[Senate Hearing 117-841]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-841
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
ON THE ENDLESS FRONTIER ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 14, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-870 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Ranking
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii ROY BLUNT, Missouri
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts TED CRUZ, Texas
GARY PETERS, Michigan DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin JERRY MORAN, Kansas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada MIKE LEE, Utah
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia Virginia
RICK SCOTT, Florida
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
David Strickland, Staff Director
Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
George Greenwell, Policy Coordinator and Security Manager
John Keast, Republican Staff Director
Crystal Tully, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Steven Wall, General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 14, 2021................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 4
Statement of Senator Young....................................... 6
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 41
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 45
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 47
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 51
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 53
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 57
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................ 58
Statement of Senator Baldwin..................................... 61
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 63
Statement of Senator Blackburn................................... 65
Statement of Senator Rosen....................................... 67
Statement of Senator Scott....................................... 70
Statement of Senator Lujan....................................... 72
Letter dated April 13, 2021 to Hon. Joe Manchin and Hon. John
Barrasso from the National Laboratory Directors' Council
(NLDC)--comprised of the directors of the seventeen
Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories........... 74
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 79
Statement of Senator Lee......................................... 80
Statement of Senator Warnock..................................... 82
Statement of Senator Lummis...................................... 84
Witnesses
Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Regents' Professor of Meteorology and
Weathernews Chair Emeritus, Roger and Sherry Teigen
Presidential Professor, University of Oklahoma................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Marie Lynn Miranda, Ph.D., Charles and Jill Fischer Provost,
Professor of Applied and Computational Mathematics and
Statistics, Director of the Children's Environmental Health
Initiative, University of Notre Dame........................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Dr. David Shaw, Provost and Executive Vice President, Mississippi
State University............................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Linden Rhoads, General Manager, The W Fund....................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Dr. Gary D. Butler, Chairman and CEO, Camgian.................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 32
William B. Bonvillian, Senior Director, Special Projects, MIT
Office of Open Learning and MIT Lecturer....................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Kelvin K.
Droegemeier by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 87
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito.................................... 88
Response to written questions submitted to Marie Lynn Miranda,
Ph.D. by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 89
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 92
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito.................................... 93
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. David Shaw by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 94
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito.................................... 95
Response to written questions submitted to William B. Bonvillian
by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 95
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
ON THE ENDLESS FRONTIER ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cantwell [presiding], Klobuchar,
Blumenthal, Schatz, Markey, Peters, Baldwin, Tester, Rosen,
Lujan, Warnock, Wicker, Thune, Cruz, Fischer, Blackburn, Young,
Lee, Scott, and Lummis.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Chair Cantwell. Well, good morning, everyone. The Senate
Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation will come to
order. Today we have an exciting hearing, I believe, on the
future of America's competitiveness when it comes to research
and development. And how we move forward on research and
development to tech transfer and the most successful strategies
of that.
We are honored to have a very distinguished panel in front
of us and joining us virtually. The Honorable Kevin
Droegemeier, Regents Professor, University of Oklahoma, and
former Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
and former Acting Director of NSF for Norman Oklahoma, welcome.
Welcome to Dr. Marie Lynn Miranda, Provost of the
University of Notre Dame. Thank you so much for joining us here
and for your work on so many fronts, but particularly on
leading and making our homes and children safer. We so
appreciate that.
Dr. Shaw, Provost and Executive Vice President, Mississippi
State University, welcome to you and thank you. We look forward
to your comments. We put the provosts in the middle, so OK, you
can--you can--you can be global and specific at the same time.
So, we appreciate that. The provosts are, like, the most
important people on the university campus. Everybody wants to
get a message in to the provost. What are you going to focus
on? So, we appreciate it.
We are joined virtually by Linden Rhoads, General Manager
of the W Fund, Seattle. And, Linden, I so appreciate you
joining us today. I am so excited for everyone to hear your
testimony and the success that the University of Washington has
had on tech transfer by being innovative over the last decade.
We are joined by Dr. Gary Butler, Chief Executive Officer
of Camgian in Starkville, Mississippi. And it has been great to
have a few moments to hear about your success in the AI field
and look forward to more comments.
And welcome to Bill Bonvillian, who is also joining us
remotely, from MIT's Office of Open Learning in Cambridge,
Massachusetts where also servesas a Senior Director. I am sure
he has a lot to say about this legislation that has been
previewed a year ago, the Endless Frontiers Act, and I think is
still being worked on by our colleagues. But, nonetheless, this
is the stimulus for a very big debate about America's
competitiveness as it relates to research and development and,
as I said, commercialization and the tech transfer process.
So, no doubt, even without that, it would be a good time to
dust off this discussion. And clearly, with our history as a
committee on the America COMPETES and COMPETES Reauthorization
Act, we can see a little bit of retrospective of how well, or
how well we did not do, on authorizations and appropriations
trying to do similar things. Basically, we will look at
building and analyzing the ecosystem in which R&D and tech
transfer is conducted in the United States of America.
So, today we are here to talk about America's
competitiveness and that business competition. And as I
mentioned, we have a talented list of witnesses here. We know
that we, importantly, do Federal funded research. And between
1996 and 2015, federally funded research led to over $1
trillion in economic growth, and millions of new jobs. Now, I
do not know if we are like a venture capital startup, where 1
in 13 are successful. I do not know. But we know that federally
funded research, when it comes to even the original R&D done,
that was then commercialized with Mozilla, out of the
University of Illinois, was a big enough success with the
Internet technology, by just some research on how to connect
every computer with, you know, hypertext links. This was
unbelievable and unleashing. So, it should not be lost on
anyone that sometimes with R&D, you just never know what the
big breakthrough is going to be.
Today, Federal investment in research and development is at
its lowest point in 45 years, when measured against the GDP. It
has been essentially flat over the past two decades, with
adjustments for inflation. And this comes as international
competition is increasing, and other nations are ready to
challenge our position on the world's innovation stage. So,
since 2000, global R&D spending has risen more than 200
percent. To me, you have to take that into consideration with
where we are. While the United States has certainly contributed
to that growth, we only spend about 2.8 percent of GDP on
research and development, less that some of the big economies
like Germany, Japan, and South Korea.
So, Congress has looked at this issue before. As I
mentioned, in the COMPETES Acts of 2017 and 2010, we authorized
$80 billion in spending across multiple science agencies. And
while COMPETES was successful in launching various initiatives,
I believe the Advanced Research Project, ARPA-E program, which
for me, being a member of the DOE committee and with Washington
being the home to the very prominent Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, I can tell you those monies went to good use and
helped us in growing very important, what I would say,
solutions to some of our thorniest problems. These include
investments in battery technology, how to get intermittent
power onto the grid, and leadership in cybersecurity detection
on the nuclear weapons front. So, anyway, lots of great work
being done there.
Even today, NSF has not fully achieved that funding level
that we imagined in America COMPETES. So, Senator Wicker and
other members of the Committee, I think one of the fundamental
questions for us is what our committee can do to bolster the
confidence of our appropriation allies, that these are the
right levels of investment and should be adhered to. And so, I
hope that we can do that.
So, I know that many of the witnesses today, Mr.
Droegemeier, Mr. Bonvillian, will point these important issues
out. But I really love the underlying theme in a lot of the
testimony in front of us, both about decentralization and how
universities play such a key role in, I think, a distributed
network of R&D that already exists in the United States. And we
should be playing off of that. But also, Mr. Droegemeier and
Dr. Miranda, you know about the need for collaboration and the
ways to build better aspects of collaboration within these
communities and these frameworks. Because, as one noted author
said, ``Collaboration is the next phase of innovation''. You
can have all the innovation in an information age and all the
information, but if you do not collaborate to get it
implemented, then you are not going to innovate. So, I hope
that we can keep moving forward.
We know that women and minorities are underrepresented in
this area. Dr. Miranda will help address this today, that we
need more representation in STEM. In 2019, women made up 48
percent of workers, but only 27 percent of STEM workers. And as
noted, COVID-19 made that challenging, because many of these
women were also the caregivers in their families. So, how do
you be a caregiver and a researcher at the same time? Very
complicated. And one research paper said that women's research
has fallen 19 percent during this pandemic. So, we know that we
have been very affected by this.
So, I want to point out that, you know, Washington--Seattle
is probably one of the leading innovation centers in the United
States. But I also think that they are becoming students of
innovation itself. That is, I think there is an NSF grant the
University of Washington is looking at related to some of the
successes Rose-Hulman has made in, what I would call, fee-for-
service innovation. Rose-Hulman has figured out how to create
an engineering and customer service-oriented success. As we are
going to hear from the University of Washington today, we will
hear how you can take an already very plump research budget and
get more out of it by changing the tech transfer system that we
have at universities. So, there will be a lot to digest today
on this front. And so, I look very much forward to hearing the
discussion from our witnesses and from our colleagues today.
I just want to point out, there are a few things that I
personally think that we need to be concerned about. We
definitely need to make sure we are making investments in not
only R&D but our STEM workforce--building up R&D without the
STEM workforce component will be a mistake. We need the
workforce. The best research cannot be implemented if we do not
have the workforce. And clearly, we are still seeing a shortage
in the STEM workforce.
Second, I want to make sure that we continue to think of
ourselves as a capitalist country, in how there is nothing
better than to put the right money into the right research when
capital is on the line. I can tell you this is important in
aerospace and in other forms of computer science, as we compete
against other nations. The fact that we have capital markets
funding the investment creates a level of due diligence that
gets us to success. So, I am not saying that any of this is a
planned economy strategy. But to the degree that we veer off
toward that, I am going to bring us back to something that
really focuses on America's capitalism because that has driven
more success, and more innovation, I believe.
And so, thank you so much and we will look forward to
hearing the witnesses. So, with that, Ranking Member Wicker.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. And amen, and amen. And here I am getting
feedback. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, for that very
comprehensive opening statement. I welcome our witnesses and
guests today, as the Committee considers the concept of an
Endless Frontier Act, as well as our Nation's innovation
ecosystem.
Investments in science and technology drive economic growth
with job creation. America leads the world in science and
technology because of our strong innovation ecosystem, which
includes roles for government, institutions of higher learning,
and industry, as the Chair just pointed out. Maintaining our
edge against rising global competition requires continued
support for all components of the Nation's science and
technology enterprise. China, in particular, is quickly
becoming a self-reliant technology power, threatening America's
global dominance in advanced industries and technology.
Today's hearing is an opportunity for witnesses to discuss
how Congress can advance the innovation ecosystem to ensure the
United States remains a leader in science and technology.
Basic research fuels technology development and innovation
for every industrial sector. Today's hearing will consider one
approach to strengthen technology investments through the, yet
to be introduced, Endless Frontier Act.
The major structural changes to the National Science
Foundation contemplated in this proposed legislation should not
detract from the agency's core mission of advancing basic
scientific knowledge. NSF is the worldwide gold standard for
basic research agencies, with 236 Nobel Prizes won by NSF
funded researchers.
Congress should also ensure that we avoid duplicating R&D
missions of other Federal agencies, dozens of which invest in
basic and applied research and technology development. Whatever
we enact should contain sufficient guardrails to protect the
NSF's core mission and coordinate properly with other
departments and agencies.
It appears the intent behind this legislation is to help
America compete with China. But let me suggest, we will not
beat China by copying its strategy. China is betting that an
ambitious, top-down program of applied research and investment,
along with subsidies for technology companies, will produce
global dominance in key technology areas, yielding both civil
and military uses.
Strategic investments in technologies and supply chains are
important, but we will not win by simply throwing money at the
problem. We could actually end up doing harm if recipients of
funding through this concept, lack the capacity and capability
to conduct R&D activities that are actually useful.
We also need to guard the fruits of our R&D system by
preventing China from stealing American research and
technology. So far as I can tell, the proposed bill does not
include any provisions to bolster research security and
integrity, particularly at our universities. So, we are going
to need to address that.
Competing with China means leveraging the talent,
expertise, and capabilities found across our entire nation.
Presently, about half of all Federal research funding in
science and technology ends up at only six states.
Unfortunately, this uneven distribution has changed little over
the decades. Since we have not actually seen complete bill
language, it is not clear to me that the Endless Frontier Act
will go far enough to change this paradigm. Future strength of
our innovation sector requires that we provide opportunities
for all Americans, regardless of where they may live, work, or
attend school.
And the distinguished Chair just mentioned disparities and
opportunities for young women. I think one of our distinguished
witnesses will mention disparities and opportunities for
African American college students at the undergraduate and
graduate level.
Today, I have the privilege of introducing two
Mississippians who have important perspectives on the
scientific ecosystem. Dr. David Shaw is Provost and Executive
Director at Mississippi State University. For decades he has
been at the forefront of the nexus between Federal research,
universities, and economic development. I look forward to
hearing his insights on how to grow STEM talent in
underrepresented states and ensure an equitable distribution of
science funding across states and institutions.
Dr. Gary Butler is CEO of Camgian, a leading technology
company in Mississippi. Camgian builds and sells products to
the government and private sector based on cutting-edge
research. Dr. Butler can provide insights on the important role
industry plays in bridging the valley of death that exists
between research and commercialization.
Madam Chair, it is my understanding that the Endless
Frontier Act is to be part of a larger China package envisioned
by the leadership. I hope we can continue the Committee's
bipartisan tradition of considering the consensus science and
technology related legislation. It is worth asking whether
President Biden's recent $2.3 trillion infrastructure proposal
would spend hundreds of billions of dollars for many of the new
or modified programs that would be authorized in an Endless
Frontier Act. Authorization and appropriations, of course,
should be done in a bipartisan way. I would urge my colleagues
to work with me to build consensus on this China proposal in a
deliberative manner and make sure we get it right.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very important hearing
and I look forward to a great discussion.
Chair Cantwell. Well, thank you, Senator Wicker, and I
certainly plan on working in a bipartisan fashion, on both
authorization and appropriation. I know we have two of our
colleagues who have been doing that for a year, Senator Young
and Senator Schumer. And we appreciate their hard work on that.
And so, I agree. I do not think there is anything--well, there
is an R&D here, but it is not the Republican and Democrat. It
is--Research and Development is really a bipartisan issue.
So, Senator Young, did you want to make further comment in
introducing Dr. Miranda? And again, thank you, to you and
Senator Schumer for your leadership.
STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Young. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank
the Ranking Member. This is such an important hearing to hold.
And I especially want to thank Madam Chair for doing some field
research in my home state of Indiana, in preparation for this
hearing. Drawing on the insights, for example, of Rose-Hulman,
that is doing some ground-breaking work in how we fund
research.
But I am honored to be introducing Dr. Marie Lynn Miranda.
And honored, also, that she is here to lend her support and
endorsement of the Endless Frontier Act. Indiana's expertise in
science and technology is extensive and often underappreciated,
and we aim to change that. Dr. Miranda's leadership at one of
our most distinguished institutions of higher education, is
indicative of that. And her joining us today is proof of the
importance of this issue in particular, of ensuring that the
United States of America, outgrows, out innovates, and out
competes the People's Republic of China. Using our unique
system, our existing assets, harnessing talent across the
country geographically, drawing from different genders, and
races, and ethnicities, and using our native creativity.
The doctor is the Charles and Jill Fischer Provost at the
University of Notre Dame. Before coming to South Bend, Indiana,
Dr. Miranda was a Provost and Professor at Rice University,
where she oversaw $230 million in investments. She graduated
Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude from Duke University, where she
later served two decades on the faculty. She also holds a
master's degree from Harvard, where she held a National Science
Foundation graduate research fellowship. So, she is intimately
familiar with the subject matter here today.
Dr. Miranda's resume is remarkable and her accomplishments
are countless. But beyond this, the reason her support is so
critical to the Endless Frontier Act, and to American
innovation more broadly, can be seen in the Children's
Environmental Health Initiative, of which she is the Founding
Director, commendably. The program uses research and data
collection to better understand and address environmental
impacts on at-risk children. Applying science and technology,
not just to enhance America's competitiveness, or advance
America's interest, but to also meet pressing challenges at
home and abroad. This is the innovation that the Endless
Frontier Act has the potential to inspire.
Now, we are not attempting to prove that what, you know,
works in theory might work in practice. We have economic
history to draw upon. We have economic history to draw upon.
So, over the course of the hearing today, I look forward to
drawing, not just on abstract theories or long-standing
chibalis or talking points, but also, the history of some of
these clusters, that do disproportionately draw the bulk of our
venture capital in this country. Discussing why they may draw
that disproportionate share of venture capital, in discussing
how we could, indeed, harness the untapped potential of regular
Americans across this great land.
So, Dr. Miranda, I welcome you. I thank you, again, for
participating in the hearing today, and I look forward to your
testimony.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Young. And so, let us
get at it. Dr. Droegemeier, we are going to start with you.
Again, welcome to all the witnesses, and we know that you have
submitted longer statements. If you could keep to 5 minutes, we
so appreciate it, so we can get questions from members. So,
again, welcome, Dr. Droegemeier.
STATEMENT OF DR. KELVIN K. DROEGEMEIER, REGENTS' PROFESSOR OF
METEOROLOGY AND WEATHERNEWS CHAIR EMERITUS, ROGER AND SHERRY
TEIGEN PRESIDENTIAL PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA
Dr. Droegemeier. Good morning, Chair Cantwell, thank you so
much. Ranking Member Wicker and members of the Committee, it is
a great privilege to be here testifying before you today on the
Endless Frontier Act. I am also grateful to the Majority and
Minority staff and the great support that they provided in
preparing for the hearing.
You know, America has an absolutely amazing science,
technology, research, education, and innovation ecosystem
consisting of four important sectors--the Federal Government,
colleges and universities, for profit private companies, and
non-profit organizations. When they join forces toward
achieving common goals on specific problems, America sees a
whole that is far greater than the sum of the individual parts.
In my personal view, this particular point, along with
increased funding is the--the key for unlocking transformation
in American science technology. And Chair Cantwell mentioned
this very point about collaboration.
We saw several examples of this in response to the COVID-19
pandemic and the beneficial results absolutely speak for
themselves. And as Ranking Member Wicker mentioned, research
security and balancing the appropriate protection of our
research assets, with providing the open collaborative
environment needed for advancing American science technology is
very, very important.
Now, with regard to NSF in particular, successes it has
enabled over the more than seven decades it has been in
existence, they are well known. But in fact, it has been mostly
underfunded for many years, as Chair Cantwell pointed out. So,
my first point is at redressing years of failed attempts to
increase the NSF budget is a national imperative for American
competitiveness.
Second, NSF foundational mission is one of supporting
curiosity-based research, and this should not change. However,
this research can in fact be augmented with additional use
inspired research which, in fact, NSF already funds in many
disciplines, but that is targeted to specific technology
domains that enhance America's competitiveness. NSF leadership
already is taking several actions consistent with this
direction.
A third, increased American competitiveness will only come
about, not just by--by increased funding, though funding is
very, very, important. But also, by thoughtfully implementing
structural changes that are essential, if that funding is to
achieve its intended purpose. And, Chair Cantwell, you--you
mentioned this point, again. And I elaborated on these very
points in my own testimony--my written testimony.
Fourth, if a new technology and innovation directorate is
created at NSF, with some DARPA-like characteristics, those
characteristics should not be confined just to that new
directorate alone. For example, NSF program officers should
make big bets on big, but intellectually risky ideas. Some
projects should, and in fact must, fail because, in the absence
of failure we are not bold in America. And America will not
become the leader in science technology, become more
competitive by being timid. We have to make big bets on big
ideas. And in fact, that directorate should itself be
structured to fail, if it works only in isolation from other
parts of NSF, or other Federal agencies.
Fifth, the new technology directorate can serve as the
organizing mechanism by which to create new multi-sector
collaboration frameworks in technology that span the spectrum
completely, from fundamental research, through applied
development, and across the valley of death, to pre-production
prototypes that are tested at scale, all within the same
organizational construct. That is, bringing all of these
sectors together in ways that we have not done so in the past.
So, in so doing, we do not just create separate funding
entities or centers for performing research or moving outcomes
to market or establishing test beds and fabrication facilities,
we leverage the tremendous capabilities we already have.
Everything can and should operate within the same organizing
framework, with specific goals, with specific types of problems
in mind. This is, in fact, how I think we transform the current
process to make it far more efficient, and I elaborate on that
in my written testimony.
Also, industry academia non-profits have to absolutely be
at the table with the Federal Government from the very
beginning, as all of these programs are being contemplated, so
that they all can truly be active participants in the entire
process, from fundamental research all the way through scaled
prototype. Among other things this will provide a mechanism to
help ensure long-term sustainability of these new activities
that we are going to discuss.
And finally, NSF should be provided the flexibility,
working closely with Congress and other stakeholders to,
itself, determine the appropriate rate at which programs are
ramped up, both in time and, also, in funding, particularly in
new technology directorate. You know, NSF has extensive
experience doing this, and we really ought to tap that
expertise.
To other aspects of the bill, I just want to let you know
it is unclear in my mind how some of the investments that are
being described will avoid reinforcing existing challenges that
already are there today in our current complex research to
market processes. Interactions among the many different types
of organizations noted are really also not clear. Nor is it
clear to me how the proposed regional technology hubs, at
roughly a billion dollars per award, would really be structured
and managed, or how those major activities would complement
other new investments that are being described in the bill.
And finally, multiple undertakings, as large as those
proposed in the bill, they really pose extraordinary challenges
and accountability, especially with regard to evaluating the
collective activities that are really in place to achieve more
than the sum of their individual parts. So, how does that whole
really, together, achieve more than the sum of the individual
parts?
So, in closing, by bolstering and weaving together all the
elements of our research enterprise in powerful new ways,
without compromising identity and value of each, or the culture
of each, and by appropriately resourcing NSF, we will help
ensure not only that America becomes more competitive and more
broadly engaging, but in fact, that we will continue to be the
global leader in science, technology, research, education, and
innovation.
Thank you very much, Chair Cantwell. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Droegemeier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Regents' Professor of
Meteorology and Weathernews Chair Emeritus, Roger and Sherry Teigen
Presidential Professor, University of Oklahoma
I extend my deep appreciation to Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member
Wicker, and Members of the Committee for the privilege of testifying on
the Endless Frontier Act. My name is Kelvin K. Droegemeier, and I am
Regents' Professor of Meteorology at the University of Oklahoma. I also
am a former member of the National Science Board (2004-2016), serving
the last four years as Vice Chairman. I served as Secretary of Science
and Technology in the Cabinet of former Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin
(2017-2019), and most recently served for two years as Director of The
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Science
Advisor to the President (2019-2021). During the latter appointment, I
also served for two and a half months as Acting Director of the
National Science Foundation (NSF). Before going to The White House in
early 2019, I served for nine years as Vice President for Research at
the University of Oklahoma (2009-2018), where I have been for nearly 36
years. I am testifying today in my roles as an academic researcher,
administrator, teacher, and advisor on matters of science and
technology policy.
I also wish to thank the Members of this Committee for their
longstanding commitment to fostering national prosperity, economic
security, quality education, and international competitiveness through
support for fundamental/discovery research and related activities. Not
to be overlooked are staff for both the majority and minority, all of
whom work exceptionally hard and in a collaborative manner on behalf of
our Nation. I am especially grateful for assistance provided to me in
this hearing by Gabrielle Slais, Richard-Duane Chambers, and Mary
Guenther of Chair Cantwell's office, and by Cherilyn Pascoe, James
Mazol, and MaryAsa England of Ranking Member Wicker's office.
The topic of this hearing is especially important in light of
increasing challenges faced by the United States, both from within and
externally, as well as extraordinary opportunities now before us to
build upon--in bold and transformative ways--the exceptional foundation
of American leadership in science and technology developed since World
War II. That foundation was laid, in large part, in response to Dr.
