Mathematicians are at work in the federal government; you too?

Posted on February 21, 2018 by Karen Saxe

Are you wondering what you might do after you receive your PhD or finish a post-doctoral appointment? Are you post-tenure and thinking that you might want to explore science policy work? There are opportunities for mathematicians to come give federal policy work a try. If you are (in any way) suspicious, read on – you will learn about a handful of mathematicians and their current experiences learning about and helping shape federal policies that affect our work lives. The work is fascinating, and we need you!

Last September 26, 2016-17 AMS Congressional Fellow Catherine Paolucci wrote a great guest post (in this blog) about her year in Washington, working in the U.S. Senate (she also wrote about this in the February 2018 Notices). The Congressional fellowship runs September of a given year through August of the next year.

The AMS-sponsored fellow is just one of about 300 PhD scientists serving in the federal government each year, as part of the large Science & Technology Policy Fellowship program run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Our under-representation should change!

WANT TO JOIN THE 2019-20 FELLOWS CLASS?
APPLICATIONS ARE ACCEPTED BY THE AAAS MAY-OCTOBER 2018
THE AMS WILL ACCEPT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BY FEBRUARY 15, 2019

The first class of AAAS fellows was in 1973 and consisted of seven scientists hosted by the American Physical Society, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineering. Today, the AAAS partners with several dozen professional associations – including the AMS – and places nearly 300 fellows each year in all branches of the federal government. Each year, roughly 30-35 fellows are sponsored by one of the AMS’s sister associations to work in Congress, one fellow can be placed in the Judicial Branch, and the remaining 250 or so work in the Executive Branch. Hosting offices covet their fellows. Executive Branch fellows work in many, many agencies and not just ones mathematicians might think of like the National Science Foundation and the Department of Defense.

Over the past several years, only one or two mathematicians work (per year) as Executive Branch fellows. This should change! It is a great experience, and the AAAS would love more applications from mathematical scientists. The great news is that the current fellows class (2017-18) includes (at least) triple the usual number of mathematicians. The rest of this post will tell you a bit about them, and – I hope – will encourage you to apply for this fellowship. It is common advice – here on the ground – to encourage scientists to apply simultaneously to the AMS and to the AAAS.

I asked the current math fellows to answer a few questions. Their answers should give you the (correct) understanding that the fellowship can be successful at any stage of your career, and allow you a glimpse of their own reflections on how the experience is transforming their careers. You will see that their research areas vary quite a bit and may seem unrelated to the work they are doing (that is typical, btw).

Meet Tyler, Margaret, Kyle, Jessica, and Chris (reverse alphabetical order)

Your name?
Tyler Kloefkorn

Your placement?
National Science Foundation
Directorate of Computer & Information Science & Engineering
Division of Information and Intelligent Systems

Your PhD area?
Non-commutative algebra and combinatorial topology. Currently, I do work in homological algebra and finite element exterior calculus.

Where were you before this?
From August 2014 to July 2017, I was a teaching postdoctoral fellow at the University of Arizona, Department of Mathematics. I received my PhD from the University of Oregon in 2014 and was advised by Professor Brad Shelton.

How is this experience re-shaping your ideas about your own future?
This experience has certainly re-shaped how I value mathematics and mathematical thinking. Trained as an algebraist and coming out of graduate school, I was not aware of how mathematics fits into the greater science community. While I continue to think about projects in abstract algebra, I now look for ways to apply my analytical skills to a variety of research and real-world problems. I am able to incorporate mathematics into science and science policy. In particular, I routinely use linear algebra and statistics to better understand problems or articulate solutions. 

I would like to return to academia after completing my fellowship. Accordingly, this experience will re-shape how I approach my research, teaching, and mentoring. As a professor, I will look to incorporate this new perspective of science and science policy into my daily activities. For example, now with a greater awareness of careers and education opportunities in science, I know that I can be a better mentor/adviser for my students.

Why do you think this is a good or worthwhile experience for other PhD mathematicians?
I’m still a little new to this experience, but thus far I think there are several valuable features of the AAAS STP Fellowship at the NSF.

First, a Fellow at the NSF can learn first-hand how the NSF promotes and supports basic research in science. For example, I have been fortunate to learn about the BIGDATA Program with Program Directors Sylvia Spengler and Chaitanya Baru. I have contributed to solicitations for proposals, workshops, program analyses, and other coordination activities. Later this year, I will provide support for the program’s merit review process. I value this experience because I have a better understanding of how researchers build significant research portfolios and how NSF activities impact research and higher education in the US.

Second, Fellows at the NSF have opportunities to 1) see how mathematics is integral to science and science policy and 2) incorporate successful educational and research activities from the greater science community into the mathematics community. I see the value of collaborating with academic communities outside of mathematics; that is, I am a believer in interdisciplinary science. When I go outside of the world of mathematics at the NSF, I learn about computer programming, data-related activities, and useful educational tools/techniques. The freedom to explore these subjects makes the fellowship feel like a true academic setting, which I truly enjoy. 

Your name?
Margaret Callahan

Sen Amy Klobuchar (MN)

Your placement?
I work in the office of U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar of the great state of Minnesota! I work on issues pertaining to education/STEM education, workforce development, and public health.

Your PhD area?
I received my PhD in applied mathematics from Case Western Reserve University in 2016. My doctoral research focused on the development of a novel Bayesian statistical approach for estimating unknown parameters of multi-scale models, focusing on biomedical applications, such as HIV infection dynamics.

Where were you before this?
Prior to beginning my fellowship, I was a Visiting Assistant Professor at Emory University.

