Computer Science Research 

Funding 

How much is too little? 

Eli Zimet, Stuart Starr, Clifford Lau, and Anup Ghosh 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy 

National Defense University

June 2009 
 ii

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy 

or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense or the U.S. 

Government. All information and sources for this paper were drawn from unclassified materials. 

Elihu Zimet is a consultant for CTNSP at the National Defense University. Previously he was a 

Senior Research Fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. Prior to that he headed the 

Expeditionary Warfare Science and Technology Department at the Office of Naval Research. In 

this position he directed S&T programs in missiles, directed energy, aircraft, and stealth, as well 

as S&T support to the Marine Corps. Dr. Zimet holds a BS (ME) from the Polytechnic Institute 

of Brooklyn and a Ph.D. from Yale University. 

Stuart Starr is a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Center for Technology and National 

Security Policy, National Defense University, Fort McNair, Washington, DC. Concurrently, he 

serves as President, Barcroft Research Institute (BRI). Prior to founding BRI, Dr. Starr was 

Director of Plans, The MITRE Corporation. Dr. Starr received a BS in Electrical Engineering 

from Columbia University in 1963. He received his MS and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from 

the University of Illinois in 1965 and 1969, respectively, and was a Fellow at MIT's Seminar 

XXI during 1989–1990.

Clifford Lau is a research staff member at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) performing 

studies and analyses to support the Office of Secretary of Defense and other defense and Federal 

agencies. His current interest is in nanotechnology and nanoelectronics and implications for 

defense, as well as science and technology policy. Prior to joining IDA in 2004, he was the 

Associate Director for University Research Programs in the Office of Naval Research (ONR. He 

received his Ph.D. from the University of California at Santa Barbara in 1978, his MS from UC 

Berkeley in 1967, and BS from UC Berkeley in 1966, all in electrical engineering and computer 

science.

Anup Ghosh is Research Professor and Chief Scientist in the Center for Secure Information 

Systems (CSIS) at George Mason University. Dr. Ghosh was previously Senior Scientist and 

Program Manager in the Advanced Technology Office of the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency (DARPA), where he managed an extensive portfolio of information assurance 

and information operations programs. Dr. Ghosh is also founder of Secure Command, a software 

security company that commercializes next generation security research. He completed is Ph.D. 

and MS in Electrical Engineering from the University of Virginia and his BS in Electrical 

Engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 

Defense & Technology Papers are published by the National Defense University Center for 

Technology and National Security Policy, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, DC. 

CTNSP publications are available at http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/publications.html.
 iii

Contents 

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ v 

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 

Historical Funding of Computer Science Research and Trends ..................................................... 2 

Computer Science Taxonomy......................................................................................................... 4 

DOD Funding Agencies and Support ............................................................................................. 4 

Quality of Computer Science Research Funding Data ................................................................. 11 

Workshop of Academic Leaders in Computer Science ................................................................ 13 

Conclusions................................................................................................................................... 15 
 iv
 v

Executive Summary 

A study of the historical and planned level of Department of Defense (DOD) funding in 

computer science (CS) research from the 2001–2011 DOD records has provided a top-level view 

of the current status of investment in this foundational technology. This study was triggered by 

university and Congressional concern that DOD has been reducing its investment in CS research. 

While the funding database provided by DOD agencies and components was limited, the study 

found that DOD maintains a significant and stable investment in CS and the related areas of 

information science (IS) and network and information technology (NIT). Overall, CS/IS/NIT 

constitutes 17.4 percent of the entire DOD science and technology (S&T) funding base. 

While top-line DOD funding shows out-year growth, a primary finding of this study is that the 

focus of the DOD research investment in NIT has shifted from basic research to more applied 

DOD applications. It remains to be seen whether the shift from basic CS research funding to 

applied research and advanced technology development in NIT will result in the kind of 

fundamental advances in technology enabled by an earlier generation of funding in CS research. 

However, total funding in NIT research and development from all Federal agencies has grown to 

over three billion dollars in 2008, with DOD contributing about a third. Current hindrances to 

academic research in DOD-sponsored NIT research have had the effect of limiting university 

participation in some DOD contracts and grant programs. These obstacles include prepublication review, International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) restrictions, and short 

milestones for go/no-go decisions for program continuation. 
 vi
Introduction 

In the 2005 Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 108-375), Congress noted with concern that 

DOD was reducing its investment in long-term CS research. Congress concluded that this 

reduced funding level put at risk next-generation systems for networking, information 

technology (IT), and information assurance (IA) technology. This concern was brought to the 

attention of Congress by several universities with histories of DOD-sponsored research that were 

concerned that CS was becoming underfunded relative to the level of worthwhile new proposals 

being submitted to DOD. In response to this Congressional concern, the Deputy Under Secretary 

of Defense for Science and Technology (DUSD(S&T)) asked The National Defense University 

(NDU) to undertake a study to determine the historical levels of DOD CS funding. The study 

focused on two issues. First, has DOD CS funding to universities changed substantially year-toyear? Second, what was the trend in DOD funding of CS (e.g., absolute funding and ratio of CS 

funding to total science and technology (S&T) funding)? 