Vannevar Bush's visionary treatise, Science: The Endless Frontier.\1\
The bold vision put forth by Dr. Bush led to the creation, in 1950, of
the National Science Foundation (NSF), which is unique among Federal
agencies in two important ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, NSF funds the bulk of non-medical/clinical foundational/
discovery/curiosity-based \2\ research in the United States.\3\ Second,
its governing body, the National Science Board (NSB),\4\ also serves as
an independent source of advice to the President and Congress on
matters of science and technology research and education. It therefore
is especially appropriate the Endless Frontier Act (EFA) seeks to
continue Dr. Bush's bold, transformative thinking by providing
substantial increases in funding for NSF, along with creating a new
directorate and taking other actions to accelerate the movement of
research outcomes to products and services that benefit society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ I prefer these terms to ``basic ``research because to some, the
word basic connotes ``simple.''
\3\ https://www.nsf.gov/about/
\4\ https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/about/index.jsp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such a transformation will come about not only by virtue of
additional funding, but also by thoughtfully implementing structural
changes that are essential if the additional funding is to achieve its
intended purpose. Specifically, success will require creating more
effective linkages and partnerships among all sectors of our innovation
ecosystem; co-investing and leveraging funding, facilities and talent
across academia, industry, Federal agencies, and non-profit
organizations; eliminating regulations that unnecessarily tie our
hands, impede our progress, and arguably provide little or no practical
benefit; and securing our research assets in a manner balanced with an
appropriately open system of sharing and collaboration.
Despite the terrible consequences of the global COVID-19 pandemic,
it offered us a powerful glimpse of what is possible in America when
the aforementioned issues are addressed, albeit temporarily. Although
we do not wish to continue operating within a pandemic, we should
desire to continue operating with the urgency it brought forth. We
should not wish to go back to where we were in our science and
technology research and education enterprise, but rather use the
lessons learned from the pandemic to go to a much better place. A place
of greater efficiency, better coordination, stronger leveraging and
partnering, and emphasis on whole-of-Nation goals. The EFA provides one
mechanism to do so and will help ensure that science continues to
inspire, unite, and guide America.
I offer with this testimony several comments and suggestions
regarding the EFA. We should not be comfortable as a Nation to simply
compete, but rather our goal should be global collaborative leadership
in science and technology research, education and innovation.
Underpinned by our national values, which comport with values of the
research process itself, America can remain a beacon to the world of
freedom, integrity, mutual respect, progress, and principled
collaboration.
1. Why Increased Funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is a
National Imperative
Created more than 70 years ago with a powerfully elegant statutory
mandate and organizational structure, NSF has become the envy of the
world among government funding agencies. The research it supports has
unlocked the secrets of nature--from sub-atomic particles to the
vastness of the universe--spurring major technological innovations,
creating entirely new research disciplines, and producing generation
upon generation of scientists and engineers who help ensure America's
global strength in science and technology. Since 1950, over 230 Nobel
Laureates have received funding from NSF at some point in their
career.\5\ NSF's merit review process is the global gold standard, and
only a small portion of NSF's yearly budget goes toward supporting
organizational overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100683
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite these and numerous other extraordinary attributes, NSF has
been woefully underfunded for many years. The reasons are many,
including difficulty by some of conceptually linking fundamental
research outcomes with products and services, even though the latter
are all around us (e.g., the Internet, search engines, smartphones,
medical diagnostic equipment, global positioning system-based maps, on-
demand commercial programming); the long time required for some
fundamental research outcomes to bear fruit; and the view by some that
funding curiosity-based research, without a clear practical outcome, is
a waste of money.
The 2007 America COMPETES Act \6\ sought to double, over a five-
year period, the budgets of NSF, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), and the U.S. Department of Energy Office of
Science (SC). Despite best intentions, this doubling did not occur
then, or during the 2010 reauthorization \7\. In 2016, COMPETES became
the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (AICA)\8\, which did
not include authorization levels. Yet during this same overall period,
the budgets of other agencies supporting fundamental research did in
fact increase, in some cases substantially,\9\ while that of NSF grew
more modestly. Today, NSF is forced to decline several billions of
dollars in proposals judged to be as meritorious as those it does
support, simply due to the lack of funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ69/PLAW-110publ69.pdf
\7\ https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ358/PLAW-111publ358.pdf
\8\ https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ329/PLAW-114publ329.pdf
\9\ The NIH budget increased by $12.5 billion between FY 2007 and
FY 2020, an increase of 43 percent. The Department of Energy Office of
Science budget increased by 3.2 billion between FY 2007 and FY 2020, an
increase of 84 percent and thus nearly doubling. The NSF budget
increased by $2.4 billion between FY 2007 and FY 2020, an increase of
41 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the EFA can help redress years of failed attempts to
increase the NSF budget. In light of increasing global competition and
threats from nations that do not share our values, an infusion of funds
at NSF, along with other actions, truly are national imperatives. NSF
already is moving forward on several organizational innovations, and as
a major driver of change in the research enterprise, especially
academia, NSF is well suited to continue its established leadership
role by executing the EFA.
2. The Endless Frontier Act (EFA) in Context
Each sector of America's science and technology research, education
and innovation ecosystem--Federal agencies, colleges and universities,
for-profit corporations, and non-profit organizations--has its own
reasons for existing, its own structures and operating philosophies,
and its own measures of success. Although differing from one another--
in some aspects dramatically--these sectors are highly interdependent
and mutually reinforcing. When brought together in tight collaboration
toward common goals, each contributes what the other cannot or will
not--both culturally and in other ways--yielding a whole that is far
greater than the sum of the parts.
Within this framework, it is well understood that fundamental
research is funded primarily by the Federal Government \10\ owing to
the lack of certainty in producing outcomes having practical value,
though value indisputably exists in the creation of knowledge itself.
The national appetite for increased Government investment in such
research generally has been limited, apart from health-related topics
as evidenced by substantial increases to the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) budget over the past several years. However, the COVID-19
pandemic has illuminated brightly the numerous other areas of science
and technology that have proved essential to our Nation's response.\11\
These include but are not limited to molecular and structural biology,
in situ and remote sensing, advanced manufacturing, artificial
intelligence, microelectronics, atmospheric science, and social and
behavioral science. Each of these areas and more are core components of
NSF, and indeed, NSF's ``fingerprints'' can be found in virtually every
area of capability used to fight the pandemic. And each of these areas
yielded basic research outcomes from which innovation led to practical,
implementable solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The private sector, and non-profit organizations, also fund
discovery research, with the former funding nearly three-quarters of
total research and development in the United States.
\11\ Droegemeier, K., 2020. Harnessing the power of science to
fight the coronavirus. Op-ed, Washington Times, August 19. Available at
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/harnessing-the-power-
of-science-to-fight-the-coronavirus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EFA seeks not only to provide an unprecedented increase in
funds to NSF to support use-inspired fundamental research, but also
establish a new directorate for technology and innovation,\12\ create
new research test beds, centers, technology hubs, and fabrication
facilities; expand engagement in research of various types of
institutions; and substantially increase postdoctoral awards, graduate
fellowships and traineeships, and undergraduate scholarships.
Understandable fear exists among some in the community about the
potential for changing NSF's foundational mission from one of
curiosity-based research to one that is driven mainly by practical
needs, and these concerns are not without merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ NSF is structured around seven directorates: Biology (BIO),
Computer Information Science and Engineering (CISE), Engineering (ENG),
Geosciences (GEO), Education and Human Resources (EHR), Mathematics and
Physical Sciences (MPS), and Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
(SBE). Three other programs support cross-cutting activities: Office of
Integrative Activities (OIA), Office of International Science and
Engineering (OISE), and Environmental Research and Education (ERE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, if implemented thoughtfully, the EFA can in fact enhance
the capabilities of NSF, strengthening its core purpose while greatly
improving the efficiency by which research outcomes are innovated for
the benefit of society. Indeed, America needs to supplement the current
``handoff and hope'' model of research-to-products and services
transition with one that more effectively integrates all four sectors
of our research enterprise without forsaking the features of any, and
without placing itself on the slippery slope of use-inspired technology
research becoming the tail that wags the curiosity-based research dog.
The EFA can, in my view, serve as one mechanism for achieving those
ends.
3. Comments on the Endless Frontier Act Specific to NSF
Point #1. The Potential Risk of Displacing Fundamental Research. As
noted previously, virtually all technology innovation owes its
existence to fundamental research. That America now has trillion-dollar
technology companies, and numerous other high-wealth companies that
depend upon technology, is a testament to the virtue of Government
investment in fundamental research and our ability as a Nation to
transition research outcomes into products and services for the benefit
of society. However, the very size and reach of our technology
enterprise suggests care needs to be taken in creating a technology
directorate at NSF (see below), lest technology become the focal point
for new resources and ironically end up harming the very thing upon
which it depends for continued success--fundamental research.
A good example of this risk is illustrated in the field of
meteorology. Both research and operations are critical for protecting
life and property, and operational forecasting and warning capabilities
depend upon advances in research. However, at the end of the day when
money is appropriated, operations always take priority for obvious
reasons. This approach led, in part,\13\ to the United States being
overtaken by Europe in computer weather prediction capabilities, though
fortunately, recent investments are reversing that trend. Fundamental
or curiosity-based research therefore must remain the strong
philosophical and practical foundation upon which NSF continues to be
funded and operate, augmented by, but not replaced with, new mechanisms
for engaging use-inspired research in technology domains that enhance
America's competitiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Another major contributor was insufficient investment in
computing resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point #2. Creating a New Directorate. Although NSF indeed was
founded to support fundamental or discovery research, a portion of its
portfolio appropriately consists of use-inspired research. This is
especially true in the Engineering, Computer Information Science and
Engineering, Geosciences, and Social/Behavioral/Economic Sciences
directorates, and likewise is true in research university departments.
Consequently, such work is not foreign to NSF's operating framework or
culture, and in fact creating a technology-focused directorate can
enhance support for curiosity-based research, as noted below.
The EFA speaks to the importance of bringing DARPA-like
capabilities to the new directorate, and I interpret that in at least
two ways. The first includes funding more use-inspired research,
issuing solicitations that seek to address specific problems, applying
DARPA hiring authorities, and engaging industry directly as programs
are being structured. The second emphasizes autonomy of program
officers to make funding decisions that run counter to prevailing
wisdom or reviewer input.
To the first point above, NSF already issues solicitations to
address specific challenges and is changing the way it engages industry
(see below). To the second point, although NSF program officers do have
considerable latitude in making decisions, panel review, community
pressure, and budget realities often lead to understandable aversion to
intellectual risk-taking. This behavior is not unique to NSF but is
prevalent in many if not most funding agencies. America needs to be
willing to make big bets on big ideas that could fail.
Consequently, if the EFA seeks to bring more of a DARPA-like
culture to NSF, it should not confine those attributes to the new
directorate, but rather use that directorate to help infuse positive
change throughout the Foundation. In so doing, NSF program officers
would become more empowered to go against the flow and make big bets on
big ideas, with some failure not only an expectation, but rather a
desired outcome. The absence of failure indicates an absence of
boldness, and America will not become more competitive by being timid.
Another important way in which NSF differs from DARPA is the
breadth of disciplines and topic areas represented in the NSF
portfolio. The new NSF technology directorate can do what other
directorates already do, namely, create substantial horizontal
connective tissue across directorates and thus a wide array of
disciplines. However, the new technology directorate can play an
additional and unique role, by virtue of its special partnerships with
industry and other collaborators, in linking curiosity-based research
with use-inspired research and subsequent applied development and
scale-up (see Point #3).
The following specific suggestions are offered regarding a new
technology directorate to address some of the issues raised above.
a. A new directorate should not duplicate activities being
undertaken by other Federal agencies (though in some cases
competition is warranted), nor should it fund activities likely
to be supported by private industry or non-profit
organizations. Instead, the directorate should partner with
other components of the research enterprise, including
regional, state and municipal entities, to fill gaps and
leverage all available resources to achieve a force multiplier
effect that accelerates innovation and greatly enhances
competitiveness.
b. Although a new technology directorate should receive sufficient
funding to pursue certain activities of its own design, such as
issuing solicitations for use-inspired research, developing
partnerships with industry, and managing grant and contract
programs in a DARPA-like manner, the structure and level of
funding should be designed such that the directorate cannot
succeed in achieving its goals in the absence of working in
close partnership with other NSF directorates and other sectors
of the research enterprise, including other Federal agencies.
In other words, the directorate should inherently be designed
to fail if it works only in isolation.
c. Changes of the nature and magnitude proposed in the EFA require a
time of transition to accommodate institutional cultural
adjustment (both within NSF and the external research
community), the creation of required or the modification of
existing administrative frameworks, and the development of
implementation strategies. Yet the length of this adjustment
period needs to be balanced with some urgency in light of
aforementioned competition and threats. NSF should be provided
the flexibility, working closely with Congress and other
stakeholders, to determine the appropriate rate at which
programs are ramped up in time and funding, particularly a new
technology directorate. NSF has extensive experience doing so
by virtue of the numerous new centers, institutes, and major
research facilities it creates on a regular basis.
Point #3. Engaging Private Industry and Non-Profit Organizations.
Although, as discussed earlier, the Federal Government funds the
majority of non-medical/clinical fundamental research in the U.S., the
vast majority of funding for applied research and development, and the
transition of research outcomes to products and services, is
principally the domain of the private sector (note that some private
sector organizations also fund a considerable amount of use-inspired
fundamental research on topics related to their business priorities).
Yet the intertwined and circuitous pathway from fundamental research,
say as performed in academia, to scaled prototype product or service,
within industry, is fraught with inefficiency owing to factors such as
numerous cultural differences among the sectors involved, the many
handoff points present within the overall process, and complex legal
issues, particularly those involving intellectual property, that often
vary among organizations.
Bringing all four sectors of the ecosystem together for specific
activities, with each playing its unique role, creates an
extraordinarily powerful framework that will truly transform American
competitiveness without forsaking the value or place of fundamental
research. Indeed, industry, academia, and non-profits must be at the
table with the Federal Government, from the very beginning as programs
are being contemplated, so they all can truly be active participants in
the entire process from fundamental research to scaled prototype.
This point was underscored during several meetings and a national
summit \14\ coordinated by OSTP and collaborators during the past two
years on multi-sector partnerships. One recurring message, delivered by
private industry, was its dismay at typically being brought into
discussions of partnering only as programs were being executed, and
only at the tactical rather than the strategic level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://uidp.org/new-report-from-ostp-uidp-symposium-
broadening-university-and-industry-engagement/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NSF Director already has begun meeting with counterpart
institutional leaders in the private for-profit and non-profit sectors
to frame partnerships and programs at a strategic level, which will set
the stage for, and greatly accelerate progress in, tactical execution.
Such efforts should continue in order that these sectors may co-invest
with the Government as active, participatory research and development
partners in executing the EFA--including in hubs, fabrication
facilities, and centers.
This co-investment should involve not only funding at the strategic
institutional level, but also corporate-sponsored facilities, industry
researchers, internships, apprenticeships, enhancements to I-CORPS,
fellowships, test beds, and joint activities to engage traditionally
underserved and marginalized populations. Indeed, the EFA seeks to
create 1000 new post-doctoral awards, at least 2000 graduate
fellowships and traineeships, and at least 1000 undergraduate
fellowships. Industry partners could co-fund such activities and
perhaps triple the number of recipients by creating prestigious NSF
industry scholars and fellows, also thereby contributing substantially
to increased participation by underserved populations.
A new directorate can serve as the organizing framework by which to
achieve the aforementioned multi-sector collaboration in technology and
thus provide a means for more effectively moving research outcomes
across the ``valley of death'' to become de-risked and tested at scale_
the next step being a final prototype for production. In this approach,
NSF would not be responsible for funding all de-risking and testing at
scale, but rather, by virtue of its partnerships with industry, would
principally provide the organizing framework by which such activities
would take place in a seamless and efficient manner--all the while
preserving the cultural elements of NSF so critical to its past and
future success.
Such a concept was proposed in a January, 2021 report \15\ issued
by the previous President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) and may be useful here. Specifically, PCAST
recommended creating a new type of organizational framework that brings
together multiple technology areas (e.g., artificial intelligence,
advanced manufacturing, and biotechnology) to address compelling
practical problems at the intersection of such areas as a complement to
recently created centers and institutes.\16\ The organizations
envisioned by PCAST would conjoin all four sectors of the research
enterprise, as equal partners from the outset, and span the entire
spectrum from fundamental research to prototype de-risking and scale
up--all within the same administrative framework. They also would be
structured with streamlined administrative compliance environments, in
some cases via Federal waivers of certain requirements that
unnecessarily inhibit progress, flexible personnel policies that allow
researchers from all four sectors to move across organizational
boundaries with ease, and intellectual property frameworks that
accelerate the transfer of technology to industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://science.osti.gov/-/media/_/pdf/about/pcast/202012/
PCAST_IOTFI-FINAL-
Report.pdf?la=en&hash=0196EF02F8D3D49E1ACF221DA8E6B41F0D193F17
\16\ For example, the U.S. Department of Energy Quantum Information
Science Research Centers and NSF National Artificial Intelligence
Research Institutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By following a strategic, all-sector true partnership model for
certain activities, America more broadly will reap greater benefits
from the EFA, and the momentum and collective partnership resources
thus established will provide a mechanism to help ensure long-term
sustainability.
Point #4. More Innovative and Efficient Models for Centers and
Hubs. NSF and other agencies have been funding university-based
research centers, institutes and facilities for several decades.
Although this mode of funding has proven successful, the increasingly
prescriptive nature of such efforts, driven in large part by today's
burdensome and complicated compliance environment and general aversion
to intellectual risk-taking, suggest that modified structures should be
pursued. This issue was addressed in the aforementioned PCAST report,
which identified a number of significant limitations with current
research organizational models and suggested a new multi-sector
framework that would stimulate new ideas, simplify collaboration among
types of institutions, and accelerate the movement of fundamental
research outcomes to products and services at scale, all within the
same general framework.
The centers and other entities proposed by the EFA, as well as
programs such as EPSCoR (Established Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research), could serve as experimental proving grounds for new
organizational approaches, including accelerated approvals and waivers
of certain compliance requirements and new personnel structures. One
need look no further than the COVID-19 pandemic for a compelling
example of such an experiment. In one week, several organizations
joined forces to establish and begin executing a consortium that made
huge amounts of both public and private computing time available to
researchers, free of charge and with rapid proposal review, to
understand the virus and begin developing vaccines and therapeutics.
Under normal circumstances, this effort would have taken months to
establish.
Point #5. Broadening Engagement. A particularly significant
component of the EFA involves programs which seek to engage a larger
segment of America's academic research and education enterprise,
especially emerging research institutions, emerging institutions of
higher education, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs),
Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), and Tribal Colleges and
Universities (TCUs). I can well attest that extraordinary research
accomplishments and talent can be found in all parts of our great
Nation, especially in rural and underserved areas, and in institutions
which are not research powerhouses but are becoming more engaged in
research with a great deal to offer. I also am quite aware that a great
number of capable individuals never have an opportunity to develop
their talent or achieve their goals and dreams, whether by virtue of
their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or other circumstances.
Taking firm action to address these and other issues is essential, and
in doing so, two important factors need to be considered.
The first concerns institutional culture. Many emerging research
institutions have well established and highly regarded reputations for
instruction, with faculty incentive and reward systems likewise
structured. Enhancing research in substantial ways most likely will
require faculty to reallocate their time, thus reducing their formal
teaching activities so they can spend more time writing grant
proposals, managing awards and facilities, and mentoring student and
post-doctoral researchers. All of these are positive activities and
foundational to research in academia. However, because notable
increases in such activities can impact both institutional culture as
well as existing personnel policies, these and other impacts need to be
fully understood by the highest level of institutional leadership.
Consequently, leaders of emerging and other types of research
institutions named in the EFA should be engaged as soon as possible to
understand how their institutional cultures and policies might need to
change, if such change is desired, for them to accommodate greater
research funding.
The second issue concerns the administrative frameworks needed to
support research grants or contracts and associated compliance
requirements, such as financial and other management activities,
intellectual property management, legal review, space allocation and
tracking, reporting to state and Federal organizations, and research
security. Many emerging research institutions have relatively small
research offices that are not presently equipped to handle
significantly larger numbers of, or more complex research grants and
contracts. Nor do they likely have the funding to create or enhance
them. Consequently, some of the funding from the EFA should be used to
create new or enhance existing institutional research administration
capabilities. This funding could be provided for a limited period,
until such time the institution can absorb the costs by virtue of
increased research revenues.
Point #6. Discovering Emerging Intellectual Property. Despite the
fact that America invests nearly $600 billion per year in research and
development, only limited mechanisms exist, to my knowledge, with which
one can identify and then explore emerging research outcomes to
determine whether a particular activity holds sufficient promise for
possible corporate investment. Some funding agencies have powerful
databases with which the public can use keyword searches to obtain
plain-language summaries of current and past research projects. Yet, if
a small company, for example, is interested in research on a particular
topic and wishes to determine which Federally funded projects on that
topic are nearing completion--and explore their results to date and
contact the investigators--existing databases are not designed to
readily provide such information
If the technology goals of the EFA are to be met, America needs a
more effective mechanism for linking progress and outcomes in research
to those who wish to innovate with them. Yet doing so in an open manner
creates obvious vulnerabilities at a time when theft of ideas,
proposals, and intellectual property by certain foreign governments is
a real and significant threat to America's competitiveness. If a new
NSF technology directorate is established, it should coordinate with
NSF and other organizations to consider ways for addressing these
competing needs.
Point #7. Test Beds and Fabrication Facilities. The EFA suggests
test beds and fabrication facilities would be located at universities
or consortia of academic institutions, which indeed would be valuable
for enhancing education and research. However, the private sector
already operates substantial facilities that could function as test
beds and be used for fabrication through creative partnerships with
academia. In particular, use of such facilities could be linked with
internships and apprenticeships as a mutual value proposition, which
would be particularly important for emerging institutions.
Additionally, a partnership strategy would enhance the likelihood of
sustainability as some academic institutions, especially emerging
institutions, may not be positioned to absorb out-year costs of
facility maintenance, staff support and upgrades.
Point #8. Timing and Allocation of Funds. NSF is a highly
sophisticated and effective Federal agency that operates with great
efficiency and transparency, and works closely and successfully with
both the Executive and Legislative branches of Government. It also has
extraordinary leadership in its Director and governing board.
Consequently, NSF and the NSB should be provided maximum flexibility
and freedom, with obvious continuous oversight from Congress, to
execute the EFA as it deems most appropriate for achieving the stated
goals.
4. Comments on the Remainder of the Endless Frontier Act
In addition to changes associated with NSF, which include creating
a new directorate, establishing several University Technology Centers,
creating test beds and fabrication facilities, directing funds to STEM
education, enhancing existing research programs, and broadening
engagement in research and technology commercialization, the EFA seeks
to establish several Regional Technology Hubs. Consideration also is
being given in Washington, DC to substantially expanding the current
Manufacturing USA Institutes (MUI) and Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnerships (MEP). Collectively, this represents an extraordinarily
large and complex endeavor which underscores the well know adage that
it is far easier to create than coordinate. Thus, several important
issues need to be addressed if the proposed infusion of significant
funds, and the associated creation of large and complex activities in
America's research and technology enterprise, are to work as needed.
First, as noted previously, America's innovation engine suffers
from a number of inefficiencies, including the lack of a seamless
national framework by which multiple sectors of the enterprise can
seamlessly transition fundamental research outcomes to scaled prototype
products and services. It is unclear how investments in the Department
of Commerce will avoid reinforcing challenges with existing handoff
points and address the ``valley of death'' problem?
