PITAC Update: Computational Science

1
PITAC UpdateComputational Science

• Dan Reed
• Chancellors Eminent Professor
• Director, RENCI
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Duke University
• North Carolina State University
• Vice Chancellor for Information Technology
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

2
Current PITAC
3
PITAC Overview

• Three PITAC sub-committees
• health (report issued)
• www.hpcc.gov/pitac/meetings/2004/20040617/20040615
  _hit.pdf
• security (underway)
• science and engineering (launched)
• Dan Reed (chair)
• Recent PITAC meeting
• June 17, Washington DC
• computational science charter
• www.hpcc.gov/pitac/20040609_compsci_charge.pdf
• speaker slides and agenda
• www.hpcc.gov/pitac/meetings/2004/20040617/agenda.h
  tml

4
Computational Science Charter

• How well is the Federal government targeting the
  right research areas to support and enhance the
  value of computational science? Are agencies
  current priorities appropriate?
• How well is current Federal funding for
  computational science appropriately balanced
  between short term, low risk research and longer
  term, higher risk research? Within these research
  arenas, which areas have the greatest promise of
  contributing to breakthroughs in scientific
  research and inquiry?
• How well is current Federal funding balanced
  between fundamental advances in the underlying
  techniques of computational science versus the
  application of computational science to
  scientific and engineering domains? Which areas
  have the greatest promise of contributing to
  breakthroughs in scientific research and inquiry?

5
Computational Science Charter

• How well are computational science training and
  research integrated with the scientific
  disciplines that are heavily dependent upon them
  to enhance scientific discovery? How should the
  integration of research and training among
  computer science, mathematical science, and the
  biological and physical sciences best be achieved
  to assure the effective use of computational
  science methods and tools?
• How effectively do Federal agencies coordinate
  their support for computational science and its
  applications in order to maintain a balanced and
  comprehensive research and training portfolio?
• How well have Federal investments in
  computational science kept up with changes in the
  underlying computing environments and the ways in
  which research is conducted? Examples of these
  changes might include changes in computer
  architecture, the advent of distributed
  computing, the linking of data with simulation,
  and remote access to experimental facilities.
• What barriers hinder realizing the highest
  potential of computational science and how might
  these be eliminated or mitigated?

6
Computational Science Subcommittee

• Subcommittee members
• Ruzena Bajcsy, UC-Berkeley
• Manny Fernandez, SI Ventures/Gartner
• José-Marie Griffiths, Pittsburgh
• Randy Mott, Dell
• Dan Reed, UNC/NCSU/Duke
• subcommittee chair
• Two external members being added
• people you will know and trust ?
• rationale balance and additional expertise

7
June 17 Hearing

• Computational science testimony
• Arden Bement, Director, NSF
• written testimony accessible at www.nsf.gov
• Eric Jackobsson, Center for Bioinformatics and
  Computational Biology, NIH
• for Elias Zerhoni, Director, NIH
• Michael Strayer, DOE
• for Ray Orbach, DOE Office of Science
• Ken Kennedy, Rice
• former PITAC co-chair
• Kennedys testimony
• retrospective on PITAC and agency responses

8
1999 PITAC Principal Finding

• Drift away from long-term fundamental research
• agencies pressed by the growth of IT needs
• IT RD budgets have grown steadily but not
  dramatically
• IT industry has accounted for over 30 percent of
  the real GDP growth over the past five years, but
  gets only 1 out of 75 Federal RD dollars
• problems solved by IT are critical to the nation
• engineering design, health and medicine, defense
• Most IT RD agencies are mission-oriented
• natural and correct to favor the short-term needs
  of the mission
• This trend must be reversed
• continue the flow of ideas to fuel the
  information economy and society

Source Ken Kennedy
9
1999 PITAC Recommended Remedy

• Increase the Federal IT RD investment
• by 1.4 billion dollars per year
• ramp up over five years
• focus on increasing fundamental research
• Invest in key areas needing attention
• software
• scalable Information Infrastructure
• high-end computing
• social, economic, and workforce Issues
• Develop a coherent management strategy
• establish clear organizational responsibilities
• diversify modes of support

Source Ken Kennedy
10
1999 PITAC Funding Recommendations

• Increase current funding for IT RD as follows

Source Ken Kennedy
11
PITAC vs NITRD
12
Kennedy Observations

• PITAC 1999 message focus on long-term research
• think big and make it possible for researchers to
  think big
• increase the funding and the funding term
• unique responsibility of the Federal Government
• Positive result funding has increased
• most of the measurable growth has gone to NSF
• modes of funding diversified
• new programs initiated
• Concerns
• HPC software still not getting enough attention
• amounts and nature of funding
• Is the leadership and management adequate?
• Are we returning to an era of short-term thinking?

Source Ken Kennedy
13
Whats Next

• Subcommittee work starts in earnest
• meetings, workshops, one-on-one interviews
• agency discussions and information gathering
• Report target
• February 2005
• How can you help?
• talk to committee members informally
• share position documents
• issues, needs, opportunities,
• start community discussion