How is this experience re-shaping your ideas about your own future?
I left graduate school with little clarity regarding what I wanted my career to be. I knew that I was passionate about STEM education, but I was interested in a career outside of academia; although the value of academic research and its capacity to address societal issues is undeniable, I wanted to work on projects with a more tangible and immediate impact. My experience as an AMS Congressional Fellow has opened my eyes to the myriad roles that scientists can play in the policy making process. It has helped me see that there is a place for me outside of academia where I can pursue my passion for STEM education, explore the intersection of science and policy, and leverage my background in science, education, and outreach to influence the policy making process in a positive way.

Why do you think this is a good or worthwhile experience for other PhD mathematicians?
This experience has given me, as a mathematician, the chance to advocate for science and to bring my own sense of scientific rigor to policy making process. It has provided me with the opportunity to work creatively and collaboratively on problems that are challenging, complex, and have an immediate impact on the people of this country. It has helped me to expand and broaden my professional network, as well as develop and strengthen my skills in communicating to a wide variety of audiences. This fellowship has allowed me to see how my work and perspective is valued by lawmakers, and realize the importance of ensuring that scientists and mathematicians have a voice in important policy conversations.

Your name?
Kyle Novak

Your placement?
The Global Development Lab in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).  Here, I help to end extreme poverty and promote resilient, democratic societies through better use of science, technology, and innovation.

 Your PhD area?
Applied mathematics. I researched numerical methods for PDES of mathematical physics.

Where were you before this?
I served over twenty years active duty as an Air Force mathematician, most recently at the Pentagon.

How is this experience re-shaping your ideas about your own future?
For me, the AAAS S&T Fellowship is a chance to see first-hand how policy is made and implemented​. Being in Washington, D.C., a short walk from Capitol Hill, federal innovation hubs, and some of the best think tanks in the country, with a diverse network of fellow scientists, allows me to shape my career and create impact as a mathematician in ways I otherwise couldn’t.

Why do you think this is a good or worthwhile experience for other PhD mathematicians?
Many mathematicians don’t follow traditional academic career paths.  The AAAS Fellowship is an opportunity for mathematicians to provide valuable insights to guiding federal policy. In a field like international development, mathematicians can advise on things like blockchain algorithms used in digital finance, differential privacy in responsible data use, machine learning in food security, and systems modeling of adaptive decision-making and learning under uncertainty.

Your name?
Jessica M. Libertini

Your placement?
(Get ready for layers and layers of bureaucracy!)
Department of Defense
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment
International Cooperation
International Armaments Cooperation

Your PhD area?
My PhD, granted in 2008, was at the intersection of physiological mathematical modeling, numerical methods for PDEs, inverse problems, and contrast-enhanced medical imaging.

Since my PhD, I have largely pivoted into the field of STEM education, with roughly 75% of my efforts and publications now in that area, although I maintain roughly 25% of my active research portfolio in the area mathematical modeling of complex systems, such as food systems.

Where were you before this?
I was (and still am!) a tenure-track professor at Virginia Military Institute in the Department of Applied Mathematics. Before entering academia, I spent 9 years as an engineer and analyst in the defense industry at General Dynamics.  As an academic, I served on the faculties at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the University of Rhode Island, and I held a National Research Council Davies Postdoctoral Fellowship jointly appointed to West Point and the U.S. Army Research Labs.

How is this experience re-shaping your ideas about your own future?
Wow – great question!  I actually didn’t apply for the sake of advancing or changing my own career, but rather to be more well-rounded for the sake of inspiring the next generation, namely my own students, to consider very important non-traditional STEM careers, particularly in government.  When I read about the goals of the fellowship (the idea that we, as scientifically trained people, could provide an alternative and enlightening view to offices as they shape or implement policy), I thought, well that sounds cool, but I am only one person!  (This is the same realization that drove me to hang up my own super-hero cape working missile defense so that I could help train the next generation to do more to protect the world than I ever could on my own.)  So, here I am, soaking it all in with the expectation that I will return to VMI to prepare my applied mathematics and engineering students to consider a similar path – perhaps not as future fellows (only a handful of my students go on to graduate school) but as civil servants or as persons otherwise engaged in policy issues.  This experience has underscored the importance of having the voice of a scientifically minded person involved in the shaping and execution of policy, and therefore I want to make sure my students realize this non-traditional option exists for them as they begin to think about life after graduation.

Why do you think this is a good or worthwhile experience for other PhD mathematicians?
Hmm…  Initially I thought this would be a tough question for me to answer, because I don’t really self-identify as “mathematician”  –  I am so far out on the pure/applied spectrum that I am a closer fit to an engineer.  However, I think that this experience has been incredibly rewarding for me – not only will I bring back a wealth of experiences to inspire my students, but it also has been a very enriching way to spend a year of leave.  The access and connections as well as the breadth of opportunities I have had as a fellow are unparalleled to anything I have experienced before.  Just as a small sample of examples: within a month of my arrival, I was a guest of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation at the Grand Challenges Conference where I made a connection with an African educator who is interested in partnering with the US on our national math modeling education initiative (headed by SIAM – Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics); a month later, I organized and attended my first of several high-level international engagements between international senior officials and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (now Acquisition and Sustainment); throughout the fellowship, I have been a guest at a wide variety of private networking functions including Australia’s Science Defence Ball, held at their embassy; and just recently, about halfway through my fellowship, I attended the Singapore Air Show where I had the honor of watching the aerial display at the side of a former fighter pilot, now Air Force general, as he reminisced about his younger years in the air and shared his in depth knowledge about the capabilities of the various aircraft in the display.  If a PhD mathematician wants to get exposure and access to this whole other world of policy, this is an excellent opportunity.