Second, although the EFA speaks to the importance of coordination
with the MUI and MEP programs, it does not address the many ways in
which a new NSF directorate, or increased NSF activities in technology-
driven fundamental research more broadly, could contribute to enhancing
both the MUI and MEP programs or lead to new, innovative approaches for
executing the MUI and MEP missions. Nor does it address how MUI and MEP
might coordinate with and enhance NSF activities, especially corporate
engagement, which is foundational to both MUI and MEP. This interaction
is especially important in light of ways in which MUI and MEP can
enhance engagement with emerging institutions, which is a significant
aspect of NSF's focus in the draft bill.
Third, the proposed Department of Commerce Regional Technology Hubs
appear designed to create confederations of stakeholders within
multiple sectors of a region with the goal of enhancing technology
development, creating jobs, and transforming local and regional
economies. Although this is an important and valuable idea, such top-
down approaches often fail to align stakeholders with common goals
because they lack a ``grass roots'' push. Once again, coordination is
one of the many challenges needing to be addressed. If the Hubs are
scaled as described in the bill, at roughly $1B per award, additional
clarity is needed regarding how the confederations would be structured
and managed to ``create the conditions'' for economic development and
education enhancement. Additionally, how would such large funding
completement new investments made within NSF as well as programs such
as MUI and MEP--all of which are candidate components of a
confederation?
Fourth, throughout the EFA, coordination and collaboration among
multiple Federal agencies is rightly cited as critical to success of
the programs described. Such coordination historically has proved
extremely difficult, particularly for the scale and complexity of
programs envisioned in the EFA and in light of the multiple stakeholder
sectors involved. One possible coordination mechanism would be to
create a special, select or joint committee within the National Science
and Technology Council (NSTC), co-chaired by OSTP and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and involving NSF, the Department of
Commerce, and other departments and agencies as deemed appropriate.
Based upon my experience with major multi-agency Government programs,
front-line OMB involvement is essential for ensuring inter-agency
coordination.
Finally, multiple undertakings as large as those proposed in the
EFA will create extraordinary challenges in accountability, especially
with regard to evaluating how the collective of the activities are
achieving more than the sum of their individual parts. To be effective,
the various elements need to work together in ways different from and
more effective than previously, which creates complex
interdependencies. This is a feature and not a limitation, but will
require careful thought in how success is defined and measured, and how
the various EFA elements contribute to success individually and
collectively.
5. Final Thoughts
America today boasts the greatest research, education, and
innovation ecosystem in the world. Although we do not lead in every
area, the collective of our four-sector enterprise, underpinned by our
values, is unmatched. Yet we face unprecedented threats and
competition. By bolstering and weaving together all elements of our
research enterprise in powerful new ways, without compromising the
identity, culture and value of each, and by appropriately resourcing
NSF, we will help ensure not only that America becomes more competitive
and broadly engaging, but also that it continues as the global leader
in scientific and technological research, education and innovation.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you, again, Dr. Droegemeier, for
being here. And now, we will turn to do Dr. Miranda.
STATEMENT OF MARIE LYNN MIRANDA, Ph.D., CHARLES
AND JILL FISCHER PROVOST, PROFESSOR OF APPLIED
AND COMPUTATIONAL MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS,
DIRECTOR OF THE CHILDREN'S ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH INITIATIVE, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
Dr. Miranda. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Wicker, and
Members of the Committee, on behalf of the University of Notre
Dame, I am honored to appear before you today. Chair Cantwell,
thank you for your commitment to scientific discovery and
innovation, including empowering pathways for women and other
underrepresented groups within STEM fields.
I also extend greetings to my own Indiana Senator, Todd
Young, who is working with Senator Schumer to author the
Endless Frontier Act. Thanks to all of you for your good work.
At Notre Dame, our mission is to be a force for good in the
world. I myself have spent more than 30 years as a use-driven,
or applied, researcher who deploys Bayesian spatial statistics
to identify impacts of and solutions to environmental and
social threats to children. While I am a use-driven researcher,
I rely heavily on basic science or curiosity-driven research.
Use-driven researchers and curiosity-driven researchers
interact constantly, discussing problems, challenging each
other, and sharpening each other's work. As an example, I have
long worked on childhood lead exposure, specifically interested
in using spatial analysis to identify houses where children are
most likely to be exposed to lead, so that we can prevent
future exposure.
Federal investments in geographic information systems, and
in computational power and speed, made it possible for me to
analyze millions of observations on desktop computers. Housing
departments use our models to prioritize housing rehabilitation
dollars, working with property owners to make homes lead safe.
Health departments use the models to drive lead screening
programs, resulting in a 600 percent increase in their ability
to identify children with elevated blood lead levels at no
additional cost. As a result, thousands of children were
protected from potential loss of IQ, learning and behavioral
disorders, attention deficits, and other negative neurological
effects.
My own path to doing this work moved from mathematics to
economics to toxicology to statistics. I emphasize path over
the usual STEM pipeline metaphor because pipeline implies that
there is only one intake point and one outtake point, with some
leaks along the way. In fact, members of the STEM workforce
travel different paths. Some paths are smooth and direct. Some
meander and traverse rough terrain. Some lead to PhDs and some
to associate degrees. Some have multiple entry points. Some
have only one. We need to support all of these paths to build
the STEM enabled workforce required to ensure national security
and national competitiveness and to solve our most challenging
social problems.
The ability of the U.S. to meet the demand for individuals
with the knowledge, skills, curiosity, and creativity necessary
to enter STEMs careers is hindered by the lack of women and
underrepresented minority populations in STEM fields. While
there are about 5 million people in the U.S. employed in
computing occupations, only 24 percent are women, and 15
percent are underrepresented minorities. If we fail to get the
full diversity available to us onto those STEM paths--diversity
defined by gender, race, ethnicity, income, geography, our STEM
workforce will simply be too small. It will also lack
perspectives that encourage creativity and innovation.
In my written remarks, I offer eight recommendations
regarding the proposed legislation. Here, I highlight three.
First, fund the development and maintenance of networks and
wraparound services designed to provide mentorship, research
rotations, internships, shadowing programs, support systems,
and career advancement in STEM fields, especially as they are
relevant to gender, racial, ethnic, income, and geographic
diversity.
Second, I recommend expanding dramatically the funding for
NSF Graduate Research Fellowships and Research Experiences for
Undergraduates, programs which are incredibly effective at
attracting and retaining young scholars in STEM. Crafting
similar programs for high school students and masters students,
and post-doctoral associates is also a part of this.
Third, I recommend creating funding mechanisms that
deliberately promote interdisciplinary collaboration between
use-driven and curiosity-driven scholars. As a provost, with
the landscape view of research at Notre Dame and across higher
education, I have come to believe that the three most powerful
drivers of innovation are curiosity, purpose, and profit. The
Endless Frontier Act has the potential to tap deeply into all
three of these drivers.
While I am proud of my research group's work to protect
children, it would be vanity for me to claim credit for it. The
National Science Foundation funded my graduate education, and
Federal funding fuels my research. So, the credit really goes
to all of you Senators, for your long-standing commitment to
science and scientists.
In the 1950s, curiosity-driven researchers, who were
botanists and cultural anthropologists, were fascinated by the
Madagascar rosy periwinkle. Eventually, an extract of the plant
was used by use-driven researchers at Eli Lilly to develop
vinblastine, one of the four chemotherapeutics that was used to
save my daughter Viviana's life when she was diagnosed with
Hodgkin's Lymphoma 3 years ago. She is now a healthy and happy
college sophomore, studying chemistry.
I provide more detailed comments in my official testimony,
for the record. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Miranda follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marie Lynn Miranda, Ph.D., Charles and Jill
Fischer Provost, Professor of Applied and Computational Mathematics and
Statistics, Director of the Children's Environmental Health Initiative,
University of Notre Dame
Introduction
Madam Chair, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the Committee,
on behalf of the University of Notre Dame, I am honored to appear
before you today to offer testimony regarding the Endless Frontier Act.
Chair Cantwell, as a career scientist, researcher, and higher
education administrator, I am grateful for your commitment to
scientific discovery and innovation, and your Committee's dedication to
strengthening our Nation's innovation ecosystem. I am particularly
appreciative of your efforts and leadership in creating pathways for
women and other underrepresented groups to pursue STEMM (science,
technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine) fields.
I also extend greetings to my own Indiana Senator, Todd Young, who
is working with Senator Schumer to author this important legislation.
Thank you for your leadership and longstanding support and commitment
to university research and learning.
I am particularly pleased to be here in person--something that
might not have been possible a month ago, but is today due largely to
the tremendous U.S. Federal government investments made over many years
in basic science and technology research conducted at our Nation's
universities. Those long-term, strategic investments in science and
technology established the knowledge base and foundation that enabled
pharmaceutical companies to develop and produce several safe, effective
vaccines to combat the COVID-19 pandemic in a timespan previously
unimaginable.
Background
I am a professor of applied and computational mathematics and
statistics at the University of Notre Dame, where I also serve as the
Charles and Jill Fischer provost and direct the Children's
Environmental Health Initiative (CEHI), which is a research, education,
and outreach organization committed to fostering environments where all
people can prosper.
I have spent more than 30 years as a use-driven, or applied,
researcher who deploys Bayesian spatial statistics to identify impacts
of and solutions to environmental and social threats to children. I
have applied science and technology to help understand and address
complex, real-world challenges locally, regionally, and nationally.
In my own work and in my role as provost at the University of Notre
Dame, I have witnessed firsthand the power of the Federal government's
substantial investments in basic science and technology to improve
lives for individuals, communities, and our society more broadly. That
is our mission at the University of Notre Dame--to be a force for good
in the world.
It is common to conceive of researchers dividing up into curiosity-
driven versus use-driven scientists and engineers. In fact, a virtuous
cycle exists between the two. Curiosity-driven researchers elucidate
critical insights into basic science questions that drive new
opportunities for use-driven researchers. In turn, use-driven
researchers highlight new challenges for curiosity-driven researchers
to take up. And in fact, many scientists and engineers are both use-
driven and curiosity-driven.
While I am primarily a use-driven researcher, I rely heavily on
basic science or curiosity-driven research. Use-driven researchers and
curiosity-driven researchers interact constantly, discussing problems,
challenging each other, and sharpening each other's work. When I wrote
my dissertation, I had to use a mainframe computer to analyze the
40,000 observations in my dataset, and I could only implement the
analysis at the county level. Back then, 40,000 observations was big
data!
In contrast, for the past 20 years, I have worked on childhood lead
exposure, specifically interested in using spatial analysis to identify
houses where children are most likely to be exposed to lead, and then
remediate houses to prevent future exposure. Federal investments in
basic science research on geographic information systems, as well as
computational power and speed, made it possible for me to analyze
millions of observations on my desktop computer. In addition, new
insights from theoretical statisticians made it possible to implement
our models at the individual tax parcel level.
Housing departments use CEHI's detailed models to prioritize
housing rehabilitation dollars, working with property owners to make
homes lead-safe. Health departments use the same models to drive lead
screening programs, resulting in one county, for example, experiencing
a 600 percent increase in its ability to identify children with
elevated blood lead levels at no additional cost.
These models have been replicated for communities across the United
States. As a result, we have protected thousands of children from
potential harmful effects of lead exposure, including learning and
behavioral disorders, poor hearing, attention deficits, and other
negative neurological effects.
While the scope of the Endless Frontier Act is broad, as requested,
I will focus this testimony on opportunities to strengthen the Nation's
research enterprise and increase diversity of the science, technology,
engineering, mathematics, and medical (STEMM) fields.
Federally funded research: the foundation of American innovation and
security
It is unfortunate that many Americans neither see nor appreciate
the myriad, intricate connections between basic, curiosity-driven
research and its end uses, developments, and products. Instead, many
view the amazing technologies that surround us--self-driving vehicles,
rovers on Mars, mobile phones that do everything from navigate our
world to monitor our health--as the unexpected next new products to
shape our world.
The truth, of course, is that nearly all of the technological
innovations that enable our modern society emerge from a deliberately
built foundation of federally funded research conducted over many years
at universities or federally funded research laboratories. While many
Americans may not fully appreciate this connection, our peers,
competitors, and potential adversaries around the globe certainly do.
The initial large-scale investments in federally funded research
were a conscious post World War II decision related to the Cold War.
Other nations watched as U.S. government investments in science,
sustained in part through National Science Foundation (NSF), created a
global superpower and shaped a society and economy that have been the
envy of the world for multiple generations. The American system awards
funding competitively, balancing a centralized source for funding with
the incredible entrepreneurial spirit that characterizes our
researchers. This system aligns fully with American democratic values.
Other nations are now making similar investments with similar
ambitions at a pace that exceeds the United States, especially
expenditures in critically important areas such as artificial
intelligence, quantum computing, and other advanced technologies.
According to data from an April 2020 Congressional Research Service
report, U.S. investments in research and development funding declined
from 69 percent of the world's total in 1960 to 28 percent in 2018.
Interestingly, the U.S. decline is not the result of cuts in U.S.
investments. Rather, the decline in
U.S. global leadership in this area is the result of even greater
investments by the governments of other countries that recognize the
importance of R&D to their innovation and competitiveness.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Congressional Research Service, Global Research and Development
Expenditures: Fact Sheet Updated April 29, 2020. https://fas.org/sgp/
crs/misc/R44283.pdf, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That targeted funding is having direct results. For example, since
the mid-2000s, increased investments by China in science and technology
have led to steady growth in the number of scientific journal articles
published by Chinese researchers, a key measure of scientific
innovation. China is now the largest single global producer of
scientific journal articles, surpassing the U.S. in 2016.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators
2018, Outputs of SE Research: Publications, https://nsf.gov/statistics/
2018/nsb20181/report/sections/academic-research-and-development/
outputs-of-s-e-research-publications, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education as a foundation of innovation
Sustainable economic development in general is not easy to achieve,
and innovation-based economic development is an even greater challenge.
However, as noted in the World Economic Forum's 2019 Global
Competitiveness Report, ``In most advanced and emerging economies,
technology adoption and innovation have become priorities for
governments and companies alike as a source of value creation,
productivity growth, and improved living standards. Technology can also
improve access to basic services, working conditions, health outcomes
and economic security.'' \3\ Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
nature of jobs and work has been changing at a rapid pace, enabled by
advances in computer science and engineering, advancements in learning
sciences, and new conceptions of work and workplaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ World Economic Forum Global Competiveness Report, http://
www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF
_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linked to this rapid pace of change is an unprecedented opportunity
to expand access to emerging new industries and occupations, enhance
productivity and quality of work life, and increase workforce
participation. U.S. regions with successful innovation-based
``ecosystems'' share in common well-defined links between colleges and
universities, a skilled workforce, investments in technology and
infrastructure, and an entrepreneurial culture that drives a region to
capitalize on its economic strengths.
Moreover, America's need for both basic, curiosity-driven research
and applied, use-driven research is greater than ever today because the
challenges and competition we face as a society and nation are greater
and more complex than ever. Our societal and technical challenges also
require greater collaboration between research fields, increased
diversity of perspectives and skills, and a much larger and broader
talent pool entering STEMM fields. The Endless Frontier Act represents
a major effort to address these concerns, and I commend its authors and
the Committee Members for their renewed commitment to confront these
challenges.
Strengthening our U.S. innovation ecosystem necessarily begins with
education and efforts to encourage young Americans to pursue rigorous
academic courses, and it continues with efforts to transfer technology
and knowledge created in research universities to industry, which
brings these innovations to the marketplace. Complementary to these
technology transfer initiatives are college and university programs
that support regional industry innovation, which creates jobs, boosts
regional economies, and addresses regional concerns.
Thinking outside the pipe
It is popular to refer to the STEMM pipeline as a metaphor for
producing a STEMM-enabled workforce. Referring to it as a pipeline,
however, implies that there is only one intake point and one outtake
point, with potential leaks along the way. In fact, members of the
STEMM workforce travel different paths. My own research path moved from
mathematics to economics to toxicology to statistics. I encourage
people to think about multiple pathways, rather than pipelines.
Some paths are smooth and direct; some are circuitous and must
traverse rough terrain. Some lead to STEMM PhDs and some to STEMM
bachelor or associate degrees. Some have only one entry point; some
have many. We need all these paths to build the STEMM enabled workforce
our country needs for national security, for national competitiveness,
for national prosperity, and to solve our most challenging societal
problems.
While we need PhD-trained researchers to develop new cybersecurity
systems, we also need people with associate and bachelor degrees
trained to run those systems on a daily basis. While we need PhD-
trained researchers to predict and model natural disasters, we need
large STEMM-enabled multidisciplinary teams to use that research to
react in real time on the ground in disaster zones.
We are also vulnerable when it comes to STEMM talent. The ability
of the U.S. to meet the demand for individuals with the knowledge,
skills, curiosity, and creativity necessary to enter STEMM-intensive
careers is hindered by the lack of women and underrepresented minority
populations in STEMM fields.
We must also think broadly about the need to bring our entire
talent pool to this issue. For example, women comprise 51.5 percent of
our population and 47 percent of the labor force. However, in computer
science, only 19 percent of those awarded bachelor's degrees in 2016
were women--down from 27 percent in 1997.\4\ Similarly,
underrepresented minorities comprise 27 percent of our population and
30 percent of the labor force, but only 9 percent of those with science
and engineering doctorate degrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Center for Educational Statistics, Women, Minorities,
and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, 39 percent of U.S. high schools are unable to offer
physics, a foundational course for STEMM fields. The inability to offer
physics and other science and mathematics courses relates directly to
the lack of qualified teachers, primarily in low resource, smaller
schools. So, nearly two in five high school graduates, regardless of
their academic ability, interest, or motivation, will start college
facing a much tougher path for pursuing STEMM degrees.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Science Education Policy, Problematizing the STEM Pipeline
Metaphor: Is the STEM Pipeline Metaphor Serving Our Students and the
STEM Workforce?, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At Notre Dame, we established a STEMM scholars program in 2018 to
support students who intend to pursue STEMM careers but arrive at our
university without the benefit of multiple Advanced Placement courses
or other STEMM enrichment opportunities. This program has been very
successful in helping these students succeed in their courses and
persist in STEMM disciplines, without the emotional burden of feeling
less qualified than others.
Modernizing university technology transfer programs
The Endless Frontier Act seeks to strengthen America's economic
competitiveness and efficiency by producing innovative technology
through research and commercialization grants. Achieving these goals
will require commercialization of innovations that emerge from these
research investments, much of which will go to universities.
To achieve the goals of the Endless Frontier Act, universities need
to remake their technology transfer and commercialization operations.
More specifically, they should shift away from the nearly ubiquitous
model of relying on tech managers, who usually have deep technical
knowledge and little business experience, to commercialize university
discoveries. Twenty years of data have shown this approach does not
work.
For example, despite tens of billions of dollars spent on
university research each year, 95 percent of all intellectual property
discovered in universities goes unlicensed.\6\ Of the intellectual
property that is licensed, 72 percent takes place at only 37
universities. Furthermore, only 13 percent of tech transfer offices are
self-sustaining.\7\ Why? Technologies that emerge from universities are
very early-stage and full of risk for potential licensees, so potential
investors are hesitant to invest. Traditional tech transfer offices
lack the skills and processes to de-risk a technology sufficiently
enough that the right funders, founders, entrepreneurs, advisors,
mentors, or corporate partners will engage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Nature: https://www.nature.com/news/universities-struggle-to-
make-patents-pay-1.13811, 2013.
\7\ AUTM (formerly the Association of University Technology
Managers) Report, https://autm
.net/surveys-and-tools/databases/statt, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this issue, university commercialization operations
should put in place a rigorous and replicable de-risking process. At
the University of Notre Dame, we have implemented a stage-gated,
milestone driven methodology to de-risk technologies and make them more
attractive for commercialization.
Implementing such a process drives success in a number of ways.
First, it allows the commercialization office's staff to specialize in
key areas, including IP and technology, business, and startups. Second,
it ensures the staff applies the right resources in the right amounts
at the right times for the right projects. Finally, it turbocharges the
speed with which technologies move from discovery to market.
Over the past five to eight years, a small number of universities
have started using a variant of this system and the results are
impressive. They have created hundreds of startups, tens of thousands
of jobs, and billions of dollars in value. Research funding alone will
not achieve the goals of the Endless Frontier Act. New and inventive
commercialization processes will be required.
Expanding innovation at the national, state, and regional levels
U.S. business research and development activities are presently
concentrated in a relatively small number of states. In 2018, of the
$441 billion in R&D performed in the U.S., most went to California (33
percent), followed by Washington (7 percent), Massachusetts (6
percent), Michigan (5 percent), Texas (5 percent), New Jersey (5
percent), New York (4 percent), Illinois (3 percent), and Pennsylvania
(3 percent).
While the particular focus of EFA legislation is to address and
advance America's national security and global competitiveness, I
applaud its efforts to provide targeted investments and development of
additional, broadly distributed technology hubs or centers throughout
the United States, including in promising ``Heartland America'' places
like Indiana. Indiana is well positioned to serve as one of these state
tech hubs, as we have rich collaborations across the three major
research universities; Purdue University, Indiana University, Notre
Dame, and with the Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center and the Indiana
State government's Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC). We
also have a highly active organization coordinating the corporate
relationships in the State, the Central Indiana Corporate Partnership
(CICP). The CICP has become a major catalyst for growing the industrial
competitiveness of the companies in the State in areas such as (see
list of EFA foci). In fact, a recent report that we commissioned from
the Brookings Institution identified existing strengths and related
opportunities in a manner that is generally consistent with the tech
hub framework.
As of 2019, Indiana has the Nation's third-highest rate of
employment in these R&D and STEMM-worker intensive industries.
Indiana's advanced industries employ 10.5 percent of the Hoosier
workforce (323,600 individuals), while producing 25 percent of the
state's GDP and 60 percent of the state's exports. And because of long
supply chains and multiplier effects, the state's industries are
indirectly responsible for another 700,000 jobs.
Our state's advanced industry mix makes clear that Indiana's
economy is largely driven by advanced manufacturing. Among Indiana's
advanced industry workers, 76 percent are employed in advanced
manufacturing. These workers produced 79 percent of the state's
advanced industry output--amounting to roughly 20 percent of the
state's contribution to GDP.\8\ Furthermore, the life sciences are a
particularly significant contributor to the state's advanced
manufacturing sector. Specifically, pharmaceutical and medical device
production together employ almost 15 percent of all Hoosier advanced
manufacturing workers and are responsible for more than 25 percent of
all Hoosier advanced manufacturing output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Indiana GPS Project Report, https://indianagpsproject.com/,
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The South Bend-Elkhart (SBE) Region is at the locus of three
emergent trends within the global economy: the shift to a digital
environment in industry; the growing polarity of innovation and
investment; and the renewed emphasis on applied and experiential
learning models to better equip the future workforce.
While these developments present potential challenges, they also
signal opportunity. The growth of wireless technologies, artificial
intelligence and robotics, data analytics, and digital sensor
technologies--often referred to as the fourth industrial revolution--
have accelerated the pace of innovation and increased the need for
highly skilled expertise.
Companies that succeed in this transition will be, first and
foremost, enterprises still producing tangible products, but doing so
within a data-based, digital environment with connectivity from the
shop floor through the supply chain and customer base. Regions at the
forefront of digital transformation, in turn, offer some of the most
compelling career and economic opportunities for a well-trained
workforce, thereby concentrating talent, investment, and innovation.
In response to these emerging economic demands and need for a
coordinated solution, funded by a $42 million grant from the Lilly
Endowment, Notre Dame and the South Bend Elkhart Regional Partnership
launched the LIFT Network and iNDustry Labs to more effectively and
proactively serve the businesses in the South-Bend Elkhart region with
a regional innovation hub. The LIFT Network and iNDustry Labs link the
faculty expertise, student talent, and R&D capabilities at the
University and throughout the region with the regional companies
embarking on the digital transformation journey to become more
productive, resilient, and skilled organizations in the digital
economy.
