Category: Archive Page 5 of 9

Copies of President Obama’s budget sit on a table in the Senate Budget Committee room.

In the lead up to the release of the Obama Administration’s Fiscal Year 2017 (FY 2017) budget request, rumors were flying that this final budget would once again be a “good one” for federal research programs. But as soon as the budget documents were released the research community found itself scratching its collective head. At first read, the topline budget request for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was $33.1 billion, the National Science Foundation came in at just under $8 billion – increases over the previous year funding requests. But these totals came with an asterisk: a good chunk of the proposed budget increases are to be provided through mandatory funding. In an effort to stay within the discretionary budget caps set in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, the Administration proposed budgetary increases through mandatory spending.

So what is the difference between these two forms of federal spending, and why does it matter as we look at the FY 2017 budget request?

There are three primary components to the federal budget: discretionary spending, direct or mandatory spending, and revenues. Discretionary spending is funding Congress allocates each year through appropriations legislation and accounts for roughly 30 percent of the federal budget.   The discretionary budget covers most of the federal programs of interest to Duke, including research and student aid, but also covers most military, workforce training, and other education program.

Nearly 70 percent of the federal budget is dedicated to mandatory or direct spending, which is spending controlled by laws outside of appropriations acts, often with a specific revenue stream. Examples here include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Instead of going through an annual Congressional process to determine spending levels, many mandatory programs have statutory eligibility guidelines that Congress can only revisit periodically. There are some instances where a program can be funded through both discretionary and mandatory spending. The Pell Grant program is one such example, where are portion of the budget is determined and approved through the annual appropriations process, but another part is funded through savings derived from legislative changes made to student loan programs (as well as the Pell Grant program).

Getting back to the FY 2017 budget request, the National Science Foundation (NSF) budget is an illustrative example. The Administration has proposed $7.96 billion budget for FY 17. Of this amount, $7.56 billion is discretionary funding and $400 million is mandatory funding. Without the proposed $400 million increase in mandatory funding, which would require new legislation, the NSF FY 17 budget request is only $100 million above the final FY 16 funding level.
We are still early in the congressional budget and appropriations process, but it will be interesting to see how Congress plans to approach this unique budget situation.

The Duke Office of Government Relations will continue to provide updates as the process moves forward through the DC Digest.

Originally posted on the Duke Research Blog:

Duke biologist Sheila Patek explains the big picture behind a recent study on sparring mantis shrimp. Photograph by Roy Caldwell.

Sheep in microgravity. An experiment involving a monkey in a hamster ball on treadmill. These are among more than 100 descriptions of what Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, deems wasteful federal spending in “Wastebook: The Farce Awakens,” to be released on Tuesday, Dec. 8. The latest in a series launched by retired Senator Tom Coburn, each “Wastebook” targets a range of federally-funded projects, many of them science-related, which the authors declare a waste of taxpayers’ money.
But what do the researchers behind these projects have to say? We asked Duke biologist Sheila Patek, whose work on fighting mantis shrimp was singled out in Flake’s latest report, to tell us her side of the story:
“What do we stand to learn from basic research on mantis shrimp? It turns out, a lot,” Patek said.

“First, mantis shrimp strike with weapons operating at the same acceleration as a bullet in the muzzle of a gun, yet they achieve high performance without explosive materials. They use a system based on muscles, springs and latches and neutralize their opponents with impact-resistant armor. This research helps us understand how animals survive when they have lethal weapons at their disposal but do not actually kill the opponent — something that could change the way we look at future defense systems,” Patek said.

“Second, these crustaceans have properties of extreme acceleration that are of great interest to military and manufacturing engineers. Mantis shrimp use a toothpick-sized hammer that can break snail shells in water that humans can only break with a larger hammer in air. Their small, lightweight hammer resists fracture over thousands of uses. Our research has already led to the development of novel engineered materials that resist impact fracture, based directly on mantis shrimp hammers,” Patek said.

