The World Technology Evaluation Center (WTEC) recently released a study [big PDF] that assessed international research and development in simulation-based engineering and science (SBE&S). SBE&S encompasses computer modeling and simulation capabilities, which applies to HPC applications in such areas as life science, energy, materials science, manufacturing and scientific research. Intrepid HPCwire reporter John West covers the major findings of the study in this week’s issue.

The WTEC panel obviously did a lot of research for the study (the report was a whopping 426 pages), but the US-centric agenda of the National Science Foundation, who funded the report, came through loud and clear.

The WTEC report starts with this quote by Harry Truman from 1950:

We have come to know that our ability to survive and grow as a nation to a very large degree depends upon our scientific progress. Moreover, it is not enough simply to keep abreast of the rest of the world in scientific matters. We must maintain our leadership.

And for the most part, we did. But in the 21st century, maintaining this leadership is going to be a lot trickier.

In a nutshell, the WTEC report says that America, while still strong in computer simulation technologies, is losing ground to Europe and Asia. According to the authors, countries like Germany, Japan and China are, in many cases, out-investing us in SBE&S technologies. According to the study: “There is abundant evidence and numerous reports documenting that our nation is at risk of losing its competitive edge. Our continued capability as a nation to lead in simulation-based discovery and innovation is key to our ability to compete in the 21st century.”

These conclusions are along the same lines as similar studies, most notably the 2005 National Academies report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm. The WTEC study points to the flattening of the HPC computing landscape as a primary reason US leadership in simulation technology is eroding. In particular, the low cost and accessibility of supercomputing technology makes it possible for nations of fairly modest means to challenge American preeminence in simulation software.

But as I perused the report, I found myself wondering about some of the unstated assumptions of the study. In particular, if the world is flat with regard to supercomputing hardware, surely simulation codes and expertise are just as globally accessible. The authors act as if software and programmers have no way to cross national borders. To be fair, the study does point to some specific instances where, for political reasons, the US Department of Defense is prevented access to certain codes developed elsewhere. But the study doesn’t make a general case of how a national commitment to SBE&S would contribute to US competitiveness.

In a flat world, even the term “US competitiveness” is ambiguous. In a globalized economy, it’s hard to find head-to-head competition at the national level, since most industries rely on worldwide supply chains, employees and infrastructure. There is a reasonable case to made about how investing in SBE&S would help US tech workers, since centers of excellence based on specific technologies can certainly stimulate local economies. But the study never connects the dots.

In some cases there are no dots to connect. Today most businesses that provide SBE&S-related hardware, software and services are transnational organizations. Moreover, the firms that use these technologies — biotech companies, financial services firms, aerospace manufacturers and such — build and sell products for an international marketplace and often have a global footprint themselves.

The WTEC study points to companies like Toyota and Airbus as firms that are committed to simulation engineering excellence. But Toyota is itself heavily invested in the US, including a $100 million research institute in Ann Arbor, Michigan. And Airbus claims it spends more money with US suppliers than in any other country, supporting an estimated 190,000 jobs in 40 states. Likewise, US-based companies like IBM maintain research facilities in Switzerland and Germany to take advantage of local expertise and infrastructure. In that sense, it could be argued that American leadership in foundational simulation software is not nearly as important to US-based businesses as being able to tap into global talent and investments.

Despite the study’s shortcomings, the authors come up with some reasonable suggestions: a strategic commitment to SBE&S, increased funding and more industry-government partnerships. The US should at least be pulling its weight in research and development of these technologies, and public sector areas like defense are always going to require some special attention.

Unfortunately, the us-versus-them bias of the study prevented the WTEC authors from making another important recommendation: the US should engage in and encourage international partnerships to help push SBE&S forward. The study did point out that developing capable simulation/modeling software and expertise is a worldwide problem, given the rapid transition to highly parallel computing architectures. So it seems natural that international cooperation could be a good thing.

The big challenges of the 21st century — climate change, energy, health care, and terrorism — are all global problems whose technical solutions involve simulation software and engineering to one degree or another. At a time when global warming and fossil fuel shortages affect the entire planet, it’s hard to imagine a single country could sustain a competitive advantage if it solved, say, fusion energy. The same goes for discoveries that address problems like disease control or nuclear proliferation.

Truman’s remarks about US science more than 50 years ago came in the Cold War era when it really was us versus them. And back then home-grown technology and engineering could be more easily contained within national borders. But the world we’ve inherited makes the America-must-be-number-one approach a lot more questionable.