Recommendations
I offer the Committee seven recommendations to create greater
access to STEMM pathways, to promote increased collaboration between
and among curiosity-and use-driven researchers, and to ensure the full
potential of the Endless Frontier Act is achieved.
1. Create funding mechanisms that encourage research institutions to
collaborate with middle schools and high schools at scale,
including supporting the professional development of middle and
high school science teachers, developing innovative STEMM
curricula, and inviting students for meaningful STEMM on-campus
experiences. Separately fund a full-scale analysis of the
effectiveness of different approaches.
2. Seed fund the development of wrap-around services for first-
generation students and those from low resource backgrounds to
ensure they can prosper in STEMM fields. Separately fund a
full-scale analysis to assess effectiveness of different
interventions, preferably as randomized controlled trials.
3. Fund the development and maintenance of networks designed to
provide mentorship, research rotations, internships, shadowing
programs, support systems, and career advancement in STEMM
fields at all levels, especially as they are relevant to
gender, racial, ethnic, income, and geographic diversity.
4. Dramatically expand funding for NSF Graduate Research Fellowships
(GRFs) and Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs),
programs that are incredibly effective at attracting and
retaining young scholars in STEMM. Craft and fund similar
programs for high school students and masters-level students.
5. Create funding mechanisms that promote collaboration between
researchers in different fields and between use-driven and
curiosity-driven scholars. These mechanisms should also include
grants designed specifically to develop the databases that will
accelerate use-driven research.
6. Provide funding that extends the length of current grants to
address the impacts of COVID-19 on research. Such funding is
critical for keeping women and minority scholars in STEMM.
7. Implement funding incentives to help universities transform their
tech transfer offices into business-oriented, de-risking
operations that better promote commercialization of federally
funded research.
8. To maximize the return on Federal investments in regional
technology hubs, consider regional readiness, including
vibrancy of partnerships, existing structures for university-
industry partnerships, and local/regional support in workforce
development programs.
Conclusion
Keeping our Nation secure, prosperous, and economically competitive
in a dynamically changing world depends upon a tremendous investment in
science and technology research. That investment is a necessary one,
and it is one our peers, competitors, and adversaries are making. That
investment will also allow us to address our most pressing societal
challenges and continue to fulfill the great promise of the American
experiment. Our generation must make this commitment, as previous
generations did for us, to secure a prosperous future for our children
and grandchildren.
As a university provost, with a landscape view of research at Notre
Dame and across higher education, I have come to believe that the three
most powerful drivers of innovation are curiosity, purpose, and profit.
The Endless Frontier Act has the potential to tap deeply into all three
of these drivers.
While I am proud that my research group's work has helped protect
children across the country from lead exposure, it would be vanity for
me to take credit for those impacts. The National Science Foundation
funded my graduate education, and Federal funding fuels my research. So
the credit really goes to all of you, senators, and to your colleagues
in the House of Representatives, for your longstanding commitment to
science and scientists.
I will close with a personal story of the powerful synergy between
curiosity-driven and use-driven research, the role of
commercialization, and a single, but important, good outcome.
In the 1950s, curiosity-driven botanists and cultural
anthropologists were fascinated by the Madagascar rosy periwinkle.
Eventually, an extract of the plant was used by Eli Lilly to develop
vincristine, a chemotherapeutic that increased the survival rate from
childhood leukemia from 10 to 90 percent. From the same plant, they
also developed vinblastine, one of the four chemotherapeutics that was
used to save my daughter Viviana's life when she was diagnosed with
Hodgkin's Lymphoma three years ago. She is now a healthy and happy
college sophomore, studying chemistry.
Again, I commend this Committee for their dedication to this effort
and thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Dr. Miranda. Thank you for
sharing that personal story, thank you. It makes it very
meaningful today, thank you.
Dr. Shaw, thank you so much for joining us.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID SHAW, PROVOST AND EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Shaw. Thank you. Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker,
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you today about a topic that is vital to our Nation's
future. For the past century, the U.S. has led the world in
research, and technology development. However, that leadership
is now in peril, requiring immediate and sustained action. This
issue has no political nor geographic affiliation, and
solutions must be crafted that benefit every American, if we
are to maintain that leadership. We must be unified in
developing this solution, since our threats are not within the
United States; rather the threat is from competition abroad.
Past Federal investments in research have made a tremendous
difference in my home state of Mississippi. Mississippi State
University won a National Science Foundation Engineering
Research Center in 1990, focused on computational field
simulation. As a part of the incentive to attract Nissan to the
state, we leveraged the ERC to create a new Center for Advanced
Vehicular Systems at our university. The Department of Commerce
has now estimated the impact of just this one center, to be
nearly $6 billion over a 12-year period, in jobs saved and
created. Without the NSF investment, this simply would not have
been possible.
I appreciate the language in the current legislation that
recognizes the need for broad participation, but I also believe
it does not go far enough. The Established Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research, EPSCoR, is mentioned specifically. I
serve on the EPSCoR Coalition board and can attest, from
firsthand knowledge, that this program has a substantial impact
on the 28 states and territories that qualify for this program.
However, allocating only 12 percent of the funds to the EPSCoR
program belies the commitment to see distribution of technology
and innovation funding beyond the five states that see the vast
majority of existing funds. Language regarding the regional
hubs, similarly, has a minimal role for an EPSCoR state to be
included, and no leadership role is expected. EPSCoR
jurisdictions are the home of tremendous potential. However, a
lack of resources greatly limits the development of this
potential.
The disparity of existing NSF funding between states, the
haves and have-nots, is striking, and my concern is that
without specific and proactive action mandated in legislation
this disparity will only worsen. Congress has the opportunity
to ensure that zip code does not determine whether talented
students can develop the workforce of the future, the new ideas
for entrepreneurial businesses, and the economic development so
desperately needed in some of our more depressed economies.
I will use my state and my institution as an example.
Mississippi's population has the highest percentage of African
Americans of all U.S. states. At MSU, we enroll a higher
percentage of African Americans, by a wide margin, than any
other university in the Southeastern Conference. And by an
equally wide margin, MSU enrolls a greater proportion of
African Americans than any other historically white land-grant
university in the entire United States. MSU also enrolls the
most PELL-eligible students of any university in our state. We
strive for all students, but particularly those from
underrepresented and disadvantaged populations, to be
successful. To do that, however, we must be provided the
resources to involve these students in creative discovery,
technology development, and entrepreneurship to ensure that
they are given all of the tools necessary to be successful in
their lives and careers. Currently, Mississippi ranks at the
bottom of all states in terms of NSF funding per capita. Less
than $7 is invested per Mississippi citizen, whereas the
national average is $23, and in some states is over $80 per
capita. This inequity simply must be addressed if we as a
nation are to move forward in unity.
Two years ago, I had the opportunity to testify at a sub-
committee hearing before this Committee and would reiterate
here the following four recommendations from that testimony,
calling for investments to be, first, broad-based
geographically. Second, truly trans-disciplinary in nature.
Third, broadly supportive of both fundamental and developmental
research endeavors. And finally, encouraging Federal, State,
university, and industry partnerships.
Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, members of the
Committee, I thank you again for the opportunity to testify
before you today. Mississippi State University is a staunch
advocate for bipartisan support in technology development and
innovation, and we are eager to be full participants in the
efforts. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Shaw follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. David Shaw, Provost and Executive Vice
President, Mississippi State University
Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about a
topic vital to our Nation's future. For the past century the U.S. has
led the world in research, innovation, and technology development.
However, that leadership is now in peril, requiring immediate and
sustained action. This issue has no political nor geographic
affiliation, and solutions must be crafted that benefit every American
if we are to maintain that leadership. We must be unified in developing
this solution, since our threats are not within the U.S.; rather the
threat is from competition abroad.
Past Federal investments in research have made a tremendous
difference in our state. Mississippi State University (MSU) won a
National Science Foundation (NSF) Engineering Research Center (ERC) in
1990, focused on computational field simulation. We have many success
stories that came from that ERC, but none more important than how it
was used to attract Nissan to the State of Mississippi. As a part of
the incentive to attract Nissan, we leveraged the ERC to create a new
Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems (CAVS) at MSU, with a combination
of basic engineering research and industrial outreach to support the
automotive industry in the state. In fact, the Department of Commerce
has estimated the impact of just this one center, not the entire
university, to be nearly $6 billion over a twelve year period, in jobs
saved or created. Without the NSF investment, I doubt any of this would
have been possible.
I appreciate the language in the current proposed legislation that
recognizes the need for broad participation, but would challenge that
it does not go far enough. The Established Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research, EPSCoR, is mentioned specifically. I serve on the
EPSCoR Coalition board, and can attest from firsthand knowledge that
this program has a substantial impact on the 28 states and territories
that qualify for this program. However, allocating only twelve percent
of the funds to the EPSCoR program belies the commitment to see
distribution of technology and innovation funding beyond the five
states that see the vast majority of existing funds. Language regarding
the regional hubs similarly has a minimal role for an EPSCoR state to
be included, and no leadership role is expected. EPSCoR jurisdictions
are the home of tremendous potential; however, a lack of resources
greatly limits the development of this potential.
The disparity of existing NSF funding between states, the haves and
have-nots, is striking, and my concern is that without specific and
proactive action mandated in legislation this disparity will only
worsen. Congress has the opportunity to ensure that zip code does not
determine whether talented students can develop the workforce of the
future, the new ideas for entrepreneurial businesses, and the economic
development so desperately needed in some of our more depressed
economies.
I will use my state of Mississippi and my institution as an
example. Mississippi population has the highest percentage of African
Americans of U.S. states. At MSU, we enroll a higher percentage of
African Americans--by a wide margin--than any other university in the
Southeastern Conference. And by an equally wide margin, Mississippi
State enrolls a greater proportion of African Americans than any other
historically white land-grant university in the United States. MSU
enrolls the most PELL-eligible students of any university in our state.
We strive for all students, but particularly those from under-
represented and disadvantaged populations, to be successful. To do
that, however, we must be provided the resources to involve these
students in creative discovery, technology development, and
entrepreneurship in order to ensure that they are given all the tools
necessary to be successful in life and their careers. Currently,
Mississippi ranks at the bottom of all states in terms of NSF funding
per capita. Less than $7 is invested per Mississippi citizen, whereas
the national average is $23, and in some states is over $80 per capita.
This inequity simply must be addressed if we as a nation are to move
forward in unity.
On another note, we need to see stronger coordination with other
Federal research agencies and national laboratories. In working with
Department of Energy and Department of Defense national labs, it has
often struck me that there needs to be a much stronger partnership
among Federal agencies in technology and innovation. Discovery science
at the national labs can readily partner with technology development
programs at academic institutions that would benefit both, and
dramatically enhance innovation and entrepreneurship in the U.S.
Mississippi State has done this particularly well with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center in
Vicksburg Mississippi, and our state has seen tremendous benefit from
this partnership.
Establishing a Technology and Innovation Directorate at NSF will
not only ensure the United States' leadership role in research is
continued, it will also bring about STEM training for the workforce of
the future and lead to an economic development renaissance not seen in
decades. Mississippi State has placed tremendous focus on these efforts
already, and the benefits have been gratifying. Our Thad Cochran
Research, Technology and Economic Development Park is completely
filled, and phase 2 has already been implemented. We have wonderful,
entrepreneurial industry partners such as Camgian, Babel Street, II-IV
Inc, Martin Federal, and HBM nCode working side by side with MSU
faculty and students in efforts to grow the Mississippi economy. Our
Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems works particularly closely with
industry in the state to develop innovative solutions as businesses
grow. And, our Raspet Flight Research Laboratory has a seven-decade
history of partnering with companies such as Boeing, Airbus, and new
startup companies in manned and unmanned aircraft systems. It is clear
that these partnerships are having a positive impact on the community,
pushing it to a leading technology center with new jobs and industries.
Two years ago I had the opportunity to testify at a sub-committee
hearing before this Committee, and would reiterate here the following
four recommendations from that testimony, calling for investments to
be:
1. Broad-based geographically. We must support the best and
brightest students and researchers wherever they are, not just
at a few locations if we as a nation are to make the progress
you envision.
2. Trans-disciplinary in nature. The most challenging issues we face
today cannot be solved by any one or even a few disciplines.
Rather, issues such as health disparity, food security, and
water scarcity can only be solved by the hard sciences and
social sciences working together in new and novel ways.
3. Broadly supportive of both fundamental and developmental research
endeavors. Both basic and applied research are critical if we
are to lead the world in innovation and entrepreneurship.
4. Encouraging federal, state, university, and industry
partnerships. We must find ways to invest in research that
leads directly to innovation that spawns entrepreneurship and
economic development in the private sector. Historically, our
economy is based on this innovation, and with reduced private
investment in academic research, Federal funding is ever more
important if we are to continue to lead the world.
Finally, I applaud your efforts to ensure that the U.S. is working
on an even playing field in research and development. MSU fully
recognizes the threat from intellectual property theft, as well as
national security issues in research, and diligently works with Federal
law enforcement officials to do all that we can to ensure our research
findings are held with the appropriate confidentiality.
Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, members of the committee, I
thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today.
Mississippi State University is a staunch advocate for bipartisan
support in technology development and innovation, and we are eager to
be full participants in your efforts.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Dr. Shaw. Thank you for
representing Mississippi State by being here and testifying. I
think your contributions to this discussion are very important,
so thank you.
We are now going to turn to Linden Rhoads, who is joining
us virtually.
STATEMENT OF LINDEN RHOADS, GENERAL MANAGER,
THE W FUND
Ms. Rhoads. Good morning. My name is Linden Rhoads, and I
am testifying today from Seattle, Washington, where it is
allergy season, and this morning I am inconveniently afflicted.
So, I apologize for that.
Thank you, Senator Cantwell, for the opportunity to share
my experience that I hope shows that, with adequate funding
from Congress, universities can better provide for innovation
for our Nation.
From 2008 to 2014, I served as the Vice Provost for
Commercialization for the University of Washington. During my
tenure, the university agreed to a substantial temporary
increase of the budget for tech transfer, which we used to
implement an integrated slate of programs designed to radically
increase licensing and spin-out activity. So, my experience is
a reinforcing data point for those of you who posit that there
is gold in the academic research hills, and that we could, as a
nation, be mining more of it.
The University of Washington has a massive research
enterprise, conducting over $1.5 billion of mostly federally
funded research every year. Yet, as with most research
universities, there had not been enough to show for it in
commercialization output. When I arrived, the 10-year run rate
for spinouts from the university was 8 per year, mostly as
small hobby businesses. In my last year at UW, we spun out 21
companies, which put UW at third in the Nation for academic
spinouts, with the majority of those companies being venture
capital appropriate companies that had the potential to scale,
create numerous jobs for our State, and have real impact on
society.
I was not a career academic executive. I am a serial
technology entrepreneur and venture investor, who was hired to
be a change agent. And I made a multitude of programmatic
changes over 6 years. We brought in in-house patent agents, in
both IT and life science, who were available to confer free of
charge with research faculty about IP in areas in which they
were considering writing research grants, seeking promising IP
white space.
We launched an entrepreneur-in-residence program to provide
broad mentorship to entrepreneurial faculty and introduced
highly technical potential CEOs with subject-matter expertise
to our world class researchers.
We established advisory boards of industry experts to
advise life science faculty on reimbursement, clinical trial
design, and the FDA. In many cases, the only way our faculty
entrepreneur teams could spin-out a life science startup was
with an SBIR grant. So, we hired an SBIR grant writer.
We awarded a million dollars annually in $50,000
commercialization grants to the most promising translational
projects. For some steps, that would reduce technical or market
risk and increase the likelihood that the project could attract
for-profit investors.
We launched the university's first incubator, a building
with wet lab space, as well as office space for startups. We
raised a $20 million venture fund, The W Fund that invested
exclusively in spinouts from Washington State's non-profit
research institutions.
I still serve as the General Manager of The W Fund, as
Senator Cantwell mentioned. And we are making our last
investment, a follow-on investment in one of our 19 portfolio
companies, this week. Expert sector-specific mentorship, value-
creating gap funding, and strong IP support created significant
new opportunities and economic success out of UW's already
stellar research enterprise. This level of support is necessary
because university researchers balance commercialization
efforts with their academic teaching and research workload.
And the programs I have mentioned require funding. Very few
tech transfer offices, especially those at public universities,
have adequate funding. UW happens to have had one big tech
transfer hit, the Hall patents that provided a base level of
funding to its tech transfer office. I convinced the university
administration to invest over $2 million, closer to 3, more
dollars per year while I was there to allow us to spend more on
the programs I have mentioned, as well as a bump in patent
activities. It was a happy coincidence that this public
university was positioned to accede to my request.
My successor started when the Hall patents had just expired
and spent 5 years winding down many of the programs that had
yielded great results. Support of the innovation ecosystem is a
long-term play and, while short-term gains can be achieved,
game-changing potential is lost for our Nation when programs
must be dismantled. And that is because administrators are wary
of programs that suggest that minimal capital investments will
have great results, or that significant capital investments,
for only a few years, will have sustained results.
Too often government or foundations offer universities less
than a million dollars a year, for one to 3 years, with the
notion that after the funding ends, the programs they funded
will somehow become self-sustaining. What is ideally needed is
a 10-year commitment that the substantial funds major tech
transfer offices need to provide comprehensive innovation
support, including the funds to speculatively protect the
intellectual property generated by federally funded research,
including filing international patents where appropriate.
Only a few elite, private institutions can afford to do
this adequately today. All of the above has at least a $3
million price tag per $1 billion of federally funded research
per year, on top of the funding such offices currently have
available in their budget for base operations. But I believe
that the results would make that investment nation changing.
And I would be happy to answer any questions about that.
Thank you so much for the invitation to participate today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rhoads follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linden Rhoads, General Manager, The W Fund
Good morning,
My name is Linden Rhoads, and I am testifying today from Seattle
Washington. I've been asked to participate because from 2008 to 2014, I
served as the Vice Provost for Commercialization for the University of
Washington. During my tenure the university agreed to a substantial
temporary increase of the budget for tech transfer, which we used to
implement an integrated slate of programs designed to radically
increase licensing and spin-out activity, and we were successful. So my
experience is a reinforcing data point for anyone who posits that there
is gold in the academic research hills, and that we could as a nation
be mining more of it. The University of Washington has a massive
research enterprise, conducting over $1.5B of mostly federally funded
research every year. Yet, as with most research universities, there had
been little to show for it in commercialization output when I arrived;
the ten year run rate for spin-outs from the university was 8 per year,
and many of these were companies destined to be small hobby businesses.
In my last year at UW we spun out 21 companies--that put UW at third in
the Nation for academic spin-outs--with the majority of those companies
being venture capital appropriate companies that had the potential to
scale, create jobs, and have real impact. I was not a career academic
executive. The UW hired in me a serial technology entrepreneur two of
whose start-ups had been spin-outs from the university's computer
science and engineering department. I was hired to be a change agent,
and we made a multitude of programmatic changes that drove the
spectacular improvement in results over the 6 years I ran the office.
We brought in in-house patent agents with specialization in both IT and
life science who were available to confer free of charge with research
faculty about IP in areas in which they were considering writing
research grants, seeking promising ``IP white space.'' We launched an
entrepreneur-in-residence program that provided broad mentorship to
entrepreneurial faculty and would-be entrepreneurial faculty, and
introduced potential CEOs with industry and highly technical and
scientific subject matter expertise to our world class researchers. We
created advisory boards of industry experts who could advise our life
science faculty on regulatory issues, clinical trial design, and the
right approach to the FDA. Because in many cases the only way our
faculty/entrepreneur teams could amass sufficient capital to spin-out a
life science start-up was with an SBIR grant, we hired an SBIR grant
writer to assist us in doing a better job of garnering that support. We
awarded $1.25M annually in $50K ``commercialization'' grants to the
most promising translational projects, requiring that the funds be used
not necessarily for science, but for some step that would reduce
technical or market risk and thus increase the likelihood that the
project could attract ROI funding from for-profit investors. We
launched the university's first incubator, a building with wet lab
space as well as office space for start-ups. We raised a $20M venture
fund, The W Fund, that invested exclusively in spin-outs from
Washington's non-profit research institutions. I still serve as the
General Manager of The W Fund and we are making our last investment, a
follow-on investment in one of our 19 portfolio companies, this month.
Expert sector-specific mentorship, value-creating gap funding, and
strong IP support created signficiant new opportunities and economic
success from UW `s already excellent research enterprise. This level of
support is necessary is required because university researchers balance
commercialization efforts with their academic teaching and research
workload. The programs I've mentioned required some level of ingenuity
and passion for the business of seeing the research that has consumed
$20M of Federal funding and the lives of three star researchers
actually get to a patient and improve their health. But these programs
also required funding. Very few tech transfer offices, especially those
at public universities, have adequate funding. UW had had one big tech
transfer hit, The Hall patents, that provided a base level of funding
to the tech transfer office. I convinced the university administration
to invest over $2M more per year while I was there to allow us to spend
more on the programs I've mentioned as well as patent activities. It
was a happy coincidence that my arrival coincided with a moment when
this public university was positioned to accede to this request. My
successor started when the Hall patents had just expired, and spent 5
years winding down many of the programs that had yielded great results.
Support of the innovation ecosystem is a long-term play and whole
short-term gains can be achieved, game-changing potential is lose when
programs must be dismantled and rebuilt with changing budgets. This is
why tech transfer administrators are wary of programs that suggest that
minimal capital investments will have great results, or that
significant capital investments over only a few years will have
sustained results. Too often government or foundations offer
universities a few hundred thousand dollars to a million dollars a year
for one to three years with the idea that somehow after the program
funding ends, the program will be self-sustaining. The continual
pivoting and change is not helpful. What is needed is ideally a ten-
year commitment of the substantial funds major tech transfer offices
need to provide comprehensive innovation support including the funds to
speculatively protect the intellectual property generated by federally
funded research, including filing international patents where
appopriate. Only a few elite private institutions can afford to do this
adequately today. This is probably a $2.5M price tag per $1B of
federally funded research per year, on top of the funding such offices
currently have available in their budget for base operations. Such
funding would allow universities to align their considerable tech
transfer talent with entrepreneurs and investors in bridging the gap
between promising discovery research and life-improving technologies
and products. I'd also like to commend the iCorps HUBS. My colleagues
in tech transfer continue to laud these that train researchers to
pursue customer directed discovery and to focus on the end user, and
that encourage well managed expert industry mentorship. I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Linden, and thank you for the
leadership at the University of Washington and your success
there. I do think it really is a very instructive case about
large research institutions and what they can do on tech
transfer.
So, next we are going to turn to an entrepreneur himself,
who is going to explain exactly why this R&D investment is so
necessary. Welcome, Dr. Gary Butler, and I would love to hear
your testimony. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DR. GARY D. BUTLER, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, CAMGIAN
Dr. Butler. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Cantwell,
Ranking Member Wicker, and members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today. In my previous career, I
worked here in the Beltway as an engineer for a Cambridge,
Massachusetts based advanced technology firm, leading programs
funded by agencies such as DARPA. In 2006 I decided to move to
Mississippi, my home State, where I founded Camgian.
Since that time, Camgian has grown into an award-winning
technology company, which today is building automation and data
science technologies that support our military and some of the
world's leading financial institutions. This from a high-tech
company headquartered in a state with a greater than 20 percent
poverty level.
As today's discussions reflect on the innovation needed to
maintain our global leadership, I will use my time to focus on
an area that I believe is vital to our country's future. This
is Artificial Intelligence. Make no doubt, the U.S. is in a
global race in AI. Efforts by our competitors to increase
funding for AI development have resulted in a rise of new
technologies that are radically transforming the battlefield.