Anything else you want to share?
I think it is important for prospective fellows to know that every office is different – different hiring mechanisms based on placement office (which can be a challenge due to the delay in having information for those fellows trying to go on leave or sabbatical), different funding amounts for travel (and different expectations on how those funds are used), and different opportunities and experiences.  However, one thing that placements have in common is that you have the opportunity to make the experience what you want – and not only within the placement office, but also within your role as a fellow through Affinity Groups and other events.

Your name?
Chris Leary

Your placement?
USAID, in the Bureau for Global Health’s Data Analytic Hub.

 

Your PhD area?
I got my degree in set theory, wrote my dissertation on some ideals associated with some large cardinals.

Where were you before this?
SUNY Geneseo where I am a SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor (on the faculty since 1992)

How is this experience re-shaping your ideas about your own future?
I’m much more aware of how my quantitative skills can be applied in the public sphere. Understanding how applied mathematics and statistics can be actually used outside of the academy (as opposed to my standard textbook/lab view that I had earlier) will help me be a better advocate for my students in the future.

Why do you think this is a good or worthwhile experience for other PhD mathematicians?
The Fellowship has broadened my view of both mathematics and the workings of government entities. It allowed me to serve my country and society in a way that is entirely different from my usual teaching role, and has broadened my understanding of the opportunities available to mathematicians at all levels. I can honestly say to students who are interested in, e.g., development issues, that there is a substantive role for quantitatively trained individuals to play in that area.

 The chance to live in DC is a bonus, at least in my opinion. The camaraderie among the Fellows is strong, and that makes the transition here a little easier than it would have been otherwise. The AMS Office of Government Relations, based in DC, has been very welcoming and supportive, welcoming the AAAS Fellows into the community of mathematicians in DC.

WANT TO JOIN THE 2019-20 FELLOWS CLASS?
APPLICATIONS ARE ACCEPTED BY THE AAAS MAY-OCTOBER 2018
THE AMS WILL ACCEPT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BY FEBRUARY 15, 2019 

 

 

Posted in Broadening particpation in STEM, Fellowships, Graduate students, Jobs, Mathematicians | Tagged , | Comments Off on Mathematicians are at work in the federal government; you too?

Science under fire in the U.S.A.

Posted on February 7, 2018 by Karen Saxe

Sadly, this topic keeps begging me to write about it; you can consider this a continuation of sorts of my August 28, 2017 and December 1, 2017 posts.

Brace yourself, this post is longer than usual and (I hope not too) rambling.

A recent Nature article (Vol 553, January 2018, page 132) about a Research!America survey (nationwide, 1005 adults surveyed), reveals that “[a]lthough 82% of respondents thought that scientists were trustworthy, 81% could not name a living scientist and 67% could not name a research institution. About half of respondents said they believed that great science will continue under US President Donald Trump’s administration.”

Hmmm. Not sure I agree. On what do I base my lack of confidence, you ask?

First, a Congressional update. Scientists with eyes on Congress are currently focused on funding. The federal fiscal calendar runs October 1 through September 30. We are 1/3 of the way through FY2018 and Congress has not passed any of the 12 appropriations bills it is supposed to pass each year. If these bills are not passed in Congress, either the government shuts down or Congress passes a “continuing resolution” (a “CR” is the name for a piece of legislation that keeps money flowing when Congress fails to do its job and pass regular spending bills). We’re currently living CR to CR. The figure below gives an overview of the four CRs that have occurred this cycle; the current one expires on tomorrow and while the Senate just today passed a bipartisan two-year funding bill, it is not clear that this will be enacted in time to avoid a shutdown.

The last time that Congress passed every one of the regular bills on time avoiding either a CR or a government shutdown was 1997. And you think four CRs sounds bad? In 2001, there were a remarkable TWENTY-ONE CRs! But, to be fair, Congress has only managed to proceed in the way it is supposed to four times in the past forty years. The very short weekend shutdown in January didn’t have much effect on scientific work, but a longer one could, as detailed in this National Geographic article. During a shutdown, the National Science Foundation, for example, does not issue grant payments. Shutdowns also affect the internal workings of the NSF; during the three day shutdown in January, ten merit review panels had to be rescheduled (according to NSF Director France Córdova testifying at a recent Senate hearing).

Most federal funding for mathematics research comes from the NSF and this money is allocated as part of just one of the regular spending bills referred to in the preceding paragraph. While the three still need reconciled, let me remind you that the President proposes an 11% cut to the NSF, while the Senate supports a 2% cut and the House flat funding. President Trump’s proposed FY2019 budget is expected to come out on February 12 and we have reason to believe that, once again, his proposed cuts to non-defense agencies (including the NSF) will be significant.

Second, what about scientific knowledge and advice in the Executive Branch? Another Research!America survey shows that the Majority Of Americans think that candidates for Congress should have a basic understanding of scientific issues and, further, that these candidates should have a science advisor. I conjecture, if I may, that most Americans would further agree that the President him or herself should also get good science advice, from good science advisors. So, what about that?

The President typically gets science advice from the White House Office of Science and Technology (OSTP). But, this office is (still) understaffed. President Trump has not yet appointed an OSTP director, who would coordinate scientific programs across government and presumably also serve as the president’s science advisor. It remains unclear whether Trump intends to fill this position, even with groups of Senators urging him to make these appointments. You can track the OSTP Director and other executive branch appointments with the Washington Post.

A recent report’s title — Abandoning Science Advice: One Year in, the Trump Administration Is Sidelining Science Advisory Committees — issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists is most informative on this topic. It contains many chilling tidbits. For example, advisory committees for the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and Department of Interior shrunk in size and met less often in 2017 than at any time in the past 20 years. Such advisory committees have historically included both public- and private-sector scientists, but the balance of representation has also changed during the Trump administration; after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned its grant recipients from advisory roles, its proportion of industry advisors rose from 6% to 23%.