The purpose of this paper is to address these two issues and explore additional issues raised in 

the study. First, we summarize the findings and issues uncovered in the study. Second, we 

summarize historical funding of CS research and trends. Third, we formulate a taxonomy for CS. 

Fourth, we identify DOD CS funding agencies and categories of funding. Fifth, we comment on 

the quality of CS research funding data. Sixth, we summarize the results of a workshop of 

academic leaders in CS on these issues. Finally, we conclude by formulating key findings and 

recommendations. 

While accurate data were limited, available existing funding data did not support the claim of a 

decrease in DOD CS investment. What has changed is increased focus on near-term applications, 

with the research increasingly mission-driven to solve current problems. Along these lines, the 

Defense Advanced Research Agency (DARPA) has shifted from block-funded university 

programs to funding mission-focused systems. Topics for research in CS continue to change, 

with new topics replacing old ones periodically. While basic research continues to provide the 

foundation, much current attention is focused on application-oriented research and IT 

development. 

In the course of this study, several concerns were uncovered that transcend the concern over 

university funding of CS research. In particular, it was found that once-rigorous recording of data 

by DOD of its S&T database had significantly atrophied in the last several years, since the 

requirement for the Services to submit a standard data form (DD1498) for every S&T project had 

been relaxed. While DOD is currently instituting procedures in the Reliance-21 process to 

reestablish a meaningful database and to comply with the requirements of the E-Gov act of 

2002,1

 the data to analyze the CS funding issue was in general incomplete, missing, and 

inconsistent among different sources of information. At a minimum, information at the 

individual project level needs to include the objective, approach, and progress of the project, in 

addition to funding and performer information. This information was difficult to obtain for the 

period FY00–FY06, in which funding trends for CS were examined. 

 

1 The E-Gov act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347) mandated that the U.S. Government promote greater use of the 

Internet to foster interagency collaboration, provide citizen-centric government information and services, promote 

better-informed decisionmaking, and promote citizen access to the government. 
 2

Different definitions of what should be considered CS also played a role in the analysis of CS 

funding. Traditionally, CS was the study of computers, including the theory of computation, 

algorithms, discrete mathematics, and computer hardware and software design. But over the 

years, CS has become part of the broader area of information science (IS). Recently, NIT has 

included the processing and communication of data and information, and the hardware, software, 

and systems that perform those functions. Complicating an analysis of funding of CS research is 

the fact that the terms computer science, information science, and network and information 

technology are sometimes used interchangeably. In addition, DOD characterizes the applied 

research (6.2) and advanced technology development (6.3) component of CS/IS/NIT as 

information systems technology (IST). 

Finally, while DOD continues to be a major funding source of CS research, with a budget in this 

area comparable to that of the National Science Foundation (NSF), NIT research and 

development (NITRD) comprises a major multi-agency investment of roughly $3B a year 

coordinated by the National Coordinating Office (NCO)2

. NSF continues to be the principal 

funding entity for university research. 

An additional concern is the limited funding and programmatic data provided by DOD agencies 

and components, both to DOD and for the public record. This is due to both the limiting of 

distribution and the aggregation of data, which confuses attempts to separate CS from other 

research areas. While not directly related to the issue of funding CS, limited distribution of 

research results and technologies has a strong impact on the flow of ideas essential to innovation 

and progress in the research domain and inhibits the ability to build a database (such as was 

collected during this CS funding study) to provide understanding and oversight of DOD research 

programs. 

Historical Funding of Computer Science Research and 

Trends 

This report addresses the concerns that DOD was reducing its investment in long-term CS 

research, and that this reduced funding put at risk next-generation systems for networking, IT, 

and IA technology.3

 Specifically, we are attempting to determine historical levels of research 

funding to universities and how it changed year-to-year. Of particular interest is any unusual 

change in funding profiles to determine whether CS research funding has increased or decreased 

dramatically year-to-year, or whether it is trending up or down, both in absolute numbers and in 

relation to DOD S&T funding. 

In Federal funding, the term NIT is used by several agencies to describe investment in computer 

sciences and information systems, including processing and communication of data and 

information, and the hardware, software, and systems that perform those functions. Since the 

 

2 The NCO reports through to the cabinet-level National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) through the 

subcommittee on Networking and Information Technology R&D of the NSTC Committee on Technology. See 

<http://www.nitrd.gov/about/about_nco.htm>.

3 It is important to note that DOD investment in CS research was a significant factor in developing the technologies 

that underpin today’s computing and networking infrastructure, including the Internet and basic networking 

architectures.
 3

terms CS, IS, and NIT are sometimes used interchangeably in Federal funding documents, 

funding are listed as CS/IS/NIT in the tables below. 