As such, Camgian is engaged in developing a new generation of
AI powered military technologies that aim to provide our war
fighters the capability to think and act faster than our
adversaries.
To address the emerging threats to our national security
and competitiveness, I applaud Congress for taking the bold
move to expand the NSF to include applied research. But would
ask that you consider the vital role that small tech companies
play in commercialization.
Given our skills in product development and marketing,
agile tech companies would bring the requisite capabilities to
the NSF, to deliver leading edge technologies to market. This
would also include establishing the framework for protecting
our country's valuable intellectual property. To this point,
one of the breakthroughs in AI is deep learning, which was
created almost entirely through academic research in the United
States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Such capabilities
derived from AI research are shared openly across the globe
and, today, underpin many of the AI technologies that directly
compete against the United States, commercially and militarily.
Quoting from the book AI Super-Powers, ``The West may have
sparked the fire of deep learning, but China will be the
biggest beneficiary of the heat the AI fire is generating.''
So, I would like you to consider three takeaways from my
testimony today. First, I would recommend the DARPA applied
research model, which is proven and would provide small high-
tech companies the ability to directly apply to the NSF for
grants to support technology development. Expanding investment
in the NSF without an effective commercialization process, will
have a minimal effect on U.S. global competitiveness. According
to the National Science Board, academic institutions accounted
for only 2 percent of the patents granted in 2016, and many
generate less revenue from licensing their inventions than the
cost of managing them, according to the Washington Post.
This is not meant to be a criticism of universities, but to
highlight that moving research from the lab to the market is
complex and is best suited for America's small high-tech sector
who has the technical talent, organizational infrastructure,
and business processes to fill this role immediately. Most
importantly, America's small-tech entrepreneurs will bring the
sense of urgency, competitive drive, and speed necessary to
meet the accelerated pace of the emerging challenges to our
global technical leadership.
Second, I would call on Congress to develop policy that
ensures inclusivity of the entire country, not just the
traditional tech-hubs, in a unifying mission that leverages the
power of our Nation's diversity. This includes the diversity of
thought, culture, and socioeconomics that exists across our
great country to build the next generation technologies,
products, and workforce of 21st century America.
Finally, history shows that if you give the U.S.
entrepreneurs the mission and funding, the U.S. will win this
race. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Butler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Gary D. Butler, Chairman and CEO, Camgian
Good morning. Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today. In my previous career, I worked here in the Beltway
for a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based advanced technology research and
development firm, leading applied research programs funded by
organizations such as DARPA. In 2006 I made the decision to move to
Mississippi, my home state, where I founded Camgian. My objective was
to leverage our organic talent to build a leading high-tech company and
limit the brain drain from our state, which we have done.
Since that time, Camgian has grown into an award-winning high-tech
company, which today is building solutions addressing our country's
most pressing national security issues and providing information
products and services to some of the world's leading financial
institutions. Our business model is built on artificial intelligence
(AI) and software and their combined ability to drive new levels of
decision automation. This from a high-tech company headquartered in a
state with a greater than 20 percent poverty level and a county
classified as ``at-risk'' by the Appalachian Regional Commission where
a portion of the county is classified as economically distressed, and
in the bottom 10-25 percent economically of all counties in the United
States.
As today's discussions reflect on the innovation needed to maintain
our global leadership, I will use my time to focus on a technology area
identified in the Endless Frontier Act that I believe is vital to our
country's future. This technology is AI. Make no doubt, the U.S. is in
a global AI race. In July 2017, the State Council of China released a
plan to build a domestic AI industry worth nearly $150 billion with a
target to become the leading AI power by 2030. Global efforts to
increase funding and government-led support of AI technology
development have resulted in an increase in new high-tech companies and
applications that are radically transforming the battlefield. As such,
Camgian is deeply engaged in addressing these emerging threats by
developing AI-enabled solutions that help our warfighters think and act
faster than our competitors.
The primary source of our funding is from the Department of Defense
(DoD). This funding supports our applied research and development
efforts, which in turn fuels our technology and product development. I
want to leverage our know-how, processes, technologies, and talent to
address national competitiveness issues in AI and expand our business
in the broader commercial market. However, funding sources and
opportunities to pursue this strategy for small high-tech companies
like Camgian are extremely limited.
To address this critical gap, I applaud Congress for taking the
bold move to expand the scope of the National Science Foundation (NSF)
to include applied research in the organization's mission but would ask
that you consider the vital role that high-tech entrepreneurial
companies play in technology commercialization. Speaking on behalf of
this community, I would advocate for an implementation plan to
facilitate a public-private partnership between our country's best
academic minds and our best high-tech entrepreneurs.
Applied to our national competitive gaps, this approach would
catalyze those on the front lines of our global technology competition,
the high-tech entrepreneurial companies. As an agile high-tech
business, our advantage is speed. We cannot survive by being
distracted, complacent, cautious thinkers, or incrementalists.
Innovation and a sense of urgency must be in our DNA or we die at the
hands of large corporations. Coupled with our skills in product
development and marketing, a strong academic and entrepreneurial high-
tech sector partnership would deliver future technologies and
applications to the market to address our national competitive gaps.
More importantly, a prominent role for small high-tech businesses
would establish the framework for protecting our country's valuable
intellectual property. To emphasize the importance of this point, one
of the breakthroughs in AI is deep learning, which was created almost
entirely through academic research in the United States, Canada, and
the United Kingdom. Capabilities derived from AI research are shared
across the globe through the open-source community and deep learning
technologies now underpin many products and systems that directly
compete against the U.S. both commercially and militarily. Quoting from
the book AI Super-Powers by Kai-Fu Lee, ``The West may have sparked the
fire of deep learning, but China will be the biggest beneficiary of the
heat the AI fire is generating.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kai-Fu Lee, Ai Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, And The New
World Order (Houghton Miffin Harcourt Company, 1st Edition, September1,
2018) page 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In closing, I would like you to consider three takeaways from my
testimony today.
First, I would recommend using the DARPA applied research model,
which is proven and would provide small high-tech companies the ability
to directly apply to the new NSF for grants to support technology
development and prototyping. Expanding investment in the NSF without an
effective commercialization process will have a minimal effect on U.S.
global competitiveness. According to the National Science Board,
academic institutions accounted for only 2 percent of the patents
granted in 2016 and many generate less revenue from licensing their
inventions than the cost of managing them, per a 2020 Washington Post
article \2\. This is not meant to be a criticism of universities, but
to highlight that moving research from the lab to the market is complex
and is best suited for America's small high-tech sector who has the
technical talent, organizational infrastructure, and business processes
to fill this role immediately. Most importantly, America's high-tech
entrepreneurs will bring the sense of urgency, competitive drive, and
speed necessary to meet the accelerated pace of the emerging challenges
to our global technical leadership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ John Markus (January 17, 2020) Think universities are making
lots of money from inventions? Think again. Washington Post https://
www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/think-universities-are-making-
lots-of-money-from-inventions-think-again/2020/01/16/3989e448-362f-
11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, I would call on Congress to develop policy that ensures
inclusivity of the entire country, not just the traditional tech-hubs
and large tech firms, in a unifying mission that leverages the power of
our Nation's diversity. This includes the diversity of thought,
culture, and socioeconomics that exists across our great country to
build the next-generation technologies, products, and workforce of 21st
century America.
Finally, history shows that if you give the U.S. entrepreneurs the
mission and funding, the U.S. will win this race.
Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the
Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you
today. On behalf of Camgian and other high-tech small businesses across
America, bipartisan solutions with legislation such as this are
essential as a catalyst to maintain the U.S. as a global technology and
innovation leader.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Dr. Butler. I applaud your
enthusiasm and dedication, and I am certainly very interested
in asking questions about workforce opportunities and
partnerships in Mississippi, when we get to the Q&A.
Last, but certainly not least, is the Senior Director of
MIT's Office of Digital Learning, Mr. Bill Bonvillian, and he
is joining us remotely.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. BONVILLIAN, SENIOR DIRECTOR, SPECIAL
PROJECTS, MIT OFFICE OF OPEN LEARNING AND MIT LECTURER
Mr. Bonvillian. Thank you, Senator. Senators Cantwell,
Wicker, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity
to talk with you today. I study and teach science and
technology and have authored books, over the last few years, on
workforce education, advanced manufacturing and the DARPA
model. So, I wanted to step back a bit for some bigger picture
discussions this morning.
U.S. technology history is littered with technologies that
are innovated here in the U.S., that did not scale-up here, and
were produced elsewhere. Flat panel displays, LED lightings,
solar panels, lithium-ion batteries, drones, the list goes on.
We know that a series of new, oncoming technologies, many
listed in this bill, will be critical to our economic future.
Will we make them here? And then, if the technologies are
designed here and produced elsewhere, it means we are not
translating the gains of innovation into our own economy.
We are now facing a great technology challenge, really for
the first time, from competitor nations to our innovation
capability. The consequences are going to affect our economic
security, our national security, and our living standards. So,
what happened to U.S. production? We are running over all trade
deficit and manufactured goods of some $800 billion, an
unheard-of level. We ran a trade deficit in advanced technology
products, of $133 billion in 2019. Our share of global
manufacturing output declined from 25 percent in 2005, to 16
percent in 2018. We lost one-third of manufacturing jobs
between 2000 and 2010, with only limited recovery since then.
How did this happen?
So, during World War II, the U.S. developed mass production
to a level that was the envy of the world and enabled our
success in that war. At the end of the war, when we were
creating our R&D system, manufacturing was not the problem. We
were kings of world manufacturing. We were concerned with
science. We were not the science leaders going into the war,
but we built remarkable science during the war and we wanted to
keep it. So, when we organized R&D, we focused on science. So,
we developed new science and technology advances. We did not
focus on how to make them.
But production needs to be seen as part of that innovation
process. Production involves deep engineering to get to a
design of the technology to meet market prices and market
demands, that often requires rethinking the science to get
there. Manufacturing, particularly of the new technology, is a
very creative stage.
Now, Germany and Japan, in the post war, they had to revive
their economies, restore their industrial bases, get their
people working. They did manufacturing-led innovation. Japan
had to teach us about quality production in the 1980s because
we had missed it. Germany's innovation is also organized within
production. It is running the largest surplus in manufactured
goods ever, pays its manufacturing workers 60 percent more than
the U.S. pays its manufacturing workers, and Korea, Taiwan, and
China have followed that manufacturing-led innovation model. We
thought we had to lose manufacturing jobs and offshore them
because we were high wage, high cost. But somebody forgot to
send that memo to Germany. They show that you can be high wage
and win manufacturing markets if you innovate in production.
So, it is not enough to develop a scientific idea and
publish a paper. We cannot just assume that it is going to go
through the stages and get to be manufactured. There is a
serious of stages that we have to get right, and we have not
paid enough attention to these.
So, let me turn briefly to the bill. I discuss three topics
in my written testimony that spell this out in more detail. But
concerning tech organization, the bill creates a new tech
development directorate at NSF. Will this create a culture
clash with NSF? You know, we have, actually, a long history of
basic research working alongside use-inspired applied research.
The other witnesses today have noted that. The cultures can be
complimentary. DARPA works alongside the Office of Naval
Research, ARPA-E alongside DOE's labs and its Office of
Science. Is NSF the right place to put many of these new
elements? It is our one broadly focused R&D agency not tied to
specific narrower missions. It does science research in a range
of a fields that it is famous for. But our current problem is
technology, not simply basic science. We need a new technology
development trust, hence this new directorate.
The new technologies need to move through a series of
stages. So, for R&D and critical technology areas, the bill
supports earlier State's research at existing NSF directorates,
and then, later State's research at the new NSF technology
directorate. For development and prototyping stages, the next
level, the bill support university technology centers. And
importantly, these can be consortia, which include industry
participants. For tech testing and demonstration, the next
stage, the bill supports test beds to prove out and demonstrate
the technologies. And then, for scale-up, we are going to need
to build regional innovation capacities for scaling up toward
production.
Concerning regional innovation--you know, innovation is
like real estate, location matters. Innovation has to be scaled
up in regions. It does not happen nationally; it happens
regionally. So, we need to build our regional innovation
capacity. We need regions with committed area firms, with small
and--that are both small and large. We need higher education
institutions to provide the R&D and the talent. We need backing
from State and local governments. And we need strong workforce
technical education. And these pieces have to be working in
concert. We have to have the regional foundation, so that the
U.S. innovation can scale. And a 2019 study suggests that there
are some 102 regions, for example, in the U.S. with the
potential assets to become regional tech centers, many of which
are not that now.
Concerning the workforce, the technical workforce, along
with the STEM workforce, are going to have to play a key role
in the emergence of these critical technologies. That technical
workforce should be supported along with the STEM workforce,
through the tech directorate. It could also work with NSF's
existing advanced technical education program, which I know
both Senator Cantwell and Senator Wicker have been supportive
of. The regions can also play a role in workforce readiness for
these critical technologies. So, the workforce element needs to
include the technical workforce and it will be vital to scale-
up.
This is a moment of opportunity. The Endless Frontier
offers an important, indeed historic, opportunity for the U.S.
to buildup its innovation system, based on the critical
technologies we must have for our national and economic
security. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bonvillian follows:]
Prepared Statement of William B. Bonvillian, Senior Director, Special
Projects, MIT Office of Open Learning and MIT Lecturer
Senators Cantwell, Wicker and Members of the Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today.
I want to emphasize at the outset that this is important
legislation that needs to pass. We are facing a challenge to technology
leadership that we have not faced before. Our growing trade imbalance
in high-tech industries,\1\ the fall in our real manufacturing value
added output,\2\ our declining position in international innovation
ranking systems,\3\ and the weaknesses in our defense industrial base
\4\ make it clear that American technological leadership in both
innovation and production has eroded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The U.S. ran a trade deficit in advanced technology products of
$133 billion in 2019 compared to a trade surplus in these goods of $4.5
billion in 2001. Trade in Goods with Advanced Technology Products, U.S.
Census, https://www.census. gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0007.html.
\2\ U.S. Share of Global Manufacturing Value Added (controlled for
the value of the U.S. dollar) declined from 25 percent in 2005 to 18.4
percent in 2014. Adams Nager, Trade vs. Productivity, What Caused
Manufacturing's Decline, ITIF Feb. 2017, ITIF, citing United Nations
Statistics, National Accounts Main Aggregates Database (GDP and its
breakdown at current prices in U.S. dollars, all countries for all
years). U.S. Manufacturing value added as a percentage of GDP declined
from nearly 20 percent to 11.2 percent between 1990 and 2021, Statista
(based on UN and World Bank data), https://www.statista.com/chart/
20148/manufacturing-value-added-as-percent-of-gdp-in-major-economies/
\3\ See, for example, South Korea Leads World in Innovation as U.S.
Exits Top Ten, Bloomberg innovation Index, Bloomberg, 2/2/21, https://
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-03/south-korea-leads-world-in-
innovation-u-s-drops-out-of-top-10;
\4\ Office of the Secretary of Defense, Military and Security
Developments Involving the People's Republic of China, 2020, Annual
Report to Congress, Department of Defense, August 2020, 73, 85, 88,
105, 113, 123, https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/
1/2020-DOD-CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT-FINAL.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As this Committee understands, strong competitors are making
economic and technology advancements that threaten to displace U.S.
leadership.\5\ Our current systems are simply not competing well. This
requires us to adopt a new advanced technology strategy. Without it the
United States will in all likelihood continue to lose market share in a
host of advanced industries, including aerospace, life sciences,
semiconductors, advanced communications and protocols, and Internet
applications, with negative implications for innovation, national
security, and, importantly, living standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Robert D. Atkinson, Time for a New National Innovation System
for Security and Prosperity, Prism (National Defense University
journal), v.9, n.2, March 2021, 60-61, http://www2.itif.org/2021-PRISM-
9-2-new-national-innovation-
system.pdf?_ga=2.76279189.1863482471.1617915091-1416244290.1617639922
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony covers three topics: (1) organizing to meet the tech
development challenge, (2) regional innovation, and (3) workforce
education. Under each topic, I will make general points about these
areas as well as some suggestions for how the legislation can help deal
with these three critical areas.
I. Organizing to meet the Tech Development Challenge
The U.S., starting in the post-World War II period, organized its
research and development (R&D) around mission agencies, so that the
research would serve the mission. The National Institutes of Health
became part of Health and Human Services, DARPA and the other defense
research organizations became part of the Department of Defense, and
the Office of Science served the Department Energy. Overall, this
decentralized science approach has worked well, and helped us bring
science into specific missions. It was a basic research model because
the U.S. had been weaker in science at the outset of the war while it
completely dominated world manufacturing by the end of the war. So the
U.S. didn't have to consider the implementation stages, it needed to
strengthen and retain the science base it built during the way.\6\ But
now we have a series cross-cutting technologies that will serve many
missions--AI, quantum, new high performance computing, robotics,
biotechnology, cybersecurity, advanced materials, etc. Where do we put
a new innovation focus for this range of new technologies?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ William B. Bonvillian, The New Model Innovation Agencies: An
Overview, Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol.
41(4), 2014, 425-426, https://academic.oup.com/spp/articleabstract/41/
4/425/1607552?redirectedFrom=fulltext; William B. Bonvillian and Peter
L. Singer, Advanced Manufacturing, The New American Innovation Policies
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2018), 34, 37-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF is our one major, broadly-focused R&D agency not tied to a
specific, and narrower, mission. It does basic science research in a
range of fields and it is famous for it. But our current problem is
technology, not simply basic science--we need a new technology
development thrust, and this has not been NSF's job. So, the approach
of this legislation is to form a technology-focused sub-unit within the
agency--the proposed new Technology Development Directorate at NSF.
Some argue this will create a culture clash within NSF. Yet we have a
long history of basic and more use-inspired, applied working in tandem
and the cultures can be complementary--DARPA works alongside the Office
of Naval Research, and ARPA-E alongside the DOE's Labs and Office of
Science,.
Creating this tech directorate challenges us to think hard about
the follow-on stages to research. To get to new technology as opposed
to new science, we need to get through a series of stages, post-
research. New technologies must move through: research, development,
prototype, testing, demonstration, scale-up/piloting, initial market,
full production. The proposed legislation recognizes this. It has
inserted institutional elements to match the process:
R&D in critical technology areas--with earlier stage
research elements at existing NSF directorates, and later stage
research as well as development to be performed at the new
Technology Directorate.
Development and prototyping--at University Technology
Centers, and importantly, these can be consortia, including
industry participants.
Testing and demonstration--new test beds to prove and
demonstrate the new technology so they can get into the risk
range that industry and other kinds of capital can work with.
Scale-up--could be supported at Commerce Department-
designated Regional Innovation Hubs--for scaling-up toward
production- preparing the regional tech infrastructure for
introduction
U.S. technology history is littered with technologies innovated
here in the U.S., that did not scale-up here, and were produced
there.\7\ Flat panel displays, solar panels, lithium ion batteries,
drones, the list goes on and on. A core goal of this bill is to get the
new critical technologies into range of industry acceptance--here. The
new technologies require de-risking to get into the scope of risk and
corresponding costs industry can absorb in implementing them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Bonvillian and Singer, Advanced Manufacturing, 57-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enhancement--Connecting the New Pieces: This bill puts key new
pieces on the table, but all these pieces, as the sponsors and the
Committee understand, need to be connected. They won't work if they are
separate stovepipes. There need to be ties between NSF basic research
and the NSF technology directorate. There need to be direct ties from
there to the University Technology Centers then to Testbeds for testing
and demonstration, then these need to tied to the Regional Hubs to be
established through the Commerce Department for scale-up and pilot
production.
We need to build a new house of innovation, and we can't do that if
the foundation is in one place, the walls in another place, and the
roof in a third. So the bill, for example, requires the Tech
Directorate to work with (and transfer funding to) existing
directorates, and by making clear that the University Technology
Centers can be part of the regional hubs.
Innovation economists and technology policy experts have long
indicated that innovation must be connected. They tell is that
technology-based innovation is the dominant driver of economic growth.
They tell us that to innovate, you must have strong R&D, and you must
have a strong talent base staffing that R&D system. They also tell us
that ``innovation organization'' is a critical third innovation factor.
Innovation needs a series of strong actors, from university research,
to gov't research support and labs, to strong companies and supplier
systems. You need strong actors and the actors have to connect with
each other, so the handoffs are easy and smooth. The new pieces this
bill creates will need organizational linkages to each other.
And there is another reason for these close connections: there
needs to be two-way street--exchanges so that the tech development
influences the R&D not just the R&D influencing the tech development. A
linear model doesn't work well--a two-way street is critical so the
actors can assist and teach each other. This is another reason why
linkages are key between the new pieces. Shared, cross-cutting
technology strategies that work linking each of the new institutional
elements called for in the bill, shared advisory boards, and Federal
agency oversight that emphasizes connections are all part of the
solution. There are connections in the bill, but these could be
expanded.
Enhancement--Connecting the Other R&D Agencies: NSF is not going to
be the only agency doing work on the 11 ``key technology focus
areas''--we have other mission R&D agencies that are doing important
work as well. DOD must continue working on AI and Quantum, for example.
We need to find ways to get them contributing together with this new
NSF thrust. Agency collaboration is hard in our decentralized science
system. And Congress is part of the problem because the appropriations
process doesn't cross agencies. We need a mechanism for agency
cooperation and sharing. The Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) has its National Science and Technology Coordination (NSTC)
mechanism. Better is the mechanism developed for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).\8\ It has a coordination office and,
while participating agencies don't share funding with each other, they
work on common strategies and attack common R&D problems, cross-
fertilizing ideas. We will need such a mechanism here. In addition, we
have already created 16 Advanced Manufacturing Institutes, which
provide another critical ingredient, and, as discussed below, they need
to be further tied in, including into the Regional Innovation Hubs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Nanotechnology Initiative, https://www.nano.gov/about-
nni
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enhancement--Assuring Adequate Resources for R&D at the Technology
Directorate: The legislation makes generous percentage allocations to
the various program it authorizes--to the University Research Centers,
to existing NSF directorates, testbeds, etc. But only a limited amount
appears to remain after all those allocations for all the remaining
purposes. I believe the new Directorate needs more flexibility than
that; a significant percentage should be set to support research awards
from Directorate itself. Much of the initial work resulting from the
legislation will need to happen through the new Directorate's
substantial competitive research portfolio in later stage R&D--these
advances will feed all the other follow-on elements in the new system.
We will need more breakthroughs to build on, so adequate support here
will be a keystone for the system. In addition, I believe the
Directorate should use a strong program-manager model aimed at the
major technology challenges in the new technology areas, setting
milestones for its research portfolios. It has been granted DARPA-like
authorities and that is fully appropriate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The DARPA model is relevant to the proposed Directorate. See,
Bonvillian, Windham and VanAtta (eds.), The DARPA Model for
Transformative Technologies (Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishing 2020),
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/1079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Regional Innovation
Innovation is like real estate: location matters. Some regions move
ahead, some are left behind--why? How can we bring more growth to more
areas? The Regional Innovation Hubs in the bill, to be set up through
the Commerce Department's EDA and NIST programs, could be a way to
encourage regional innovation. How do we make regional innovation work?
We have been studying this for years--Michael Porter's work on
innovation clusters dates back over two decades.\10\ There has been
much regional experimentation--we have many kitchens trying many
ingredients and there is no exact recipe. Different regions can make
different recipes work. Throwing innovation tasks at struggling
regions, however, often does not work. Yet there are examples now of
places that have become hubs of activity. Let me try to summarize a
large literature in a few words.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, for example, Michael Porter, Clusters and the New
Economics of Competition, Harvard Business Review, Nov.-Dec. 1998,
https://hbr.org/1998/11/clusters-and-the-new-economics-of-competition.