Finally, let’s review our federal investment in science and compare it to that of other countries. I’ve previously written about how the U.S. compares to other countries in terms of our investment in science. The just-released NSF biennial Science & Engineering Indicators report for 2018 shows that overall research spending in China has increased by about 18% per year since 2000 while in the U.S., the annual increase during the same period has been only 4%.

Our position as a world leader was a focus of the Senate hearing referred to earlier in this piece. The U.S. has been a magnet for students from all over the world seeking a top education. But, more and more we are at the least alienating and at the worst actively not permitting foreign students to study here. In its latest annual survey, the Council of Graduate Schools asserts that policies, such as the travel ban and “extreme vetting,” “might have created significant damage to the reputation of the United States as the preferred destination for those who pursue advanced studies.” According to the survey, applications from prospective international students were down by 3% in fall 2017. The table below — showing total international graduate enrollment by field of study for Fall 2017 — indicates that mathematics and engineering are at risk of being hit especially hard by decreasing applications from abroad. Our Master’s degree programs in mathematics might be especially hard hit.

If we want to remain a world leader, educating the next generation of scientist must remain a top priority.

As Eric Lander argues in the Boston Globe, the U.S. is at a turning point and may well “yield its position as the world’s leader in science and technology.” He points out that President Trump has tweeted about 4,700 times since taking office and neither “science” nor “technology” have made even one appearance. While this might just seem silly, to stoop so low to even refer to our president’s tweets, is this telling? So, if tweets are silly, how about the State of the Union address? From the text submitted for the record, we find the word “science” once and “technology” zero times. And, for the record, “education” has two mentions. His mention of science was toward the end of the speech, when he told us that “Americans fill the world with art and music. They push the bounds of science and discovery.” His first mention of education was when he was telling us of one of his special guest’s plans to save for his children’s’ education and the second was in the context of immigration, that those “who meet education and work requirements, and show good moral character, will be able to become full citizens of the United States.” Neither of these is really about education.

Who cares if we lead? Lander’s piece makes a good argument that being a global leader is important.

Closing remarks. All this neglect and structural loss is leading to a sense of fatigue within certain sectors of the research community, at science agencies, and in Congress.

I always try to think of the bright side…..wait for it (I’m thinking) ……perhaps we will see more scientists galvanized to take a shot at a Congressional seat themselves; could this help that Majority Of Americans (mentioned earlier in this piece) sleep better?

 

Posted in Advocacy, Appropriations, Congress, Federal support for science, International science, NSF, Science Policy | Tagged , | Comments Off on Science under fire in the U.S.A.

The AMS & Gerrymandering

Posted on January 29, 2018 by Karen Saxe

Photo credit: Kate Awtrey, Atlanta Convention Photography

The 2018 Joint Mathematics Meetings were fantastic. One of my favorite talks was — surprise, surprise — the fabulous Saturday afternoon MAA-AMS-SIAM Gerald and Judith Porter Public Lecture, given by Tufts University professor Moon Duchin on Political Geometry: Voting Districts, “Compactness,” and Ideas About Fairness. The audience of – apparently – 953 was enthusiastically engaged. Duchin’s talk focused on the legislative history of redistricting and introduced the mathematical methods and quantitative approaches used to gerrymander and simultaneously to detect gerrymandering.

Her talk was quite timely. The math community is becoming increasingly active in the redistricting process and in court cases challenging particular maps as partisan gerrymanders. Cases under court consideration in which arguments rely on quantitative assessments of partisanship include the Wisconsin case currently in consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court, the North Carolina case just decided, and the Pennsylvania case also just decided. The last one is interesting because, and I believe (if you know otherwise please write me!) it is the first in which mathematical scientists have served as witnesses for both sides.

Photo credit: Corey Lowenstein/The News & Observer, via Associated Press

Professor Duchin spoke about one general approach for detecting partisan gerrymandering that is making its way into legal decisions (e.g., see the discussion on page 91 of the joint decision handed down in North Carolina in the two cases Common Cause v. Rucho, No. 1:16-CV-1026, and League v. Rucho, No. 1:16-CV-1164). The general outline of this approach is to produce — using, for example and as done for the NC case, a Markov chain Monte Carlo method — a large “ensemble” of possible districting plans that comport with traditional principles such as equal population, contiguity, compactness, and simultaneously comply with the Voting Rights Act. After that, we compute some metric(s) that measures partisan outcomes for each of the plans in the ensemble. Finally, one can decide if the proposed plan is an “outlier.” In other words, answer the question: “where does the proposed districting plan lie, in the histogram of the metric, amongst all plans in the ensemble?” A proposed plan is considered to have partisan bias when its value of the fairness measure is highly unusual compared to values for the alternative plans.

On the Tuesday before the Joint Meetings, the AMS Council met and was presented with a statement on gerrymandering; the AMS Committee on Science Policy brought the statement to the Council with a recommendation to endorse. The statement was written by a small team of experts drawn from the membership of the AMS together with colleagues from the American Statistical Association.

I am pleased that the AMS Council voted to endorse this statement, which positions mathematics and statistics in the national conversation on redistricting. In response to the passage of the statement, AMS President Ken Ribet noted

Our community is poised to play a central role in ongoing discussions about methods for creating voting districts and the evaluation of existing and proposed district maps. It has been a pleasure for me to observe the recent explosion in interest in this topic among colleagues and students. I anticipate that the new statement by the ASA and AMS Council will lead to increasing transparency in the evaluation of districting methods.