Public sources of published data on Federal investment in CS, IS, and NIT were investigated to 

determine both historical funding data and future funding as planned in out years of the Federal 

and Defense budgets. It is important to note here that deficiencies in published data created an 

incomplete picture of total funding of CS research. Principal causes of the sparseness of data 

essential for information exchange between researchers and for program oversight are that: 

• Requirements for DOD components to provide detailed funding and programmatic 

information were significantly relaxed several years ago. The consequent shortfall in 

collection is being addressed by DDR&E as part of the Reliance-21 process and the Egov initiative; however, shortfalls in collection persist. 

• Restrictions on distribution of research information limit the utility of the research. 

• Currently, data are supplied at too high an aggregate level to separate projects into a 

meaningful taxonomy. 

• CS is now incorporated in many multi-discipline projects, and partitioning and extracting 

its financial contribution are difficult. 

• Funding of projects in multiple program elements creates redundancies in budget data. 

Despite the limitations that plagued the assessment, the data collected were sufficient to reach 

the following broad conclusions. 

• The data from different sources showed fairly consistently that funding for CS/IS/NIT 

was flat or slightly depressed from FY00 through FY04, then increased steadily from 

FY04 through FY07. In other words, the published budgetary numbers did not show any 

significant, long-term decrease in CS/IS/NIT funding. Over the fiscal years FY04 through 

FY07, funding for CS/IS/NIT increased, and projected (programmed) funding from FY08 

through FY11 continues to increase. These budget numbers are then-year dollars, without 

any inflation adjustments, and may result in relatively flat funding over the decade. 

• The concerns raised by Congress in the 2005 Defense Authorization Act do not seem 

warranted. However, it is important to point out that the numbers combine CS research 

funding with IS and NIT. The latter two categories are very broad categories of applied 

CS. It is unclear whether funding in IS and NIT will result in the kind of fundamental 

advances in technology enabled by an earlier generation of funding in CS research. 

• Another key point of consideration is that the proportion of funding of basic research 

(6.1) remains a small fraction of the total investment in CS/IS/NIT funding. Since most 

6.1 basic research funding goes to universities, Service laboratories, and national 

laboratories, it is unclear whether this level of support is sufficient to enable the next 

generation of global technical innovation and leadership. 

In the following section we develop a taxonomy of CS research to aid future collection of data 

on CS research funding, with a current chart showing the DOD focus areas in CS/IS/NIT that 

formed the basis of this report. Following the taxonomy and chart are a listing of the DOD 

funding agencies for CS/IS/NIT and charts and tables that show historic and programmed 

funding levels of CS/IS/NIT. 
 4

Computer Science Taxonomy 

To assist in our study, a top-level taxonomy of CS research was developed by researchers in the 

CS community: 

• Systems and languages (S&L) 

• Artificial intelligence (AI) 

• Theory (THEORY) 

• Scientific computing (SC) 

• Multi-disciplinary (MD) 

Because CS research encompasses a broad range of topics, these fields were further broken down 

into the sub-levels in table 1. 

Table 1. Computer Science Research Taxonomy and Sub-levels 

Systems and Languages (S&L) Artificial Intelligence (AI) 

Command and Control Planning 

Compilers Knowledge representation 

Computer architecture Game theory 

Databases Machine learning 

Data mining Vision 

Decision support systems Speech 

Dependable systems Natural languages 

Distributed systems Theory (THEORY) 

Graphics Algorithms 

Grid computing Complexity 

High-performance computing Formal methods 

Human-Computer Interaction Technology, society, economics 

Image processing Quantum computing 

Mobile and pervasive computing Quantum computing 

Modeling and simulation Scientific Computing (SC) 

Operating systems Bioinformatics 

Parallel computing Computational biology 

Principles of programming Computational neuroscience 

Real-time and embedded systems Scientific computation 

Search Scientific computation 

Software engineering Multi-Disciplinary (MD) 

Software testing Networking 

Virtual reality Security 

Robotics 

Other 

The current taxonomy of focus areas that incorporates IS and NIT, as well as CS research as 

applied to defense network centric warfare systems, is provided in figure 1. These five focus 

areas—knowledge and information management, information security, communications and 

networking, modeling and simulation, and computing and software technology—are the basis of 

the funding charts listing DOD CS/IS/NIT investment shown in tables below. 

DOD Funding Agencies and Support 

CS research in DOD is funded by several different agencies and components, including: 

• Office of the Secretary of Defense through the Director of Defense Research and 

Engineering (DDR&E) 

• Armed Services laboratories 

o Army Research Laboratory (ARL), including Army Research Office (ARO) 
 5

o Office of Naval Research (ONR), including Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) 

o Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), including Air Force Office of Scientific 

Research (AFOSR) 

 Figure 1. DOD CS/IS/NIT Focus Areas 

• Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 

• National Security Agency (NSA) 

• Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and others 

The various research programs have been coordinated through the DDR&E Reliance process 

(currently the Reliance-21 process) to minimize redundancy and provide visibility of research 

within each agency to all agencies. The programs are coordinated through multi-Service and 

multi-agency DOD program reviews. Federal-wide, program directors from NSF, the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Department of Energy (DOE) serve on 

DOD program review panels to facilitate coordination and dissemination of CS research. 

