Large Binocular Telescope. She has served on numerous review and
advisory panels of the National Science Foundation and National
Institutes of Health.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Tolbert.
Mr. Horvath.
STATEMENT OF MR. ALBERT G. HORVATH, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
FINANCE AND BUSINESS, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, AND CHAIR,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, COUNSEL ON GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
Mr. Horvath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee for allowing me to participate as part of this
distinguished panel.
Research is central to the mission at major universities
like Penn State. The research enterprise is complex, requiring
a robust infrastructure that is modern and flexible. Elements
include dedicated buildings, specialized equipment, high-end
computing and substantial administrative support. Such an
infrastructure is complicated and expensive to develop and
maintain. Universities have had to subsidize the physical and
administrative infrastructures supporting research with
revenues other than funding from sponsors. Major infrastructure
investments are commonly financed with substantial amounts of
long-term debt, based upon an expectation that research funding
will continue over the term of the issued bonds. The bonds are
repaid used unrestricted revenue sources, including a portion
of recovered facility and administrative costs, F&A, on
federally sponsored research awards.
Three recent events have caused anxiety around the
sustainability of these expensive assets. First, unpredictable
funding available for major federal research sponsors puts
pressure on universities' plans to service its external debt.
Second, the economic downturn of the last 18 months has reduced
endowment values and constrained future borrowing potential.
And third, other sources of possible funding for research
facilities, namely philanthropy and state investments, have
fallen considerably because of the economic downturn. These
events have dampened the ability of research universities to
invest in all facilities, including those supporting research.
In light of this challenging environment, the most
important element toward encouraging investment in the research
infrastructure is a reliable stream of direct research funding.
If a long-term commitment is made to predictable growth in
funding agencies' budgets, it would help to provide the
confidence that revenues would be available to support the
activities within them over a 20- to 30-year period. We
strongly encourage the continuation of programs that have
helped to support research infrastructures such as the ARI and
other similar programs. They have provided critical assistance
in our ability to meet the needs of our faculty and research
staff.
Consider support for research-focused capital investments
designed to help reduce the risk of these long-term financial
commitments. This could be in the form of low-interest capital
made available to universities for specific types of projects,
or rate subsidies for borrowings made directly by the
university. The success of the Build America bonds program over
the past year is an indication of how modest investments by the
Federal Government confer significant economic activities.
Allow universities to cover the costs of money on internal
funds used to finance research infrastructure investments. This
is an allowable cost for commercial recipients of federal
funds. The change to our cost accounting guidelines can send
more allocation of university reserves to such projects.
We would urge consideration of the removal of the cap that
was placed upon administrative cost recovery by universities
almost 20 years ago. Most of these universities now exceed the
26 percent cap, resulting in millions of dollars worth of
legitimate research support expenses that go unreimbursed. No
other type of contractor performing work for the Federal
Government is subject to such a cap on supportable allocable
costs.
A new, uncapped pool for regulatory compliance costs should
be considered if removal of the administrative cost cap is not
deemed feasible. Since implementation of the cap, several new
requirements and regulations have been enacted that require
greater effort by universities. However, none of the
incremental costs associated with the regulatory changes can be
recovered.
Require all federal sponsors to reimburse F&A costs at
approved federal rates. A study by the RAND Corporation in 2000
estimated that universities are subsidizing federally sponsored
research by as much as $1.5 billion that would be eligible for
reimbursement if all sponsors were paying the approved F&A
rate. Dozens of new and expanded federal regulations on the
conduct of research implemented since 2000 have surely added to
the university subsidy.
In conclusion, the research partnership between the Federal
Government and American research universities has enabled great
achievements in science, yielded innovation and economic growth
and helped our system of higher education become the envy of
the world. It is recognized that financial issues for both
partners are more complex than ever before. I hope that we can
jointly commit to ensuring that the research infrastructure is
maintained, nurtured and permitted to evolve along with the
science that it supports.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity you have provided to
me to present this information, and that concludes my summary.
[The statement of Dr. Horvath follows:]
Prepared Statement of Albert G. Horvath
Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers, and other distinguished
Members of the subcommittee on Research and Science Education, thank
you for allowing me to participate in this hearing on a topic that is
very important to those of us who manage the financial and
administrative aspects of organized research at major research
universities.
My testimony is provided on behalf of the Pennsylvania State
University, where I am Senior Vice President for Finance and Business/
Treasurer, and representing the Council on Governmental Relations, or
COGR, where I currently serve in the role of Chairman of the Board of
Directors. COGR is an association major research universities (and
affiliated academic medical centers and research institutes) that helps
to develop policies and practices that fairly reflect the mutual
interests and separate obligations of federal agencies and universities
in research and graduate education.
Background and Context
As a chief financial officer of a major research institution,
fiscal oversight of the research enterprise is an important and
challenging aspect of my responsibilities. Research activities account
for almost 19% of Penn State's operating budget, trailing only
instruction and patient care in scale. The percentage of total revenues
generated by research could be much more significant at other
universities, depending on their mix of various mission-driven
activities, Research is a complex activity which requires dedicated
facilities, specialized equipment, significant physical infrastructure,
substantial administrative support, and a number of specific compliance
processes.
While research is central to our universities' missions, keeping
the research enterprise solvent, and keeping our finances solid, has
become a greater challenge. Since the early 1990's, universities have
faced tighter regulation with respect to funded research, with more
limitations on our ability to effectively and reasonably recover those
costs. A COGR paper in 2004 entitled ``A New Research Business Model-
Incentivizing Universities'' (Attachment B) stated:
``Six examples describe the impact of current regulations, all of
which provide short-term cost savings to the federal government, at the
risk of long-term damage to the research enterprise. The regulations
impose:
Limits on legitimate cost recovery by agency or type
of award,
A cap on administrative cost recovery in a time of
growing administrative and regulatory requirements,
Lack of commitment to life cycle costs for capital
projects and the requirement to invest capital recoveries,
An artificial distinction between internal and
external interest costs on borrowed funds,
The exclusions of many universities from receiving
adequate utility cost reimbursement,
Conflicting and duplicative requirements among
funding agencies.''
Universities have had to subsidize the physical and administrative
infrastructures supporting research with revenues generally provided by
State governments (public universities) or private philanthropy
(private universities). Following the economic challenges of the past
18 months, both of those funding sources have become seriously
constrained.
Additionally, the infrastructure necessary to enable cutting edge
research is complex and expensive. Universities have made significant
investments in such infrastructure--buildings, major equipment, utility
systems, organizational changes and processes with long-term financial
commitments based upon an expectation that research funding would
continue over the term of amortization. Regulated funding restrictions
and budget uncertainty conspire to create tremendous financial risk and
anxiety over the ability to fund the debt that has been incurred. It
also dampens the willingness to make new investments in the future.
A summary of Penn State's research funding/activity can be found in
Attachment A.
How research infrastructure is financed at Penn State
The University's overall capital plan is financed through a variety
of sources. The current multi-year plan, which runs through June 30,
2013, anticipates a total of $820 million of projects that will be
financed as follows:
Major research facility projects--renovations or new construction--
are generally enabled through the issuance of tax-exempt bonds. This
long term obligation (20-30 year repayment) is repaid using
unrestricted revenue sources, including a portion of recovered facility
and administrative costs (F&A) on sponsored awards. The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, in addition to its annual $40 million commitment of
capital funding, sometimes provides special allocations for such
facilities, but these commitments historically amount to a modest
fraction of total construction cost.
Penn State has a strong credit rating (AA by Standard & Poors, Aa2
by Moody's Investor Services) and has been successful at obtaining
favorable interest rates for its tax exempt bond issuances. This access
to ``reasonably priced'' funding has enabled the University, along with
many other research institutions, to invest in its facilities and
infrastructure particularly as endowments grew and balance sheets
strengthened. Encouraged by the commitment to research funding,
particularly through NIH during the 1990s, research facilities were
expanded or renovated to enable the cutting edge work implied by such
Federal investments. However, a few critical changes have caused
uncertainty and anxiety around the sustainability of these expensive
and complex assets.
1. Once the doubling of the NIH budget was achieved,
subsequent years' budgets began to erode some of that growth.
While there was no assumption that such extraordinary growth
would continue forever, allowing some of that growth to recede
was not expected. This has caused uncertainty in planning for
the future and put pressure on universities' ability to service
its external debt as had been planned.
2. The severe economic downturn, which hit higher education
beginning late in 2008, has significantly reduced endowment
values and constrained future borrowing potential. The ability
to continue to reinvest in research at past levels will be
difficult if not impossible, given that those facilities must
compete for priority against all other activities of
comprehensive universities (classrooms, student support
facilities, libraries, student housing and the like). While
markets and endowments have somewhat recovered, it will take
some time and sustained improvement for values to return to
what they were previously.
3. Other sources of possible funding for research facilities--
private philanthropy and state investments--have fallen
considerably because of the effects of the economic downturn.
The events noted above have dampened the ability of research
universities to invest in all facilities, including those supporting
research. The specific impact at Penn State has been a delay in our
ability to move ahead with our five year capital plan as originally
drafted. Projects generally have not been cancelled, but many have been
delayed by generally 12-18 months. Also, our borrowing plans, although
historically conservative, have become even more so as we monitor the
activity of the capital markets and move cautiously with new debt.
As an example of the process followed and the issues encountered
with the planning and execution of a major research facility is Penn
State's Millennium Sciences Complex. This 175 thousand square foot
research facility will house faculty conducting research in material
science and the life sciences. The building is intended to encourage
collaboration between these two disciplines and will include many of
Penn State's most pre-eminent research faculty, The building is
projected to cost $215 million and is scheduled for completion in 2011.
The Commonwealth has provided $82 million of funding (the majority of
which was a Penn State allocation of its annual capital allocation);
the $133 million balance is financed with bonds issued in 2009. The
interest expense associated with this project is calculated to be $63.8
million over the life of the bonds. Sponsored research funding
generated by faculty in this facility will provide partial repayment of
the interest costs of the related borrowing through recovery of F&A
costs.
Penn State has approximately 1.6 million square feet of space
dedicated to research at its University Park campus, with expressed
needs for up to another 500 thousand square feet just to support the
present research portfolio. There are over $32 million of identified
research equipment needs, Over $475 million of deferred maintenance
exists in its research buildings, based upon facility condition audits
conducted across the campus. Other research needs/initiatives could be
addressed with additional facilities that don't currently exist.
Clearly, this is a big challenge as these needs must compete for access
to funding against other institution priorities (including the Penn
State Hershey Medical Center, which also competes for this investment
capital and supports a significant research enterprise).
Academic Research Infrastructure Program (ARI)
The inclusion of additional funding for the ARI as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was most welcome in the research
community, While the total amount allocated to funding for renovation
and renewal of existing facilities, this was a positive step toward
helping research universities to address a critical issue--deferred
maintenance and aging facilities, Without a regular stream of funding
toward such buildings and equipment, they become obsolete. Many labs
exist in buildings built 30 or more years ago. Building systems did not
contemplate the requirements of modem day science and engineering
research. Often the most difficult part of recruiting new research
faculty is the extent to which facilities need to be upgraded or
renewed in order to support the research program of the faculty member.
Such upgrade can run into the hundreds of thousands or millions of
dollars.
Both Penn State and COGR would encourage the Congress to consider
extension of the ARI in future years to assist in dealing with the
challenge of maintaining facility viability. It will help in generating
positive economic activity as well.
The trade-off between increases in direct research funding versus
more money in the ARI or other infrastructure support programs is a
difficult one. ARI has been most welcome and beneficial. However, a
strong, consistent stream of funding for the primary research
supporting agencies is also critical, This basic research funding
provides the support for labs, research technicians, graduate students,
support personnel, as well as funding toward supporting infrastructure.
We hope that consideration of accomplishing both of these goals--steady
strong research funding and some form of ARI--could be goals that are
achievable together and not at each other's expense. Additionally, we
would encourage establishment of a larger fund for such projects. As
noted earlier in my testimony, the needs for such funding are large and
compelling. The ability to fund a larger number and wider range of
projects would be extremely effective in maintain facility capability.
Other ideas to provide support for research infrastructure needs
We would encourage the consideration of additional investments by
the Federal government to help support the infrastructure that supports
research at universities. Such investments will help to ensure that the
continued cultivation of the basic science as the fundamental
foundation of innovation and progress envisioned by Vannevar Bush
several decades ago. Also, the economic benefit that such research
provides is demonstrable. However, recognizing the realities of
difficult budget choices, I offer some other ideas for ways in which
the Federal government can more effectively support research on
campuses and reduce some of the growing burdens that this activity
places on University finances.
Predictable, long term research financing--By far,
the most important element toward reducing risk as universities
make substantial financial commitments to research, spanning
several years, would be a reliable stream of direct research
revenue. As budgets are prepared and business plans developed,
a major assumption in the evaluation of a project is the
reliability of revenues that will be available to repay debt
incurred. If a long term commitment to predictable growth in
major funding agencies budgets for extramural research, it
would help to provide confidence that the research such
facilities are designed to support will, in fact, be able to
financially support them over a 20-30 year period.
Federal programs to assist in financing research
infrastructure--The Federal government could provide mechanisms
to help reduce cost of major investments or the risk of long
term decisions. Such programs/systems would help to incentivize
new investments in an era following balance sheet declines. The
economic benefit of such investments has both a short run
component (the activity stimulated during the construction
phase) and a long run component (addition of higher paying
knowledge jobs).
Provide support for research capital investments
` Pool of capital dedicated to support
investments in research buildings, building
renovations, computing infrastructures
Explore the possibility that
a pool of dedicated capital could be
made available to research universities
with very favorable repayment terms.
These funds would be accessed by
institutions, according to specific
criteria (types of facilities/uses) to
finance new facilities and would be
repaid at subsidized interest rates.
This pool then would be self-sustaining
over time and could help to ease some
of the tough choices universities face
on how to invest its limited capital.
` Debt service subsidies for university-issued
bonds
Provide subsidies for payment
of debt service on borrowing undertaken
by research universities for new
facilities, major renovations or major
equipment purchases that benefit
Federal sponsors.
Provide ``grants'' to fund a portion of new
facilities, major building renovations or capital
equipment acquisitions, This would serve to reduce the
overall amount needed from bond issues or other
external borrowings, thus reducing the impact on an
institution's credit rating/debt capacity issues.
Allow recovery for the cost of internal capital,
which is permitted for commercial contractors
There are a number of differences between the cost
accounting rules that exist for commercial and non-
profit recipients of Federal funds. One notable example
is the inability for universities to recover the
``cost'' of internal funds (reserves) that are used to
finance research assets. Changing OMB Circular A21 to
allow such costs to be recovered would help to incent
perhaps a greater commitment of institutional reserves
into such projects. This cost would become a component
of the institution's F&A rate, which is audited and
approved by its cognizant Federal agency.
Consider elimination of the administrative cost cap
in OMB Circular A-21
While not directly related to ``bricks and mortar,''
the cap that was placed upon administrative cost
recovery by universities almost 20 years ago continues
to create burdens on institutions. Most of the major
research institutions have calculated administrative
cost components which exceed the 26% cap, resulting in
millions of dollars worth of legitimate research
support expenses that go unreimbursed. No other type of
contractor performing work for the Federal government
is subject to such a cap on supportable, allocable
support costs. Since implementation of the cap, several
new requirements and regulations have been enacted that
require greater effort by universities; however, none
of the incremental costs associated with the regulatory
changes are recoverable (if the institution is over the
administrative rate cap).
If removal of the administrative cost cap is not
considered feasible, then consideration of the creation
of a new, uncapped pool for regulatory compliance costs
should be considered. As mentioned above, the growth of
new requirements, seemingly every few weeks, has placed
financial pressure on universities which other non-
research revenues must subsidize. Universities WANT to
be compliant,, and often the regulations are complex,
requiring new investments or additional staff. This is
not a signal of inefficiency but recognition of the
cost of being compliant. A listing of new compliance
requirements implemented since imposition of the
administrative cost cap was compiled by COGR in March
2009, and demonstrates this point effectively
(Attachment C).