Every state will begin redistricting as soon as the 2020 Census data are available. We aim to get those charged with drawing maps to incorporate the expertise of AMS and ASA members, with the ultimate goal that every single state has a map that is NOT an outlier in terms of the partisan make-up of the Congressional delegation it elects to the U.S. House of Representatives. Mathematicians and statisticians will be able to do this: immediately after 2020 Census data becomes available, the Metric Geometry and Gerrymandering Group (a Boston-based team led by Moon Duchin) will publicly release a large ensemble of maps for the districted races in each state so that proposed districting plans can be evaluated against a range of viable alternatives.”

While more and more court cases include mathematical and statistical arguments in their proceedings, we have yet to see our expertise brought in adequately in the early, map-drawing stages of the process. The tide may be turning, I know of a few mathematical scientists who have served on citizens’ redistricting committees and as consultants to map-drawers, and Pennsylvania’s Governor has just enlisted the help of a mathematician to draw new maps.

What can you do?

  1. Learn more!
    1. Attend one of the regional Geometry of Gerrymandering workshops,
    2. Look at the great resources by academic research teams, including those posted by:
      1. Tufts’ Metric Geometry and Gerrymandering Group,
      2. Duke’s Quantifying gerrymandering group,
      3. Princeton’s Gerrymander Project.
    3. Explore legal resources shared by the Brennan Center for Justice.
    4. Sign-up for the National Academies’ May 8th webinar on redistricting featuring Duke University’s Jonathan Mattingly and yours truly.
    5. Play with some of the free redistricting software you find via a Google search (e.g., at the Public Mapping project).
    6. Get yourself a beer, ovaltine, or your drink of choice, sit in a comfy place and try your hand at the Redistricting Game (fun with teens if you have some hanging around your home or classroom).
  2. Share what you know!
    1. Write an Op-Ed [1] for your local paper about the role of mathematics in redistricting (feel free to contact me for specific ideas tailored to your state: kxs@ams.org).
    2. Get involved with a local civic group (e.g., League of Women Voters) and offer to give a public talk on redistricting.
    3. If you have kids in school (or even if you don’t) volunteer at the local high school to give a talk on redistricting (contact a math, civics, or AP government teacher, and if you do this I can assure you that the Redistricting Game mentioned above is a big hit).

Have fun!

 

 

[1] Incidentally, I intend to write a post soon on writing op eds; stay tuned!

Posted in Congress, Mathematicians, Redistricting | Tagged , | Comments Off on The AMS & Gerrymandering

Of Mathematics, Congressional Briefings, and President Trump’s National Security Strategy

Posted on January 3, 2018 by Karen Saxe

On December 6, Shafi Goldwasser — RSA Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT — spoke at the U.S. Capitol on “Cryptography: How to Enable Privacy in a Data-Driven World.”  Dr. Goldwasser will take up a new post on January 1, 2018 as director of the Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing at the University of California, Berkeley; the Simons Institute made a film of Dr. Goldwasser’s experience visiting “the Hill” and with members of Congress. Her talk was the latest in our biennial Congressional Briefings series run jointly with the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI).

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA 12) and Representatives Jerry McNerney (CA 9) and Daniel Lipinski (IL 3) were on hand to give remarks and provide their support for the mathematical sciences and federal funding of basic scientific research.

Our next briefing will take place in April or May; stay tuned!

Dr. Goldwasser’s pioneering work in the field of cryptography examines how we share and receive information. The enormous amount of data currently collected offers great opportunities to achieve medical breakthroughs, smart infrastructure, economic growth through consumer targeting, and surveillance for national security. This data collection, however, seems to stand in contradiction to patients’ rights, consumers’ privacy, unfair pricing, and the “Basic Right to be Left Alone.” Dr. Goldwasser’s presentation addressed how modern encryption methods, zero-knowledge proofs, and multi-party secure computation make progress on sharing information while simultaneously maintaining privacy. Zero-knowledge proofs are powerful tools in the design of cryptographic protocols. The notion was developed in the 1980s by Dr. Goldwasser, and MIT colleagues Silvio Micali and Charles Rackoff. In 2013, Goldwasser and Micali were awarded the Turing Award for their work on cryptography.

Her talk was timely. National security is a top priority for the Trump administration. But what, exactly, is meant by “national security”? The opening Wikipedia line asserts that it “refers to the security of a nation state, including its citizens, economy, and institutions, and is regarded as a duty of government.” Later on, we read – on this same Wikipedia page – that the “concept of national security remains ambiguous, having evolved from simpler definitions which emphasised freedom from military threat and from political coercion.” Part of it certainly includes ensuring safety from military attacks. It is now construed more broadly and protecting our national security includes a wide range of efforts aimed at everything from protecting citizens from insecurities due to climate change (e.g., food insecurity) to protecting against cyber-attacks.

The National Security Act of 1947 and its amendments mark the federal government’s firm commitment to protecting its citizens from military threat. The 1947 version of the law created the agency which later became the Department of Defense, and established the National Security Council as well as the Central Intelligence Agency. In 1949, the Council became part of the Executive Office of the President and our first National Security Advisor Robert Cutler began in that role in 1953. The current advisor is Herbert Raymond “H.R.” McMaster. His view on cybersecurity is that cyber-terrorism is a serious threat to the U.S. Professor Goldwasser’s talk focused on cybersecurity, and keeping us safe in in “cyberspace”.

Less than two weeks after her talk, President Trump unveiled his National Security Strategy (NSS) – a political document drafted with oversight from McMaster. These annual reports to Congress are required by the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Department Reorganization Act of 1986. However, only seven have been produced since 2000.

This one has received much commentary in the press, and I won’t write about that at all. You can google and quickly find opinions – both positive and negative – from within the U.S. and from news sources around the world.

What does it mean for mathematicians and other scientists?