Similarly, DOD program managers serve tours of duty in NSF and other Federal agencies. 

Finally, DOD actively participates in the Federal NITRD program responsible for coordinating 

CS/IS/NIT R&D programs across Federal agencies. 

DOD CS/IS/NIT research funds are included in the following programs: 

• Defense Research Sciences (Basic Research (6.1)) 

• University Research Initiatives (URI) (6.1) 

Information Security

Wireless Security Computer Network

Operations

Security

Management

Information

Assurance

Antennas NetOps Networking Wireless

Transport

Communications and Networking

Frameworks for

Interoperability RepresentationTechnology

Simulation Information

Technology

Modeling and Simulation Technology

Complex Software

Systems

Mission Driven

Architectures

Intelligent and

Autonomous Systems

Computing and Software Technology

Information 

Management and 

Dissemination

Information Fusion

and Knowledge

Building

Net-Centric C2I

Applications

Knowledge and Information Management
 6

• Army University and Industry Research Centers, Collaborative Technology Alliance 

(6.1) 

• Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer 

(STTR) 

• Computing and Software Technology (Applied Research (6.2)) 

• Information Technology–Decision Making (6.2) 

• Information Systems–Information Assurance (6.2/Advanced Technology Development 

(6.3)) 

• Modeling and Simulation Technology (6.2/6.3) 

• Network Communication Technology (6.2/6.3) 

• Information and Communication Technology (DARPA 6.2) 

• Cognitive Computing Systems (DARPA 6.2) 

• Command, Control and Communication Systems (DARPA 6.3) 

• Network-Centric Warfare Technology (DARPA 6.3) 

Research funding through DOD is allocated according to Basic Research (6.1), Applied Research 

(6.2), and Advanced Technology Development (6.3). The following documents were used to 

obtain funding information. 

• Technology Area Review and Assessment (TARA) Info Sys Tech Review, 2006 

• Defense Technology Area Plans (DTAP) spreadsheet, 2007 

• RDT&E Budget Item Justification Sheet (R-2 Exhibit) for relevant CS/IS/NIT Program 

Elements (e.g. PE0602304E). 

• DOD Basic Research Plans, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006. 

• DDR&E Strategic Plan, 2007. 

• Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February 6, 2006. 

• PCAST, Leadership under Challenge: Information Technology R&D in a Competitive 

World, August 2007. 

• Networking and Information Technology Research and Development, Supplement to the 

President’s Budget, August 2007. 

Table 2 shows historic DOD funding in CS/IS/NIT from FY00–FY06 in then-year millions of 

dollars. Notice that funding was relatively level over the period FY00–FY05, with a 13 percent 

surge in FY06. The table reports Basic Research funding from only the Armed Services Defense 

Research Sciences (PE 06011102A, PE 0601153N, PE 0601102F), but does not include the URI 

and In-house Laboratory Independent Research (ILIR) programs. Applied Research (6.2) and 

Technology Development (6.3) funding includes PEs in the Defense Technology Area 

Information Systems Technology. DARPA funding includes basic research (PE 0601101E) and 

relevant CS/IS/NIT programs (PE 0601303E, PE 0602304E, PE 0603760E, PE 0603766E, PE 
 7

0602301E, PE 0602302E, PE 0602110E, and PE 0602708E).4 Other CS/IS/NIT related projects 

embedded in other programs are not reported in table 2. 

Table 2. DOD CS/IS/NIT Program Funding FY00-06 

Figure 2 shows a historical perspective of NITRD funding from 1993 through the 2008 

President’s Budget Request (PBR) in millions of dollars. NITRD uses a strict set of definitions 

for the component areas, such as High End Computing R&D, whereas CS/IS/NIT includes a 

much broader set of programs. Prior to FY06, DOD funding included only DARPA and OSD 

programs. FY07 and FY08 PBR funding included DARPA, NSA, some of the Services’ basic 

and applied research program, and a small portion of technology development programs. Based 

on the limited definitions, the DOD/DARPA/NSA funding number in NITRD represents about 

half of the total DOD CS/IS/NIT budget number. For example, DARPA’s 6.3 programs are not 

included because they do not fit the NITRD definition. Similarly, some of the C3

 programs and 

discrete mathematics programs are not included. 

DOD funding contributes roughly one-third of the Federal NITRD research funding, with NSF 

funding another third. Funding numbers do not include Service and OSD programs prior to 

FY06. In the 2008 PBR, total Federal NITRD funding exceeds $3B. Federal NITRD investment 

is augmented by industry. 