Require all Federal agencies to reimburse
universities at Government-approved F&A, rate--A study by the
Rand Corporation in 2000 estimated that universities are
subsidizing Federally sponsored research by roughly $0.7
billion and $1.5 billion that would be eligible for
reimbursement through negotiated/approved F&A rates if all
sponsors were paying the approved rate. We would support
changes in appropriate regulation that would require Federal
sponsors to pay the negotiated Federal rate on all research it
funds.
Conclusion
The research partnership between the Federal government and U.S.
research universities has enabled great achievements in science,
innovations that have fueled economic growth, and helped our system of
higher education to become the envy of the world. It is recognized that
financial issues for both partners are more complex than ever before.
Infrastructure--in the form of buildings, equipment, computing
networks, and other necessary support ingredients--allow this research
to flourish and discoveries to be made. We must jointly commit to
ensure that this infrastructure is maintained, nurtured and permitted
to evolve along with the research that it supports. As discussed in the
2003 COGR paper ``New Research Paradigms Call for Regulatory Change:''
(Attachment D).
``The essential premise for a new business relationship between
the government and universities is the simple acknowledgment that both
parties engage as ``business partners''. This means, among other
things, a recognition of complementary interests in the cost effective
administration of awards and the providing of adequate funds to meet
the joint expectations for the outcomes of research.''
Steady, predictable streams of research funding form the foundation
for the science and technology discoveries that result. A commitment by
the Federal government to such funding will help to make future
investments in facilities and support by universities less risky
projects. Additionally, the continuation of programs like the Academic
Research Infrastructure Program, NSF's Major Research Instrumentation
program, among others will assist in the development of new facilities
along with ensuring the viability of existing facilities. Finally,
changes to policies that will enable full and reasonable recovery of
costs associated with research will help to ease pressure that caps and
other funding reductions have created.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity you have provided to present
this information.
Attachment A
Attachment B
A New Research Business Model: Incentivizing Universities
Introduction
This paper illustrates some of the difficult choices that
universities face in order to comply with the current cost policy
restrictions of the federal government as expressed by federal agencies
and by OMB. Many of these policies were imposed for the purpose of
saving taxpayer dollars, while at the same time providing maximum
support for research. The paper illustrates that these measures are not
the best way to reach the stated goals. Instead of imposing
restrictions, we propose that the government look to a new business
model, We maintain that it would be preferable to offer incentives to
allow the academic community to manage the increasingly rare research
finds on terms comparable to those granted to any experienced, cost-
conscious and competitive provider of research.
Six examples describe the impact of current regulations, all of
which provide short-term cost savings to the federal government, at the
risk of long-term damage to the research enterprise. The regulations
impose:
Limits on legitimate cost recovery by agency or type of award,
A cap on administrative cost recovery in a time of growing
administrative requirements, Lack of commitment to life cycle
costs for capital projects and the requirement to invest
capital recoveries,
An artificial distinction between internal and external
interest costs on borrowed funds, The exclusions of many
universities from receiving adequate utility cost
reimbursement, Conflicting and duplicative requirements among
funding agencies.
Taken either in isolation or as a short-term mandate, any one of
these restrictions may seem immaterial, but their cumulative impact is
acutely felt in the higher education community. The costs to the
federal government are not as immediately evident but nonetheless real.
They may be financial, they sometimes represent lost opportunities,
i.e. loss of research capacity or they inadvertently encourage less
than optimal research decisions. The impact would be no different and
as strongly resisted, if these regulations were imposed on any other
business entity.
It is true that the government's current costing polices do not
deprive universities of the freedom to make choices, but the choices
have become increasingly narrow and at times dysfunctional. It should
be evident that universities can best serve the nation if they are free
to make their best intellectual judgment about the future direction of
research. Universities have historically accepted the risk that today's
research focus is likely to change tomorrow, if new discoveries
redirect the progress of science or if the federal government changes
its priorities. The risk, however, is much greater today, because
artificial limits and prescriptions have been injected into the basic
compliance structure that is the foundation of government research
support policy. Cumulatively these prescriptions create financial
disincentives that impact program choices and may encourage decisions
that are neither in the best interest of taxpayers' nor consistent with
government goals and policies in supporting university research.
Situation 1: Limits on legitimate cast recovery by agency or type of
award
A tenured professor retires and her 30-year-old laboratory must be
renovated to accommodate a new faculty member. In deciding how to
allocate the new space, the university has to weigh the risk that a
junior faculty's primacy research support may come in the form of
awards that do not pay the full, negotiated facilities and
administrative (F&A) rate. An example is the NIH career development
program, under which F&A recovery is limited to 8%. In establishing
this program the government has demonstrated its resolve to support
young investigators, recognizing that the nation needs a steady stream
of accomplished researchers. However, the government's failure to
provide the requisite support costs diminishes the impact of the
program. Alternately, a more senior faculty member, whose cutting-edge
research is so novel that federal funding has yet to be secured, might
claim the newly renovated space. But for how long can the university
afford to cost share the F&A costs for his laboratory?
The financial realities of setting up a recent hire to the faculty
are large and are real. Renovating space, equipping and running a modem
research lab, and providing seed money for new research requires as
many institutional resources (research proposal assistance, utilities,
administrative support) as providing research space for a more senior
colleague. It may turn out that the space is given to an established
investigator operating in a mature branch of her field, where F&A costs
are provided. Financial considerations, of course, may not be the final
determining factor in. academic decisions. Nevertheless, from a
strictly ``business'' perspective, the choice favors the more senior
appointment in ``safe'' and well-funded research areas.
These situations illustrate how academic and financial arguments
create difficult trade-offs when important strategic research decisions
are made. Some universities have decided to recognize faculty, who are
successful grantees and who bring in the full negotiated F&A rate, by
awarding them the best research space in newly-renovated buildings.
Other universities might consider prioritizing the renovation of
buildings that will house successful grant applicants, at the expense
of other disciplines that are not as likely to be ``funding winners.''
Without sufficient revenues to support total costs, both direct and
indirect, the need quickly arises to subsidize research activity from
other sources (primarily from tuition or gifts from private donors).
These cases illustrate how financial disincentives may lead to
results that are neither in the best interest of the taxpayers nor
consistent with government goals and policies in support of university
research.
Situation 2: A cap on administrative cost recovery in a time of growing
compliance requirements
The university determines that changes to its oversight
requirements for bio-medical research must be substantially enhanced
due to much stricter regulation by the federal government. Such
enhancements will require the institution to incur additional costs in
the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, all directly
supportive of research primarily sponsored by federal agencies. Some
are the result of new regulations, others are the result of changes in
federal interpretation of compliance needs in research areas that
develop commensurate with the advance of scientific methods. However,
due to the fact that the institution's negotiated F&A rate is already
at the 26% administrative cost cap, the government does not provide its
fair share of these new compliance costs.
In order to continue the relevant research and to comply with
federal regulations, the administrative costs supporting such research
must be subsidized by other revenue sources, possibly tuition revenue
or private donations or increasingly shrinking state funds. Compliance
with these federal mandates is not a matter of choice and
``efficiencies'' cannot be easily achieved. If no revenue sources are
left and if additional subsidies to the research enterprise can no
longer be found, the research-intensive universities face even more
difficult choices. Their options are reduced to gradual elimination of
certain research programs or the even more problematic decision of
reducing compliance standards to the required minimum level.
Situation 3: Decreasing pool of investment capital for universities to
invest in research facilities
The university determines that a research building dating from the
I930s has outlived its usefulness and that it would be most cost-
effective to raze the building and to build all new space. However, the
common source of funding in the past-tax-exempt bond funding-is now in
shorter supply. With the economic downturn of the past few years, the
institution's endowment value has declined, thus reducing the level of
borrowing capacity available. While the institution has extensive
borrowing ability, a significant additional borrowing will likely push
its credit rating down a level, thus creating more expensive interest
costs. Capital campaigns, although desirable, can only be initiated
slowly and have unpredictable outcomes. These realities could force the
university to defer a decision, with the result that the building in
question will deteriorate further and that current or future research
will be negatively impacted.
The federal government has for years failed to include a well-
funded facilities support program in the federal agency research
program budget. The unfortunate consequence of this has been the
increase of earmarks in Congressional appropriations. Also, to date
there exists, no federal policy that commits the government to
participate in its share of debt service over the life of the loan. It
would make good business sense to provide incentives, since the
research to be performed in these facilities is in the government's
interest. A variety of incentives have been proposed and could include
a reasonable facilities funding program placed in the federal budget,
offering universities a federal sharing in loans, or a federal loan
guarantee program. The common denominator in all these would be
removing the uncertainty that universities currently experience under
the given federal policy.
Business decisions for the university are further complicated by
the federal government's requirement that for every dollar of
depreciation recovered on the new building, a dollar must be spent on
some future project. This means in effect that the university will
never recover the cost of its investment, and may be committed to new
construction at times when it is not in a sound financial position to
do so.
Situation 4: An artificial distinction between internal and external
interest costs on borrowed funds
The university's bond rating is in jeopardy due to depressed
financial markets. Because of this, it would be less expensive on a
gross basis to allocate internal capital funds to pay for a new science
building. However, the university knows that there is no option for
recovery from the government of the university's internal cost of
capital. Under these circumstances, the university may make a rational
business decision to borrow at a higher external rate because it then
can recover a fraction of the interest costs from the federal
government, thereby lowering its net cost of interest.
It would clearly be in the taxpayers' interest to provide
incentives for the university to use its own money, possibly by sharing
some of the investment costs, so that the federal contribution does not
go to defraying avoidable higher interest costs.
Situation 5: The exclusion of certain universities, from receiving the
utility cost adjustment factor
A space vacancy occurs in the cancer research center. The
university could make the space available for a number of equally
worthy projects. One of them is a large laboratory where the research
project requires constant air changes. Unfortunately such a laboratory
would entail high energy use. Since the university had not undertaken
an energy study prior to 1996, it is now prevented from receiving
higher compensation through the F&A rate for higher energy research
consumption. When the government put new energy studies on hold in
1996, it promised to develop a fair formula for all academic energy
consumers, but has yet failed to do so. As a result, more than one
hundred universities are now prevented from recovering the costs for
higher energy use which they consume, which they could easily document,
and which their peers who had done prior energy studies now enjoy.
For the university faced with this choice, the uncompensated energy
costs inject an artificial economic factor into a determination which
should be based solely on academic and scientific needs. This may
influence the university to make a decision not in the best interests
of science.
Situation 6: Regulatory Burden Reinforces Bureaucracy
Universities, like commercial businesses, seek to maximize the use
of financial and human resources to meet their strategic objectives. As
resources become more constrained, institutions attempt to streamline
their efforts, including the maximum use of available technology, to
reallocate resources into priority areas. But research universities
find it increasingly difficult to reduce the administrative burden of
research in order to fund more strategic activities. The following
three examples illustrate how federal requirements contribute to high
administrative costs, and thereby detract from effective decision-
making.
Each federal agency views itself as unique, operating
within its own set of administrative guidelines and
regulations. This requires counterpart experts at the
university to effectively deal with the day-to-day operations
of each respective agency funding.
New initiatives in the government's administrative
processes, such as electronic research administration, have not
been coordinated across sponsoring agencies in a way that
establishes common standards to assist universities in
implementing simple, cost effective solutions. As a result, the
same task (i.e., submission of a research proposal) must be
accomplished in a variety of different ways.
Costing regulations became more burdensome and
complex in the 1990s, including the requirement to develop and
adhere to Cost Accounting Standards Board protocols that are
expensive to implement and maintain but often ignored by the
cognizant agencies. Significant time and effort that could have
been used elsewhere was expended to develop the Disclosure
Statements, and continues to be devoted to maintaining them as
changes are required to business processes.
A specific example of how such administrative requirements
negatively impact the drive towards efficiency is one university's
attempt to create a new staff classification for ``research faculty. ``
The sole motivation for this change is to build and strengthen the
university's research capability. In order to create the new position,
the institution needs to have a cost recovery model that enables all
leave costs to be charged directly to grants and contracts. This
requires changes to the written disclosure statement that must be
negotiated through the cognizant agency, even though costing practices
were recently reviewed in negotiation of the F&A rate. Such
requirements delay the implementation process in a way that is
difficult to explain to faculty administrators and counter to the
shared desire for increased efficiency.
Conclusion:
These examples illustrate the dangers to the research enterprise
when sound business decisions can no longer be reconciled with what
appear to be sound research decisions. Unless the government changes
some of its policies, it may trigger outcomes that are adverse to its
own stated goals: to foster an environment in which the government's
academic business partner is empowered to manage itself and the federal
investment in research in the most pendent and cost effective manner.
For each of the examples cited in this paper, there exist. a number of
possible policy solutions. Some are very specific, such as extending
the utility cost adjustment factor, and allowing ``cost of money'' for
universities that use their own capital for facilities. Others have
broader implications, such as eliminating the administrative cap, or
establishing loan guarantee programs for new facilities. Still others
would only require adherence to government-stated purposes and
principles, such as payment of negotiated F&A rates on all federal
awards, and streamlining financial and research administration
requirements to eliminate unnecessary processes and to create
consistency among sponsoring agencies.
The unique position of universities precludes their being treated
as business partners in the same sense as commercial business partners.
According to the latest information from NSF, university funds to
support research' reached $6.55 billion in 2001, or 20% of total
expenditures, As recently as 15 years ago the university share of total
expenditures was 10%. Stated differently, for every $1 million of
funding received in new awards, a university provides an additional
$200,000 of direct and infrastructure costs. This significant
investment of funds demonstrates the universities' commitment to
support research. Recognizing this, universities must and do take every
opportunity to maximize administrative efficiency and reduce costs.
However, we believe a comprehensive strategy is needed to address the
growing imbalance in support for the university research
infrastructure. The government will justifiably expect to get the best
results from federally funded research on the most reasonable terms,
and with the expectation of cost sharing. But where the government
fails to recognize the universities' legitimate business constraints,
and the result is increased research cost shifting, it is time for new
research business models, which recognize these constraints and design
funding programs consistent with them.
Attachment C
Federal Regulatory Changes, Since 1991
These regulations directly affect the conduct and management of
research under Federal grants and contracts. The list of current
regulations is in chronological order.
Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (Common Rule, 1991)
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention & Control Act of 1990
(Implemented, 1992)
NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules (1994)
Deemed Exports (1994, EAR & ITAR)
DFARS Interim Export Control Compliance Clauses (July 2008)
Conflict of Interest
Public Health Service/NIH Objectivity in Research (1995)
NSF Financial Disclosure Policy (1995)
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) in OMB Circular A-21 (1995)
Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)
Privacy Rule
OMB Elimination of Utility Cost Adjustment (UCA) (1998)
Data Access/Shelby Amendment (FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act);
related amendments to OMB Circular A-110
Policy on Sharing of Biomedical Research Resources (NIH, 1999)
Misconduct in Science (Federalwide Policy, 2000)
NEH, 2001
NSF, 2002
EPA, (Directive, 2003)
Labor, 2004
HHS/PHS, 2005
NASA, 2005
Energy, 2005
Veterans Affairs, 2005
Education, 2005
Transportation, 2005
USDA (Proposed, 2008)
HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) National Coverage
Determination for Routine Clinical Trials (Clinical Trials Policy),
2000
Executive Order 13224, Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions
With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit or Support Terrorism
(September 2001, also EO 12947, 1995)
Select Agents & Toxins (under CDC and USDA/APHIS) Public Health
Security & Bioterrorism Preparedness & Response Act of 2002; companion
to the USA PATRIOT Act (2001)
FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act (Title III, E
Government Act of 2002) OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal
Information Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated
Information Systems
CIPSEA Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency
Act (OMB Implementation Guidance 2007, Title V, E Government Act of
2002)
Federal Policy on Embryonic Stem Cell Research (2003)
Data Sharing Policy (NIH, 2003)
Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-12, Common
Identification Standards for Federal Employees and Contractors (2004)
Higher Education Act, Section 117 Reporting of Foreign Gifts, Contracts
and Relationships (20 USC 1011f, 2004)
Model Organism Sharing Policy (NIH, 2004)
Constitution & Citizenship Day (2005, Consolidated Appropriations Act
FY 2005)
Genomic Inventions Best Practices (2005)
Combating Trafficking in Persons (2008)
Code of Business Ethics & Conduct (FAR) 2008
Homeland Security Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS)
2008
E-Verify 2008
Military Recruiting and ROTC Program Access (2008, Solomon Amendment,
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2005)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Order Imposing Fingerprinting and
Criminal History Records Check Requirements for Unescorted Access to
Certain Radioactive Materials (Feb. 2008, Section 652, Energy Policy
Act of 2005)
National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy (2008, Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2008, Division G, Title II Section 218)
Certification of Filing and Payment of Federal Taxes (Labor, HHS,
Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008, Division G,
Title V, Section 523)
Health and Human Services/FDA Clinical Trials Registry Implementation/
Interpretation Changes, Since 1991
Foreign Nationals (See COGR/AAU/FDP Troublesome Clause Report, 2008
\1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Report is available at: www.cogr.edu/docs/
COGRAAUTroublesomeClausesReport.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication Restrictions (see COGR/AAU/FDP Troublesome Clauses, 2008)
P.L. 106-107/Grants.gov: Electronic Applications, Financial Reporting
Progress Reports, iEdison Invention Reporting, etc. CCR/DUNS Registry
requirements
Subrecipient Monitoring (OMB Circular A-133, Compliance Supplement)
Changes to A-21 F&A Proposal Format
Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects:
Federalwide Assurance (2004), mandatory training
IRB Registration (2008)
Title IX of Education Amendments of 1972: Access to science and math
educational programs (2007+)
EPA Hazardous Waste, Subpart K (2008)
IRS 990 Reporting
Significant Proposed Changes
Export Controls: Export Administration Regulations (EAR) &
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (2003)
Responsible Conduct of Research Training--NSF (America COMPETES Act
2006)
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA)
Subrecipient Reporting (2006)
National Science Advisory Board for Biosafety (NSABB) Oversight of Dual
Use Life Sciences Research of Concern
Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Considerations concerning the Security
and Continued Use of Cesium-137 Chloride Sources (July 2008)
USAID Partners Vetting System (re: EO 13224 et al. re: terrorist
financing)
USDA Animal Welfare Act, Contingency Planning (2008)
Attachment D
New Research Paradigms Call for Regulatory Change
Executive Summary
During recent discussions initiated by the Office of Science and
Technology Policy about new research business models, much attention
was given to interdisciplinary research activities and the team efforts
required to carry out such research. Expanding these thoughts further,
this paper offers an analysis of the increased administrative
responsibilities that are encountered when research projects scale up
to more complex, multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional levels.
Starting with streamlining that would benefit the administration of
the basic assistance award, the paper recommends changes that would
facilitate business practices commensurate with increasingly complex
business relationships. The requested changes in current federal
regulations described here are not new, but are gaining greater urgency
in order to assure accountability and to reduce the administrative
burdens and costs that impact both the government and its awardees as
projects scale up.
Although this paper focuses primarily on the government-university
relationship, it does not seek to diminish the importance of
university-industry collaboration nor does it deny the many beneficial
relationships existing between universities and their State agencies.
The close nexus between education and research that exists in
universities makes them not more important, but certainly different
from most other research providers.
Introduction: Premise for research business relationships
The essential premise for a new business relationship between the
government and universities is the simple acknowledgment that both
parties engage as ``business partners''. This means, among other
things, a recognition of complementary interests in the cost effective
administration of awards and the providing of adequate funds to meet
the joint expectations for the outcomes of research. These mutual
interests exist in both the assistance and the procurement mode because
in each both parties provide value. Towards these ends, regulatory
requirements that create unnecessary burdens should be removed, and
funding for administrative expenditures should be based on a thorough
and fair examination of the universities' F&A documentation. The term
``rate negotiation'' is inappropriate and implies a broken process.
Equally important is the avoidance of cost shifting and imposing of
caps and other restrictions by the government, which the commercial
sector would describe as ``price controls''. It now appears that not
only has the Congress called for new business practices, as evidenced
in P.L. 106-107, but that the White House, through the Office of
Science and Technology Policy has joined that call for change.
Business Models for the Basic Assistance Award
The simplest research platform is a basic assistance award, which
may provide research support of up to $1 million in federal funding. An
example of how a new business practice could remove unnecessary
regulatory burden for even this simple platform is provided by the
proposals of Robert Newton, a former NSF official.
In. the early 1980s, Newton proposed that a faculty's entire
research should be considered as one ``research program'' to be managed
as an integrated whole rather than as individually sponsored and
managed ``research projects''. The key prerequisite to aggregation was
the concept of ``relatedness'', which the faculty researcher would be
obligated to assert and demonstrate. Once relatedness was established,
the researcher should be able to use all sources of funding to charge
costs to serve research needs rather than be restricted by individual
agency budgets. This concept was one of the motivating factors for
forming the Florida Demonstration Project in 1983. It is not yet widely
embraced in the Federal Demonstration Partnership of 2003.
Several other unnecessary regulatory impediments to the cost-
effective management of research could be similarly eliminated by
simple changes to the current requirements. These include flexibility
in starting a project, the ability to adjust expenditures according to
the needs of the research without having to obtain agency prior
approval for each individual action; and the authority to extend the
timeframe for expenditures as dictated by progress on the project,
without being accused of violating the ``expenditure rate''.
The value of the business efficiency of such changes was recognized
when OMB revised Circular A-110 in the early 1990s. OMB directed
federal agencies to adopt a unified position on grant management
matters and to provide ``expanded authorities'' to the grant recipient
for management without the need for individual prior agency approval at
each step. This recommendation reflected broad public support. Agency
implementation however was uneven and even today federal agencies are
far from uniform in granting such ``expanded authorities'' to research
universities. In 2000, public comment on the statutory requirements of
P.L. 106-107 again indicated overwhelming support for granting expanded
management authorities to all funding recipients under all government
awards. Until these simple steps are taken to adopt sensible business
practices, there is little point in discussing the more complicated
issues associated with more complex research and funding efforts.
Recommendation:
Revise OMB Circular A-110 to direct all federal
agencies to grant the ``expanded authorities'' for grants
management in accordance with federal regulations to all
research universities.
Endorse the concept that individual but related
research projects by a single investigator can be considered
one research program for purposes of management and
accountability.
Rely on business system reviews and project audits at
universities rather than prior approvals by individual federal
agency staff.
Business Models for Multi-Sponsor, Multi-University Projects
Awards for multi-sponsor, multi-university projects range from $1-5
million dollars. Coordination and leveraging of effort is critically
important to their success. It is widely acknowledged that their
management is complex because they involve teams of scientists working
at different sites and on various aspects of one common research
problem. Yet, in most cases, none of the participating universities has
enough support to cover more than their minimum share of the
administrative burden. Because the federal agencies take a narrow view
of the budget categories under OMB Circular A-21, sufficient funds are
not provided to support the secretarial and clerical personnel required
for such. a sophisticated effort.
Recently, some federal officials seemed to imply that a ``new
business model'' would require that OMB Circular A-21 be withdrawn and
fundamentally revised. We do not believe that such drastic cure is
required. All that is required to meet research needs is to go back to
Circular A-21 in its original form. That would delete a number of
requirements which do not add value.
Several other modest changes to OMB Circular A-21 would further
advance businesslike management of research. The language of the cost
circular needs to be coordinated with the management circular to avoid
discrepancies. Universities should be granted use of the cost of money,
which other business sectors currently use. University responsibility
for monitoring their sub recipient awards must be limited to reasonable
procedures focused on scientific program objectives. The government
should not expect universities to serve as auditors on one another's
projects. This becomes particularly important in multi-campus
arrangements, where the designation of subrecipient vs. research
partner may not be sufficiently well defined.
Another federal agency practice contrary to sound business
principles is that not all federal agencies pay the negotiated F&A
rate. They cite various reasons, some programmatic, some historical.
This uneven approach to what is intended to be the government-wide rate
becomes particularly visible and detrimental in multi-agency awards.
The resistance by several agencies to fully fund the negotiated. F&A
rates of universities results in extensive under recovery of costs that
the science projects can ill afford. Respective data have been provided
by the Rand Corporation and more recently by COGR. It would be good
business. practice for all agencies to scrub their policies, some of
which date from the late 50s, and to eliminate restrictions to full
rate reimbursement that have been carried forward without appropriate
statutory justification.
Large multi-campus research projects may require institutional cost
sharing. The capacity of the participant universities to come up with
such funds is dependent on many factors. One might surmise that federal
oversight over cost sharing as well as general project administration
on multi campus awards would be facilitated by Cost Accounting
Standards. However, internal consistency rather than commonality is the
major objective of these standards. CAS standards add no value to
multi-campus or to single investigator awards. They are duplicative and
unnecessary because they reiterate A-21 standards. Doing away with
these clearly unnecessary requirements, which the federal government
admitted it cannot meet in a timely manner, would result in cost
savings both for the government and for the universities that would
clearly benefit research. Eliminating CAS standards is overdue.
We recognize that the government has legitimate interests in the
establishment of ethics safeguards and multi-disciplinary and multi-
campus projects may provide special concerns in this area. A new
business model for this platform would benefit particularly from agency
implementation of the government-wide misconduct in science policy
promulgated in 2000. We also ask that all federal agencies follow the
lead of NIH and NSF and develop conflict of interest regulations.
Recommendation:
Return to the original language of 0MB Circular A-21
Allow the direct charging of secretarial and clerical
staff
Provide full funding of negotiated university F&A
rates
Reduce subcontract monitoring to reasonable levels
Issue Government-wide ethics rules
Rescind the CAS coverage for universities
Business Models for Large Center Awards
Institutions which compete for large awards for Centers or for
specialized institutes for up to $15 million must commit substantial
infrastructure support, Such support depends largely on available cost
sharing resources. The size and complexity of these awards creates a
big gap in management and operation between these awards and the single
assistance awards. Yet, the same policies govern both. No reasonable
business practice would expect to run a multi-million dollar automobile
company like a neighborhood small business enterprise. The current
restrictions in OMB Circular A-21 make no such distinction and as a
result many of the large universities are stretched to the limit of
their fund raising capacity for improvements of the infrastructure and
for planning needed new facilities.
For such large projects, the recovery of F&A costs is especially
significant and consequently agency cognizance becomes a factor.
Universities report considerable differences between the two cognizant
agencies in their procedures for rate negotiation. There is no basis
for two federal agencies to treat universities differently. Good
business practices would call for closer coordination between DCAA and
DCA, with respect to their audit and their oversight over F&A rate
negotiation.
The more one tries to scale up to a new platform, the clearer the
impact of the cap on administrative cost will be felt. No other
research performer is subject to caps, which were imposed in addition
to three major revisions of the circular that took place in the 90s.
While these OMB revisions provided a clearer definition of cost
categories and eliminated ``gray'' areas, they also hold universities'
administrative rates at a level that was below average even at the time
it was adopted.
After a decade without adjustment for cost increases, the
university community is no longer able to cover the growing gap between
regulatory requirements and the restriction in reimbursement. No other
business is precluded by the government from recovering its legitimate
business-related compliance costs. Since 1992, universities have had to
absorb all administrative costs for new requirements and/or for the
upgrading of systems that have become necessary in the intervening
time. One would expect that it is in the government's own best interest
to support universities in their effort to stay competitive and
compliant, especially as new security measures become imperative for
the nation. The cap needs to be lifted.
These large awards also reinforce the need for government-wide
acceptance of regulations governing human subjects, and to overcome the
apparent distrust of the ``common rule'' which leads agencies to
establish duplicative reviews of protocols and IRB procedures.
Finally, unnecessary administrative costs could be eliminated
simply by the establishment of government-wide payment systems that
would replace the labor intensive and outmoded system of grant-specific
draw-down by each federal agency.
Recommendations:
Seek agreement between cognizant agencies
Implement rate determination, not negotiation
Remove the administrative cap
Adopt a uniform government-wide payment systems
Discourage duplicative administrative reviews
The New Research Business Model in Review
As we propose it, the new business relationship between the
government and universities is based primarily on trust. This trust
relies on the understanding that it is in the university's own best
interest to self regulate and hold costs down but also on the
understanding that the government will provide stable funding and that
the recovery of costs for facilities and for administrative services
will not unexpectedly be capped.
Universities face a growing perception that science can be
separated from administration. That is a fallacy. Universities also
witness the encroachment of administrative procedures that siphon funds
that could otherwise support research or teaching. A new business model
would eliminate such duplicative federal requirements.
Recommendation:
Treat universities as business partners
Permit performance based budgeting
Set reasonable audit expectations
Replace certifications with assurances
Do not permit budget decisions to drive policy
In this new business environment, the government will not be asked
to appropriate more, it will merely be asked to allow universities to
use resources the way universities determine necessary to support the
mutual goal of obtaining the deliverable of sound scientific research.
In Conclusion
Scaling up to different research platforms entails responsibility
for scientific, administrative and financial decisions. It influences
decisions regarding the workforce and infrastructure, including space
and equipment, and calls for careful coordination between centers at
different locations and subject to a variety of administrative
regulatory requirements. It reaches into areas of regional and national
security and raises fundamental questions regarding how one deals with
potential restrictions on foreign scientists, with audit oversight and
with the freedom to publish research results.
The key to a successful research business model for increasingly
complex projects lies in designing comprehensive but simplified
administrative guidance and then permitting universities to take
responsibility for management and oversight of the wide range of their
projects. We believe that success depends largely on the extent to
which the government will grant research universities the flexibility
to make sound business decisions on campus, subject to subsequent
review and audit by the government.
Biography for Albert G. Horvath
Albert G. Horvath is senior vice president for finance and
business/treasurer at Penn State effective July 1, 2009. He is
responsible for leading the day-to-day management of Finance and
Business and the strategic planning process for the unit which has an
operating budget of more than $500 million and more than 2,500
employees. He is also responsible for special projects and assignments,
including information systems and technology, succession planning, and
emergency preparedness.
Al oversees the direct reporting relationships in the areas of
auxiliary and business services; corporate controller and controller
for the College of Medicine/Milton S. Hershey Medical Center; Office of
the Physical Plant; University Budget Office; Office of Investment
Management; Commonwealth Operations; University Police; and Human
Resources.
Al joined Penn State on June 29, 2007 as vice president for finance
and business. He came to Penn State with a wide range of experience in
finance and business, much of it in higher education. He has previously
served as executive vice president for finance and CFO at Columbia
University, where he has been responsible for the financial activities
of the university--including its medical center--with a $2.7 billion
operating budget. At Columbia, he developed a five-year capital plan
and debt strategy and created a procurement organization, was involved
with several issues at the medical center, and acted as primary
administrative liaison to the audit and finance committees of
Columbia's board of trustees. He also served as associate vice
president for finance/controller, and later vice president for business
and finance and CFO, at The California Institute of Technology; as
controller at New York University; and as audit director and assistant
vice president for finance at Carnegie Mellon University. He started
his career as an auditor with Mellon Bank, before becoming a manager in
Mellon's trust and investment department.
A 1981 Penn State graduate with a degree in accounting, I also
earned an MBA from Duquesne University in 1985.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Horvath.
Dr. Raymond.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN R. RAYMOND, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC
AFFAIRS AND PROVOST, MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND
CHAIR, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA EPSCOR COMMITTEE
Dr. Raymond. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you very much for allowing me to testify today. The NSF
EPSCoR program has a statutory function to strengthen research
and education in science and engineering throughout the United
States, and to avoid undue concentration of such research and
education. This has been accomplished through providing
strategic programs and opportunities for EPSCoR participants
that stimulates sustainable improvements in their R&D capacity
and competitiveness, and to advance science and engineering
capabilities in EPSCoR jurisdictions for discovery, innovation
and overall knowledge-based prosperity. Twenty-seven states
plus Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are currently
eligible for NSF EPSCoR support. These 29 jurisdictions
comprise 20 percent of the U.S. population, 25 percent of the
research in doctoral universities, and 18 percent of our
nation's scientists and engineers. NSF EPSCoR funding is
awarded through a merit-based peer review process.