For a summary of limitations in the theory, see, for example, Yasuyui
Motoyama, What was New About Cluster Theory? Economic Development
Quarterly, V. 22, n. 4, Nov. 2008, 355-363, https://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.910.884&rep=rep1&type=
pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most believe we need regional ecosystems for innovation to
thrive.\11\ Typically, such an ecosystem includes an area education and
research institution as an anchor for tech research and talent.
Ecosystems also seem to need an organized public sector \12\ engaged
with the private sector--including companies and area business groups--
pursuing a joint strategy. Solid larger firms linked to solid supply
chains of smaller firms are another ingredient. Regions need to build
on their existing regional strengths--not every area is going to be a
biotech hub. Workforce education has become an increasingly significant
component of a solid regional ecosystem--a number of regions are now
encouraging companies and startups to come to or stay in their location
because they can offer a trained and skilled workforce tied to employer
needs. This mean strong workforce programs for new skills at area
community or technical colleges are also a component. Another feature
of the legislation is grants to communities to help them build
strategies for their regional assets. To summarize a few key points,
there needs to a broad engagement in innovation--a big tent--not a
narrow single-innovation focus; strong locally-based firms need to be
engaged as ``anchor tenants;'' a connection is needed to the talent
pipeline--state university and skills education programs, for example--
which will be key to companies; and state and local governments need to
be strongly supporting the effort.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, for example, R. Atkinson, M. Muro and J. Whiton, The Case
for Growth Centers, ITIF and the Brookings Institution, Dec. 2019,
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Full-Report-
Growth-Centers_PDF_BrookingsMetro-BassCenter-ITIF.pdf; Jonathan Gruber
and Simon Johnson, Jumpstarting America, How Breakthrough Science can
Revive Economic Growth and the American Dream (NY: Public Affairs
Publishing 2019).
\12\ Ben Armstrong, Brass cities: Innovation policy and local
economic transformation, MIT Department of Political Science (thesis),
2019, https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/122404.
\13\ Ben Armstrong Industrial Policy and Local Economic
Transformation, Economic Development Quarterly (Aug. 2021)
(forthcoming).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh, is an example of a regional success story.\14\ It was
famously dependent on one industry, and when that steel sector
declined, much of the city's well-being was affected. Starting in the
1980s, it was able to leverage existing assets--including strong area
universities and state governments that developed on a bipartisan basis
a long-term, continuing economic strategy. This combined state and
local government, education institutions and heavily-involved business
interests, that together advanced high-growth industries and higher-
wage jobs. And it included grass-roots citizen involvement. A series of
advanced technology centers were formed with area universities, which
were at the core of the strategy. So, an advanced technology strategy,
building on existing assets, can work for regional innovation. And
significant technology advances in areas like computing, robotics and
health care followed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Armstrong, Brass Cities,143-176
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Regional Innovation Hubs anticipated in the legislation take
on the innovation scale-up role they will need to be located in
regional ecosystems that can pull together existing assets like those
listed above. To effectively compete for these, they will need to have
firms interested in implementing one or a mix of the new technologies
and be able to muster their regional actors to show how they can help
implement them.
The Regional Hubs (funded through the Commerce Department in the
bill) are not the same as the NSF University Tech Centers the bill will
create--and that is as it should be. The University Centers will
primarily be for R&D through prototyping. More is needed beyond that
for successful innovation, and those further steps are outside the NSF
role. Additional actors are then needed to move from those research-to-
prototyping stages for work on the scale-up of new technologies. Not
only universities are needed but regional industry associations, with
both small and larger firms and their supply chains, community and
technical colleges, and support from area government and economic
development organizations. The Hubs are mechanisms to bring this
additional combination of actors together. To apply an analogy to the
role of the Regional Hubs, once you have the prototype for a new
airplane wing, someone has to make sure there's an airplane to put it
on and an airline to use it. University Tech Centers can be tied to
follw-on Hubs. Are there enough of these Hubs to reach enough areas?
While these regional efforts won't work unless adequately funded, the
Committee might consider a larger number of Hubs with somewhat less
funding for each to stretch regional innovation opportunities further.
Not every area will be in a position to compete for these now, so
importantly the bill also includes support for regions to develop their
own innovation strategies. I saw a similar effort by the Commerce
Department to support state manufacturing strategies, as the initial
advanced manufacturing institute ideas were being considered, and it
provided states with a major boost in developing state manufacturing
strategies.
Enhancement--The link to manufacturing: The Hubs also have a
different role from the Advanced Manufacturing Institutes, which are
focused on particular production technologies, while the Hubs will
pursue broader technology advances. In particular, the Hubs will need
to help bring the new technologies into area companies for actual
production. But a key asset they should take advantage of is the 16
existing advanced manufacturing institutes. These Institutes are each
focused on one advanced manufacturing area, but regional companies and
regional economies will have to adopt a series--they will have to adopt
a combination of, for example, 3D printing, digital production, AI,
robotics, etc., to optimize production for the new technologies. Many
other nations will be after the same advanced technologies listed in
this bill--unless we have the most efficient production systems, they
won't be made here. The bill calls for coordination between the
Regional Hubs and the Institutes, but the Hubs should be required to
link to a mix of manufacturing institutes to that can bring their
expertise to bear on the groups of advanced production technologies
that will be needed for the new tech development areas. The Hubs can be
enablers in a broader technology context for the advances the
Institutes are nurturing in manufacturing.
The legislation also provides for a significant expansion of the
Advanced Manufacturing Institutes, which should be viewed as
complementary to the Hubs. These Institutes are both national and
regional, the Hubs more regional. The Institutes must develop new
production technologies available nationally, and implemented
regionally, and the Hubs can help with that regional introduction. The
Manufacturing Institutes are organized around particular technology
topic areas, and while the bill calls for many more Institutes, there
are really not that many different new manufacturing technology topic
areas. Yes, we need some more institutes around additional technology
topics, but we also need to deepen the efforts around existing
manufacturing technologies, to give existing Institutes better ability
to better reach not just industry leaders but bring their technologies
to small and mid-sized manufacturers and enable new manufacturing
skills. The legislation should call not simply for new Institutes, but
funding should be broadened for manufacturing technology demonstration
and training centers, strengthened small company and workforce
programs, and satellite centers for existing institutes in additional
locations. The legislation also expands the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership program, another important and complementary program, to
play a role in the introduction of the new technologies and to work
with the Manufacturing Institutes and the new HUBs.
III. Workforce Education
We know that R&D advances require a robust talent development
system--so the bill has funding for STEM talent to be educated in the
new technology areas. We need this. But one area that needs more
emphasis is not only science and engineering researchers but the
technical workforce. Technologies will never go into production unless
there is a strong technical talent base to implement and produce them.
The U.S. doesn't really have a workforce education system--it is
missing.\15\ Ask an American what high school or college look like and
they know, but ask what our workforce education system is and you get a
blank stare. Ask many Europeans, and they know--they benefit from
systems that closely link work and learning. Our workforce needs to
upskill--new IT technologies have entered many sectors, for example -
and we don't have an adequate system to train our workers for it. Jobs
that require these higher skills are now going begging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ William B. Bonvillian and Sanjay E. Sarma, Workforce
Education, A New Roadmap (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, some regions are starting to use workforce
education as a core economic development strategy. For example, South
Carolina is using its state-wide apprenticeship program built around
its system of technical colleges to appeal to new and keep existing
employers. And now it is developing a new youth apprenticeship program
that starts in the junior year of high school--led by the Charleston
area.\16\ These and efforts in other states reflect a new reality--we
have a demographic shift, an aging workforce with a smaller number of
new entrant workers. And we have a growing skills gap in the new skills
employers increasingly need. When we start to add the new technology
this bill envisions, this problem will get worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Bonvillian and Sarma, Workforce Education, 199-206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workforce education is an area where both the NSF and Commerce
programs have a role, building on their existing work. In all these
programs, the agencies need to work with both business and labor to
ensure success.
Enhancement--The Regional Technology Hubs can help take on the
workforce task: Talent, including technical talent, will be a key
element for successful regional innovation. While the bill allows Hubs
to have workforce programs, this should be a major Hubs effort, working
with area community and technical colleges, with state colleges and
secondary schools, to train for the new skills required.
Enhancement--The Apprenticeship Program: The draft of the bill I
was provided calls for an apprenticeship program in the new skill areas
sponsored by the Commerce Department. One approach would be for these
apprenticeships to be tied to the Regional Hubs to help in their skill
building in the new technologies.
Enhancement--Can NSF's ATE program help with technician talent in
the new technologies? NSF already has a strong Advanced Technical
Education (ATE) program; it plays a critical role in updating community
college curricula and programs in advanced skills. As noted, the
Technology Directorate's education program needs a technical workforce
education component in addition to its STEM element--let's take
advantage of ATE and include a stronger workforce education element for
the technicians and technologists we will need in these new and
emerging fields. The bill has a set-aside for community colleges and
calls out the ATE program, but the bill could give more guidance on how
ATE can contribute, in support of both the new Directorate and the Hub
programs.
Summary
Overall, as I said in my opening comment, this is important
legislation that will play a key role in renewing our innovation
leadership. It speaks directly to our national and economic security in
ways no other recent legislation has. The U.S. innovation system is at
a crossroads, and this bill presents an opportunity to take a strong
new path.
Concerning the organizational elements in the bill, the pieces are
there that can take us through the stages of innovation--
R&D in critical technology areas at existing NSF
directorates and the new Technology Directorate.
Development and prototyping--at University Technology
Centers, which can be consortia, including industry
participants, and in the tech transfer program.
Testing and demonstration--with new test beds.
Scale-up--assisted by the Regional Innovation. Hubs
We also need to make sure the new pieces form a system, that there
are links to other R&D agencies working in these areas, and ensure the
right resources and organization for the new Technology Directorate.
Concerning regional innovation, since innovation has to be
implemented and scaled-up in regions, the Regional Hubs can play this
role. They, in turn, can link to the Advanced Manufacturing Institutes
which can assist them with the new production systems and processes to
turn critical technologies into products.
Concerning the workforce, the technical workforce along with the
STEM workforce will play a key role in the emergence of the critical
technologies. That technical workforce can be supported through the
Technology Directorate, working with NSF's existing ATE program. The
Regional Hubs can also play a key role in regions on workforce
readiness for the critical technologies--the workforce will be vital to
scale-up. And the apprenticeships can be linked to the Hubs as well.
The Endless Frontier Act offers a very important, indeed historic,
opportunity for the U.S. to build up its innovation system based on the
critical technologies we must have for our national and economic
security.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you so much, Mr. Bonvillian. Thank
you for your testimony today. I am going to defer my round to a
colleague who needs to get somewhere urgently, Senator Tester.
Thank you so much.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Ranking Member for having this hearing. It is really important.
I want to thank Senator Young for the work he has done on this
bill.
Mr. Bonvillian, you're on the clock right now. You talked
about structure, you talked about workforce, and I think how we
spend the money is critically important, if we are going to get
maximum bang for the buck. But let us just give you a few
numbers that you already know, by the way. The Endless Frontier
Act provides $100 billion investment in basic research. NSF
receives $8.5 billion for FY21. The Chinese government is
approved to spend $1.4 trillion over the next five to 6 years
on new communications tech and infrastructure, to accelerate
China's progress in smart manufacturing. They also--China also
plans to spend $150 billion in reducing its microelectronic
dependence on foreign firms. The U.S. invests about 1 percent
of GDP into Federal R&D. China invests 2.15 and has plans to
invest 2.5 percent.
Do you think the amount we are spending on R&D right now,
Mr. Bonvillian, is adequate, or are we behind the curve from
the beginning? And if somebody else wants to respond to it,
after Mr. Bonvillian, you can. Mr. Bonvillian.
Mr. Bonvillian. You pointed out the disparity between--you
know, the levels of R&D spending that we are making now are
still the same percentage of GDP that we have maintained for an
extended period of time. So, we are going to need to increase
those levels of investment. But equally important is not only
to undertake the right levels of investment, but we have got to
make sure that we have got the system to take great advantage.
Put the different stages into place here. And that is one of
the reasons why I appreciate this legislation. It attempts--it
is an attempt to build in the stages that we are going to need,
to make these investments, to start to scale up.
But we cannot afford to lose leadership in these critical
technologies. You know, our economic security and our national
security are really going to be dependent on this list. And
those are not different problems. Our economic security and our
national security are now deeply interrelated.
So, Senator Tester, I concur that we have got an issue with
the investment levels that we are making in R&D. We are going
to need to expand those, and we are going to need a focus on
the critical areas that we have got to have.
Senator Tester. So--and this goes to anybody who wants to
respond to this. I just got off the phone with Southwest
Airlines today and they are very concerned about climate
change, as we all are. And they were talking about the lack of
biofuels. And I think we have learned that it is not probably
going to be smart to put food into biofuels. But there are
other opportunities out there. We have got a forest in Montana
that has been attacked by beetles. The trees are virtually
laying on the ground. So, there is stock.
And then, I went to another plant last week where they are
building products for our fighter jets that needs germanium.
And by the way, the only place we get it, as you guys know, is
Russia and China. It does not seem to be very smart, from a
national security standpoint.
Could you guys touch on, number one, how we address--how we
prioritize to address some of the issues that I think are
really important, like climate change and national defense in
an R&D structure with this Endless Frontier Act? Anybody want
to speak to it?
Chair Cantwell. I think Dr. Miranda----
Dr. Miranda. Senator Tester, on your first question, if we
are investing enough, I--oh, sorry. On your first question on
whether we are investing enough, I would--I would just like to
give the simple answer, no and I think the Endless Frontier Act
is incredibly important for us to do that.
I am from the University of Notre Dame, so we like to use
football analogies there. So, the way that I would describe it
is, we have a world class football program. Our R&D program in
the United States, it is world class. There is no doubt about
it. It is the envy--the way that we built up our research and
development, in the post-World War II period, is the envy of
the rest of the world, and many people--many other countries
were copying it. But even as we have a world class football
program, every team in the league has gotten better. And so,
the competition on the field is much more fierce. It is much
more intense. And therefore, this kind of, doubling down on
investment and thinking about our level of R&D investment,
relative to the percent of GDP, I think is an excellent way to
think about it.
Senator Tester. OK. What about investment and things with
the deal with climate change and national security? How do we
direct those and does this Act help in that direction?
Dr. Miranda. So, if I were up to me, of the 10 focus areas
named in the Endless Frontier Act, climate change would be one
of them.
Senator Tester. OK. All right. Sounds good. I just want to
thank you all for testifying. This is a committee meeting where
we could ask questions for 30 minutes and not even come close
to the number we have. I want to thank the Chairman for your
courtesy.
Chair Cantwell. Well, thank you, Senator Tester. You know,
we might go a second round, who knows here. But clearly the
subject matter deserves a lot more attention and getting this
right is important, I think, as everybody has pointed out.
Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much. Very good testimony
from everyone of you. Dr. Butler, is there a valley of death
between conducting research and actually developing
commercially viable products? What went right with Camgian and
what deficiencies do you see in the proposed legislative
concept, or in what we are doing now?
Dr. Butler. Very good question and thank you for asking. I
think there is a model to be had where there is tight coupling
between the high-tech entrepreneurs in the country and the
universities. And we have actually executed this model at
Camgian, and I will speak to some of the benefits of it.
But just speaking on behalf of an entrepreneur, the only
thing that matters to us is what I would call product market
fit. Nothing else matters in our business. And that is building
a product that will gain adoption in the marketplace in scale.
So, that is all we do every day. That is our focus. And as we
think about opportunities in the market, we are constantly
looking for those underserved needs. We are constantly trying
to understand how we build a product to address those
underserved needs, and then, how we scale those products
accordingly.
Universities think very differently. Universities think
about innovating, or inventing, new technologies that can have
groundbreaking impact on society. And I think when you couple
those two together, you have a very good model for getting
these technologies to market.
So, a couple of points, to your point of crossing the
valley of death. So, there is one model where a company like
Camgian can engage with the university and look at new
inventions, new research that is coming out of the university,
and work with them on identifying those underserved market
needs and putting a plan in place to get a product to market.
There is a second model that we have also been very
successful with, and that is the model of us teaming with the
university, to go after a new product, or a new capability in
the market. And we have done this at Camgian with Mississippi
State University, where we have acquired applied research
funding from the DOD, and the DOD has asked us to build a new
capability. And we put a product development plan, or a
capability development plan in place to do that, but then, we
look to our university partners and say, here is a component of
this plan that is the high risk, high payoff piece of this. And
if you can accomplish that goal of delivering that, as part of
a research program, we can then incorporate it in the system
that we ultimately deliver to our war fighter. And we have
actually done that successfully in a partnership with
Mississippi State.
So, I think there are two models, but I would--I would
advocate that, as part of this bill, we find ways of bringing
the entrepreneurs together with the universities, because we
have very different skill sets. But I think the skill sets are
tremendously complimentary and it will result in an increase in
the success of moving research to innovation to product to
market. Because again, if we do not do that as entrepreneurs,
we do not survive. So, it is really the drive, determination,
everything that goes along with getting a product to market
that we would bring to the table, in such a relationship.
Senator Wicker. Thank you much. Dr. Shaw, of course, we
read your prepared testimony. Nearly half of Federal research
dollars, over the last 20 years, went to just six states, with
more than one-third just to two states, California and
Maryland. And I love our friends in those states, but we are
going to need expertise, talent, and capabilities of all
Americans. What specific steps should we take--and let me just
say, Madam Chair, I am really not interested in advancing a
bill that does not address this disparity. I think Indiana and
the State of Washington, and even Minnesota, are not getting
their fair share.
So, Dr. Shaw I have taken part of your time to answer this,
but perhaps the chair will indulge me.
Dr. Shaw. Thank you, Senator Wicker, for the question. And
as I mentioned, both in my oral and my written testimony, this
is a vital question that needs to be dealt with as we consider
the changes that are being proposed.
As I mentioned, the opportunities that we have in
Mississippi, just like in all of the other parts of this
Nation, to be able to address the challenges, but also the
opportunities, are vital for our future. From our standpoint,
at Mississippi State University, we have taken full advantage
of the opportunities that have been created in programs, such
as the EPSCoR program, with the National Science Foundation.
And frankly, I applaud Congress and the Foundation for the
creation and the expansion of that program. So, I think that is
one vital aspect of the proposed legislation, is to be able to
continue to look at how to be able to expand that program so
that institutions, in all of the jurisdictions in the United
States, have the opportunity.
I think above and beyond that, there needs to be serious
consideration about being able to provide a portion of the
funding that is being considered for institutions that fall
outside of the jurisdictions that, historically, have seen
that. I think there is certainly the opportunity to be able to
think about, beyond the EPSCoR program, ways that this
legislation could be crafted, such that, we have an adherence
to a high degree of competitiveness. Rather, it is in no way
looking to be able to just dissect the program and provide it
on a per capita basis, but rather fund competitive research.
But at the same time, ensure, through legislation, that we have
the opportunity to see institutions, like Mississippi State
University, like the University of Notre Dame, like so many
other institutions that have a tremendous pool of talent. Not
only in our faculty, but especially in our students as the
workforce of the future, to be able to have the opportunity to
be exposed to the research opportunities in our laboratories
and with our researchers, and to be able to, ultimately, create
the economic development that we want to see across the entire
United States.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, sir, and I thank the Chair for
indulging me on allowing me to make a little speech there. I
yield.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you. Well, I just want to assure you,
I definitely think the Information Age economy should take
place everywhere. And that is what is the secret of it, is that
development and information can flow lots of places, and so
should the R&D. Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. I thank you very much, Chair Cantwell.
Thank you, Senator Wicker, and thanks to everyone that is
working on all of this Endless Frontier of issues. So, I am
very focused on manufacturing. My state is the state that
brought the world everything from the pacemaker to the Post-it
note. And one of the proposals that I have, actually in a bill
introduced with Senator Wicker, along with Senator Coons and
Portman, focuses with the companion--bipartisan companion in
the House with Marcy Kaptur, focuses on an Office of
Manufacturing and Industrial and Innovation Policy, in the
Executive Office of the President, to help strengthen America's
manufacturing industry.
And I guess I would turn to you, Mr. Bonvillian. In your
testimony, you highlighted the importance of agency
collaboration for technological innovation. Can you speak to
the importance of Federal coordination between agencies in
developing measures to solidify U.S. leadership in scientific
and technological advancement?
Mr. Bonvillian. [Transmission broken] I share your interest
and concern in getting a strong focus on manufacturing into the
White House, to coordinate the activities that are going on
with different agencies. You know, in general, we describe
innovation as a team sport and it truly is. And there are some
issues that we need to address in this legislation to be sure
that the bill tackles this, in terms of coordination between
agencies.
You know, one issue is that we need to look into is that
the coordination mechanisms set out between what this new NSF
directorate is going to be undertaking, in a serious of
advanced technologies, is happening with the other agencies
that are already working on these territories, right?
Obviously, DOD is doing a tremendous amount of work on the AI.
They are doing tremendous work on Quantum.
Senator Klobuchar. Exactly.
Mr. Bonvillian. We need to coordinate these pieces. And
look, the U.S. system, it is a very decentralized system for
science and tech development, right? And frankly, that is,
historically, going to strengthen. But there are times when you
need to pull the pieces together and get them to act in
coordination with each other. We have a hard time doing that
with our decentralized agency system.
Senator Klobuchar. OK.
Mr. Bonvillian. One mechanism, when we worked on
nanotechnology, was to create an office around that topic, that
the different participating agencies could join into and
develop common strategies and share ideas across and make sure
that they were understanding each other's advances and
developments. I think that kind of mechanism might be very
useful in this bill, in these different technology areas, to
assure Federal agencies are pulling together and that what has
been going on--what will go on if the new directorate will
enhance what is going on some of the other locations?
Senator Klobuchar. OK.
Mr. Bonvillian. We also need----
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. I am going to--you know what
I am going to do? I am going to--because I have such limited
time, I want to ask a few other questions. Do you want to just
say your second point in a few seconds here?
Mr. Bonvillian. Linking to the advanced manufacturing
institutes is another important piece.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. That is exactly right. Thank you
very much.
Dr. Shaw, workforce training, as I look at, what we call
in--I was just in Duluth. The Mayor of Duluth said, the
lighthouse on the horizon, as opposed to light at the end of
the tunnel with the ending of this pandemic. So much of this is
going to be about, again--somewhat because of the pandemic, but
what we had before the pandemic. Making sure we have people
trained to do the jobs of tomorrow. As I often said on the
campaign I ran, about a year or two ago, that we are not going
to have a shortage of Sports Marketing degrees in this country.
We are going to have a shortage of plumbers, electricians,
construction workers. Could you talk about making sure we are
training people for the various skill levels of the jobs that
we need, and how we get there?
Dr. Shaw. Thank you for the question. And it is spot on
with things that we need to be considering, as a part of the
legislation that is being considered. You know, Mississippi
State University, for example, works very closely with the
community colleges in the State--throughout the State of
Mississippi, to be sure that we are addressing all of the needs
in the state, and not just in a particular area, or a
particular discipline. And the opportunity that we see, for
example, with the program that we just created this last year,
through what is called a Bachelor of Applied Sciences, to be
able to allow students to go down a technical track, at a
community college. But then, to be able to have a new degree
program that they can now move into as they are participating
in the workforce, but now they are looking for a bachelor's
degree, to be able to advance to become a supervisor.
Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm.
Dr. Shaw. To get a promotion. Now they have that track at
Mississippi State.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good.
Dr. Shaw. And this is--this is a model, by which we see the
opportunity, through that very close partnership, to be able to
address all skill sets, rather than a particular segment.