The FY08 PBR by Agency and CS/IS/NIT component area is shown in table 2. The top two 

requested areas in CS/IS/NIT are High-End Computing Infrastructure and Applications and 

Human Computer Interaction and Information Management. Cyber Security and Information 

Assurance is relatively low in terms of requested FY08 funding at $217M.5

 

4

 Program elements (PE’s) are funding line budget items in an appropriation. The first four digits signify the funding 

category, e.g., PE 06011102A is category 6.1 funding. The concluding letter is for the Service or agency, i.e., A for 

Army, N for Navy, F for Air Force, and E for a DOD agency, in this case, DARPA. 5

 This amount may have been changed subsequently by the administration’s cyber security initiative at NSF and 

DARPA. 
 8

Figure 2. Federal National Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) 

Program Funding Historical Perspective 

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

FY1993FY1994FY1995

FY1996FY1997FY1998FY1999FY2000FY2001FY2002

FY2003FY2004

FY2005FY2006

FY2007

FY2008PBR

DOD/DARPA/NSA NSF NITRD

NITRD Funding (in $millions)

Table 3. NITRD FY08 PBR Funding Broken out by Agency and Program Component Areas 
 9

A more detailed look at DARPA’s CS/IS/NIT research funding from FY00 through out years to 

FY11 based on congressional PE submissions and the Defense Technology Area Plan (DTAP) is 

shown in figure 3. 

Figure 3. DARPA CS/IS/NIT Funding Profile Based on R-2 (left bar) and DTAP Data (right bar), 

in Then-year $M 

A historical look at DARPA’s funding in CS/IS/NIT shows funding was relatively flat, if not 

slightly depressed, from FY00 through FY03, but then increased through FY07. Requested 

budgets for FY08 through FY10 show further increases to over $1B, though it is important to 

remember that out-year funding is not binding but just an indication of program planning. 

Figure 4 shows CS/IS/NIT funding DOD-wide (Services 6.1 bottom bar, 6.2 second bar, 6.3 

third bar, DARPA top bar) from DTAP reporting plus 6.1-6.3 funding reported from R-2s from 

the armed services. Figure 4 shows total DOD CS/IS/NIT funding relatively level from FY00 

through FY05, then increasing steadily through FY07. Out-year program planning shows 

increases to over $2B, with the caveat these are projections (estimates) only, not commitments. 

Figure 4 shows the breakout of planned funding (from the POM) for CS/IS/NIT funding for 

FY07 through FY11 from the Armed Services (6.1, 6.2, and 6.3) and DARPA funding. Again, 

budget numbers include only DARPA and the Services’ research efforts. CS/IS/NIT funding in 

SBIR/STTR, NSA, and other agencies are not included. Basic research funding includes the 

Services’ Defense Research Sciences (PE0601102A, PE0601153N, and PE0601102F), as well as 

DOD MURI and Army’s CTAs. Services applied research (6.2) and technology development 

(6.3) funding includes PEs in the Defense Technology Area, Information Systems Technology. 

DARPA funding includes basic research (PE0601101E), and the relevant CS/IS/NIT programs 

based on PE0601101E (DRS), 0602303E (Information and Communications Technology), 

0602304E (Cognitive Computing Systems), 0603760E (Command, Control, and Communication 
 10

Systems), 0603766E (Network-Centric Warfare Technology). CS/IS/NIT projects embedded in 

other PEs are not included here. Actual DOD CS/IS/NIT funding should be higher than these 

numbers. 

Figure 4. Total DOD CS/IS/NIT Reported Funding 

Ser

Estimate

Service funding; from bottom of bar: 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, DARPA 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

$2,200

FY00FY01FY02FY03FY04FY05FY06FY07

FY08

FY09FY10FY11

Funding (in $millions)

Table 4. FY07–FY11 CS/IS/NIT POM Budget of Planned Funding 

Planned CS/IS/NIT ($M) FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 

6.1 Basic Research 168 164 171 190 183 

6.2 Applied Research 228 240 241 242 243 

6.3 Tech Development 683 665 691 696 736 

DARPA 6.1/6.2/6.3 817 900 927 920 938 

Total 1,896 1,969 2,030 2,049 2,100 

The role of DARPA in CS research is important to highlight because DARPA has been a 

traditional source of funding in this area and has funded technologies that underpin today’s 
 11

computing and networking infrastructure, including the Internet and basic networking 

architectures. Changes in the philosophy of DARPA funding in CS were a principal cause of the 

Congressional concern in 2005 about the levels of funding in CS research. 

An analysis of the data leads to the following conclusions about the DARPA funding in CS 

research: 

• DARPA CS funding to universities is steady and is not decreasing. However, the thrust of 

the DARPA program has moved from basic research to more applied problems, such as 

Internet security. 

• The historical model of DARPA CS funding (block-grants to major universities) is gone. 

This means that universities must now compete for funding on individual projects. 