EPSCoR has been very beneficial to South Carolina. The
Medical University of South Carolina has made relatively modest
contributions to the creation of knowledge in science and
engineering disciplines. However, with the assistance of
programs like NSF EPSCoR, we are now poised to contribute in a
substantial and sustainable way to the competitiveness of our
Nation.
The current NSF EPSCoR RII grant was awarded to South
Carolina in July 2009. This RII has presented us with an
exciting opportunity for South Carolina to implement a
statewide vision for building a competitive edge in the
emerging field of organ printing that can create human organs
such as hearts, kidneys and blood vessels. This has ample depth
and breadth to bring together faculty and students from nearly
all of South Carolina's institutions of higher education to
work together toward a common purpose. Furthermore, NSF EPSCoR
funds have been leveraged through the recruitment of new
professors to the State through the South Carolina Centers of
Economic Excellence Act and the Research Universities
Infrastructure Act.
The NSF RII award provided the impetus for South Carolina
and Tennessee to partner on a new NSF EPSCoR
cyberinfrastructure award that provides personnel and equipment
to facilitate coordination with Clemson's High Performance
Computing support staff and with TeraGrid specialists.
Finally, NASA EPSCoR funds have catalyzed connections among
South Carolina's researchers and the NASA Jet Propulsion
Laboratory to design and test a useful and efficient lunar
wheel for use on a small pressurized rover that will enable
astronauts to explore the moon.
We believe that the EPSCoR program can be improved.
Targeted options continue to be the most viable and effective
pathways to develop the scientific infrastructure, talent and
critical mass in the EPSCoR states. There should be continued
investment in these competitive grant opportunities for states
that meet EPSCoR criteria. The current EPSCoR program could be
improved by dividing it into research, education and workforce
components.
With regard to the entire EPSCoR program, I would suggest
that NSF set a goal of doubling the percentage of its funds
annually that are awarded to the 27 EPSCoR states and two
jurisdictions and slightly less than ten percent of NSF's
annual R&RA obligations to 20 percent within ten years. We also
need assurances that as the new states are added, the funding
needed for them will be requested and appropriated.
EPSCoR states have trained a lot of scientists and
engineers over the years, and we need incentives to keep and
bring new talent to our state. Physical infrastructure
initiatives outside of the EPSCoR program could also be very
useful. Cutting-edge facilities, renovations and equipment
remain a major obstacle to competitiveness for the EPSCoR
states. Our institution has over $100 worth of deferred
maintenance in our research facilities. A separate program or a
set-aside in existing programs would be very helpful.
Finally, while South Carolina has made impressive progress
in cyberinfrastructure, it has not been easy or inexpensive.
Many of the EPSCoR states have not been as fortunate as South
Carolina and are still lacking the bandwidth systems that will
enable the modeling and computer simulations needed for climate
change, biomedical and advanced research for visualization.
In closing, we believe the value, effectiveness and
sustainability of EPSCoR programs is very clear, both as a
catalyst for improving our respective states, and to enhance
America's overall competitiveness in the global economy. Again,
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Raymond follows:]
Prepared Statement of John R. Raymond
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Dr. John
Raymond. I am Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost at the
Medical University of South Carolina. I have also served as Chair of
the State of South Carolina Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR) Committee for the past eight years. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the research
infrastructure needs of our universities and colleges including
research facilities and cyber-infrastructure capability, the capacity
of the research infrastructure to meet the current and future needs of
U.S. scientists and engineers, and the appropriate role of the Federal
government in sustaining such infrastructure.
In this testimony, I have been asked to answer questions related to
the current National Science Foundation EPSCoR grant awarded to South
Carolina. Specifically, I will address EPSCoR's role in facilitating
partnerships with state and local governments and the private sector to
improve our research infrastructure, its leveraging effect on improving
cyber-infrastructure capabilities, and its impact on the Medical
University of South Carolina. Secondly, I will describe the state of
research infrastructure and research facilities at the Medical
University of South Carolina and our unmet research infrastructure
needs. Thirdly, I will provide recommendations on how to improve the
EPSCoR program based on the findings and recommendations of the EPSCoR
Foundation.
Before answering the three specific questions posed to me, it might
be useful to provide a brief summary of the EPSCoR program and my
university to place my answers into the appropriate context. The
National Science Foundation EPSCoR program has a statutory function
``to strengthen research and education in science and engineering
throughout the United States and to avoid undue concentration of such
research and education.'' This is accomplished through two goals, which
are (1) to provide strategic programs and opportunities for EPSCoR
participants that stimulate sustainable improvements in their R&D
capacity and competitiveness; and (2) to advance science and
engineering capabilities in EPSCoR jurisdictions for discovery,
innovation and overall knowledge-based prosperity. South Carolina is
one of the original NSF EPSCoR-eligible states designated in 1980
(please see Figure 1). Twenty-nine jurisdictions including twenty-seven
states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
are currently eligible to compete for support through various NSF
EPSCoR mechanisms.\1\ Those 29 jurisdictions comprise 20 percent of the
U.S. population, 25 percent of the research and doctoral universities,
and 18 percent of the nation's scientists and engineers. NSF EPSCoR
funding is awarded through a rigorous process of merit-based peer-
review to ensure quality, accountability and sustainability. Many other
federal agencies support programs similar to the NSF EPSCoR program;
for example, the National Institutes of Health has a program called the
Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas,
Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.
Founded in 1824, the Medical University of South Carolina is a
freestanding academic health science center composed of six health-
related colleges (Dental Medicine, Graduate Studies, Health
Professions, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy). Until recently, our
institution made relatively modest contributions to the creation of
knowledge in science and engineering disciplines; with the assistance
of programs like NSF EPSCoR, we now are poised to contribute in a
substantial and sustainable way to the competitiveness of our nation.
We were awarded extramural research funding of nearly $218 million in
FY 2009-10, of which $140 million was from federal sources, and $103
million from the National Institutes of Health.
The current NSF EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement (RIO
grant was awarded to South Carolina in July 2009. This RII has
presented an exciting opportunity for South Carolina to implement a
statewide vision towards building a competitive edge in the emerging
field of ``organ printing''--operationally defined as computer-aided,
layer-by-layer deposition of biologically relevant material with the
purpose of engineering functional tissues and organs. The idea is that
we can use cultured cells and supporting materials as ``ink'' that can
be built up using modified ink jet printers and powerful computers to
create human organs such as hearts, kidneys, and blood vessels. The
patient's own cells (such as fat cells) can be used to make these
organs to provide a ready source for transplantation to treat and cure
diabetes, kidney failure, heart failure and atherosclerosis. What
patient with diabetes wouldn't donate some of their excess fat cells to
make a new pancreas to cure their diabetes?
Organ printing poses a grand challenge in terms of engineering and
biological principles, and a grand opportunity for South Carolina to
contribute to the competitiveness of our country. Currently, the
thickness of printed tissue constructs is limited to four cell layers
or less due to lack of a blood supply. In order to manufacture more
complex organs, one must successfully engineer a vascular supply, which
will require a 3-D tree-like network of blood vessels.
The grand vision of this RII has ample depth and breadth to bring
together faculty and students from nearly all of South Carolina's
institutions of higher education to work toward a common purpose. The
2009 SC NSF EPSCoR RII focuses on a diverse subset of institutions
including three research intensive institutions (Clemson University,
Medical University of South Carolina, University of South Carolina),
three historically black colleges (Claflin University, South Carolina
State University, Voorhees College), two other predominately
undergraduate institutions (Furman University, USC-Beaufort) and 3
technical colleges (Denmark Technical College, Greenville Technical
College, York Technical College). Together we form the SC Alliance for
Tissue Biofabrication.
EPSCoR funds were essential for demonstrating the feasibility of
using existing rapid prototyping equipment to print an intra-organ
vascular tree. Drs. Vladimir Mironov and Roger Markwald at MUSC
facilitated the fabrication of a 3-D ``plastic'' kidney (see Figure 2),
which was recently printed based on a computer-aided design provided by
Prof Nicolas Smith from the University of Oxford (UK) using expertise
and facilities at 3-D Systems/York Technical College. This initial
success and preliminary data strongly suggest that existing rapid
prototyping technology using layer-by-layer addition of building blocks
has sufficient resolution for bioprinting a complex branched vascular
tree. Rapid prototyping is a rapidly growing, $100 billion/yr industry
and 3-D Systems, Inc, located in Rock Hill, SC, is a leading global
provider of 3-D printing, rapid prototyping and additive manufacturing
products. This is an excellent example of EPSCoR funds being used to
catalyze academic-industrial collaborations towards building an
advanced biomanufacturing industry in South Carolina.
The NSF EPSCoR funds have been leveraged through the recruitment of
new professors to the state of South Carolina through the Centers of
Economic Excellence Act, and the Research Universities Infrastructure
Act, two key economic development initiatives passed by the South
Carolina Legislature in 2002 and 2004, respectively. Those acts provide
state matching funds for recruitment of endowed professors, and for
research construction. We have used state funds and private sector
matching funds to create multi-institutional Centers of Economic
Excellence in Regenerative Medicine, and in Tissue Biofabrication.
Several of the professors recruited to these centers have faculty
appointments at Clemson, USC and MUSC, thus serving as bridges between
our institutions. These new centers will be based in a new 100,000
ft2 Bioengineering Building, which will be completed in late
2011. This building will house engineers from Clemson and USC, and life
scientists from MUSC, working in interdisciplinary teams to address
grand challenges like the organ bioprinting project. We also have
leveraged the NSF EPSCoR award by developing interdisciplinary
educational programs that bring together students and faculty from the
technical colleges, historically black serving institutions, four-year
and research-intensive institutions.
Finally, the NSF RII award provided the impetus for South Carolina
and Tennessee to partner on a new NSF EPSCoR cyberinfrastructure award
that provides personnel and equipment to facilitate coordination with
Clemson High Performance Computing support staff and TeraGrid
specialists. This cyberinfrastructure grant also enables South Carolina
institutions to have access to the TeraGrid Kracken system housed at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This grant, along with a $21 million
award from The Duke Endowment and an $8 million award from the Federal
Communication Commission, has allowed us to develop a high-speed, high-
bandwidth optical and wireless communication grid that spans the state
and facilitates competitiveness.
NASA EPSCoR funds have catalyzed connections among Dr. Joshua
Summers' team at Clemson, and Michelin, Milliken and the NASA Jet
Propulsion Laboratory to design and test a useful and efficient lunar
wheel for use on the Small Pressurized Rover that will enable
astronauts to explore the moon. The futuristic rover with its
``tweels'' joined NASA astronauts in President Obama's inaugural parade
on Pennsylvania Avenue. The accompanying Figure 3 shows Dr. Summers and
undergraduate student Ms. Samantha Thoe inspecting the metallic
prototype.
Other federal agency EPSCoR funds have been applied to the areas of
energy and alternative fuels. For example, Dr. Terry Tritt's research
group at Clemson University has extensive interactions with Oak Ridge
National Lab and Savannah River National Lab through the DOE EPSCoR
Partnership Program. Dr. Tritt has received international attention for
his study of thermoelectric energy, and on materials that can recapture
``lost'' energy from ``wasted'' heat.
These are just a few examples of how EPSCoR funds have been used to
advance research and science education in South Carolina.
With regard to MUSC's research infrastructure, we have a number of
new, state-of-the-art research buildings focusing on childhood
diseases, bioengineering and drug discovery and development. We also
have a number of aging buildings that will require significant upgrades
and renovations to accommodate our expanded scope of research; and new
high-end instrumentation to enable our teams to perform the mass
spectroscopy, magnetic resonance imaging, high capacity computing,
emerging microscopic methods, and interactive teaching, materials
sciences, and biofabrication, as well as other emerging methods. We
share these needs with many educational institutions, even those in the
research powerhouse states. The continued support of EPSCoR programs
will be essential for our state, and for institutions like MUSC, to
make sustainable contributions to scientific discovery, contemporary
science and engineering, education, innovation and the overall
competitiveness of our country.
We believe targeted options continue to be the most viable and
effective pathways to develop the scientific infrastructure, talent and
critical mass in the EPSCoR states. There should be a continued
investment in competitive grant opportunities for states meeting EPSCoR
criteria. We believe the current EPSCoR program could be improved by
dividing it into several components--(1) research and (2) education and
workforce: Alternatively, we could simply adopt the NIH dual model of
COBREs which are research center development grants, and INBREs which
are state network grants to educate and train the next generation of
biomedical scientists. This would be a much more direct approach to
meeting both research infrastructure and ``pipeline'' needs. Each
component should, of course, be adequately funded at levels similar to
those at NIH.
We would appreciate renewed efforts to involve EPSCoR states in the
regular NSF programs. This means more representatives from EPSCoR
states on the National Science Board, NSF Advisory committees and other
relevant ``planning'' entities; more co-funding especially as the NSF
budget is growing, and greater use of mechanisms that will ensure
EPSCoR participation in major NSF initiatives. I believe that a few
years ago, extra points were awarded for including EPSCoR states in
certain applications for large programs. This should be reinstated.
Other efforts should be made to assist EPSCoR states in participating
in more large-scale NSF efforts such as Science and Technology Centers
(STCs), Engineering Research Centers (ERCs), and Materials Research
Science and Engineering Centers (MRSECs). Unless that is done, the
dollar imbalance between the established states and the EPSCoR states
will continue to grow. In this regard, I would suggest that NSF set a
goal of doubling the percentage of its funds, annually, that are
awarded to the 27 EPSCoR states and 2 jurisdictions--from slightly less
than 10% to 20% within ten years. Then, coalesce some of the
initiatives recommended above, as well as others gleaned from the
broader EPSCoR community, into a ``Strategic Implementation Plan'' to
meet that goal.
We also need assurance that as new states are added, the funding
needed for them is requested and appropriated. It costs $5-10 million a
year to bring a new state into the EPSCoR program during its first five
years and these new EPSCoR states tend to be more competitive than some
of the existing ones. Consequently, it is self-defeating to drain
resources from one to help the other.
We should look at other mechanisms as well. EPSCoR states have
trained a lot of scientists and engineers over the years who,
regrettably, have then simply moved to other states. More are staying
in our states as we build our infrastructure and attract innovative
companies. We need incentives to keep and bring new talent to our
states. Physical infrastructure initiatives outside of the EPSCoR
program could also be useful. Renovations and' equipment remains a
major obstacle to competitiveness for the EPSCoR states. Cutting edge
facilities, renovations and equipment remain a major obstacle to
competitiveness for the EPSCoR states. A separate program or a set
aside in existing programs would be helpful.
Physical infrastructure initiatives outside of EPSCoR or in
addition to the existing EPSCoR program are essential. That is your
focus today. The EPSCoR states unquestionably and unequivocally require
such investments. Construction of scientific facilities, renovations
and equipment remain a major obstacle to competitiveness in the EPSCoR
states.
Finally, while South Carolina has made impressive progress in
cyberinfrastructure, it has not been easy or inexpensive. Many of the
EPSCoR states have not been as fortunate and many are still lacking the
bandwidth and support systems that will enable modeling and simulations
needed for climate change, biomedical and advanced research and for
visualization.
We thank this subcommittee for its ongoing support of our states
and for the wisdom to invest in programs that engage the populace of
all of our states in building science and engineering capabilities that
will broaden the base of talent and the capacity for innovation
throughout the United States. We believe in the value, effectiveness
and sustainability of EPSCoR programs--both as a catalyst for improving
our respective states and to enhance America's competitiveness in the
global economy.
In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to address the
Subcommittee today.
Biography for John R. Raymond
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Raymond.
Now I will recognize Dr. Dunning.
STATEMENT OF DR. THOM H. DUNNING, JR., DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL
CENTER FOR SUPERCOMPUTING APPLICATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
Dr. Dunning. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
address the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education.
Before I start, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank Representative Ehlers for his service to the Nation's
science and educational enterprise. We all have greatly
benefited from your dedication to advancing science and
engineering, and we thank you.