“Third, mantis shrimp do something else that humans cannot: strike in water at the speed of cars on a major highway without causing cavitation, a phenomenon that occurs in systems with rapid motion (like propellers) where implosive bubbles emit heat, light and sound with energy sufficient to wear away steel. Naval engineers have been trying to solve this problem since the invention of the submarine. When we understand how mantis shrimp avoid cavitation during the rotation phase of their strikes while effectively using cavitation during their impact phase, the knowledge will undoubtedly improve the capabilities of ships, submarines, torpedoes and other machines,” Patek said.

“Research that helps us understand and apply the mechanics and evolutionary diversity of natural systems to create a better and safer society for all of us is a wise investment for this country.”

Here’s a tidbit for all the history buffs out there: today marks the 50^th anniversary of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act, an act that created the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), considered the first “grand investment in American culture.” In the five decades since its creation, the NEH has made more than 63,000 grants totaling $5.3 billion, including leveraging an additional $2.5 billion in matching grants to bring the best humanities research, public programs, education, and preservation projects to the American people.

Last Friday, the NEH kicked off a year-long celebration of its 50^th anniversary with a symposium at Loyola University in Baltimore, where Duke University President Richard Brodhead delivered the keynote address. Brodhead, a co-chair of the Commission on Humanities and Social Sciences, who’s appeared on The Colbert Report and Capitol Hill to talk about the importance of the humanities, reflected on the changes in American society in the 50 years since the NEH was created and how advocates for the humanities can continue to talk about the need for strong support for the humanities from local to national organizations.
Click here for the full text of Brodhead’s keynote address.

Graduate student Victoria Nneji has been trained in the universal nature of the scientific method; but, during a recent visit to Washington, D.C., the first-year Masters of Engineering Management candidate learned another universal truth: all politics is local.
Nneji gained insight into this widely-held adage firsthand when she visited the nation’s capital earlier this month as one of two Duke students participating in the CASE Workship – Catalyzing Advocacy in Science and Engineering.  The program, hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), aims to teach graduate students in STEM fields about the science and engineering policymaking that takes place across the federal government.
After meetings with White House officials, mock appropriations negotiations, and some lasting advice from seasoned lobbyists, the students were given the ultimate exam: meeting with Members of Congress to make the case for investments in research.
How did it go? To learn more about the trip – and about Victoria herself – Duke in Washington went straight to the source:

Name: Victoria Chibuogu Nneji
Program: First-year candidate, Master of Engineering Management
Undergraduate Degree: Columbia University – School of Engineering; B.S. in Applied Mathematics, minor in Entrepreneurship & Innovation
Hometown: Durham, NC

DIW:Tell us about your research – what are you focusing on?
VN: My research explores how to better design technology to meet how different people understand information so we achieve our full potential in performance when working with digital machines and other people. This summer, I’ll be at Stanford University working on the design, implementation, and evaluation of robots that encourage social, emotional, and cognitive growth in children, including those with developmental deficits.  When I return to Duke in the fall, I will be conducting computational research on human-robot interaction in Dr. Missy Cummings’ Humans & Autonomy Lab.

DIW:Why did you choose Duke?:
VN: I am blessed to be back home after growing so much in my four years away in New York City. People at Duke are passionate, innovative, and… nice!  We have a strong alumni base that contributes to the resources available for students like me to pursue great ideas and there is also a beautiful campus spirit where we all feel part of the winning team.

DIW: What were the biggest differences between Washington and academia that you discovered? Any similarities?
VN:As many speakers on the Hill reiterated, “all politics is local.”  I would say that this may be a key differentiating factor with academic research– the goal of consistently using the scientific method is to prove that a phenomenon we discover in one lab can be repeated in another lab, anywhere in the world.

However, as I have been learning in my Engineering Management curriculum, there is no exact science with one human globally, each human has a unique set of needs and desires. So, we can learn something from the long tradition of both spheres about order and adaptability.

DIW: Did you learn anything new or surprising during your meetings with Congressional and executive
 agency staff members?
VN: Our team from UNC and Duke had the opportunity to meet the Senior Legislative Assistant to Congressman David Price.  Having lived in Price’s district for many years before college, I was pleasantly surprised that he is a major advocate not just for the meaningful K-12 STEM education legislation that impacted me early on, but also very much invested in moving our nation forward with university research funding. Before becoming a Representative, he was an academic and taught here at Duke!