• Difficulties in assessing DARPA investment in CS exist because: 

o DARPA makes little distinction between 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3. 

o DARPA programs are idea-driven and capability driven, and are not sorted by 

disciplines such as CS. 

o CS/IS/NIT research is embedded in various multidisciplinary programs because it is 

so pervasive in addressing many of DOD’s needs. 

• DOD’s and DARPA’s role in funding CS research is to focus on DOD’s needs that are 

not met by other federal agencies (e.g., NSF) and commercial industry (e.g. Microsoft 

and Google).

In addition to the objective of an investigation of the absolute value of the historical level of 

funding in CS was a comparison of the ratio of the DOD CS/IS/NIT investment to the total DOD 

investment in S&T. In figure 5, a breakout of the entire S&T program is shown by functional 

areas. The chart lists IST which is the 6.2 and 6.3 component of CS/IS/NIT. If an additional 12 

percent (the 6.1 percent of S&T funding in FY06) is added for 6.1, the total CS/IS/NIT S&T 

funding for FY06 is $1,839M. This figure is close to the figure $1,731M in table 1 for CS/IS/NIT 

S&T funding accounting for the slight differences in taxonomy between IST and the 6.2 and 6.3 

components of CS/IS/NIT. Assuming that the relative funding in CS/IS/NIT of 6.1 to the entire 

program is the same as the ratio of 6.2 and 6.3 to the entire program, from figure 5, CS/IS/NIT is 

17.4 percent of the entire S&T program. With the exception of Sensors, Electronics and 

Electronic Warfare, IST is the largest single technology area in the technology base. 

Quality of Computer Science Research Funding Data 

Significant shortfalls exist in the funding data for the period 2000–2006. Issues with the data 

include incomplete reporting of data, large inconsistencies between sources of data (e.g. the 

funding listed in the component Program Elements does not match the Congressional 

Appropriation), and data are provided at too high a level of aggregation to determine 
 12

Figure 5. Characterization of the DOD S&T Program by Technology Area 

• Funding

– Current year S&T dollars: 

$10.5B FY06 to $11.1B FY11

– Percent of DoD funding: 2.51% 

FY06 to 2.5% FY11

– Over 50% of total investment in 

4 functional areas:

• Information Systems (1.6B)

• Sensors, Electronics / EW 

(1.8B)

• Basic Research (1.4B)

• Weapons (1.2B)

Information 

Systems 

Technology, 

1,642

Basic 

Research, 

1,422 Weapons, 

1,173

Materials 

/Processes, 

824

Chemical 

/Biological 

Defense, 465

Ground and 

Sea Vehicles, 

528Air Platforms, 

717

Sensors, 

Electronics, 

and Electronic 

Warfare, 1,849

Biomedical, 

296

Nuclear 

Technology, 

184

Battlespace 

Environments, 

184 Other, 961

Space 

Platforms, 355

Human 

Systems, 401

programmatic content. Redundancy of data issues arise when projects are funded in multiple 

Program Elements. In addition, a different definition of what constitutes CS (different 

taxonomies) leads to significant differences in funding estimates. For example the restricted 

definition of CS shown in figure 2 for Federal NITRD funding represents only about a half of the 

DOD CS/IS/NIT budget numbers shown in table 2. 

Significant issues arise in trying to reconcile the multiple sources of funding data listed in table 2 

and figure 2. A significant part of the problem exists in the period of interest for this study. Prior 

to 2000 funding and programmatic data for the DOD S&T programs were provided by the DOD 

S&T agencies and components in a standard form (DD1498) that provided detailed program 

information. Under the Service Reliance program, the requirement for the standard form was 

relaxed and data were provided to DDR&E through the Basic Research Review and the TARA 

IST Review as well as the Program Element submissions. These documents did not provide a 

detailed funding picture. In 2005, as part of the E-gov initiative, and in an effort to improve the 

DOD reliance process, DDR&E established the Research and Engineering Database as the 

centerpiece of the Reliance-21 process. The purpose of the R&E Database is to provide a 

reliable, agile, complete, and accurate database to provide insight into all of DOD's funded 

efforts. Since its inception, the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) has collected data 

on DOD funded efforts in FY2005, 2006, and 2007. On April 28, 2008 DDR&E issued a data 
 13

call for the FY2008 R&E Database. However, a preliminary examination of 2007 data by one of 

the authors showed little improvement in data quality over the 2005 and 2006 data. To date, the 

DOD S&T agencies and components have been slow in complying with the requirements of the 

Research and Engineering data base. 

Restrictions on distribution of research information limit the utility of the research. If multiple 

projects are listed together and labeled with a single restrictive distribution code such as “for 

government agencies only” the entire data fields and research results are not available to the 

public. 

Currently data are supplied at too high an aggregate level to separate projects into a meaningful 

taxonomy. As mentioned previously, CS, IS, and NIT are often combined into a single 

taxonomy. Aggregation of projects under a single data submission obscures the details of the 

effort and often blurs distinctions between basic and applied research. The detailed taxonomy 

given at the beginning of this report would assist future data collection in CS. 