Now let me return to the topic at hand, the state of
cyberinfrastructure in the United States. To ensure that we are
all on the same page, I would like to note that
cyberinfrastructure consists of computing systems, and consists
of data sources, data storage systems, visualization
environments all linked by high-speed networks, knitted
together by software and enabled by expert support staff.
Cyberinfrastructure allows us to make discoveries and
innovations not otherwise possible, and as such, it is now a
critical part of the Nation's research infrastructure.
Given the time constraints, I will focus my comments mainly
on the high-performance computing, or HPC, aspect of
cyberinfrastructure including the University of Illinois's Blue
Waters, which, when it comes online in 2011, will be the most
powerful computer in the Nation for open scientific research,
and in fact, it will likely be the most powerful computer in
the world for such research. This extraordinary computer will
be capable of sustaining a million billion arithmetic
operations per second, have more than one petabyte of memory, a
million times what you have in your PC, more than 10 petabytes
of online disc and 500 petabytes, or half an exabyte, of
archival storage.
National resources like Blue Waters are not the result of
one organization's work. This computer reflects a model, in
fact, of a university-state-federal-industry partnership
founded on a 24-year relationship between the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the State of Illinois and the
National Science Foundation. In the specific case of Blue
Waters, the State of Illinois built the national petascale
computing facility and provided I-wire connectivity to connect
that facility to the national research networks. The University
of Illinois is buying the archive system and networking gear
and investing in software for Blue Waters. NSF is buying the
computing system and funding its operation and maintenance. And
finally, IBM, which is the computer vendor for Blue Waters, is
working closely with the university to ensure that Blue Waters
delivers maximum value to the scientific community.
In this regard, I do have one concern. Continuing progress
requires that industry be researching, developing and producing
high-end computers for scientific research, and I am very
concerned at the drop-off in companies investing in this
particular area, especially in the highest end.
Let me now make four comments on the status of
cyberinfrastructure for high-performance computing and what is
needed for this cyberinfrastructure to be effectively and
efficiently used for discovery and innovation. First, let me
note that the deployment of fast high-end computing systems by
NSF has been very successful, providing extraordinary value to
the scientific community, but what has been lacking is the
investment in user support. Even scientists experienced with
high-performance computing require assistance to use systems at
the leading edge, and as we have found at NSCA and other sites,
researchers in a growing number of other fields are finding
high-performance computing critical to meeting their particular
goals. Expert support is required to bring them into the fold.
A second concern about NSF's HPC program is the frequency
of competitions associated with the deployment of these
resources. Competition is good, but when you are building
infrastructure, completeness, robustness and continuity are
also critical. Too-frequent competitions make it difficult to
attract high-quality staff, result in discontinuities and
inefficiencies in support service and are a drain on valuable
staff support time. To be blunt, the current model is
unsustainable and a task force currently advising NSF on future
HPC strategies will recommend longer term, more stable funding,
coupled with rigorous reviews to ensure quality.
A third concern is the balance between investments in
hardware and software. Scientists and engineers certainly need
access to ever more powerful computers, but science and
engineering applications must be carefully designed to fully
exploit the capabilities of the high-performance computing
systems available. New tools and approaches are needed to help
scientists develop applications for Blue Waters and the even
bigger computers that will come next. This is a major area for
NSF investment and will require significant collaboration
between NSF directorates and offices on developing a new
generation of science and engineering applications as well as a
robust and complete HPC software stack.
A fourth area of concern, not just for HPC but also for
cyberinfrastructure in general, is networking. While the United
States may appear to be in good shape on the surface, this
smooth surface hides a number of issues. Scientists are
choosing not to undertake some activities because they know
those activities will stress the networks. Data volumes are
rapidly increasing and will overwhelm current capacities in the
next few years.
And finally, as mentioned by Dr. Raymond, networking
capabilities are not evenly distributed. Many universities may
not be able to benefit from the major advances being made in
data-intensive science.
To tackle some of these current and upcoming challenges in
networking, NSF must do more. One key area of need is to
interconnect NSF's major research facilities, instruments and
computers. A potential model for this is the Department of
Energy's ESNET, which is a high-performance network being built
to connect major Office of Science research facilities. Another
key area, and one that is specific to NSF, is the need to
enhance the ability of university researchers to connect to
NSF's major facilities, the so-called end-to-end problem. All
of the concerns I have raised are driven by the need to tackle
not only existing problems, but to prepare for future
opportunities such as the coming revolution in data-driven
discovery.
One of the most exciting advances in science and
engineering is the increasing digitization of observational
science, from astronomy to biology to environmental science.
Advanced sensor arrays, microscopes and automated sequencers,
and telescopes are allowing us to produce huge quantities of
meaningful data. At NSF, this can clearly be seen in its large
MREFC projects. To build the cyberinfrastructure for these
projects, we need to share and reutilize software, whenever
possible, that is both costly to build and maintain. Such
coordination is not easy with independent projects, and the
lack of continuity at supercomputing centers leads to their
under utilization by these major data-driven discovery
projects.
I would like to conclude with a brief word about education
and cyberinfrastructure. Two key questions that we have are:
what does the next generation of scientists and engineers need
to know about cyberinfrastructure, and second, how can we
modify the curriculum and courses to provide the needed
knowledge? NSF with its broad mandate in science and
engineering, research and education is well suited to explore
the options and serve as a catalyst for the needed changes at
universities.
This concludes my verbal remarks. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today, and I am more than
happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dunning follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thom H. Dunning, Jr.
What Is Cyberinfrastructure?
Cyberinfrastructure, n., cyberinfrastructure consists of computing
systems, data sources and data storage systems, visualization
environments, and support staff, all linked by high speed networks to
make discoveries and innovations not otherwise possible.
Over the past quarter century, computing has become an integral
part of the fabric of experimental and theoretical science. All but the
simplest laboratory experiments are performed under computer control,
the data is analyzed using software running on a personal computer or
small compute cluster, and the results compared with the latest
theories through computational simulations on high performance
computers. The use of computing technology is now spreading to the
observational sciences, which are being revolutionized by the advent of
powerful new sensors that can detect and record a wide range of
physical, chemical and biological phenomena-from massive digital
detectors in a new generation of telescopes to sensor arrays for
characterizing ecological and geological areas and new advanced
sequencing instruments for genomics research.
Research Advances Enabled by Cyberinfrastructure
Three major modes of scientific discovery are enabled by
cyberinfrastructure: computational modeling and simulation, data-driven
discovery, and, increasingly, the coupling of these two modes. To
address the questions posed by the Subcommittee, I will discuss the
cyberinfrastructure needs of these three modes of scientific discovery
and then provide an analysis of the status of the existing
cyberinfrastructure. To begin, let us briefly review the science and
engineering advances made possible by cyberinfrastructure.
Computational Modeling and Simulation. In computational modeling
and simulation, scientists develop a mathematical model of the
phenomena of interest, e.g., the chemical and physical processes
involved in an internal combustion engine or the processes involved in
the prediction of weather, and then use high performance computers to
solve the resulting equations. For most phenomena of interest, the
equations are very complex and, so, the power of computational modeling
and simulation grows with increases in computing power. As computing
systems have progressed from the megaflops era in the 1970s to the
petaflops era of today, our ability to accurately simulate a broad
range of biological, chemical, physical and, even, social phenomena has
grown dramatically.
The Southern California Earthquake Center seeks to
develop a predictive understanding of earthquake processes
aimed at providing society with improved understanding of
seismic hazards. In partnership with earthquake engineers, SCEC
researchers are developing the ability to conduct end-to-end
simulations [``rupture to rafters'') to extend this improved
understanding of seismic hazards to an improved understanding
of earthquake risks and risk mitigation strategies.
Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign are using computational simulations to obtain a
detailed understanding of the functioning of the ribosome, the
large cellular machine responsible for synthesizing proteins in
our cells, as well understanding the mechanism used by the
poliovirus to gain entry into our cells. The former will
enhance our fundamental understanding of cell biology, while
the latter may lead to the development of better anti-viral
drugs.
A team from Michigan State University and the
University of California, San Diego are studying the formation
of the first galaxies. Based on a fundamental understanding of
the physical processes and the initial conditions that led to
the formation of the first stars, powerful numerical
simulations are helping astrophysicists understand how and when
the very first sources of light formed.
All of these simulations are numerical- and data-intensive and can
only be performed on the most powerful computers available.
Data-driven Discovery. In data-driven discovery, scientists gather
information from various data sources, e.g., a large digitally-enabled
telescope, an array of environmental sensors, or ``gangs'' of genome
sequencers, and then analyze the resulting mass of data
usingsophisticated mathematical procedures seeking patterns,
information and understanding. Data-driven discovery requires an
extensive cyberinfrastructure that supports data collection and
transport to storage sites, followed by data cataloging, integration
and analysis (including visualization). Often, the cataloged data
becomes a resource for a large research community. Depending on the
quantities of data involved as well as the mathematical demands of the
analysis, data-driven discovery may require extensive computing
resources as well as large data storage facilities.
The Ocean Observatory Initiative is constructing an
integrated observatory network to provide the oceanographic
research and education community with: (i) a cabled network of
monitoring devices on the sea floor spanning important
geological and oceanographic features, (ii) an array of
relocatable deep-sea buoys that can be deployed in harsh
environments, and (iii) construction of new facilities or
enhancements to existing facilities leading to an expanded
network of coastal observatories. The OOI will provide earth
and ocean scientists with unique opportunities to study
multiple, interrelated processes over timescales ranging from
seconds to decades; to conduct comparative studies of regional
processes and spatial characteristics; and to map whole-earth
and basin scale structures.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See: http://www.oceanleadership.org/programs-and-partnerships/
ocean-observing/.
The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) is unlike
other ground-based telescopes. It is a wide-field survey
telescope and camera that can image the entire sky in just
three nights, providing a time history of celestial events.
Using an 8.4-meter ground-based telescope, the LSST will, for
the first time, produce a wide-field astronomical survey of our
universe. Its 3 gigapixel camera--the world's largest digital
camera--will provide digital imaging of faint astronomical
objects. The LSST will provide unprecedented three-dimensional
maps of the mass distribution in the universe, in addition to
the traditional images of luminous stars and galaxies, These
maps will be used to better understand the nature of the
mysterious dark energy that is driving the accelerating
expansion of the universe. In addition, the LSST will also
provide a comprehensive census of our solar system, including
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
potentially hazardous near-Earth asteroids
Data-driven Computational Modeling and Simulation. There are
increasing opportunities for linking data-driven discovery with
computational modeling and simulation. For example, in the NSF-funded
LEAD project (Linked Environments for Atmospheric Discovery),\2\ one of
the goals is to gather and analyze the data from a distributed array of
Doppler radars to determine, in real time, when atmospheric conditions
are ripe for the formation of a tornado and then launch computational
simulations to determine the likely path and intensity of the tornado.
Such opportunities will grow in the future as sources of sensed data
become more widespread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See: https://portal.leadproject.org/gridsphere/gridsphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of a National Cyberinfrastructure
In recognition of the increasing importance of research
cyberinfrastructure, the National Science Foundation recently issued a
Dear Colleague Letter on ``Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st
Century Science and Engineering.'' This letter stated that it was
imperative for NSF to develop a long term vision for the nation's
cyberinfrastructure that covered the following critical areas:
1. Cyberinfrastructure for:
a. High end computational, data, visualization and
sensor-based systems and the associated user support
for transformative science.
b. NSF's large-scale collaborative research facilities
and projects, integrated with that of other federal
agencies and international organizations.
2. Linkage of this cyberinfrastructure into campuses
(including government and businesses) accompanied by programs
that support integrated, widely dispersed, broadly based
activities and resources.
3. Education and outreach to help develop computational
science- and technology-savvy researchers and workforce.
This letter was signed by all of the Assistant Directors at NSF as
well as the directors of many major NSF programs.
The development of a national cyberinfrastructure for research
poses many unique challenges for NSF. Cyberinfrastructure is very
different from physical infrastructure such as a laboratory building.
Computing and related technologies are still rapidly advancing--
computing power doubles every two years, disk capacity increases even
more rapidly, 60% per year. The software that ties all of the
infrastructure elements together to create a unique research capability
has to be revised in response to these changes in technology. Finally,
the use of cyberinfrastructure is still in its infancy--high quality
support staff are needed to ensure that the U.S. research community can
take advantage of the new capabilities provided by cyberinfrastructure.
This close coupling of hardware, software, and expertise with a rapidly
changing technology base is unparalleled in other types of
infrastructure.
Cyberinfrastructure must also be funded through different
mechanisms. Infrastructure must be sustained over long periods of time
to be useful to researchers, and it cannot be sustained through a
series of short term, loosely integrated projects. Like an interstate
highway, cyberinfrastructure must provide a smooth, continuous path
from one point to another. On the other hand, cyberinfrastructure must
also evolve as computing technology advances; otherwise, it will
rapidly become outdated. So, there must be flexibility in how the
funding is used in long term cyberinfrastructure projects. Finally,
cyberinfrastructure is expensive, both in terms of the hardware that
must be deployed, the software that must be developed and maintained,
and the support staff that are critical for its efficient functioning.
It is important to avoid duplication and leverage existing capabilities
and resources whenever possible.
The NSF-wide Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure has begun
work on the development of the new cyberinfrastructure framework
outlined in the Dear Colleague letter,\3\ establishing six Task Forces:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See: https://nsf.sharepointspace.com/acci-public/
default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work Force Development
The Task Forces involve distinguished scientists and engineers from
across the nation as well as NSF program officers. Although the Task
Forces are in the early stages of their work, they have already held a
number of meetings and teleconferences to explore and discuss new
concepts and strategies for developing a comprehensive national
cyberinfrastructure. I am participating in three of these Task Forces:
Grand Challenges, Software and Tools, and High Performance Computing
and have colleagues who are involved in the other three Task Forces.
This testimony provides a prologue to the work of the six NSF Task
Forces.
Before moving on, I should note that NSF is not the only federal
agency that supports cyberinfrastructure in the nation's universities.
The Office of Science in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE-SC) also
funds cyberinfrastructure for university researchers. DOE-SC has a well
defined, long term plan to provide computational, data and
communications resources for laboratory and academic researchers based
on the identified needs of its major research programs. However, with
the exception of the INCITE program,\4\ DOE-SC's cyberinfrastructure is
closely tied to its mission needs, serving only those laboratories and
universities deemed critical to that mission. The National Institutes
of Health (NIH) supports a number of cyberinfrastructure-related
software development efforts in its biomedical research programs but,
by and large, depends on agencies such as NSF as well as the academic
institutions that it supports to provide much of its
cyberinfrastructure, especially the hardware. However, biomedical
research is approaching a tipping point-the amount of data being
accumulated in NIH's research programs will soon far exceed that which
can be stored, managed and analyzed by the other agencies and
institutions. NIH has several strategic planning activities underway to
identify the best path forward. Whatever the outcome of these planning
activities, meeting the growing computing and data needs of NIH's
intramural and extramural research programs will surely require
substantial increases in NIH's cyberinfrastructure investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See: http://www.er.doe.gov/ascr/incite/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Performance Computing
As noted earlier, advances in computational modeling and simulation
are driven by increases in computing power. Over the past few decades,
increases in computing power have largely been driven by Moore's Law,
with a doubling in computing power occurring every 18-24 months. Thus,
the end of the 1980s saw the deployment of computers capable of
performing a billion arithmetic operations per second.\5\ Ten years
later, computing technology had advanced to the point that it was
possible to perform a trillion arithmetic operations per second. In
2008, computers capable of a quadrillion operations per second were
deployed. It is expected that exascale computers, 1,000 times more
powerful than petascale computers, will arrive in another eight years,
although many hardware and software challenges must first be overcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A typical arithmetic operation is the multiplication of two 14-
digit numbers to yield a 14-digit result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office of Science in
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE-SC) have committed to providing high
performance computing resources for open scientific and engineering
research, including for researchers who are funded by other government
agencies. DOE-SC is funding several major computing centers in support
of its energy and environmental missions as well as its broader
national science mission: its flagship facility at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory and its leadership computing facilities at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory. NSF funds
large national computing facilities at the Texas Advanced Computing
Center and University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge National Laboratory and
its largest national facility at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. Although I am familiar with DOE's computing program, I will
only discuss NSF's program here since NSF's programs are most relevant
to the Subcommittee's charge. However, DOE-SC's contributions to the
national cyberinfrastructure should be kept in mind.