Senator Klobuchar. And I know I am out of time, and I will
ask this in writing, but I know, Dr. Miranda, you would agree.
Part of this is also advancing women, people of color, in
getting into this market for the skills that we need, and there
are a lot of different ways we can do that. And I appreciate
everyone's work on that.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Chair Cantwell. Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Chair Cantwell, and thank you to
all the witnesses for being here today as this committee
considers the Endless Frontier Act. Especially with the rise in
scientific prowess of China and other nations, it is imperative
that the United States maintain its global leadership, in the
development, commercialization, and standardization of
innovative technologies.
During my time as Chairman of this Committee, we
successfully enacted the American Innovation and
Competitiveness Act, to better coordinate R&D efforts at the
Department of Commerce and the NSF, as well as the National
Quantum Initiative Act, to strengthen and unify the focus of
the Federal Government on developing Quantum technologies. Both
of these bills were bipartisan and drew broad support from
industry and the scientific community.
As a move to consider any potential opportunities the
Endless Frontier Act presents to further enhance U.S.
technological leadership, let me start by saying that I would
have appreciated the chance to review an updated version of the
legislation before this hearing. As I understand it makes
substantial changes from the version introduced last Congress.
And legislation, obviously, of this scope and importance, with
such profound implications for the Federal research enterprise,
needs thorough review by this committee.
I also want to make a few additional points, quickly,
before I move to questions. First, NSF certainly plays a key
role in fundamental research. But there are several other
government agencies with substantial experience in technology
development and applied research. With such a substantial
authorization of funding in the Endless Frontier Act, greater
incorporation of other science focused agencies merit strong
consideration and would even more substantially contribute to
U.S. technological leadership.
Second, I believe that the private sector plays a critical
role in the pipeline from fundamental research to
commercialization. My home state of South Dakota, our
universities have successfully patented technologies that
started with basic research and the State's economy has
benefited, as a result. Any solutions that strengthen that
partnership will greatly improve this bill's effectiveness.
And finally, it is crucial that states like South Dakota
are not left behind by this bill. Much of Federal research
funding is concentrated in a just a few states, and this bill
should seek to change that model. So, I want to thank you again
for holding this hearing, Madam Chair, and appreciate the
witnesses being here, panelists in providing their expertise.
Dr. Droegemeier, you mentioned in your testimony, the
directives to USF made by this legislation should not duplicate
activities undertaken by other Federal agencies. And given the
substantial investments already made in research infrastructure
at other agencies like DOE, I share this view. Could you
elaborate on how a framework like that contemplated under the
Endless Frontier Act could be modified to better recognize and
incorporate the role of other Federal research efforts?
Dr. Droegemeier. Senator Thune, thank you so much for the
question and for the excellent work that you have done, as you
just described, with the Quantum and many other areas.
You know, we have been talking about all the important
activities associated with the bill and we have mentioned the
importance of working together, but we really need to talk
about the how of that. As you say, Department of Energy
laboratories have extraordinary capabilities. South Dakota
itself benefits from a lot of that kind of work. We have other
laboratories, Federal and national laboratories both. We have
private sector facilities. The question is, how do we bring all
of them together in a way to where, each time we do it it is
not a new one off all the time? You know, Mississippi State
working with a small startup company, that takes a lot of work
to get that thing going, and we cannot just keep doing the one
offs all the time.
So, what we really need is a broader framework. And one
was, in fact, recommended by the President's Council of
Advisors in Science Technology, issued, in fact, just a few
months ago. Talking about a framework that would bring all of
these activities together in ways far different than what we
have done in the past, with the exception, perhaps, of Bell
Laboratories, which was really a unique model that does not
really exist today in the way that it used to.
And really, the whole point is to go from fundamental
curiosity driven research, all the way to product scale up, and
pre-production prototype development, all within the same
framework. We suffer from what I, kind of, call the ``hand off
and hope model.'' There are many points of hand off in this
process, but we do not really have the capability to do a
seamless front to back system, you know, all the way across.
So, that really leverages all of the facilities that you are
talking about.
So, I think the bill, if we could think about it in the
context of that language in the bill, of taking these pieces
and bringing them together. As our friend from MIT mentioned,
sometimes we have to bring things together, not in a
necessarily formally structured way, but in a way that allows
us to have people move across organizational boundaries. To
have intellectual property negotiations done right up front, to
where we can really accelerate the innovation. This is what
China does, but we do not want to do it like China does. We
want to leverage the capabilities of our enterprise in a way
far different, more ethical, and more appropriately so. And I
think we could really do a lot to compete in that way.
So, the pieces are there, but I think the question is how
do we bring them together and that, I think, is something we
ought to contemplate for the bill.
Senator Thune. OK, very quickly, Dr. Shaw, you had noted,
and I--this has been asked, I think, already, but in the latest
version of the bill, there are more considerations to--meant to
improve rural areas. But what would you recommend to ensure
that universities in states like South Dakota and Mississippi
are not left out?
Dr. Shaw. Well, thank you. I think the--as you indicate,
the opportunities need to be across the entire spectrum. Zip
code does not need to be determining how we are successful. I
think there are several different direction that could possibly
be taken. You know, South Dakota, as Mississippi, is a
portion--is a member of the EPSCoR program. And I think that is
a vital program and I think seeing it expand is a very
important aspect of that.
I think the second part of it, though, really--which may be
even more important, is the recognition that there are pockets
of excellence at institutions across the entire nation.
Institutions in South Dakota, as well as institutions like min,
have excellent programs in--for example, in our program, such
as the high-performance computing aspects of what we have. We
are a leader in unmanned aircraft systems. So, there are a
number of those types of programs. And I think the National
Science Foundation, through the legislation that is being
considered, should be able to more adequately and appropriately
recognize those pockets of expertise and allow them to be able
to expand. So that we have tremendous opportunities that get
created across the entire United States.
Senator Thune. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you. I am going to ask questions now
because I want to follow on what Senator Thune and some of the
other questioners have been asking, which is really to get to
crux of this issue of, how do we grow ecosystems where they are
not as robust? And how do we take advantage of ecosystems that
are already pretty robust and continue to grow them, as well?
And so, my question I think, to Linden Rhoads, is, you
know, when you did five or six things at the University of
Washington, which was basically to bring the entrepreneur
ecosystem into the university, is really what you did and help
fund it, whether that was writing patents or helping with
various ways. How applicable is that model to other
institutions across the United States, and should we be giving
some of the R&D money to that, building capacity at
universities?
To the rest of the witnesses, to what degree, Dr. Shaw or
Dr. Miranda, or Dr. Droegemeier, to what degree does the Rose-
Hulman model work, where you are basically a fee-for-service
model--you have a regional hub where everybody is going to that
hub and basically saying, solve my next generation technology
problem. And in that case, there is not a big, you know, NSF
dollar amount. I mean, there is some but, you know, people
teach there because they want to teach. People do not teach
there because they are going to publish their next NSF
research. And yet, they have become a hub for solving a lot of
regional, very great innovation programs. Or to what degree
does Dr. Butler's point about having a DARPA model work, where
basically you are giving contracts to companies to help solve
that problem?
So, I do not know which one of you now in the testimony,
basically said, start at a higher level. Get the companies and
the sectors communicating at the higher level of NSF funding,
and DOE funding, for that matter. And then, keep the
relationship going throughout the system.
So, my question is, there are three different things that
we already know, right now, that are working. The DARPA model
is working. A fee-for-service model and helping big research
institutions do more R&D by bringing the entrepreneurship is
working.
So, Linden, I am going to start with you. How much do you
think the University of Washington model could be translated to
other institutions?
Ms. Rhoads. Well, I think it is a very perspicacious
question because, unfortunately, there is not a cookie cutter
model that fits for every region or university, depending on
its starting point and its issues and gates. And by way of
example, when I started at UW, several experts told--mostly in
computer science, told me, this is simple. Fly down to
Stanford, meet with their head of tech transfer, just do
exactly what they do. But Stanford was located a mile from the
largest constellation of venture capitalists in the history of
the world. And their challenges are different from our
challenges, at the University of Washington, where we are in
the remote, northwest corner of the continent, and a flight
away for most investors. And even though we have many vital
industries, we do not have anywhere near the kind of nexus
between industry and investors, and our researchers could not
have been more different. And we needed much more heavy
lifting, therefore, for our researchers.
So, what was working for this one, you know, very
accomplished university, in terms of translation, would not
have been sufficient for us. And so, I think--I do not know
that there is an easy answer, but I do not think that
everything that works in one place works elsewhere. And I do
think, unfortunately, that you need this full panoply of
services to synergistically interact between funding and
mentorship and IP support, to really get the results we are
looking for. And so, in some cases, one university may be able
to, with substantial--adequate funding, provide those for
itself and in other cases, you may need regional collaboration
and support.
And last, I would just like to say, apropos of one of the
things you just mentioned, I think the I-Corps program--the I-
Corps hubs program the NSF has launched, my colleagues in tech
transfer really laud those programs in that they train
researchers to pursue customer-directed discovery and focus on
the end user. And I think that any programs that do that are
very helpful to what we are all looking to see happen.
Chair Cantwell. Quickly.
Dr. Shaw. I would certainly, whole-heartedly agree with
everything----
Chair Cantwell. Linden just said.
Dr. Shaw. That our previous witness just said. The three
things that I would touch on quickly, in addition to that is, I
think the call for closer coordination with other agencies. You
know, for example, the Department of Commerce funds our Calves
Extension Center, to be able to work with manufacturing
entities to do problem solving and to be able to grow
manufacturing capacity in our State. I think it is a really
important aspect that needs to be covered as we consider this.
You know, I think the very fact that Camgian Microsystems
is located in our Thad Cochran Research and Technology Park,
the creation of that ecosystem in which developing businesses
can have the opportunity to work closely in partnership with
our faculty is incredibly important.
And then, finally, the Entrepreneurship Center that we have
located on our campus that really is focused on student
entrepreneurship and the opportunity to bring business students
and engineering students, to be able to create new businesses,
is incredibly exciting and needs to be recognized as a part of
this effort.
Chair Cantwell. Dr. Droegemeier, anything to add?
Dr. Droegemeier. No, thank you.
Chair Cantwell. OK. Anybody else? OK, I think Senator
Fischer is next.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. While we do
not have any legislative text in front of us at this moment, I
do appreciate the witnesses here today who have spoken to core
issues of how lawmakers can both strengthen and preserve the
integrity of our Federal scientific research.
Dr. Droegemeier, in your testimony you compared the Endless
Frontier Act focus on use inspired research and technology
domains with the fundamental, or curiosity based, research that
the National Science Foundation is based on. Given a proposal
that would dedicate significant funding to NSF in the context
of a new technology directorate, how do you believe that this
could affect NSF's mission, positively or negatively, to
support fundamental research?
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, Senator, it is a great
question. I think it could be very complimentary, in fact. As I
mentioned earlier, NSF actually already does fund quite a bit
of use inspired research, even in my own field in meteorology.
Some of the work that we do in trying to develop more effective
radars and things like that, is very much inspired by more
accurate forecasts and so on, and so forth. So, it is not a
foreign concept to NSF.
So, I think that the notion of curiosity driven research
and, sort of, use inspired research, they can be very much
mutually reinforcing. So, I think a new technology directorate
could--could really do a couple of things. One, it could, kind
of, weave together and provide connective tissue from
fundamental research and the other directorates into the
technology domains that are mentioned in the bill.
But more importantly, I think the technology directorate
could then build the connective tissue linkages with the
private sector, at the institutional level, as Chair mentioned
just a moment ago, to where, in fact, you do not just have
individual faculty and individual awards taking a lot of time
to try to build bridges and build relationships with private
sector. But you actually have the head of a major foundation
that has been around for 70 plus years, working with the head
of other companies to build those strategic partnerships. So
that when--when we actually go out and start to do
translation--transition from basic research to applied to so on
and so forth, though the valley of death to product and service
at scale, it is a seamless framework. The thing has already
been put in place.
And so, I think, in that sense, we are reinforcing
fundamental discovery type of research at NSF by creating a
technology directorate. And I know there are some who fear that
technology could overtake, you know, the fundamental research.
But I think we can do this in a careful, thoughtful way to
where, in fact, they are much more mutually reinforcing.
As we have heard before, from our friend from--from Notre
Dame here, the fact that, you know, her work depended upon
basic research, but she worked in the applied domain. But it is
not a single pathway. It is a reentrant, multiple of circuitous
pathways. So, I think this could, in fact, work quite well. And
I really believe that a tech directorate at NSF could really
strengthen the foundation overall. But we certainly want to
make sure that NSF does not lose its fundamental underpinnings
of discovery research as being its true--true foundation.
Senator Fischer. OK. You know, as we look at America's
competitiveness, and the scope of our technology readiness to
determine where we invest Federal dollars, there are of course
a variety of agencies and programs with key roles, here in the
Commerce Department, and beyond that. Dr. Droegemeier, I know
you referenced this with Senator Thune, but would you agree
with this sentiment?
Dr. Droegemeier. With--Senator, I am sorry, of what,
specifically?
Senator Fischer. You know, as lawmakers seek to advance
America's competitiveness in emerging technologies, especially
when we consider the foreign threats, do you think agencies
besides Commerce Department--outside of Commerce Department,
like DOD or DOE, the national labs, should they also be a part
of this conversation?
Dr. Droegemeier. They absolutely have a great deal to
offer, Senator. I think, to me--you know, in my written
testimony and also I mentioned orally that NSF has really been
overlooked for a long time. And what is unique about it is it
funds, you know, many, many domains of science outside of
medical, clinical research and it is, in fact, the largest
funder. So, it is really critically important that, in and of
itself, NSF get a very substantial increase in funding. But
yet, on the other hand, it is not a zero-sum game. So, I think
collaborating with, say, DOE national labs and Federal
laboratories and other agencies like NIST, and so on, very,
very important.
And that ecosystem is really what makes America so powerful
and when we talk about the China threat, they do not operate
that way. And frankly, I am a huge fan of the DOE's 17 national
labs and I think that, in some sense, they are our X factor,
and they can play a terrific role, as they are already doing,
in so many of these domains and Quantum and artificial
intelligence in advanced manufacturing, as well.
Senator Fischer. Yes. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chairman.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you. Next is Senator Schatz.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Chair Cantwell. Thank you to the
Ranking Member. Thank you for this really interesting panel.
You know, newly minted PhDs and post-docs drive science and
technology innovation and, consequently, the economy itself.
And yet, I understand we lose many of them because of how hard
it is to get a faculty or research position after graduate
school. And so, my first question is for Dr. Miranda. We
recognize the importance of emerging researchers. Can you speak
to the importance of emerging researchers, and specifically, we
are considering legislation to establish a grant program to
help these emerging researchers to continue their research and
to publish? In other words, to kind of open up an alternative
pathway for some of these newly minted PhDs and post-docs.
Dr. Miranda. Thank you for the question, Senator. So, first
of all, I would say that there are a whole series of mechanisms
that the NSF and other federally funding agencies could
implement. One, we have the National Science Foundation
Graduate Research Fellowships, if you thought about some
equivalent kind of program that operates at the post-doctoral
level. So, there is--we talk about the valley of death and
commercialization. There is a valley that researchers travel,
as well, where they move from being a graduate student to
establishing an independent research career. So, a GRF-like
program at the post-doctoral level, I think, would be
incredibly effective at helping with this problem.
The second thing I would say, there is a very nice program
that exists within the National Institutes of Health, which is
the Early Investigators which addresses all sorts of problems,
all these K awards. In the National Science Foundation, we have
career awards. I would tell you that there are many more--I
think all of us who have been spending time at universities,
will tell you that there are many more people who are deserving
of an NSF career award than the NSF is able to offer. So,
beefing up and adding funding to the NSF career program, which
is already a proven program would be incredibly helpful since
we already know that the ROI on it is good.
The other thing that I would say is that, speaking to some
of these points about the collaboration between universities
and industry, it is actually pretty common in science and
engineering that we--we have lots of our students who go on and
become professors. And we always like it when our kids grow up
to be like us, right? But we are actually really happy when our
students--when our science and engineering students go on to
work at companies. And I think that we have to do a better job,
in the academy, and we are starting to do that.
And I could imagine a whole network system that NSF could
set up, to help teach students about how to be prepared to be
effective in industry. And I think about some public
university--some company or industry-university partnerships,
where our graduate students go and do a--one of their research
rotations. Not just doing research rotations around labs around
the university, but doing research rotations at industry
locations, so that we get a better sense of how does industry
work? How does academia work? And I actually think that it
would really help--that type of a program would really help
build the kind of partnerships that my colleagues from
Mississippi were talking about, where the university is deeply
tied to a whole series of regional corporate partners.
Senator Schatz. Thank you. This is--these are really good
insights and look forward to working with you and all the
panelists on developing, at least, our portion of this
legislation. You know, recent reports show that, in spite of
decades of efforts to increase diversity, the workforce remains
largely homogenous. And I think that is partly because you do
not have these, sort of, institutional networks available for
people who are new to these fields. But also, because the
requirement, if you are going to, sort of, climb the ladder, is
to work for so little that not everybody can swing that. Not
everybody can carry a debt load and get paid very, very little.
And so, it works like a reverse sieve, where people who are
already plugged into institutional networks, where people whose
parents can subsidize their post-doctoral research, are able
to, kind of, hang in there all the way until they climb the
ladder. And I am wondering if you might speak to the need for
institutional support, and whether you think that is a real
issue, in terms of where someone comes from economically,
actually impeding their progress up the research ladder and
into a profession where they can land doing where they--land
doing what they want to do.
Dr. Miranda. I think that was for me.
Senator Schatz. Yes, Dr. Miranda.
Dr. Miranda. So, first of all, for those of us who live in
flyover territory, we are a little bit tired of being referred
to as flyover territory. There are an enormous number of
incredibly talented people from across the geography of the
United States and from across the income span of the United
States and from across the great racial and ethnic diversity we
have in our country.
I do think that we need to ensure that we have a large
enough, and diverse enough, workforce--both of those are
important. And I define diversity across many metrics. For us
to have a large enough and a diverse enough workforce, and to
keep people in the program, these kinds of things, like the
GRF, which definitely help--I had an NSF GRF. I never had to
take out a loan when I was in graduate school. Having similar
programs at the post-doctoral level, having more of these Early
Investigator awards, makes a huge difference.
It is also the case that while, I do agree that money does
not buy happiness, but it does buy lab equipment and travel to
conferences, and those sorts of things. But the other thing
that these--that we need to ensure the true, full diversity, is
a series of networks that are built across--you know, so, we
have all kinds of programs. We have all kinds of organizations
like the Association of Women in Mathematics, the Association
of Women in Science, the Black Physicist Organization, the
National--NSBE, the National Society of Black Engineers. We
have a whole series of these organizations, which are meant to
provide networks and advice and guidance and mentoring and
support----
Senator Schatz. Thank you, I am a bit over time.
Dr. Miranda. Oh, sorry.
Senator Schatz. No, that was great. I just want to respect
the other members. Thank you very much. Look forward to working
with all of you.
Chair Cantwell. Yes, we will let people elaborate on this
in their written answers, too. So, Senator Young.
Senator Young. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, thank you so
much for holding this hearing. Thank you to my colleagues for
their probing questions. I see a lot of commonality, as I am
listening to my colleagues and the answers that are provided.
We just need to find ways to get the pieces to fit together in
a more comprehensive fashion.
So, we introduced the Endless Frontier Act last year and we
are improving significantly on it, with your counsel and that
of others around the country. So, in coming weeks, I think we
will have a product that we can all rally around, which will be
really important because this is not just about innovation,
sort of in vacuum. This is about advancing the common good. And
it is about our competitiveness, vis a vis, the Communist Party
of China.
We have done this successfully in the past as a country, as
we think about the Cold War and the examples to be learned from
there. In the 20th century, the United States led the world
with investments in science and technology and infrastructure,
that would highlight the crucial role of the Federal Government
in catalyzing innovation in national defense and economic
security and American prosperity. The Apollo program may be one
of the greatest examples. In response to Sputnik, the Federal
Government spent, in today's dollars, $140 billion to land a
man on the moon and to win the space race. The success of NASA
would lead to spinoffs in hundreds of new industries. New
products came online. And American leadership in aerospace was
realized. By 2018, U.S. dominance in aerospace alone
contributed $2.3 trillion--that is 1 year--in GDP to the U.S.
economy. The seeds were planted back through Federal
investments. That is not an unusual model. This is not a
distorted reading of economic history.
I believe we are starting another Sputnik moment right
here. Only this time it will be with China's investments in
research into emerging technologies taking place along side
this. We have a different model. We should harness our unique
talents and ensure that we are harnessing the talents of people
across every state and across our various universities and labs
and so forth.
So, as we introduced this bill, which we are aiming on
proposing $100 billion in investment in R&D over a 5-year
period, in 10 key emerging technology areas, perhaps others
will be added, we recognize and embrace the global challenge
that China presents. These funds would be used to crowd in--I
want to emphasize this--the expertise of private industry, but
also, of our global partners and allies. So, as China looks to
develop an illiberal sphere of autocratic, authoritarian
regimes, we need to cement our relationships with partners and
allies, their expertise, their ideas, their private capital.
The Trump Administration estimated we could get $5 crowded in
for every single taxpayer dollar. Let us say they were way off.
Let us say it is $2. That is a pretty strong lever of
investment.
Dr. Droegemeier, what are the risks to the United States if
we are not successful in this competition over technology and
innovation with China? In short order, what happens if we get
this wrong and fail to act?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, thank you, Senator Young, for your
tremendous work on the bill. I think we lose out in many ways.
We lose out on economic security. We lose out on national
security. We lose out on our ability to innovate and really
stay strong in the world. We are a beacon, not only of freedom,
but of progress, of prosperity, and also, of ethical behavior.
The research of values that we use in the research process are
exactly our American values. So, when we lead in research, we
lead with our American values, and that is such a powerful
statement to the world.
Senator Young. Thank you, Dr. I think it is also important
that this be a fairly broadly bipartisan effort, as China's
narrative, emerging from the pandemic is that autocratic
regimes are very efficient and effective at dealing with
situations like this. We are divided, in many respects, as a
country. I think we could be united around this effort.
Very quickly, Dr. Miranda, as my time runs out. We both
know how important relations--relationships between academia
and front-line Federal customers, and State and local
government have been, in our own state of Indiana, in fostering
innovation and creating opportunities for commercialization and
making our state a unique sort of place where scientists want
to live and work on cutting edge projects. In your testimony,
you alluded to the success Indiana has had in this domain. So,
can you briefly elaborate on how our state's success with
research consortia should educate our discussions about
regional tech hubs?
Chair Cantwell. Go ahead, quickly.
Dr. Miranda. So, I think what--I think what we are learning
in Indiana is that you--if you bring together partnerships
where you have the leading research universities, and they are
partnered up, as well, with the community colleges, you are
thinking about training--not just training PhDs, but training
associate degrees who are not going to invent the cybersecurity
systems but manage the cybersecurity systems on a daily basis.
So, we have this collaboration between universities--
research universities, community colleges, and technical
universities. But then, we also have these partnerships that
have been developed with local, regional companies, many of
which are trying to make this transition from the sort of,
traditional manufacturing economy that existed 50 years ago, to
the advanced manufacturing economy. And where universities and
colleges and companies have come together, as we have seen in
Indianapolis, as we have seen in northern Indiana and in other
places across the state, you see this enormous opportunity for
creating these regional tech hubs, where the capacity is there.
The ground is fertile, the capacity is there, the kind of
funding that the Endless Frontier Act would bring, would just
light it all on fire.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you. Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Madam Chairman. I have a couple
questions relating to early career researchers. In fact, I have
sponsored a bill that is called ``Supporting Early Career
Researchers.'' The pandemic has up ended life for a lot of
people. This measure would create a new post-doctoral
fellowship program to support the next generation of STEM
talent through the NSF.