CS is now incorporated in many multi-disciplinary projects and it is difficult to extract its 

financial contribution. While basic research in CS is a relatively well defined discipline as 

defined by the expanded taxonomy reproduced in this report applied research CS, expanded to 

include IS and NIT, is a pervasive science that has become an element of many disciplines such 

as communications. This can lead to either under-counting CS if its contribution in a multidiscipline project is not counted or even over-counted if a project is funded from multiple 

funding lines (Program Elements) and the CS contribution in each line is reported redundantly. 

Table 5 lists a data call set of fields. Incorporation of this set of fields in future data calls would 

provide the detailed data needed to assess programmatic efforts in depth. This data call is issued 

by DDR&E to collect data to input the DTIC Research and Engineering database. 

Workshop of Academic Leaders in Computer Science 

To better understand the concerns on computer science research funding, we held a workshop of 

leading computer science researchers from renowned computer science universities in June 2006. 

Academic participants included Cornell, Stanford, and Harvard Universities, the Universities of 

Texas, Washington, California (Berkeley), and North Carolina, the California Institute of 

Technology, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

As a result of this meeting, the professors at these universities put forward their concerns over 

several recent issues in DOD funding. A key finding of the meeting was broad agreement that no 

single entity had full knowledge of the “ground-truth” of actual funding of CS research. All 

agreed that being able to capture this ground truth was a necessary foundational task in 

understanding and analyzing CS research funding issues. It was agreed that DUSD-S&T would 

attempt to gather this information from the DOD Services and agencies and the results of that 

study would form the basis of this report. While the overall funding level for CS was an issue, 

discussions at the workshop uncovered related issues of concern to the Universities that appeared 

to be of more concern than bottom line funding. These issues are highlighted below. 

The universities were concerned that Basic Research is being ignored in favor of Applied 

Research at the expense of the next generation of innovation. The actual data shown in tables 2 

and 4 for Basic Research indicated that Basis Research funding was relatively level over the 
 14

Table 5. Proposed Data Call Set 

1. Program Element 

2. Project Number 

3. Contract/Grant Number 

4. Title of Project 

5. Scientific or Technology Subject Areas 

6. Start Date 

7. Estimated Completion Date 

8. Award Status (new, renewal, incremental funding) 

9. Type (Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus, Purchase Order, MIPR) 

10. Kind of Award (grant, contract, in-house) 

11. Amount (in thousands $) by Fiscal Year 

12. Cumulative/Total Funding (in thousands $) 

13. Funding Organization Name, Office, Address, Phone 

14. Funding Organization Program Manager Name, email, Phone, Address 

15. Responsible (Contracting) DOD Organization Name, Office, Address 

16. Name, email, phone of responsible DOD Individual 

17. Performing Organization Name, Address, Phone 

18. Principal Investigator Name, Email, Phone, Address 

19. Associate Investigator Name, Email, Phone, Address 

20. Sub-Award Principal Investigator Name, Email, Phone, Address 

21. Sub-Award Amount by FY 

22. Keywords 

23. Technical Objective 

24. Abstract/Approach 

25. Accomplishments 

period of the study at more than $100M a year with some planned growth in FY10. The study 

did confirm that more funding and attention is being given to CS applied research and advanced 

technology development. It is again important to point out that the numbers combine CS with IS 

and NIT. The latter two categories tend to incorporate more applied than basic research. From 

the university point of view it is unclear if funding in IS and NIT will result in the kind of 

fundamental advances in technology enabled by an earlier generation of funding in CS research. 

To counter- balance this, the NSF funding in CS basic research is comparable in size to the DOD 

investment and has continued to grow (see figure 2). 

A related issue to DOD’s move toward more applied than basic research relates to DOD 

programmatic requirements. Since new discoveries are difficult to plan in advance, basic 

research operates best under relaxed milestones and is generally funded to produce gradual 

advances under a best level of effort. Applied research, and in particular advanced technology 

development, on the other hand needs to provide deliverables with milestones and go/no-go 

decisions. As DOD, and in particular DARPA, have moved toward more applied efforts in CS, 

universities with a basic research focus have found it difficult to take on contracts with short 

milestones, deliverables, and go/no-go decisions. 

The universities also raised two additional issues that they felt significantly limits their ability to 

contribute to DOD contracted research. The first issue deals with the universities right to publish 

unclassified material in the open literature without government pre-approval. Because of prepublication review requirements written into DOD grants and contracts, it makes it difficult, if 
 15

not impossible, for many universities to participate in DOD funding. Many universities have 

explicit policies prohibiting research on campus that is not automatically eligible for publishing. 

The second issue relates to the fact that a significant percentage of CS graduate students in the 

US are foreign nationals. Many of these students remain in the US after they receive their 

degrees and contribute greatly to US expertise in CS as well as other areas of science and 

engineering. Others return to their home countries and take their expertise with them. In many 

cases, International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) restrictions apply to CS research and 

make it difficult, if not impossible, to undertake CS research grants and contracts with foreign 

nationals having access to the work. 