An unfortunate surprise was that there are unrelated things and at times, unreasonable causes, that are holding back the budget for scientific research in our nation from growing to meet our future requirements.

DIW: What do you hope Congressional aides learned from their meetings with you?
VN: I hope that our Representatives were reinvigorated for the good cause we represent as academics, researchers, scientists. I first learned about computational science when I was 11-years-old because of a National Science Foundation-funded program, and that experience made me want to pursue a career of creative thinking and thoughtful creation — something our nation critically needs today and tomorrow.  I applaud the hard work of our government leaders, but I also encourage them to continue supporting the needs of our classrooms and laboratories, so that stories like mine can proliferate.

DIW: Will your trip impact your own research or career path?
VN: This trip inspired me to consider myself a true advocate for wise engineering policy. I am just starting out in my career, and I want to contribute to research of advanced technologies that can change what society considers to be possible in different realms of our lives, from education to transportation.  My voice and actions in my time as a Duke student matter for the decisions that will be made on how to manage this [technological] growth for our nation’s future and global opportunity.

DIW:Given your experience, do you have any advice for your fellow graduate students who are considering engaging in policy?
VN:You can start right at home.  Anywhere you live or work in the United States, there are local and federal representatives who are there to serve you, the public.  So, consider what matters to you and your community, use your graduate research skills to discover what your officials are up to in that area, and take up courage to speak with those that represent you in policymaking.  We should push past barriers and fears that hold us back from sharing our talents and fully contributing to the betterment of society through our vocation.

Duke and UNC graduate students meet with James Hunter, senior legislative assistant to Rep. David Price, to discuss their research and the importance of federal investments in science. L-R: David Winski (Duke), Ross Beattie (UNC), Leah Heist (UNC), James Hunter, Victoria Nneji (Duke).

As the waning seconds ticked off the clock in last night’s NCAA Men’s Basketball National Championship game, we — like any tech-savvy Duke fans — took to Twitter to watch the praise (and a little criticism) pour in from around the globe. Clearly we were not alone, as ‘Duke’ was still trending world-wide as of lunchtime Tuesday. Former players, celebrities, ecstatic alumni, and – yes – even federal officials chimed in with commentary on the night’s game. ICYMI, don’t worry, here’s a cheat sheet of how lawmakers said congratulations to the Duke University men’s basketball team — the 2015 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions.

Representative G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Duke’s representative in Congress, tweeted a quick congrats to the team:

Congratulations to both teams on an extraordinary game! #GoDuke pic.twitter.com/YsOHrpo7aX
— G. K. Butterfield (@GKButterfield) April 7, 2015

Then sent a friendly reminder to Representative Mark Pocan (R-WI), who represents Wisconsin’s campus, of their Monday afternoon wager.

.@repmarkpocan #GoDuke #NCAAChampions #NC01 pic.twitter.com/OqN04wfcOJ — G. K. Butterfield (@GKButterfield) April 7, 2015

Duke faculty member Rep. David E. Price (D-NC) gave a nod to the three weeks of outstanding basketball:

Congrats to @DukeU for winning its fifth Men’s Basketball National Championship – a fitting end to a thrilling tournament! #MarchMadness — David E. Price (@RepDavidEPrice) April 7, 2015

Both Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) pointed out that, contrary to some rumors, Duke really does lie in North Carolina (not New Jersey):

Proud that this year’s #NCAATournament Champs call North Carolina home – great work last night @dukeblueplanet #MarchMadness
— Richard Burr (@SenatorBurr) April 7, 2015

Congrats to Coach K and the Blue Devils! The #NCAAChampionship is heading back to North Carolina! #MarchMadness
— Senator Thom Tillis (@SenThomTillis) April 7, 2015

Then there are those members of Congress who are also members of the Duke alumni family, Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA, T ’80) and Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL, T ’77):

Congrats to NCAA men’s basketball champions @Duke_MBB!
— Rep. Scott Peters (@RepScottPeters) April 7, 2015

So proud of my alma mater, @DukeU, on winning the 2015 National Championship! Great job by Coach K and the whole team!
— Rep. Bradley Byrne (@RepByrne) April 7, 2015

And while the Blue Devils busted President Obama’s bracket, his former opponent Mitt Romney (who will visit Duke later this week) wished he would have bet bigger on the team:

Should have put $10,000 on my bracket. Congrats, Coach K and @DukeU.

— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) April 7, 2015

It felt a little unusual to ask an archivist to describe “what’s next” in the world of record-keeping since, by nature, archiving is a field more concerned about what’s happened than what’s coming. But then again, Naomi Nelson, the director of the David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library at Duke University, doesn’t seem like your typical archivist.

Her past projects include archiving the records of U.S. Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga), which included the first attempt to capture the digital copies of constituent letters sent by Members of Congress; and salvaging the digital files of Salman Rushdie (including files from a laptop ruined by a spilled Coke) — not your run-of-the-mill “primary documents.” In recognition of her leadership in the field of library sciences, in October of 2014, President Obama nominated Dr. Nelson to serve as one of 15 members of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, which is tasked with promoting “the preservation and use of of America’s documentary heritage essential to understanding our democracy, history, and culture.”

So in the midst of a week that had Washington atwitter with the preservation (or lack there of) of Hillary Clinton’s emails, and in honor of the National Humanities Alliance 2015 Advocacy Day on March 17, Duke in Washington checked in with Dr. Nelson to learn more about her work at the Rubenstein Library and the role archivists play in preserving the record of humanity:

DIW: How would you describe your work, as an individual scholar and at the Rubenstein Library as a whole?
Nelson: As a special collections librarian, I preserve the stuff of history.  The Rubenstein Library’s collections contain rare and unique materials that provide a window into a wide variety of human experiences and evidence of what happened and why.  These collections are Duke’s contribution to the larger scholarly endeavor to document human history.  Through these materials, researchers can literally touch the past.

How information is presented affects how we interpret and understand it.  In a special collections library, we preserve not only the information in a book or manuscript, but also the original format in which it was used and shared—from papyrus to websites.  This has become more challenging in the digital age where what we see on the screen is dependent on the interaction of the specific hardware, operating system, software, and digital object.  My own research has focused on how we might apply archival principals to digital content.  For example, in a digital world where we can make endless exact copies of a file, what is the “original?”

DIW: What does society stand to gain from the work of archivists, like yourself, to preserve our records?
NN: We all have a stake in maintaining an authentic record of our shared past.  What happened in the past shapes the present, and it’s important that we be able to challenge the histories we’ve received and to re-examine them from new perspectives.   Alice Walker has noted, “People are known by the records they keep. If it isn’t in the records, it will be said it didn’t happen.”  Archivists have an important role in determining which records will be available to future generations.

In the twenty-first century, archivists must be public advocates for preservation in ways our predecessors couldn’t have imagined.  If we are to preserve our digital present, we cannot wait patiently for records to come to the archives.  Archivists are working proactively with technologists and scholars to test ways to preserve digital objects and to ensure that they can still be rendered authentically in a hundred years or more.  University and governmental special collections have the institutional backing and mandate to provide the stable, long-term storage and access required to make those plans a reality.

DIW: You were recently named a commissioner on the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). What does that organization do and how will that experience broaden your exposure to projects around the country?
NN: The NHPRC was founded in 1934 and is charged with encouraging the broad use of documentary sources.  It’s affiliated with the National Archives and Records Administration and annually distributes grants to support innovative and impactful preservation and access projects.  Being on the NHPRC provides a great opportunity to see the variety of ways that archives across the country are connecting the public with history.   Two examples demonstrate the significance of these projects.   The NHPRC has long supported projects to publish the documents related to America’s founding fathers—making those key documents widely available to the public.  The ‘Founders Online‘ project, a collaboration between the National Archives, the NHPRC and the University of Virginia Press, builds on those individual projects to provide online access to over 166,000 records from the Founding Fathers Paper Project. The Commission also funds projects proposed by the State Historical Records Advisory Boards across the country.  It’s been fascinating to see the different ways that the individual states are engaging the public with their local histories.