Cyberinfrastructure for High Performance Computing. NSF's high
performance computing plan for 2006-10 was outlined in the document
``Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21st Century Discovery'' (March 2007).
The report recognized the need, first articulated in the Branscomb
report,\6\ for a broad range of computing resources, from leadership-
class national computing resources to university high performance
computers and the compute/data clusters and workstations used by small
research groups-the so-called Branscomb pyramid.\7\ The report stated
NSF's intent to fund the highest performance computing systems, the so-
called Track 1 and Track 2 systems, as national resources. It
envisioned that, in the 2006-10 time frame, Track 2 systems would
provide 500+ teraflops (TF) of peak computing power and a Track 1
system would provide a sustained performance approaching 1 petaflop
(PF) on a broad range of science and engineering applications.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``From Desktop to Teratlop: Exploiting the U.S. Lead in High
Performance Computing,'' NSF Blue Ribbon Panel on High Performance
Computing, Lewis Branscomb (chairman), NSF 93-205, August 1993.
\7\ NSF supports the acquisition of computer systems at the lower
levels of the Branscomb pyramid through many other programs, e.g., the
Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program. See: http://nsf.gov/pubs/
2010/nsf10529/nsf10529.htm.
\8\ The peak performance of a computer system is the theoretical
limit of its computing capability; it can never be achieved. The
sustained performance of a computer is the performance that is actually
achieved on a given science or engineering application. Although peak
performance is used as a proxy for sustained performance, the
correlation can be very weak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF awarded funding for Track 2 systems to the Texas Advanced
Computing Center (TACC) in 2006 (Sun system with a peak performance of
579 TF) and the University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge National Laboratory
in 2007 (Cray system with a peak performance of 1,028 TF). NSF
announced the award of a Track 2 system to Pittsburgh Supercomputing
Center in 2008. Unfortunately, the downturn in the economy led to the
demise of the selected computer vendor, Silicon Graphics, Inc., which
was acquired by Rackable Systems. Rackable Systems subsequently changed
its name to SGI but cancelled the on-going contract negotiations with
PSC. So, a third Track 2 system has not been deployed, despite clear
evidence of a need for additional computing resources in the national
allocation process run by NSF.
To complement the Track 2 systems, NSF has also deployed a number
of experimental and specialized computing systems to serve the nation's
scientists and engineers, These include the many-core system deployed
at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and another under
development at the Georgia Institute of Technology, the data system
being deployed at the San Diego Supercomputing Center, the experimental
grid test-bed system at Indiana University, and the visualization
systems at the University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge National Laboratory
and the Texas Advanced Computing Center.
In August 2007, NSF announced that it had selected the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and its National Center for
Supercomputing Applications (NCSA), IBM Corporation, and the Great
Lakes Consortium for Petascale Computation to develop and deploy the
Track 1 system called Blue Waters \9\ by July 1, 2011. Blue Waters is
based on the most advanced technologies under development at IBM. These
technologies are embodied in PERCS (Productive, Easy-to-Use, Reliable
Computing System), which IBM is developing with funding from DARPA's
High Productivity Computing Systems (HPCS) program. Blue Waters will be
the first production deployment of PERCS and will be a truly
extraordinary resource for science and engineering research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See: http://www.ncsa.illinois.edu/BlueWaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Waters will have more than 300,000 compute cores, 1 petabyte
of main memory, 10 petabytes of user disk storage, and 500 petabytes of
archival storage. It will have an innovative low latency, high
bandwidth communications network that will facilitate scaling to large
numbers of compute cores, and an I/O subsystem that will enable the
solution of the most challenging data-intensive problems. With a peak
performance of approximately 10 petaflops, performance analyses
indicate that Blue Waters will sustain 1 petaflops or more on a broad
range of science and engineering applications.
The breakthroughs enabled by the extraordinary computing
capabilities of Blue Waters will revolutionize many areas of science
and engineering. In the past two years, NSF has awarded allocations of
time or provisional allocations of time to eighteen (18) research teams
from thirty (30) institutions across the country, with more to follow
in future years. Research to be carried out on Blue Waters covers all
areas of science and engineering from astronomy through biology,
chemistry and materials science to geosciences and social and
behavioral sciences.
The Blue Waters Project is based on a 24-year partnership between
the state of Illinois, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
and the National Science Foundation. To ensure the success of the Blue
Waters Project, the state of Illinois agreed to provide a new state-of-
the-art, energy efficient facility to house Blue Waters. In addition,
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is making substantial
investments in the development of software for Blue Waters--
collaborating with IBM and the Great Lakes Consortium to: (i) enhance
the systems software for Blue Waters, (ii) develop software and tools
to facilitate the development of science and engineering applications
for Blue Waters, and (id) aid scientists and engineers in rewriting
their applications to obtain maximum performance on Blue Waters. In
addition, previous investments by the state of Illinois in I-WIRE,\10\
a high performance communications infrastructure connecting the major
research universities and laboratories in Illinois, provides the
transport mechanism for connecting Blue Waters to national research and
education networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See: http://www.iwire.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of High Performance Computing Cyberinfrastructure. I will
discuss the status of computer hardware and software for high
performance computing separately as the issues are distinct, if
interconnected.
Computer Hardware. NSF has been successful in deploying new
computing systems that are delivering extraordinary value for the U.S.
research community--the first system delivered to TACC exceeded the
total computing capacity of NSF's TeraGrid by a factor of more than
five. However, the focus of these acquisitions was on the delivery of
raw computing cycles and the funding available to provide support for
the users of these new high performance computer systems was limited,
This is unfortunate because this approach favors those scientists and
engineers who are already using supercomputers and need little
assistance, while our experience at NCSA and that at many other centers
indicates there is a growing need for high performance computing
resources in almost all fields of science and engineering. Without
adequate user support, it will be difficult for these new researchers
to make effective use of the available resources. High quality support
staff is one of the most valuable resources in NSF's supercomputing
centers and a fully funded user support program is needed.
Both the Track 1 and Track 2 awards were made through open
competitions that included the existing centers as well as many new
entrants. The outcome of these competitions is that the two Track 2
awards went to new centers--the Texas Advanced Computing Center and
University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This is not
necessarily bad, although it represents a lost of significant
capability at San Diego Supercomputer Center and Pittsburgh
Supercomputing Center. At this point the long term impact of the loss
of funding on SDSC and PSC is unknown, but the potential loss of
expertise at these sites is of great concern to the computational
science and engineering research community.
It should also be noted that the prospect of continual competitions
has a corrosive effect on the staff at the centers--it is not only
difficult to hire quality staff with funding that only lasts for 4-5
years, but enormous amounts of staff time have to be dedicated to
preparing for the competitions, rather than assisting researchers. The
advantages of competition must be carefully balanced against those of
stability in NSF's supercomputing centers program.
The above problems have been extensively discussed by the Task
Force on High Performance Computing. It is clear that stability and
sustainability are critical if NSF's supercomputing centers are to
attract high quality staff who can advance the use of high performance
computing across the frontiers of science and engineering. Increased
stability of the supercomputing centers that NSF supports, coupled with
a rigorous review process to ensure operational quality, will certainly
be one of the major recommendations from the Task Force. For additional
thoughts on this topic, see the published comments by Larry Smarr \11\
and Sid Karin,\12\ the founding directors of NCSA and SDSC,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Reflections on the NSF
Supercomputer Center Program,'' Larry Smarr, HPCWire, January 4, 2010
(http://www.hpcwire.com/features/The-Good-the-Bad-and-the-Ugly-
Reflections-on-the-NSF-Supercomputer-Center-Program-80658282.html).
\12\ ``Thoughts, Observations, Beliefs & Opinions About the NSF
Supercomputer Centers,'' Sidney Karin, HPCWire, January 28, 2010
(http://www.hpcwire.com/features/Thoughts-Observations-Beliefs-
Opinions-About-the-NSF-Supercomputer-Centers-82972987.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Software. During my two years as Assistant Director for
Scientific Simulation in DOE's Office of Science, I played a central
role in crafting its Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing
(SciDAC) program. This program highlighted the intimate connection
between hardware and software and sought to advance computational
modeling and simulation through balanced investments in these two
areas. Experiences from this program, as well as DOE's ASCI program
clearly show that advancing our ability to model complex natural
systems requires as much, if not more, investment in software than in
hardware.
This problem is actually more acute now than when the SciDAC
program was initiated. Since 2004, because of rapidly increasing
thermal loads, the speed of a single compute core has not increased.
Instead, computer vendors are adding additional cores to the chips and
running the chips at lower speeds (to reduce the heat load). As a
result, most laptops now use at least dual-core chips and quad-core
chips are found in large compute servers, with eight-core chips now
available from Intel and IBM. This trend has two major impacts:
1. Science and Engineering Applications. In the future,
increases in the performance of computational modeling and
simulation codes will only be achieved through the use of
larger and larger number of processors. Although this
``scalability'' problem has been with us for nearly twenty
years, for much of that time its impact was not felt because of
the dramatic increases in the performance of single cores--a
factor of two orders of magnitude from 1989 to 2004. With
single core performance now stalled, computational scientists
and engineers must confront the scalability problem head on.
The need for ever more scalability has increased the
difficulty of developing science and engineering applications
for high performance computers. At the heart of the problem is
algorithms that scale well to large numbers of compute cores.
This problem can only be solved through inspired research. But,
even given the appropriate algorithms developing science and
engineering applications for computers with hundreds of
thousands of compute cores, hundreds of terabytes of memory and
tens of petabytes of disk storage is challenging, The software
must be written, debugged, optimized and, to the extent
possible, made resilient to computer faults (e.g., the loss of
a compute core)--none of which is easy or straightforward.
Progress will require the creation of new software development
tools or the revision of existing tools (compilers, debuggers,
libraries, performance analysis tools, etc.) and integration of
these tools into a robust, easy-to-use application development
environment.
2. Computing System Software. Although computer companies
provide the base computing system software for high performance
computers, enhancements to this base software can greatly
facilitate operation, control and use of the system. This
problem is becoming more acute as the computer systems become
larger and more complex. Recently, a large international group
of computer and computational scientists has come together to
discuss plans for the development of software for petascale and
exascale computers.\13\ They are exploring how laboratories,
universities, and vendors can work together to coordinate the
development of a robust, full featured software stack for
petascale and -beyond computers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See http://www.exascale.org/iesp/Main-Page.
The development of high performance computing software--science and
engineering applications and computing systems software--is a topic
that is being heavily discussed in several NSF Task Forces (Grand
Challenges, Software and Tools, High Performance Computing, and Data).
What is clear is that the current approach to developing a high
performance computing software stack is too fragmented. The Task Forces
have noted the need for long term, multi-level efforts in high
performance computing software that involves all of NSF's directorates
and the Office of Cyberinfrastructure. A partnership between OCI and
the Computer & Information Science & Engineering directorate would help
create software to manage, control and operate petascale and beyond
computers as well as the new tools and software development environment
needed to develop science and engineering applications for these
computers. A partnership between OCI and the other directorates at NSF
would foster the development of a new generation of science and
engineering applications that can take full advantage of the power of
petascale and beyond computers and realize the promise of these
extraordinary resources for advancing science and engineering. Such
partnerships already exist, e.g., the Accelerating Discovery in Science
and Engineering through Petascale Simulations and Analysis (PetaApps,
NSF 08-592) program, but they could be substantially strengthened.
High Performance Computer Vendors. There is one last concern that
deserves to be mentioned--the dwindling number of supercomputer vendors
in the U.S. just a few years ago, five companies were involved in the
development and deployment of supercomputers: IBM, Cray, Sun, SGI and
Hewlett-Packard. Sun has now been subsumed by Oracle and SGI has been
taken over by Rackable Systems. Although the long term consequences of
these actions are not yet known, it is unlikely that Oracle and
Rackable Systems/SGI will have as strong an interest in supercomputing
as the original companies. Of the remaining companies, only IBM and
Cray are actively involved in research and development on
supercomputing. Although you would have to talk with these companies to
better understand the issues surrounding this situation, it is clear
than the supercomputing industry in the U.S. is not as healthy as it
was just a few years ago.
Advanced Information Systems
One of the most exciting research advances in science and
engineering in the past decade is the digitization of observational
science. Fields as disparate as astronomy, biology and environmental
science are being revolutionized by the use of digital technologies:
digital detectors like those in digital cameras in astronomy, highly
automated sequencers in biology, and sensor arrays in environmental
science. Data-driven discovery requires sophisticated, advanced
information systems to collect, transport, store, manage, integrate and
analyze these increasingly large amounts of invaluable data. The
knowledge gained from data-driven discovery is already transforming our
understanding of many natural phenomena and the future is full of
promise.
National Observatories. National astronomy observatories are major
investments in the NSF research portfolio. At the leading edge of this
portfolio are the latest additions to the NSF's list of approved major
research equipment and facilities: the Atacama Large Millimeter Array
\14\ (ALMA) and the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope \15\ (ATST). In
addition, two other observatories are in the planning phases: the Giant
Segmented Mirror Telescope \16\ (GSMT), which will operate in the
ultraviolet to the mid-infrared with unprecedented resolution and
sensitivity, and the Large-aperture Synoptic Survey Telescope \17\
(LSST), which will be able to image faint astronomical objects across
the sky, including objects that change or move.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See: http://www.almaobservatory.org/.
\15\ See: http://atst.nso.edu/.
\16\ See: http://www.gsmt.noao.edu/.
\17\ See: http://www.lsst.org/lsst.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCSA is heavily involved in the LSST project and has been
designated as the main storage and distribution site for all of the
data produced by the telescope's 3.2 gigapixel camera. The data
challenges to be faced by the LSST are typical of next generation
optical telescopes, although the data-processing needs of the Square
Kilometer Array (SKA) radio-telescope will dwarf those of the LSST. The
LSST will produce more than 15 terabytes of data per night, yielding
several petabytes of data per year, and 200 petabytes over its
lifetime. This data rate, when combined with the need for real-time
analysis to identify and characterize changing or moving objects as
well as traditional data mining on petabyte-size data sets, requires a
new approach to data management, automated processing, and analysis.
Although the telescope will not see first light until 2014, NCSA is
already working with other partners in the LSST project to design the
cyberinfrastructure needed to meet these challenges.
Several national-scale environmental observatories are also major
initiatives in the current NSF research and development portfolio.
These are represented by the Ocean Observatory Initiative \18\ (001),
which is leading the way in this space, along with the National
Ecological Observatory Network \19\ (NEON), and the WATERS Network.\20\
Ecological observatories have been in existence for many years with one
of the oldest large-scale observatories being the Long-Term Ecological
Research Network,\21\ although the grand challenges being addressed and
the level of integration required for the new observatories far exceeds
those of earlier observatories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See: http://www.oceanleadership.org/programs-and-partnerships/
ocean-observing/ooi/.
\19\ See: http://www.neoninc.org/.
\20\ See: http://www.watersnet.org/.
\21\ See: http://www.lternetedu/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental science often depends upon observations from multiple
observatories not only of the same type but also complementary
observatories. For instance researching the effects of climate change
on a terrestrial species might include temperature, rainfall and other
traditional measurements from the region being studied, but it might
also include ocean temperature, and tidal and current flow data that
may directly or indirectly influence the region, and it may also
include weather patterns and pollution counts, all of which may be
derived from observatories geographically far away that are owned and
operated by other organizations. The ability to interact with and
integrate data from multiple observatories that cross scientific,
geographical, and administrative domains is an increasing requirement
for environmental scientists today and presents a number of additional
challenges with respect to coordination, standardization, and long term
support for deployed cyberinfrastructure.