The Trump Administration’s NSS indicates their understanding that cyberspace is a critical part to practically every aspect of national security. It has been noted that the document has entirely dismissed climate change. Interestingly, the statement refers a few times to universities, asserting that the U.S. “must continue to attract the innovative and the inventive, the brilliant and the bold. We will encourage scientists in government, academia, and the private sector to achieve advancements across the full spectrum of discovery, from incremental improvements to game-changing breakthroughs.” This would be done, in part, by improving STEM education and is done in an effort to “Promote American Prosperity.” Those of us in the mathematical sciences might want to take note that data science and encryption are specifically pointed out as areas that will be pursued and promoted. Or not; Newsweek explains “why it is pure fantasy to believe that the National Security Strategy will drive policy in the Trump administration.”

 

 

Posted in Cybersecurity, Federal support for science | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Of Mathematics, Congressional Briefings, and President Trump’s National Security Strategy

Professional Societies in the Mathematical Sciences: The Landscape

Posted on December 19, 2017 by Karen Saxe

As you are surely aware, there are several professional associations with opportunities (benefits and volunteer) for mathematical researchers, educators, and students. Many members of the AMS are also members of one or more of our sister societies. Do these associations communicate? Work together? Of course! What do they do together and how do they do this? Read on and you will see some basic answers.

Many of us are about to head to San Diego for some nicer weather and, oh, the Joint Mathematics Meetings are there! The Joint Meetings are run annually and jointly by the AMS with the MAA (for society acronyms, see below). Several other associations hold activities at the JMM as well.

The AMS works with various coalitions on a range of issues that impact our community. The Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS) is the largest such coalition, and “is an umbrella organization consisting of seventeen professional societies all of which have as one of their primary objectives the increase or diffusion of knowledge in one or more of the mathematical sciences. Its purpose is to promote understanding and cooperation among these national organizations so that they work together and support each other in their efforts to promote research, improve education, and expand the uses of mathematics.” The CBMS member societies are:

And, this is just the professional association landscape in the U.S. There are of course professional societies all over the world, but this post is focusing only on our own national landscape.

The CBMS associations work together to run research conferences, and fora on education. They consider matters of national relevance and occasionally write position statements. Since 1965, and every five years, CBMS sponsors a national survey of undergraduate mathematical and statistical sciences in the nation’s two- and four-year colleges and universities. The informative reports summarizing the survey results are free!

The AMS is also part of the smaller Joint Policy Board for Mathematics, alongside the ASA, MAA, and SIAM. This group promotes Mathematics and Statistics Awareness Month (in case you don’t know, that’s April) to increase public understanding of and appreciation for mathematics, and, since 1988, rewards communicators who bring mathematics to a broader audience with the annual JPBM Communications Award. In Washington, JPBM members advocate for increased and sustained federal funding for research and education in the mathematical sciences.

I know it might sound odd to you, but this is me writing – I enjoy CBMS and JPBM biannual meetings. The fact that they both just happened is perhaps why I was inspired to tell you about these groupings of math societies. CBMS had its most recent meeting on December 7, and JPBM’s was October 30. These meetings give a chance to meet and share about the member societies’ activities and to hear from key players at our national agencies (e.g., NSF), the White House, and the National Academies about challenges and opportunities relevant to the mathematical sciences community.

Our community is full of wonderful people looking to move our research agendas forward, to improve education in our fields, to broaden participation in the sciences, to use ideas from mathematics for technological innovation, and to communicate about all these to non-mathematicians. While each society has its own niche, we share many goals and we can complement each other to promote these goals and to make the group voice more effective and more powerful.

Posted in Mathematicians, Professional Societies | Tagged | 1 Comment

Tuesday Tax Post Update

Posted on December 8, 2017 by Karen Saxe

I’ve added the Senate conferees to the post, in case you want to reach them also!

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Tuesday Tax Post Update

Tuesday tax update! Act today

Posted on December 5, 2017 by Karen Saxe

The next step for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is that it will “go to conference” where the differences between the House and Senate versions will be reconciled. The result will then go to the President for his signature into law.

A brief recap of how the tax bill affects the American Mathematical Society’s interests in supporting graduate students:

The House bill would require students to report tuition fee waivers as taxable income. We are concerned about this, as mathematics graduate students would be affected. About 60% of the 145,000 students who receive tuition waivers are in STEM fields. According to Nature, “higher taxes could be one more disincentive to pursuing an advanced degree, given the already bleak prospects in an oversaturated academic job market and the flat budgets at science-funding agencies.” This tax provision is not good policy, at a time when we need to train more — not fewer — Americans with STEM backgrounds.

One news source gives an example of a PhD student at the University of Washington. She is from the Midwest and her out-of-state tuition is \$30,000 a year. The university pays her a yearly stipend of about \$31,000 in exchange for her work in research and as a teaching assistant. In 2016, she paid income taxes on that teaching stipend and ended up owing the government \$2,334. If the House provision becomes law, the grant that covers tuition will be viewed as additional income. If the numbers remain the same, this student’s total income before deductions becomes \$61,398 — nearly double what she filed last year. She would owe \$7,488, about \$5,000 more.

The Senate rejects this tax on tuition waivers that appears in the House bill.

There are two actions you can take today to speak out against the tax that will hurt our graduate students:

Action 1: The House Conferees are set. The Republican Conferees are Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX 8), Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR 2), Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT 1), Devin Nunes (R-CA 22), Peter Roskam (R-IL 6), Budget Chairwoman Diane Black (R-TN 6), Kristi Noem (R-SD at large), Don Young (R-AK at large) and John Shimkus (R-IL 15). The Democratic Conferees are Ways and Means ranking member Richard Neal (D-MA 1.), Sandy Levin (D-MI 9), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX 35), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ 3) and Kathy Castor (D-FL 14).

