The interdisciplinary essence of computational science has placed the field in the bewildering position of being central to vast swaths of new discoveries, while also lacking recognition and support to flourish. A PITAC report in 2005 declared that "much of the promise of computational science remains unrealized due to inefficiencies within the R&D infrastructure and lack of strategic planning and execution" \cite{tl2005}. It called for supporting computational science as a “national imperative for research and education in the 21st century.” The core hurdle was and is discipline-based research silos interfering with the integration of diverse skills and knowledge sets needed for advanced computational research. Quoting the report, “inadequate and outmoded educational structures within academia [...] leave computational science students to flounder amid competing departments.” This was 10 years after the founding of UT Austin's new institute (now called the Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, https://www.oden.utexas.edu), and 10 years before the Department of Computational Mathematics, Science and Engineering (CMSE) was established at Michigan State University (https://cmse.msu.edu). It was also the year when we faced up to the reality that the"free lunch" of continued increases in processor performance was over \cite{sutter2005}. Clock speeds reached the 3 GHz level—where they remain to this day—and major manufacturers turned to multicore architectures. The clock race ended and a mainstream 4-GHz processor never landed. "Concurrency really is hard," Herb Sutter wrote, and so it became harder to train computational scientists.