Environmental observatories share many of the same general needs
with other science domains including data storage and management,
application codes, workflow systems to coordinate their research
activities, and collaboration tools. However, it is the challenge of
supporting potentially thousands of highly variable in situ sensors
along with the need to manage and share them across vast geographical
distances and administrative boundaries that makes environmental
observatories unique.
The proposed Genome 10K project \22\ is an example of the future of
genomic research. The authors of this project, which includes
scientists from across the world, are proposing to dramatically
increase the number of vertebrate genomes available to the research
community. This is made possible by a dramatic drop in sequencing costs
coupled with a corresponding increase in computing capability. The
Genome 10K Community of Scientists propose to assemble and sequence a
collection of some 16,203 representative vertebrate species spanning
evolutionary diversity across living mammals, birds, non-avian
reptiles, amphibians, and fishes. This will allow scientists, for the
first time ever, to carry out a comprehensive studies of vertebrate
evolution. Just as computers enabled the assembly and annotation of the
human genome, supercomputers will be required to manage and analyze
massive quantities of genomic data to achieve the goals of the Genome
10K project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Genome 10K: A Proposal to Obtain Whole-Genome Sequences for
10,000 Vertebrate Species,'' Journal of Heredity, November 6, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of Cyberinfrastructure for Data-driven Discovery. The
development of cyberinfrastructure for data-driven discovery is in its
infancy. Within NSF, most of the activity in this area is being driven
by large Major Research Equipment & Facilities Construction (MREFC)
projects. Each of these projects is developing the cyberinfrastructure
needed to accomplish its mission, relying to some extent on the
cyberinfrastructure developed in other projects but often redeveloping
cyberinfrastructure capabilities in slightly different guises. Since
one of the major issues associated with cyberinfrastructure is the
ongoing support and maintenance costs associated with the software,
sharing cyberinfrastructure software, wherever feasible, will help keep
these costs under control.
More recently, NSF has created major programs that are focused
largely on the development of the cyberinfrastructure needed to support
data-driven discovery. These include the iPlant Collaborative,\23\ a
project aimed at developing cyberinfrastructure to address a number of
grand challenges in plant biology (Genotype to Phentotype in Complex
Environments, Tree of Life for Plant Sciences, etc.), and DataNet (NSF
07-601), which consists of several projects designed to explore
different approaches to organizing, managing and preserving the data
being created in scientific and engineering research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See http://www.iplantcollaborative.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major cyberinfrastructure requirements for data-driven
discovery is the availability of the required data storage capacity,
computing resources and associated software. Although these needs could
often be met by augmenting the resources available at the NSF-funded
supercomputing centers, most major data-driven discovery
projects, which usually have lifetimes measured in decades, are
reluctant to use the centers because of their uncertain future (current
Track 2 grants are only for four years and funding for the Track 1
system expires in 2016). This is a lost opportunity for leveraging the
expertise at and cost efficiency of the supercomputing centers.
Networking
To first order, the cyberinfrastructure most needed by universities
to participate in or benefit from NSF's high performance computing and
data-driven discovery projects is adequate network bandwidth linking
them to the relevant project sites. The nation's major research
universities are partners in Internet2, which provides a national high
performance network. In addition, the National LambdaRail, which is
also owned by the U.S. research and education community, provides a
testbed for research in the development and use of communication
technologies. However, this does not mean that all universities and
colleges have access to network bandwidth adequate for their
participation in or interaction with the big computing and data
projects, an imbalance that will become more acute as the data volumes
increase.
As comfortable as the situation may be now,\24\ at least for the
nation's major research universities, the volume of data that will be
generated over the next few years in high performance computing and
data-driven discovery will far outstrip the capacities of the current
networks. For example, many simulations on Blue Waters will generate
multiple terabyte data sets with the total amount of data generated in
a given project being measured in petabytes. Although NCSA can provide
connectivity to Chicago at 100-400 gigabits per second (Gbps), the
national networks passing through Chicago (or any other U.S. city for
that matter) do not have the capacity to deliver these data streams to
the researchers' home institutions. Separate from the capacity issue,
the underlying communication architecture, services and networking
technologies required by data intensive science are very different from
those that support common consumer services. Common carriers have shown
little interest in meeting the specialized requirements of scientific
research communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Some scientists note that the current ``favorable'' situation
is deceptive. Because of bandwidth limitations, they note that many
scientists are simply avoiding research practices that would stress the
current networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this regard it is worthwhile to note the DOE-SC's ESnet is a
welcome exception. ESnet connects more than 40 sites across the nation,
including all of DOE-SC's major experimental and computing facilities.
DOE-SC's new Science Data Network, which is a part of ESnet, provides
services that are specifically targeted for data-intensive science. The
SDN circuits provide a wealth of services that are invaluable to
scientists who need reliable, high performance, end-to-end connections
between two or more sites. ESnet received funding under the American
Recovery and Renewal Act to develop and deploy a 100 Gbps network
linking its open supercomputing centers in California, Illinois and
Tennessee. This is the first step toward DOE-SC's vision of a 1 terabit
per second (Tops) network linking its major facilities.
Although communications bandwidth. is critical to participating in
high performance computing and data-driven discovery, the TeraGrid's
Campus Champions program \25\ has shown that access to local expertise
is also critical. This program supports individuals on university
campuses who are knowledgeable about the TeraGrid and who can help
faculty and students apply for and make use of the resources and
services available through the TeraGrid. Such programs are likely to be
just as important for data-driven discovery as for high performance
computing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See: https://www.teragrid.org/web/eot/
campus-champions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of Networking. NSF was one of the pioneers in establishing a
national networking infrastructure, e.g., NSFnet and Mosaic (the first
web browser, which was created at NCSA). However, its networking
infrastructure support programs were eliminated several years ago. So,
the nation's scientists and engineers must rely on commercial
providers, research and education network providers such as Internet 2
and National LambdaRail, and state governments for their communications
needs. To date, these entities have been able to provide the bandwidth
and connectivity needed by researchers.24 However, with the major new
data-intensive research resources coming on line, this will no longer
be adequate.
Another major problem is that, to date, there has been little focus
on improving end-to-end networking capabilities, i.e., providing high
performance connections between the researcher's desktop or local
compute/data cluster and large computing and data sites. Even if it
appears that there is adequate network bandwidth between these two end
points, a bottleneck, often, but not always, on the researcher's campus
dramatically limits the network performance. We need to have a better
understanding of the issues affecting end-to-end performance to enable
researchers to interact with their ongoing research activities at the
major facilities.
There are steps that NSF could take to ensure that researchers in
U.S. universities have the networking capacity and policies needed to
support their research. NSF could begin by developing a high
performance network connecting all of their major research facilities,
observatories, and supercomputing centers, interconnecting this network
with those serving other major federal research facilities, e.g.,
ESnet, as needed by the academic research community. There are many
advantages that will accrue from connecting NSF's large experimental
and observational facilities with its computing and data facilities,
especially if the future of these centers were secure. In addition, NSF
could undertake pilot projects to obtain a better understanding of the
problems limiting high performance end-to-end connections between
researchers/small research groups and its major research facilities.
This would require close collaboration between groups providing
national networking resources and campuses providing the ``last mile''
connection.
Education
I would be remiss if I did not include a section on education in
responding to the Subcommittee's request for information on the state
of cyberinfrastructure at U.S. universities. Although not a part of the
cyberinfrastructure per se, our ability to advance science and
engineering using the national cyberinfrastructure requires a new
generation of scientists and engineers who can contribute to and
understand the use of the basic technologies involved in
cyberinfrastructure and computational science and engineering and who
can collaborate with colleagues in other fields to take full advantage
of the extraordinary capabilities provided by this infrastructure. We
need to define the core competencies important for the next generation
of scientists and engineers, followed by the development of
implementation plan(s) to affect the needed curriculum and course
changes.
The curriculum and course changes required to educate the next
generation of research leaders is not obvious. Many schools have
established graduate programs in computational science and engineering
that supplement study in a discipline with courses in ,computer science
and engineering and applied mathematics; see, e.g., the Graduate
Program in Computational Science and Engineering at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.\26\ Such programs are invaluable in
preparing students for future careers in computing- and data-intensive
fields. But are they sufficient? And what about undergraduate
education? At the rate that analog science is becoming digital science,
what do we need to teach all undergraduates in science and engineering
about computing and related technologies to prepare them for life and
work in the 21st century. Through its investments in research and
education, NSF can serve as a catalyst for this transformation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See: http://www.cse.illinois.edu/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Blue Waters Project, we are pursuing this goal through the
Virtual School of Computational Science and Engineering,\27\ headed by
Professor Sharon Glotzer at the University of Michigan. The Virtual
School brings together faculty across the universities in the Great
Lakes Consortium for Petascale Computation to address the unique
opportunities and challenges associated with petascale computing and
petascale computing-enabled science and engineering. The Virtual School
supports the creation and integration of courses and curricula that are
tailored to the educational needs of 21st Century scientists and
engineers, delivered using 21st century instructional technologies.
Although the Virtual School is initially targeting graduate-level
education, efforts in undergraduate education will follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See: http://www.greatlakesconsortium.org/education/
VirtualSchool/.
Biography for Thom H. Dunning, Jr.
ta
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Dunning.
I would like to thank all the witnesses for their
testimony. It is good to see especially with the rescheduled
hearing that we have a pretty good turnout here. This is
something that I think is very important to discuss since it is
really key to figuring out what is best for our
competitiveness, where to invest, although there are always
tradeoffs that need to be made in talking about bringing back a
program that was ended. I think it does require a lot of
thought, so we will move on to questioning right now, and as is
my tradition, I will leave myself to last on my side, so I will
begin by recognizing Dr. Baird for five minutes, and I want to
ask members to try to keep it down to the five minutes to at
least get us through the first round of questions. I will be
tight in trying to keep it to that. Dr. Baird
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by
echoing the accolades for our good friend and colleague, Dr.
Ehlers. He served this committee and this country
extraordinarily well, and it has been a privilege to serve with
him. As I have said when people speak about my retirement, I am
not dead yet, so I am sure, Vernon, the rest of us have a lot
of good work to do but, Vern, thank you for your work.
Thanks to the witnesses for their great comments and for
your service to your schools and communities. I am very
troubled by this issue of the infrastructure deficit that you
talked about. Dr. Tolbert, you mentioned it; Dr. Raymond and
Mr. Horvath, and then Dr. Dunning talked about sort of a
different kind. There is one kind of deficit which seems to be
the maintenance backlog, what are we doing to keep our existing
facilities up to date, and then Dr. Dunning talked about the
ability to keep up with what is happening in the other
direction. Let me start with this maintenance issue. Dr.
Tolbert, I think you said a $100 million deficit in some
fashion. Can you elaborate on that a little bit?
Dr. Tolbert. I think you may be referring to the $200
million building renewal----
Mr. Baird. I have cut your deficit in half. That is the
kind of effective legislation I----
Dr. Tolbert. Thank you very much. The $200 million number
is actually a lower limit. It is actually much more than that.
The State of Arizona owns the buildings, but it is up to the
universities to keep them in shape and actually to try to keep
them upgraded so that they are appropriate for the research in
the fields they were built for. As state funds coming to the
university have declined and private funding is scarce, this
has become a real issue. In particular, donors are interested
in funding new buildings when they have the funds. Right now
isn't a good time for that. But when they have the funds, they
are interested in new buildings. It is very hard to keep our
older buildings in good working order. It is a little bit like
the Nation's highway system. We built a lot of great
universities some decades ago and now many of our science
buildings are deteriorating.
Mr. Baird. That is why I asked. I actually serve on the
Highway Transportation Committee as well, and we talk a lot
about the fiscal deficit in this country. It is about $1.3
trillion per year. There is an existing infrastructure deficit
exceed $1 trillion in highway, roads, et cetera, and now we are
hearing about academic buildings.
Dr. Raymond, you talked about a pretty large number in your
case as well. What is your situation?
Dr. Raymond. Our situation is very similar to the
University of Arizona. The $100 million number that I gave you
would be required to bring our buildings up to the minimum
standards. If we brought them up to good standards, it would be
closer to $200 million. The State of South Carolina provides a
lump-sum appropriation to our university, which primarily is
used to pay the light bills and salaries of support staff.
There is very little left at the end of the day to take care of
these older buildings, and we rely heavily on clinical revenue
from our hospital, which obviously is diminishing these days,
and from philanthropy to try to keep those buildings in good
shape.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Horvath, do you want to comment from your
institution's perspective?
Mr. Horvath. Sure. It is similar to the other two
institutional examples. We have an overall facility deficit
across the university of about $1 billion, and if you look at
our annual capital plan, about 50 percent of the funding that
we are investing in facilities and infrastructure is really
being targeted to try to reduce that deferred maintenance
backlog, and roughly 40 to 50 percent of that total relates to
research, buildings and facilities which tend to be more
intensive from a cost perspective.
Mr. Baird. These are three of our major universities in the
country and we are hearing now of deficits well exceeding $1
billion from just three universities. Nationwide, this has got
to be a serious problem, and you know, at a time when people
are saying, well, we have got to cut taxes, et cetera, et
cetera, there are going to be consequences, presumably for the
quality of education received by your students and the
competitiveness of their academic and intellectual products, I
am guessing.
Dr. Dunning, you are looking at it from the other side. One
of the things this committee and others are worried about is
the lag in U.S. competitiveness in other areas. If we don't
make the investments, what happens to our supercomputer
competitiveness?
Dr. Dunning. Well, it is clearly going to decline if we
don't make these types of investments. We see a resurgence of
interest in high-performance computing and supercomputing
across the world. The European Union has outlined a very
aggressive program for building its supercomputing capability.
The Japanese have long been in the game. But now we are also
seeing significant advances in China and in other countries. So
this is clearly an area in which competitiveness--although we
are in a good position at the current time, competitiveness is
something that will be challenging to maintain.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the
witnesses.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Baird. That is a very
good way to start us out here, and I will recognize Dr. Ehlers
for five minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would also like
to point out that Dr. Baird is not running for reelection
either, so the message is clear.
I appreciate your kind words for me, Dr. Dunning. I hope
you feel that because we are both leaving, there is such a
great need here for scientists that you will run for the
Congress this fall and perhaps all of you carry that message
back to your home institutions.
Mr. Baird. Talk to me before you embark on that.
Mr. Ehlers. But we desperately need more scientific and
engineering talent in the Congress. We have most of it right
here.
Dr. Dunning, I just wanted to point out another dimension.
A computer scientist in my district who teaches at the
institution I used to teach at has come to see me and is very
concerned about the declining enrollments in computer science
nationwide, and in fact introduced a resolution to declare a
week to emphasize computer science throughout the Nation and so
forth. The professor who talked to me had very good statistics
about what has been happening in declining enrollment but
particularly what is happening in high schools; that they are
now getting away from the subject, not getting students excited
about computer science and all the issues related to it, and
that doesn't necessarily even mean just programming or
development, it means everything. And I am just wondering if
you have encountered the same situation in your facility.
Dr. Dunning. We have certainly seen that same situation. In
fact, when we talk to our industrial partners--NCSA has a very
large industrial partners program--one of their concerns is
about the ability to really be able to recruit the type of
workforce that they are going to need in the future where high-
performance computing has become a way of designing, for
example, the next generation of products, products that reduce
the environmental impact or can be done in a timely fashion. So
we certainly see it at the university. We do see that it is
slowing, which I think is good. One of the things that I think
actually we find is an attractant to students interested in
computer science is the applications of computer science. Many
of them come in thinking of only a small number of applications
of computer science, but basically what they aren't realizing
is, all of science is open to a computer scientist, ranging all
the way from astrophysics to zoology if they want to understand
how they take the skills they learn as a computer scientist and
really participate in this new era of digital science.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you for those comments. That reinforces
what I have been told and what I have been trying to change
here, and I hope you can get the rest of the computer science
world excited about this.
Dr. Dunning. So do we.
Mr. Ehlers. That may be one of my retirement projects.
Dr. Dunning. Good.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
I will now recognize Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for being here.