If you are a constituent of any of these Representatives, you can write to them with your concerns.

Senate-side, the conferees are also set, they are: Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), John Cornyn (R-TX), John Thune (R-SD), Rob Portman (R-OH), Tim Scott (R-SC), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bernard Sanders (D-VT), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Tom Carper (D-DE), and Patty Murray (D-WA).

Action 2: Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX 32) is leading a letter to House and Senate leadership to strongly oppose the repeal of the income exclusion for graduate tuition waivers. Please consider asking representatives from your House delegations to sign-on to the letter, to support our graduate students. You can find your House member via the “Quick Links” at the upper right corner of this Office’s website:

www.ams.org/government/government

And, if you live in one district and your university is in another, reach out to both Representatives!

You can tell your Representative that they should contact Ron Donado at ron.donado@mail.house.gov  if they would like to sign on to the letter.

The deadline for sign-on is Friday, December 8th at 12:00 p.m. 

While the deadline for Action 2 has passed, it is not too late to do Action 1.

The AMS Government Relations Office in Washington DC is launching a Grass Roots Advocacy Program in 2018. You will be able to opt-in, and receive Action Alerts and other news from us. This will make it very easy to respond to such calls to action such as this one. Stay tuned!

 

Posted in Advocacy, Graduate students, Higher Education, Mathematicians, Taxes | Tagged , | Comments Off on Tuesday tax update! Act today

How does U.S. investment in science compare to that of other countries?

Posted on December 1, 2017 by Karen Saxe

I know you’ve been wondering.

Federal investment in science supports the research of professors and graduate students at American universities, and funds our national laboratories. About half of U.S. basic research is conducted at universities and is funded by the federal government. However, the largest share of U.S. total “research and development” (R&D) is development, and this is mainly performed by the business sector. The business sector also performs the majority of applied research. The R&D performed domestically by U.S. businesses occurs mainly in five business sectors: chemicals manufacturing (particularly the pharmaceuticals industry); computer and electronic products manufacturing; transportation equipment manufacturing (particularly the automobiles and aerospace industries); information (particularly the software publishing industry); and professional, scientific, and technical services (particularly the computer systems design and scientific R&D services industries).

The government-university-industry partnership dates to at least the Morrill Act of 1862, and is ever-changing. As an example of this change, we remember that, in 1925, 4000 scientists and engineers were assigned to a newly created Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. to explore “fundamental areas of science likely to shape the future of the industry”. At a recent National Academies of Science convocation, Jeannette Wing (Director of the Data Science Institute at Columbia University and Former Corporate Vice President of Microsoft Research) referred to this partnership as “out of whack”. Think of the 3-cycle:

We could hope that government provides funds for universities to build talent and ideas and industries, in turn, take these ideas (and hire our students) and build upon them for the public good, at which point the economy grows and brings money back to the government.

For a number of reasons, the public feels disconnected, even alienated, from this cycle. This is hurting our country. We – the scientific community – need to take responsibility for this alienation, at least in part. More on this in future blog posts. But, now, back to the topic of national investments in science.

American investment in science has been relatively high, but countries that have not spent so much in the past are upping their game, to help secure their future economic stability and growth. According to a 2016 Nature article, the U.S. ranks 11th in terms of its investment in research and development as a percentage of its gross domestic product. They report that the top 30 countries spend roughly 1.7% to 4.3% of GDP in this way.

In case you are interested, the top 12 countries, in decreasing order of investment, are: South Korea, Israel, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Jamaica, U.S., and Fiji. Any surprises therein? When looking at the list, it struck me that Nepal and Democratic Republic of the Congo come in at #s 24 and 26, above both Norway (#28) and the United Kingdom (#29); could it be particularly small denominators? In any case (that was a slight digression), Israel and South Korea are the only two countries to invest over 4% and, for the past 3 or 4 years, they have gone back and forth in the #1 and #2 positions in this ranking.

This ranking, though, hides interesting information about such comparisons. For example, 75% of the South Korean investments are from industry. In the U.S., the majority had – for a long time – come from the federal government. In 2013 the federal government funds accounted for less than half of our funding for basic research for the first time since World War II. In the 1960s and 1970s, the federal contribution to this commitment was greater than 70%.

Some questions are:

  • What are the sources for scientific research and development funding? Possible answers: Government; Industry; Philanthropy
  • Where are research and development done? Possible answers: Business enterprise; Government; Higher education; Private non-profit
  • What is meant by scientific research and development? Possible answers: Applied research; Basic research; Development/Experimental developmental

And, importantly, why should countries invest in research and development at all? One answer: these investments have proved to be good for our economy. Scientifically driven innovations have fueled as much as half of all U.S. economic growth since World War II.

President Trump would like to reinvigorate the U.S. economy. In order to do so, we need improved access to high-quality STEM education and increased and sustained investments in science and innovation. We must be ever-watchful of policies introduced that would hinder access (e.g., the current tax bill moving through Congress) or undermine science and innovation in some other way (e.g., the President’s budget request for the National Science Foundation). I am watching, and use this blog and also the AMS Policy and Advocacy News page to keep you informed.

 

 

 

Posted in Appropriations, Congress, Federal support for science, International science, Mathematicians, Science Policy | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Update: Taxes and Education

Posted on November 10, 2017 by Karen Saxe

On November 6, I wrote about the GOP tax bill introduced in the House of Representatives. That bill is due to be voted on this week.

Meanwhile, the Senate has introduced their own bill and it differs significantly from the House’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The Senate Finance Committee is considering this bill this week.