DIW: How does Duke as an institution support research in the library sciences?
NN: The Duke University Libraries (DUL) have a long tradition of emphasizing innovation.  In the 1930s, Duke began coordinating collection building with UNC.  That collaboration became the Triangle Research Libraries Network (now including NC State and NCCU), which is one of the leading American library consortia.  Our many projects together include developing a joint library catalog (http://search.trln.org/) and a grant to explore large scale digitization (http://www2.trln.org/ccc/index.htm).

In the 1990s, the DUL developed some of the first digital collections for rare materials.  The Duke Papyrus Archive, Ad Access, and Historic Sheet Music projects served as models for other special collections across the country.  The DUL has been a leader in exploring the preservation of electronic records as well.  Duke and UNC co-led a project funded by NHPRC to study computer file management practices in academic units and university administrative offices.  Rubenstein Library staff are regular contributors to cutting edge research on digital forensics, managing legacy formats, processing digital collections, and using digital visualization techniques to analyze library metadata.

We are also exploring the library’s role in knowledge creation and publishing.  For example, the DUL is partnering with the Center for Documentary Studies and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) Legacy Project to develop a new documentary website that will allow SNCC veterans to tell the story of their work and impact.  The site incorporates historic documents, photographs, and audiovisual recordings with new analyses, maps, profiles, and multimedia presentations.  The activists are coming to campus as Visiting Activist Scholars and fully partnering in every aspect of the work.  The resulting site will, itself, be a historic record.

The Administration released its nearly $4 trillion budget for FY 2016 on February 2, 2015.  The plan would end sequestration and raise discretionary budget caps put in place in 2011, resulting in $1.091 trillion in proposed discretionary spending and a slew of new programs and initiatives.

The $74 billion, or 7%, increase in discretionary spending is offset by various budget cuts and raising taxes in such areas as capital gains and corporate offshore profits. The overall plan has been declared “dead on arrival” by the Republican-controlled Congress, but there are smaller pieces within that could garner bipartisan support.

In terms of overall research and development, the budget provides a 6 percent increase for R&D, including increases in basic research.  The budget prioritizes investments in biomedical research—like the BRAIN and the new Precision Medicine initiatives — and advanced manufacturing technology.  Agricultural research, clean energy, and climate resilience and sustainability research are also emphasized.

Among the President’s already announced spending priorities, the budget proposes to make two years of community college education free, consolidate education tax breaks, and expand eligibility for Pell Grants.Below are highlights of the top line budget levels for Duke-specific funding priorities.  For questions, please contact the Office of Federal Relations.

National Institutes of Health:

The FY 16 budget proposes $31.3 billion for NIH, a 4% increase over FY 15.  This increase will help provide additional resources for Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and the BRAIN initiative. The budget also includes  $215 million for the new Precision Medicine Initiative. NIH estimates this will support 35,447 grants, including approximately 1,200 more new and competing grants than the previous year.

NIH also continues to stress the importance of workforce sustainability and diversity, as well as its big data initiative.

National Science Foundation:

The FY 16 budget proposes a $7.72 billion for NSF, a 5.1% increase over FY 15.

Department of Defense Basic Research:

The FY16 budget would increase funding for the broad Defense category of research, development, testing & evaluation (RDT&E) by $6.3 billion to $69.9 billion. It proposes to fund Defense science and technology (S&T) at $12.3 billion, an

increase of $251 million, or 2.1 percent.

Within the S&T total, however, funding for basic research and advanced technology development would be reduced. Specifically, basic research (6.1) would receive $2.088 billion, a cut of $189 million, or 8.3 percent.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) would receive $2.9 billion, an increase of $56 million, or about 1.9%.

Department of Energy Office of Science:

The Administration proposes $5.34 billion for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, a 5.3% increase over the FY 15 omnibus.  This includes $325 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E), an increase of $45 million, or 16%.

NASA:

The FY 16 budget request for NASA is $18.5 billion, a 2.9% increase over FY 15.  Within the request, the Science Directorate would receive $5.29 billion, and Earth Science would receive $1.9 billion.