I represent northeast Ohio. We have one of the largest
research institutions, Case Western Reserve University, and
over the years Case has found time and found a way to work more
collaboratively with our large research hospitals, the
Cleveland Clinic and university hospitals in particular, and so
just understanding how we function in our area. My question to
any of the panel members is that certainly we all recognize
that states are struggling and the current economy is really
not very good, but the fact is that many states began divesting
in higher education long before the economic downturn, and
industry as a whole invests very little in higher education and
university research, even though both the states and industry
rely very heavily on strong universities for their own growth
and success. I just want to know from you or hear from you what
you are doing as a university community to lobby your states,
your local industry and some public support to sustain your
investments in higher education that will benefit all of us.
Anyone? Dr. Tolbert, thank you.
Dr. Tolbert. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Fudge, for
your question. This is a really important role that I think we
all play. Certainly in my role at the University of Arizona as
a senior administrator, I must be making that kind of argument
all the time, both to the state and locally, actually, to local
government as well, and also to the private sector. We are
working hard to broaden and deepen our relationships with the
largest corporations that we work with. We have a huge Raytheon
presence in Tucson. Raytheon Missile Systems is based in Tucson
and the University of Arizona provides more Raytheon employees
than any other university in the country. That is really
important to us, and we are trying to find ways that we can
increase the benefit to both by increasing the number of
internships, for example, available to our students and so on.
But the argument that has to be made, I think, is,
importantly, not one about short-term gain only. It is that
this is a long process we are engaged in. We need long-term
relationships with the private sector. We need the state to
understand our long-term needs and not to say that we can
enhance economic development tomorrow, but that if we want
Arizona to pull itself out of this deep, deep economic slump,
we must have research universities doing research but also
educating students in a research-oriented environment.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
Dr. Raymond, in your testimony you mentioned that there are
certain initiatives that the State of South Carolina has done
to expand state research capabilities. Can any of the other
witnesses talk about how their universities are linking
research investments to regional economic goals? And I am
taking this line because I went to Ohio State University, which
is a very well known research institution as well, but we have
them all over the country, and certainly if their reliance is
going to be on us, we can't do all of them. So what we are
doing as a community is to try to find other sources, but as
well as to collaborate more, because I think that is where we
are all going to have to be heading. Anyone? Dr. Raymond, if
you would like to expand, or someone else on the panel?
Dr. Raymond. Thank you. By the way, I was born in Akron and
went to Ohio State.
Ms. Fudge. All right. I knew there was something I liked
about you.
Dr. Raymond. South Carolina is trying to build critical
mass through a collaboration between the four largest hospital
systems in the state and the three research-intensive
universities, Clemson, USC and MUSC, in which we all put at
least $2 million a year into joint initiatives and recruitment
of endowed professors to the state. This interdigitates well
with the State of South Carolina's investment through the
Centers of Economic Excellence program, that provides matching
dollars for recruitment of new talent to the State of South
Carolina. So we have really worked very well together. This
initiative now is in its fifth year and it has spawned patient
safety initiatives, public-private partnerships and
partnerships with large pharmaceutical companies and device
makers that wouldn't otherwise be interested in dealing with
one of our universities, but the power of having a $10 billion
budget and 40,000 employees can convince them that we are good
partners.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much. Yes, Dr. Horvath.
Mr. Horvath. One of the things that I would point out just
recently that we were successful with was the achievement of a
grant through the Recovery Act that is going to enable us to be
part of a 19-institution consortium in Pennsylvania to really
expand and add robustness to our computing networks throughout
the State of Pennsylvania. It is a large-scale project. There
is private money that will be involved in that and it is
really, I think, one of the indications of a new way in which
we are going to have to collaborate across institutions to make
some of the needs or address some of the needs that we have in
our states and locally.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Ms. Fudge.
I will recognize Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
express my appreciation to Dr. Ehlers. I hate to see Dr. Ehlers
retire. He has been a friend of mine on this committee now for
as long as he has been here, and I have relied heavily on your
knowledge. What I would like to ask of the distinguished
witnesses--and thank you for being here--are you seeing any
more student readiness as a research university? That is number
one. And then, we have some major research departments, and I
don't know how well they coordinate--NIH, the National Science
Foundation, Department of Defense, Energy, Ag, Education. Is
there enough collaboration between them to maximize research
dollars?
Dr. Tolbert. I will answer your first question, and then I
would also like to say something about your second question,
Congresswoman. The first question had to do with readiness. We
do not see improving readiness. In fact, we are having to put
in place or deciding to put in place a lot of sort of one-on-
one assistance to students to try to help students who really
aren't quite ready to find their way into the university but
also we are greatly growing our relationship with the community
colleges in the state so that we can do two-plus-two programs
that help with readiness.
And the other question?
Ms. Johnson. The other question is, we have major research
departments here and some of it could overlap or some could be
in coordination with medical schools and others, and I wonder
if there is enough collaboration between these departments to
maximize what dollars we do have for research.
Dr. Tolbert. I think that is an extremely good question
because the NIH has done something interesting. They have
several programs working across institutes within the NIH. I am
a neuroscientist. My funding has almost all been through the
NIH. And that is I think working very well for NIH. Is there
enough coordination across agencies? I am sure we would all
argue no. It is very difficult but more coordination would be
better. And one of the things that I suggested was a committee
be appointed that would look across federal agencies at this
issue of funding of research infrastructure for just that
reason.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Anyone else?
Dr. Dunning. Let me take a slightly different tack on your
question, and that is readiness of graduate students to
participate in research that is heavily involved in computing,
and I would say again, we are not properly educating the next
generation of scientists and engineers to really understand the
major role that computing and information science is going to
play in their careers, especially when you consider that their
careers are going to last 30 to 40 years into the future.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
I will now recognize myself for five minutes. I think we
had very good questions so far. I wanted to follow up a little
bit on some of the questions and answers. All of you talked
about what really is the deficit in terms of the infrastructure
right now, and we know that a lot of the university
laboratories and other research facilities were built 30 or
more years ago, even before some of the requirements of modern
science and engineering researchers were even thought of. Two
questions that I want to ask related to that. The first is for
all of you. Do you find it difficult to compete for faculty and
graduate students because of the infrastructure or lack of
infrastructure that you have? Whoever wants to offer. Dr.
Tolbert.
Dr. Tolbert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That is
such an interesting question. What we find is that in the areas
in which we have built recent research buildings, or research
laboratories when in older buildings, we are much more
competitive. Of course, we have put the dollars into areas
where we wanted to grow, but for instance, we have a life
sciences building that is doing a wonderful job for us of
attracting new faculty and also very good undergraduate and
graduate students. So as we put facilities in place, I think I
can argue pretty strongly that we find that we are more
competitive, not only in bringing people but in keeping them,
which is also a very important issue.
Chairman Lipinski. Anyone else want to take a stab at that?
Dr. Raymond.
Dr. Raymond. Well, I would echo our experience. When we
have put up new buildings for our health professions, the
quality of students and faculty that we are able to attract and
retain goes up enormously. So if you superimpose that on our
background, I would say that we probably are having difficulty
recruiting top talent to some of the buildings and facilities
that maybe aren't as up to date.
Chairman Lipinski. I had a dual listening session last week
in northern California with a number of universities, and one
thing that they had mentioned and I had raised earlier was
losing out to other countries. Have you seen, especially
graduate students who come from other countries, a greater
likelihood that they return to their home country than, say,
was the case five, ten years ago? Dr. Raymond?
Dr. Raymond. I recently completed a trip to Shanghai and
Guangzhou, China. We have a partner university there, Zhejiana
University, and we have post-docs and faculty members who have
been at our institution for 5 to 20 years who are now returning
to China because they find that the facilities are as good or
better than we have here and there is a lot of investment by
the local government and the federal government in startup
companies and in providing them with opportunities for
entrepreneurship. So we have a very tangible loss in our own
institution to China.
Chairman Lipinski. Anyone else? Dr. Dunning?
Dr. Dunning. Yes, another comment related to that is that
the Chinese government is in the process of establishing three
to five major supercomputing centers which are going to be
partnerships between the provinces in China. And the federal
government in China, and this clearly is attracting recent
graduates and more senior professors back to China to
participate in this effort.
Chairman Lipinski. One thing that, certainly, as we look to
the future and competitiveness, one thing that people often say
to me is, well, we still have the greatest universities in the
world in this country, and it certainly is a concern if we see
that starting to go away and lose our competitiveness there.
One other thing I wanted to--the second part I wanted to
put out there is, are we losing productivity in our research
because of the facilities? We talked about, and I mentioned at
the beginning, there is a tradeoff. We would all love to fund
this infrastructure but we know that there is not unlimited
dollars, and I realize that, and I know bringing up the
possibility of reauthorizing ARI would raise this issue but I
wanted to do it. Is there a problem and do you see a potential
problem, do you see it happening already of losing how
productive the research is? We just keep putting the funding
into research, and if we don't have the facilities, are we
losing out on the value of that money? Mr. Horvath?
Mr. Horvath. In older facilities that have more substantial
needs, essentially what happens is, band-aids are applied
rather than, perhaps, more fundamental changes or upgrades
being made to building infrastructure or the specific
instrumentation or equipment in a particular lab. I think if we
had the flexibility and ability to make more fundamental
investments in those types of facilities, I think we would see
greater productivity and better cost efficiency as a result of
being able to do those things.
Chairman Lipinski. Dr. Raymond, did you----
Dr. Raymond. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We just did a
study on a research facility, a very simple metric, dollars per
square foot of federal grants earned by our faculty, and it is
no coincidence that the newer and more modern buildings are
populated by faculty that are more productive. And furthermore,
to operate the buildings costs a lot more for the older
facilities so our investment is not getting the same kind of
returns in the older facilities that it is in the newer
facilities, both in terms of faculty productivity and in terms
of the cost to keep those buildings operating.
Chairman Lipinski. Dr. Tolbert.
Dr. Tolbert. We found exactly the same thing. I would just
like to echo what Dr. Raymond said, same statistics.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you. With that, I will yield back
my time. Dr. Ehlers, do you have further questions? I will
yield five minutes to Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to clear
up a few questions that I have.
Mr. Horvath, in your testimony you had a list of federal
regulatory and legislative changes that you say directly affect
the conduct and management of research under federal grants and
contracts, and some of them are self-evident but you mentioned
the Lobbying Disclosure Act and a section of the Higher
Education Act relating to the reporting of foreign gifts,
contracts and relationships. I am curious, how do those impede
your efforts?
Mr. Horvath. I think they were all essentially listed to
provide some background to how the regulatory environment has
changed in which universities have to operate, and those
changes have occurred since the imposition of the indirect cost
cap, the 26 percent administrative cap back in 1991. All of
those things have come together to create greater complexity
and encouraged us to add processes and staff to be able to
respond to those things. So I think the point of that was to
say that the regulatory environment has become much more
complex in an era when we are constrained in terms of the
amount of costs that we can recover to respond to those.
Mr. Ehlers. Now, is it because the researchers have to take
time from their research to meet their requirements or because
your office is burdened with having to respond?
Mr. Horvath. It is basically the administrative
responsibilities that faculty, for example, now have to
shoulder as a result of some of those new requirements, are not
able to be recovered and take some of their time away from
conducting research in their laboratories.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
Then Dr. Raymond, you got the NSF research infrastructure
improvement grant. That sounds very exciting. What is the value
of the grant, and I am wondering how the money will be
distributed. You mentioned it expands on the contribution of
the non-research but I would like to see you expand on the
contribution of the non-research incentive intensive
institutions, the smaller universities, community colleges,
minority institutions. I have often wondered how we could
develop an effective method of doing that nationwide. Could you
give me a little background on that, please?
Mr. Raymond. I would love to have the opportunity to update
you in three or four years when we can actually measure
outcomes, but for the first time we have the senior research
universities willing to sit at the same table with community
colleges, technical colleges and four-year institutions to
develop an overall plan to address the deficiencies in the
pipeline for STEM disciplines in our universities, and they are
also now reaching out to K-12 in the state, so I hope that this
provided the seed corn, so to speak, to really have a good
outcome.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. I was just
discussing the timing of the grant announcements from the
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and I know that is going to be
relatively soon. Have your universities applied for grants? Dr.
Tolbert?
Dr. Tolbert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have never seen so
much grant-writing activity as we have seen in the last year.
In fact, it has been a huge burden on our sponsored projects
office, which reports to me, another one of these hidden costs.
People have been working nights and weekends to handle all the
grant proposal activity that has happened. We have won $83
million in Recovery Act funds, and the reporting now of the
activities also is another hidden cost, administrative cost. We
are delighted to have those funds. Most of the funds are for
research projects. About $6 million of that is for
infrastructure, buildings and equipment, but most of it is for
the direct costs of research. Our faculty are delighted, but
the research reporting requirement on my office is now huge.
That is the downside of being very successful. We are delighted
with the Recovery Act.
Chairman Lipinski. In terms of the research infrastructure
grants, we are supposed to hear soon on a lot of those. Some of
those will have to wait until September. Mr. Horvath?
Mr. Horvath. We have submitted applications for grants on
two specific facilities. One is the renovation of one of our
health and human development buildings, and the second for
biological research lab and building, and we are hoping to hear
positive news sometime in the next few days or few weeks.
Chairman Lipinski. Dr. Tolbert?
Dr. Tolbert. And we have learned that we will be getting an
NIH grant for $15 million for a research support building in
the new arm of our college of medicine in Phoenix.
Chairman Lipinski. Dr. Raymond?
Dr. Raymond. We have also recently learned that we received
an $8 million grant to substantially renovate an older facility
on campus to bring the microbiology and immunology labs up to
speed. One of the problems we had in the building, it is humid
in Charleston and we were having difficulty maintaining
positive air pressure so there was mold growing in some of the
micro and immuno labs so you can't do bacteriology research
with fungus growing in there, so this will help us to bring our
facilities up to snuff.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you. I just wanted to conclude, I
want to ask Dr. Dunning a couple things. How much does the NCSA
spend helping its user community?
Dr. Dunning. I would say on the average probably around $4
to $5 million a year. That is primarily staff time. I must say
not all of that is funded by the National Science Foundation,
however; a good portion of that is funded by the State of
Illinois and the University of Illinois.
Chairman Lipinski. Do you think there should be more
funding to help users?
Dr. Dunning. We are seeing large growth in the number of
communities that need high-performance computing to be able to
move into the new areas they want to go into and to solve the
types of problems that they are encountering. I think the only
way to successfully move those communities in that direction is
through strong user support.
Chairman Lipinski. I have heard that there are issues in
terms of being able to--people who can really use those
facilities being able to understand how they can use them, the
ability to--not even having the knowledge of what is possible
to do and how to do it. Do you find that?
Dr. Dunning. Some of the communities are coming from a very
low base. One of the environmental communities we worked with a
couple of years ago was using Excel spreadsheets as the means
of storing and analyzing all of their data. That works for a
while, but when you start accumulating the quantities of data
that these environmental groups are now talking about being
able to gather by the sensor arrays and other devices that they
have, that won't work in the future, and so there is a
tremendous education and training aspect that goes along with
the user support. One of the things that we find really
critical for our user support is to have a staff member that
actually has some training in either that area or related
areas, so he understands the scientific objectives and
techniques that community is using, because the more you know
about the community, the better you're able to move them down
the pipeline toward being able to use these much larger
computing systems.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you. I will yield back. Dr.
Ehlers, any more questions, closing comments?
Mr. Ehlers. I have taken too much time already.
Chairman Lipinski. I want to thank all of our witnesses for
testifying before the Subcommittee today. The record will
remain open for two weeks for additional statements from the
Members and for answers to any follow-up questions the
Committee may ask of the witnesses.
Again, I thank the witnesses all for their testimony.
Certainly as we move forward with NSF reauthorization, with
America COMPETES reauthorization, I welcome any more comments
that you have. Your input is critical if we are going to do
this right, and we are really going to make sure we are putting
our resources in the best possible place for our universities,
for research and for our competitiveness.
With that, the witnesses are excused and the hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:27 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]