A related issue to the ability of universities to publish results and to incorporate foreign nationals 

in research teams is that of security classification of basic research. Appropriate classification of 

research is essential for national security but over classification is detrimental to the sharing of 

information essential for progress and excludes researchers without clearances. A National 

Research Council Study chaired by Jacques Gansler and Alice Gast6

 expressed concern about 

apparent over-classification, particularly of basic research. An article by Lee Hamilton7

 pointed 

out the downsides of over-classification including the fact that “by classifying less information, 

we can focus resources on the secrets that must be kept”. If too much is stamped classified, the 

value of the stamp is debased. An indication that over-classification has become a significant 

problem was presented in an article by Graeme Wood,” who graphed the growth in classification 

of papers from 1980 till 2006. 8 During 2001, about 8 million pages were classified; during 2006 

more than 20 million pages were classified. 

Conclusions 

The relatively poor quality of historical data on DOD funding in CS does not show a decreasing 

funding base for this critical area. However, this study has brought to light several concerns 

about DOD funding policy and oversight, including those expressed by members of American 

universities with renowned CS departments. 

A comprehensive data base is needed with a detailed taxonomy that would permit a reliable 

understanding of the ground truth in CS (and presumably other critical science and technology 

areas) with funding levels, programmatic content, performer base, and accomplishments for 

information exchange between performers and for programmatic understanding and oversight. 

While DOD has instituted a revamped approach to data collection and sharing under the E-gov 

initiative and the Reliance-21 process, DOD agency and component response still appears to be 

spotty, in part because data is aggregated at too high a level to determine accurate information on 

the S&T areas of the project. The high level of aggregation also places many unlimited 

distribution projects into a data field of limited distribution not available to the public. In 

particular, unclassified fundamental CS research at universities should not be restricted, as 

 

6

 “Science and Security in a Post 9/11 Word,” (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007). 7

 “When stamping ‘secret’ goes too far,” Lee Hamilton, Christian Science Monitor, February 22, 2006. 8

 “Classify This”, Greame Wood, The Atlantic Monthly, September 2007; 44. 
 16

determined in NSDD 189,9 and only appropriate levels of classification should be applied to 

research. 

As the field of CS has expanded, IS and NIT have overlapped to the point of being used 

interchangeably in the database. Another manifestation of the growth of CS and IT is the fact 

that many multi-disciplinary programs embed these technologies because they are so pervasive 

in addressing many of DOD’s needs. While these changes are a fact of life, they increase the 

need for a well articulated taxonomy to provide an overview of the entire investment. While 

funding for CS and NIT has shown growth, a residual concern is the underfunding of basic 

research in CS at the expense of growth in applied research and advanced technology 

development to meet the current requirements of mission-focused systems. 

To enable future, unpredictable significant advances in technology, as a matter of policy DOD 

should balance basic, long-range fundamental CS research and near-term application-oriented 

research to meet the current defense needs, while not mistaking one for the other. While DOD 

has a role in maintaining this balance it is also true that DOD’s role in funding CS research is to 

focus on DOD needs that are not met by other federal agencies such as the NSF as well as 

commercial industry (e.g., IBM, Microsoft, and Google). Accordingly, DARPA no longer funds 

a historical model in CS funding of block-grants to major universities but has focused its efforts 

in CS/IS/NIT in four of their nine strategic thrusts. These four thrusts are: 

• Robust, Secured, Self-Forming Networks 

• Detection, Precision ID, Tracking, and Destruction of Elusive Targets 

• Increasing the Tooth-to-Tail Ratio 

o Cognitive Computing 

o High Productivity Computing Systems 

o Machine-Enabled Language Translation 

• Core Technologies 

o Information Technology 

This list highlights the reality of the more applied focus of the DOD effort and also the 

broadening of CS in including IS and NIT as major thrust areas. 

While the concerns above are real and should be addressed, we conclude that the level of DOD 

investment in CS does not constitute a crisis. Funding levels appear to show some level of 

growth both in the past and in out-year planning. As a ratio of the entire DOD S&T investment, 

CS/IS/NIT funding appears to be level at about 17 percent of the entire S&T budget. Future 

efforts are aimed at DOD needs, which is the appropriate role for DOD investment in the 

sciences. The two principal recommendations from this study are that: 

• DOD must maintain accurate and appropriately detailed records of its funding 

investments in S&T to provide understanding, sharing and oversight of these 

investments. 

• DOD greatly benefits from university contributions to CS and should move to reduce 

current obstacles to university participation in its contracts and grants. These obstacles 

include restrictions on publications and over-classification of basic research. 

 

9

 NSDD 189, September 21, 1985, is the National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and Engineering 

Information. Its stated policy is that “to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research remain 

unrestricted.”