Again, let’s focus on the impacts on students and colleges and universities. As described in my last post, the House bill would require students to report tuition fee waivers as taxable income. Many of you are concerned about this, and rightfully so, as mathematics graduate students would be affected. About 60% of the 145,000 students who receive tuition waivers are in STEM fields. According to Nature, “higher taxes could be one more disincentive to pursuing an advanced degree, given the already bleak prospects in an oversaturated academic job market and the flat budgets at science-funding agencies.”

The Senate rejects this tax on tuition waivers that appears in the House bill. The Senate version also preserves the American Opportunity Tax Credit, Lifetime Learning Credit and Hope Scholarship Credit, as well as the credit for student-loan interest. All of these are discussed in my last post.

The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) has put out a piece describing several examples of the potential impact of taxing tuition waivers on master’s and doctoral students.

The Senate agrees with the House, though, in the creation of a new excise tax of 1.4% on endowments at some private colleges and universities. Endowments are often used to support students demonstrating financial need and to broaden the pool of students who can attend. This excise tax will impact these students, our most vulnerable. The House bill originally would have placed this tax burden on schools with at least 500 students and with assets of \$100,000 per student; this amount is now \$250,000 per student.

These are not the only provisions in the Senate bill that would impact AMS members. Media postings are now coming out at a rate, and the Chronicle of Higher Education is just one place you can learn more. The American Council on Education is another good resource. They end their piece on this with:

“Higher education leadership, staff, faculty, and students should actively engage in advocacy activities to remind Congress of our community’s priorities.​ Also, please make use of our Contact Congress pages to help reach your congressional delegation about the specific higher education provisions most important to you.”

You can find how to contact your members of Congress at the AMS Washington Office web page (link in upper right corner), and I encourage you to follow ACE’s advice and reach out about the provisions important to you! The CGS examples above could be useful making your case.

The House and Senate versions of the tax bills differ in many ways, not only on the education provisions. The differences need reconciled before being signed into law by the President, and so it is still timely to weigh in with your Congressional members on the points you care about.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Tax Bill and Potential Impacts on Graduate Education and our Universities

Posted on November 6, 2017 by Karen Saxe

The “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” was introduced last week in the House and is moving quickly through Congress. It contains several provisions that, if signed into law, would affect the AMS community. I will add something to this post when the Senate version comes out.

Speaker Paul Ryan has stated that he is confident the House will pass the bill by Thanksgiving. Let me give you a quick overview of what this bill means for students and institutes of higher education. At the end of this post there is more information about what you can do to take action, by contacting your Congressional delegation about the provisions affecting graduate students in mathematics.

Under current law, there are 15 different tax benefits relating to education that often overlap with one another. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would eliminate or consolidate a number of tax deductions meant to offset the costs of higher education.

Most of these provisions (described below) are found in the bill’s Title I, Subsection C , though Title V, subtitle B contains the 1.4% tax on certain schools. If you want a very good explanation of the bill, I suggest the section-by-section summary from the House Ways and Means Committee.

For starters, the three higher-education tax credits — the American Opportunity Tax Credit, Lifetime Learning Credit and Hope Scholarship Credit — would be folded into one credit. The bill

  • eliminates the Lifetime Learning Credit, which provides a tax deduction of up to $2,000 for tuition, and
  • eliminates the Hope Scholarship Credit.

In place of those two cuts, the bill extends the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) for one extra year, making it a tax break that students can take for up to five years. For the first four years, the AOTC lets you get up to $2,500 back if you spend up to $4,000 on tuition and fees—no change there—but for the fifth year, under the new tax plan, the size of the tax break would be halved, so it would be worth only $1,250.

The bill also:

  • Eliminates a credit for student-loan interest. Currently, people with incomes below certain thresholds can deduct up to $2,500 of student loan interest each year. The tax bill would do away with this as of 2018.
  • Eliminates a $5,250 corporate deduction for education-assistance plans. At the moment, when employers pay your tuition for continuing education, the amount they pay is not taxable income for you as long as it meets certain conditions and amounts to no more than $5,250 per year. If the tax bill passes as written, these tuition payments will count as taxable income starting in 2018.
  • Eliminates new contributions to the tax-free Coverdell Savings Accounts; existing Coverdells would be rolled over into 529 plans.

The bill proposes new taxes on some private-college endowments and on compensation for the highest-paid employees at nonprofit organizations, including colleges and nonprofit academic hospitals. One example: private universities with at least 500 students and assets of more than $100,000 per student would face a new 1.4% excise tax on investment returns. Many universities are putting out statements about this.

The plan would also tax the tuition waivers that many graduate students receive when they work as teaching or research assistants. The Washington Post asserts that “streamlining the jumble of tax credits could increase revenue for the government by $17.3 billion over 10 years, according to the plan. That is likely because the new credit would squeeze graduate students, especially PhD candidates who spent far longer than five years in college.”

The AAU released a statement opposing the proposed excise tax on university endowment income; the APLU also issued a statement addressing the overall bill’s effects on higher education and stating their concern in particular about the “provisions in the legislation that would tax students on tuition reductions that colleges and universities provide, especially to graduate students who are teaching or performing pathbreaking research.”

What can you do?

You can talk to your university government relations office about this bill and how it will impact your university, and see what action — if any — your university is taking.

If you are concerned about the effect on graduate students, I suggest you take a look at “Graduate Students & The “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”: What You Need to Know,” a resource guide put out on November 3 by the Student Advocates for Graduate Education (SAGE) Coalition. This guide explains the bill’s impacts for grad students and postdocs; it explains who, when and how to contact legislators; it gives a timeline for Congress votes on this bill; and it gives a script.

 

Posted in Advocacy, Congress, Grassroots Leaders, Higher Education, Mathematicians, Uncategorized | Tagged | 8 Comments