ACM
Transactions on
Recon gurable
Technology and
Systems
This quarterly publication is a peer-reviewed and archival journal that covers recon gurable technology, systems, and applications on recon- gurable computers. Topics include all levels of recon gurable system abstractions and all aspects of re- con gurable technology including platforms, programming environments and application successes.
www.acm.org/trets
www.acm.org/subscribe
when thinking about its implications it is also easy to lose sight of a more fundamental truth about science and policy: the presence of a rational scientific argument does not guarantee that Congress will do the “right thing.”
In our experience as two people who serve at the interface between the science community and policymakers, we frequently hear the frustration from researchers and engineers about the failures of Congress to act in “rational” ways regarding new technologies. On everything from security, to privacy, to voting, to research funding, to intellectual property issues, there is a sense that “if they only had the right information, they’d make the right decision.” This is part of the impulse behind the move to restore OTA.
But what made OTA’s job so difficult, and what presents a broader challenge to the entire scientific community, is that the nexus of science and technology and public policy is layered over a political system. Decisions on public policy are not made in the abstract based on the best technical information; they are made by policymakers balancing numerous interests from numerous con-stituencies. Balancing these interests is a political calculus, not a scientific one. In developing it, scientific information is sometimes pivotal, sometimes sits on the sidelines, and sometimes ends up as a mix where compromise may or may not embrace a technical truth. It is difficult to predict what factors will motivate specific policy debates because the political system is ever changing. While there are always a good number of members of Congress who can see the importance of making the correct decision versus the political one, party politics demands a consistent view toward self-preservation. For better or worse, in the political calculus the paramount concern is how a decision impacts a member back home.
An apt example of the tension between the “right” course of action and politics in a current context is the fight for increased funding for the physical sciences (which, in Washington, D.C. parlance includes such non-life science fields such as computing, mathematics, chemistry, and engineering). In August 2007, Congress and the president overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan America COMPETES (Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote
Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science) Act, which sought to bolster America’s innovation ecosystem by setting a goal of doubling over seven years of the research budgets at three key science agencies—the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)— and creating and expanding science and math education programs.
The COMPETES Act was modeled on the recommendations of a National Academies report chaired by former Lockheed Martin Chairman Norman Augustine called Rising Above the Gathering Storm. That report was put together at the request of a number of members of Congress who were concerned about the rising drumbeat of reports that the U.S. was losing ground in its race to stay in a dominant position in an increasingly competitive world. The report was fast-tracked and delivered in October 2005 after just six months of preparation, drawing on dozens of previous reports on the subject. It concluded that the U.S. was indeed at risk of losing its leadership role and recommended actions in three key areas: increasing research investment in the physical sciences; strengthening science, technology, engineering and
References:
Archives