Department of Homeland Security:

The Administration proposes $778.9 million for the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, a 27% cut from the FY 15 request (NOTE:  DHS does not have a final FY 15 budget and is currently operating under a Continuing Resolution.)

National Endowment for the Humanities:

The budget recommends $147.9 million for NEH, a $1.9 million increase over FY 15.

The total includes $104 million for the Endowment’s grant programs; $5.5 million for NEH Chairman Adams’ special initiative – The Common Good: The Humanities in the Public Square – in support of projects that demonstrate the role the humanities can play in public life; and $10.9 million in federal matching funds. The latter includes funding for the NEH Challenge Grants program to help stimulate and match private donations in support of humanities institutions and organizations.

Pell Grants:

The Administration proposes an inflationary increase in FY 16 for the Pell Grant Maximum Award to $5,915.

The budget would also strengthen academic progress requirements in the Pell Grant program, and provide a College Opportunity and Graduation Bonus to successful schools.

International Education/Title VI programs:

The budget proposes $76.2 million for International Education programs in FY 16.  This is a $4 million increase over the FY 15 omnibus.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education:

The Administration proposes to spend $3 billion in STEM education programs across the government in FY16.  This includes $202 millions for the Department of Education’s K-12 Math and Science Partnerships and $135 million for undergraduate education at the NSF.

Other Student Aid Programs:

The Administration’s budget also proposes to simplify the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, eliminating up to 30 questions. For increased accountability in administering Title IV federal student aid, the budget proposes to include Department of Defense tuition assistance and Department of Veterans Affairs GI bill benefits in the 90/10 calculation for participating institutions.

As in the past two years, the budget proposes to create a new unsubsidized Perkins Loan program.

The budget would extend the availability of the Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE) repayment plan to all student borrowers, which caps student loan payments at 10 percent of monthly discretionary income.

The full budget is available on the Office of Management and Budget website.

To learn more about the budget reconciliation process, click here.
For status of FY16 higher ed funding priorities, click here.

December 4, 2014, 3:30 pm – 5:30 pm
Capitol Visitors Center – Congressional Meeting Room South

“Big Data” is all around us: in social media click-throughs, in security camera feeds, and now – in a toddler’s facial expressions? Please join Duke University and the Duke University Medical Center to learn how computer scientists and engineers are working with experts in child psychiatry and neuroscience to harness the power of information science and revolutionize the way we diagnose and treat early childhood mental health disorders.

A networking reception will follow the panel discussion.
Space is limited.

Description

One in nine children suffer from an impairing mental health disorder, yet many of these children never receive care or even a diagnosis.  Imagine the improvement in child and family well-being if:

• Identification and intervention of problems like autism and anxiety disorders take place when a child is 18 months old rather than waiting until she reaches school age;
• Medical professionals could gain insights into typical and atypical behavior while children play with tablets at home, reducing time and expense for clinical assessments;
• The information gathered contributes to a massive knowledge database that is heretofore unprecedented in the pediatric mental health community at home and abroad;
• Parents were given the tools to answer, “When should I worry?”

Thanks to the Duke Information and Child Mental Health Initiative, we don’t have to imagine these things. The Initiative is currently developing and piloting innovative tools to gather, analyze, and interpret information – big data – about a child’s behaviors, emotions, and development and then, in real time, translate this information into specific evidence-based actionable guidance.

Join us for an inspiring conversation about the potential for this collaborative, interdisciplinary project to bring improved information, quality of life, and long-term outcomes for children in the US and throughout the world.

A networking reception will follow the panel discussion.

Participants

Moderator:
Robert Calderbank, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Director of the Information Initiative at Duke
Panelists:
Dr. Helen Egger, Chief, Division of Child and Family Mental Health and Developmental Neuroscience, Duke University Medical Center

Guillermo Sapiro, Edmund T. Pratt, Jr. School Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Duke University

Matthew Melmed, Executive Director, ZERO TO THREE

Contact

For more information, please contact Landy Elliott at landy.elliott@duke.edu, 202.524.4992.