PITAC Update: Computational Science

1. PITAC Update:Computational Science Dan Reed Chancellor’s 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 Renaissance Computing Institute

2. Current PITAC Renaissance Computing Institute

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.html Renaissance Computing Institute

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? Renaissance Computing Institute

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? Renaissance Computing Institute

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 Renaissance Computing Institute

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 • Kennedy’s testimony • retrospective on PITAC and agency responses Renaissance Computing Institute

8. 1999 PITAC Principal Finding • Drift away from long-term fundamental research • agencies pressed by the growth of IT needs • IT R&D 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 R&D dollars • problems solved by IT are critical to the nation • engineering design, health and medicine, defense • Most IT R&D 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 Renaissance Computing Institute

9. 1999 PITAC Recommended Remedy • Increase the Federal IT R&D 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 Renaissance Computing Institute

10. 1999 PITAC Funding Recommendations • Increase current funding for IT R&D as follows Source: Ken Kennedy Renaissance Computing Institute

11. PITAC vs NITRD Renaissance Computing Institute

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 Renaissance Computing Institute

13. What’s 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 Renaissance Computing Institute