And in connection with that measure, which supports
careers, especially women and underrepresented minorities, I
also have introduced a bill--or I will, Combating Sexual
Harassment in Science Act. This legislation was previously
championed by myself and Senator Harris--then, Senator Harris.
It passed the House last session, but not the Senate. And it
would direct NSF to award grants to further study the causes
and consequences of sexual harassment. We know that sexual
harassment is common to many aspects of American life these
days, but in the sciences it seems to, still exist. I have just
started reading Walter Isaacsons' book on Jennifer Doudna,
which is fascinating. It recounts the story of her being told,
early in her career, women do not do science. And we would like
to think that those days are behind us, but maybe not.
So, I would be interested in your perspectives. First, Dr.
Miranda and Dr. Shaw, do you think sexual discrimination or
harassment has hindered careers of women and underserved
communities? And do you think we need to do more about it?
Dr. Miranda. Thank you for the question, Senator. So, first
of all, thank you for the proposal on the post-doctoral
program. I think you are right on target of that being a
critical thing for us to do for R&D in the United States.
Second, I thank you, as well, for your concern in interest in
issues of sexual harassment or hostile environments or--I also
worry a lot about the awful impact of low expectations of women
and minorities, in the areas of science and--especially in
science and engineering. So, I do think it is something that is
worth investigating.
And you emphasize causes and consequences. I would love for
us to supplement that with real, serious evaluation of what
kinds of intervention programs actually work to change the
local environment, to improve the experience for women. So, we
have a whole series of things that we are doing at Notre Dame
to create a--to promote a better environment for our minority
faculty, for our women faculty, same thing for our graduate
students. But we regularly go in and assess, OK, we did these
things, how much difference did it make? We asked the people
who are most affected by these circumstances, which of these
changes, which of these programs made a difference to you?
So, it is both about supporting them, but also about
educating people who sometimes--you know, sometimes there is--
there is deep intention in what people are saying and doing,
and sometimes there is not deep intention. And we have to help
them to understand why what they are saying and doing is so
destructive for the careers of these--destructive for their
individual careers, but also destructive for the university,
destructive for science and engineering in this country.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. That is a great answer. Dr.
Shaw?
Dr. Shaw. I would certainly echo the comments of my
colleague and, therefore, will not repeat them. But just to
expand on a couple of things related to your question, and
actually would also refer back to something that Chair Cantwell
said in some of her opening remarks.
Certainly the--I think the pandemic has had a
disproportionate impact, in many cases. And I can tell you, on
our campus, we are in the midst of conversations as we speak
about trying to really reevaluate things like the promotion and
tenure process and the impact that the pandemic has had,
disproportionately in ways that we can ensure that our--
especially our women faculty, are negatively impacted in a
disproportionate way.
I think there is--that opens up a larger conversation,
obviously, that we need to be doing all that we can
proactively, to be sure that we are not only following Federal
legislation--laws, policies, that had been established to
eliminate sexual harassment, but be much more proactive in our
education programs, so that we can be much more preventive in
nature, as opposed to addressing the situations after the fact.
And I think--we are certainly open to the conversations that
are being held nationally and thank you for your leadership in
addressing this vitally important topic. And I think, for the
future, the opportunities that we have seen coming out of this
terrible situation, actually open up a much larger
conversation. So, thank you, Chair Cantwell----
Chair Cantwell. Thank you.
Dr. Shaw.--for bringing this up today.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Dr. Shaw.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Chair Cantwell. Senator Cruz.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to each of
the witnesses. It seems that a lot of the proposals being
considered for combatting China include substantially
increasing funding for U.S. research and development. China,
for years, has engaged in espionage campaigns at universities
and at technology companies, to steal trade secrets and to
steal intellectual property. Would all of you agree that the
Chinese Communist Party has, and continues to engage in the
systematic theft of American IP and American technology?
Voice. Yes.
Senator Cruz. Would you also agree that the Chinese
Communist Party has, and continues to engage in the systematic
human rights abuses and an ongoing genocide against Muslim
Uyghurs?
[Silence]
Senator Cruz. The intersection of those two threats is a
concerning area. Theft alone is not the only problem. The CCP
has and continues to use legally acquired technology and stolen
technology to carry out some of its most reprehensible
activities, like the ongoing genocide of Muslim Uyghurs. If we
are going to massively increase the Federal investment in
science and technology, as Senator Schumer's Endless Frontier
Act proposes, should we not also be taking steps to both
safeguard that investment? That is, to ensure that the CCP is
not able to steal IP and advance technology developed as a
result of the Federal investment--and also to ensure that the
technologies that will arise are not sold to the CCP or its
proxies, to be used in furtherance of human rights abuses and
an ongoing genocide. And that is a question to all the members
of the panel.
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, Senator Cruz. There is guidance
now, from the White House to all Federal Executive Branch
agencies to implement policies that will help safeguard our
research, in terms of providing guidance regarding disclosures
and other types of actions that researchers need to take.
Second thing is, educating the community, universities, and so
on, in terms of what to look for, how to be prepared, how to
evaluate, and so on. But it is--we are only at the beginning
stages of this, I think as you well know.
Having been at the White House and getting classified
briefings, I agree with you completely. There are some
atrocities that--terrible things that are happening. We are
very, very vulnerable to this. And so, what we need to make
sure that we do is have a balanced approach where we have the
openness that is important for research, but we also protect
our assets. So, we have a strong offense and a strong defense,
at the same time.
So, I think these actions that are being taken, other work
that is now underway, and some of the discussions we have had
with Congress when I was in the White House, were very, very
productive. But I think Congress continues to need to look at
this, continually, work with universities, the law enforcement
community, intelligence community, and so on. Truly a whole of
nation approach, which is the only way I think we can really
address this problem.
But I thank you for bringing this up. It is extraordinary
important for us and, as a nation, both from a science
technology point of view, a competitiveness point of view,
national security, but also from the point of view of our
American values and what we hold dear.
Dr. Miranda. So, I would agree entirely that there are huge
adjustments going on across--in universities across the United
States regarding how to think about issues of the stealing of
intellectual property, how to safeguard things, how do we think
about having watch systems and monitoring systems, and all of
that. I agree, as well, that we are, sort of, at the beginning
of that process. We are getting better. When I think of how we
were 5 years ago compared to how we are now, it is--it is
lightyears ahead.
At the same time, I do want to emphasize that some of our
most talented graduate students, some of our most talented
faculty, people who are contributing in enormous ways to the
productivity of the United States, are coming from other
countries, including from China, other parts of Asia. My family
is an immigrant family, and I was the first one in my family
born in the United States. My father spent time doing research
that was all about civil engineering research, to contribute to
this country.
So, I do want to make sure--I agree with you, Senator, that
these issues of espionage, the carefulness with which we have
to protect our intellectual property, the systems that we have
to build, are so critically important. But I want to make sure
we build those in a way where we still welcome the most
talented people from across the world, to come and study here
and stay here. This is the place where the very best
researchers want to live because of the American, democratic
system and the values that are here and the way that our
research enterprise works.
Dr. Shaw. Senator Cruz, thank you for the question and
thank you for diligence on this vital issue. And I can tell you
that, from our standpoint, we have worked incredibly closely
with the Federal law enforcement agencies, as well as our State
agencies, to ensure that we, as my colleague has indicated,
have upped our game substantially.
We are now going through a really stringent review process,
not only for students and faculty, but also for any visitor
that comes to our campus. And those--that--those policies have
been developed because of the guidance that we have received
with Federal law enforcement agencies. A briefing that was held
as late as last week on our campus is a part of the regular
series of briefings that we have on potential threats and known
information, in that regard.
We are planning on hosting a conference on this very topic,
on our campus this fall to address--to be sure that we are
providing all of the education and information that is needed
to ensure that we are keeping things safe.
Dr. Butler. And I will just make one comment on the point.
Coming from an industry perspective, and specifically, the work
that we do in national security is critically important for us.
And it is built into the DNA of our company. And so, as we
think about opportunities to engage in a program like this, to
take our technology more into the commercial market, we would
think about it the same way. We have to maintain some degree of
competitive edge. And so, that would--that would mean any
technology being built that--through applied research, that is
funded to a private company, needs to be protected. And we need
to implement the same types of policies that--and procedures,
that we have on the DOD side, from an industry perspective, you
know, to ensure that we maintain a competitive edge and that
that investment that is made by the government is, indeed,
protected for the long term.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Senator Cruz. And, Mr. Bonvillian. Can I get his response
also? Who is remote.
Chair Cantwell. We have two other witnesses. If they want
to give a quick----
Senator Cruz. OK, sure.
Chair Cantwell. If they wanted to give a quick add-in or
for the record, either one. We have a----
Senator Cruz. OK.
Chair Cantwell. So, yes, let us take their comments in
writing and let us go to Senator Baldwin. If--I think Senator
Peters will be here to take over the gavel. I am going to go
and vote. We are going to continue this effort, because there
are lots of questions for members to ask. And I think, after
that--after Senator Baldwin, Senator Blackburn. So, with that,
Senator Baldwin.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to start
off with a few opening comments before I ask my questions.
As many on this committee know, I strongly support the use
of Buy America provisions to boost domestic manufacturing. And
I believe that we really need to close gaps in our supply
chains. So, I am pleased that the Endless Frontier Act includes
a supply chain resiliency program and give the Commerce
Secretary the authority to make purchasing commitments, that
will further encourage domestic production of critically needed
products. In addition, I recently introduced the Made in
America Act, with my colleague Senator Braun, to apply Buy
America rules to all Federal infrastructure programs, and to a
wide variety of construction materials.
As we look ahead to markup and floor consideration of the
Endless Frontiers Act, I am going to continue to push for Buy
America provisions and language to ensure that the significant
funds included in the Endless Frontier Act, support American
manufacturers and American workers.
Now, to my questions. I am going to start with a question
for Dr. Droegemeier. Successfully university--successful
university-led technology innovation and transition have
included robust partnering with industry to ensure
commercialization and sustainable market applicability. For
example, the University of Wisconsin has worked with a local
small business to develop innovative electrolyte additives, to
increase the importance and safety of lithium-ion batteries.
This partnership has brought new products to market using
Federal investment. But it has also helped develop a leading
research and development capability that could support domestic
efforts to discover and validate new battery chemistries and
technologies. Currently, most of that innovation, as we all
know, and the resulting intellectual property, is happening in
Asia by private industry.
I believe that we need to ensure that this legislation
builds on this successful model and allows for continued
partnership between research institutions and industry. So, Dr.
Droegemeier, what, in your view, is the proper role of industry
to ensure that the innovations of the universities get
transitioned to the market?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, thank you, Senator, it is an
excellent question. In fact, what you just described is a
beautiful example of how, you know, research comes to product
and product inspires additional research to lead to
improvements. So, it is not just a one-way from basic research
to product and then, that is where it ends. So, that is very,
very important.
I think the role of research in--or excuse me, the role of
private companies working with universities is many-fold. One
is--one real great value proposition for universities and
working with industry is the funding by industry of the
research, of the students, of post-docs, and things like that.
That is a great, sort of, direct benefit. The other thing is
bringing the culture of the private sector to the university
environment is a great experiential learning opportunity for
students--for graduate and undergraduate students, and so on.
I think the real challenge, of course, arises when we look
to license intellectual property, from a university to a
private company. That is where, sometimes, things kind of grind
to a halt, partly because of differences of culture, difference
of value proposition, and so on. And I think some of what would
be helpful here, to really streamline that process, is perhaps
some of the changes to the IRS revenue proclamations have been
talked about in the past that allow greater flexibility in
universities to negotiate intellectual property value up front,
versus actually having to wait until the IP exists, at the very
end of the game. Because really, what we are saying to a
private company is, you know, we are going to give you a right
to use this, but we cannot tell you how much it is going to
cost you. And by the way, please give us your money. That is
not, of course, how it really ought to work.
So, I think there are a lot of innovative ways--we have
seen this from other universities, like Minnesota and Illinois
and Indiana, and other universities that have come up with very
creative ways. But I think, systemically, we need to drive some
important changes that will really streamline the ability of
universities to move their research outcomes to the private
sector. And then, continue working with the private sector to
develop and innovate on them, and scale up, as you described.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. I am going to try to squeeze in
one more quick question for Mr. Bonvillian. I am a strong
supporter of the manufacturing extension partnership, which
delivers a high return of investment for taxpayers, almost $14
for every $1 of Federal money invested. How can MEPs help small
and medium manufacturers compete better in the global economy,
not only with what their current mission is now, but what would
you add on to give them an even more robust role?
Mr. Bonvillian. You know, Senator, they do play a very
important role. They have become an important part of, kind of,
our innovation ecosystem as we start to understand that
manufacturing has got to be part of that ecosystem. The MEP
task really originated, as you know, in competition with Japan,
you know, back in the 70s and 80s. That is really when this
program originated. And we move toward trying to meet Japan on
quality production. The MEP program did a good job on that, but
now we are moving toward bringing in new technologies--new
technology advances into the production system. And there is a
key role, I think, for the MEPs in bringing those advances into
small and mid-size firms. How can they help bring advanced
manufacturing into the SMEs, who are typically slower and more
reluctant to adapt that?
And then, second, there is a very important workforce role
for the MEPs. We need a lot of workforce training to get those
to those advanced manufacturing technologies. And the MEPs can
really help their small company members in bringing workforce
training, workforce education programs, probably in
collaboration with area community colleges, to their members.
That can be another major member service.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, and I yield back.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Mr. Bonvillian, it is great to have you and
the other folks here testifying. My first question is for you,
though, Mr. Bonvillian. In 2019, before the COVID crisis
occurred, I published a report out of Homeland Security
Committee, which I was the Ranking Member, at the time, and now
chairing. I looked at high drug cost in the country and
potential supply problems with critical medical supplies. One
thing that became very clear through that report, is that we
were overly dependent on foreign sources for our supply chain.
In fact, if you looked at the precursors of drugs, nearly all
the drugs that we used, the precursors that go into those drugs
are predominantly from China, but certainly places all across
the globe--India and other places. And medical supplies come
from the same place. And so, our report concluded that--and
this is the conclusion in 2019. When there is a pandemic in
this country, we are going to find ourselves in a very
precarious situation. Little did I know that that was going to
happen just a few months afterward.
So, now this is no longer an academic exercise. This is
real, very, very tangible. And we continue to see supply chain
disruptions. We are seeing that with silicon chips now, and the
impact that it has had. In my state, with the auto industry, is
very clear, as well, of the resilience of that we do not have
in those chains.
And when you think about critical supplies for national
security, we understand that, when it comes to the Department
of Defense, we make sure that we make things here in the United
States for that. An example, we have a shipyard in Wisconsin.
Senator Baldwin was on just before. It is actually in her
State, but it is right on the border. Half the workers there
are Michiganders that work there. But it is very clear that we
understand that we have to be in a position that we will never,
ever buy warships from China, or any other country. We make
sure we have the industrial capacity in the country to do that,
and most importantly we have the skilled workers that are
trained and ready to go. That is not something you can build
very, very quickly.
And so, we are faced with this incredibly challenging
problem and the Biden Administration has proposed creating a
new office, at the Department of Commerce, ``dedicated to
monitoring domestic industrial capacity and funding investment
to support the production of critical goods''. And certainly,
the Endless Frontiers Act presents an opportunity to be able to
put that idea into law.
So, my question is, based on your experience, can you
comment on how creating an office to help manage supply chain
risk, if it is empowered with robust tools to tackle these
challenges, could benefit technological innovation in the U.S.,
as well as domestic manufacturers and the broader economy? Sir,
I will start with you, but I am sure other panelists would like
to weigh in on that, as well.
Mr. Bonvillian. Senator, thanks for the question. I think
it is a very important one. We certainly learned from the
pandemic that we have got deep supply chain issues in many
sectors of our economy. And they also became very apparent in
the pharmaceuticals sector. We thought we had, you know,
fabulous global leadership of the biopharma sector, but it was
a rude awakening when we realized how much of it has now been
dispersed at the production stage.
So, an office to do an assessment and to monitor what these
supply chain risks are and to understand those in a better
level of detail, not just for the primes but reaching down to
the tiers of the supplier system, I think, is going to be
crucial. Obviously, DOD does a substantial amount of this
already in its fields. But even DOD has trouble reaching third
tier or even fourth tier suppliers and understanding where
those supplies are coming from. So, we deeply need more
monitoring.
There is going to be an issue that we are going to have to
face, which is that we are not going to, necessarily, have the
industrial capacity to fill these gaps. And in certain critical
areas, we may want to think about a financing mechanism that
would help us to scale up production in some very critical
fields.
Senator Peters. Right. I was going to ask other panelists,
but I am running out of time. So, I have another question, but
I would love to have your comments. Perhaps we can get that in
writing, too, of other support for that.
But, Mr. Droegemeier, this question is for you. As someone
who believes in manufacturing and the power of manufacturing in
the country as I do, I have found that, unfortunately, we do
not have a very coordinated manufacturing policy in this
country. In fact, if you look at manufacturing programs, that
exist to help manufacturers, there are 58 of those. Which is a
great number, but they are spread across 11 different Federal
agencies. There is no coordination. There is no one specific
voice for manufacturing, to move it forward.
And if you think about our major global competitors, who do
a very good job of focusing on manufacturers, the Germans, for
example, the South Koreans, others that do it. They get it.
They understand you need a coordinated strategy supporting
local manufacturing, local businesses, particularly smaller
manufacturing. And that is why I have proposed a National
Institute of Manufacturing, modeled like the National Institute
of Health, that is focused on manufacturing, as opposed to
health. But looking at public-private partnerships, how we make
sure government is leveraging what private industry can do, let
private industry do what they do best, but figure out where the
gaps are and how we work in that area.
So, my question is to you is, can you speak to the
coordination, or the lack thereof, that exists in Federal
manufacturing? And would something like a National Institute of
Manufacturing make imminent sense?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, thank you, Senator Peters. And I
have to tell you, when I read your report on the supply chain
for drugs, I was stunned. I mean, that was an eye opener.
You are absolutely right in how you portray this. We do
have a lot of things that are out there--Manufacturing USA, the
Hollings Partnerships, and so on. And of course, the National
Institutes of Standards and Technology kind of--is really, I
would say the Federal laboratory to the private sector
manufacturers. But we do not really have a whole of government
approach. And I think it--you know, it really would make sense
to try to coordinate that.
We also do not really have, I think, a national industrial
policy, per se. And that is something else that, I think, that
you are mentioning, which I have not read what you are talking
about. But it just--off the top of my head, it seems to make a
lot of sense. Because this is really critical to our future,
where the supply chain and things like critical mineral, for
which there might be synthetic substitutes, or things more
traditional, or advanced manufacturing. It really is a bit part
of the future. So, it sure makes sense, as I sit here today.
Senator Peters. Right. Well, thank you. My time is expired.
Senator Blackburn, you are recognized for your questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Peters. And thank you all
for this today. We appreciate having the hearing and I--I think
that looking at the future and deciding how we move forward is
something vitally important. I see Senator Rosen on the screen.
She and I had an advanced manufacturing bill that we have
worked on now for over 2 years. So, we are pleased to see
attention given to this issue. Senator Cortez Masto and I have
an entrepreneurship bill that, again, would put more attention
on this. And Senator Menendez and I have the SAM-C legislation
that, believe it or not, we filed before COVID, which would
repatriate active pharmaceutical ingredient manufacturing back
to the United States, where these critical supply chains need
to be. We need to bring that back. And I do think that is one
of the lessons from COVID.
But I would like to hear from each of you, and Dr. Shaw,
first to you, Dr. Droegemeier, and then, Dr. Butler. What I
would like to look at is workforce, because this is an area
where China says they possess a crucial advantage. And it is
the reason we have done these various pieces of legislation, to
train the workforce to equip them and to have the type jobs
here, in advanced manufacturing. So, here is my question to
each of you, and then, answer in that order as I have stated.
How can the NSF partner with their private sector allies to
grow a workforce that will excel in advanced manufacturing
capabilities? And what focus should physics programs have on
chip fabrication programs, to help with a base of knowledge of
chip manufacturing? Dr. Shaw? Go ahead.
Dr. Shaw. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. It is a fabulous
question and one that has a number of different aspects that I
think we need to be much more prepared to speak to than we are
today.
In earlier comments I made, you know, Mississippi State
works very, very closely with our community college system in
the State of Mississippi and, I believe it is one of the better
ones in the nation, in terms of workforce preparedness. And I
think part of the recognition is that we need to be able to
develop the entire workforce. And so, 4-year institutions and
graduate institutions do not need to be just focusing on trying
to have everyone graduate with a bachelor's or a PhD, but
rather, need to recognize that those kinds of partnerships.
And so, I think the opportunity that we have, through the
consideration of the technology directorate at NSF, is not only
focusing on graduate degrees or even undergraduate 4-year
degrees, but a partnership that goes from high schools to
community colleges to 4-year institutions to graduate programs
working in a very holistic manner to be able to recognize the
workforce needs that are across the entire spectrum. What that
also means is that is not unidirectional. It also means that
institutions, such as ours, that develop PhDs and post-docs,
need to be working very closely with the community colleges and
with high school, to be able to be sure that the training that
is going on now is the most relevant. And so, if I take
advantage of the example that you gave us in chip and advanced
manufacturing, we need to be sure that the workforce that is
being developed, especially in the community college system, is
really adequately prepared for jobs of the future and not jobs
of the past.
Senator Blackburn. Well, thank you. And full disclosure, I
attended Mississippi State. I still serve on the Advisory Board
for the College of Business. And, Dr. Shaw, I appreciate the
maroon tie. Dr. Droegemeier?
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Certainly,
with NSF partnering with the private sector means there are
huge opportunities to leverage, in a partnership sense, things
like internships and externships where you actually have
private companies coming to research facilities at
universities. So, sort of, a bidirectional sharing. You know,
huge opportunities that the private companies have that you do
not find in a university environment.
So, it is, kind of, a multi-generational, multi-
institutional, multi-disciplinary, sort of--sort of, activity.
And I think it is not just about the scientific training that
we are doing, but it is about the technological training. The
people that are actually building vacuum pumps and doing
things, you know, the work that is so critically important--the
technological work that does not necessarily involve a degree.
That sometimes gets marginalized. But we need a seamless
framework, all the way from, say, career-technical, and K-12,
and post-high school, all the way through the doctoral
programs. And we really do not have that now. There is a lot
of--I, kind of, call it 1,000 flowers blooming everywhere, but
there are not a lot of lush gardens that are being planted. So,
we really need to make sure that we have this seamless
framework.
To your point about, you know, Physics departments, and
things like that, with regard to chips, I think there is
extraordinary innovation happening in things like thin film
devices and phononics that is being funded both by NSF and by
the private sector. And also, private foundations do a lot of
interesting work there. And I think it is so critically
important that we continue to innovate in that space because
our economy, our national security, and our real quality of
life is going to depend on that.
So, I just want to tip my hat to DOE labs, especially Oak
Ridge, there in your state, Senator, that has an extraordinary
facility for advanced manufacturing. It involves some 60
different companies doing amazing things, all working
collaboratively with the national lab and with local
universities. It is really a success story and a role model, I
believe.
Senator Blackburn. Yes, it is, and UT has established Oak
Ridge Institute. Go ahead, Dr. Butler.
Dr. Butler. Yes, thank you, Senator Blackburn, for that
question. And I will just speak to one area of manufacturing
that I am familiar with and that is, the manufacturing of data.
And that is one of the things that we do at Camgian, is we--we
think of manufacturing in the context of data in building AI
factories, if you will. And that is the process of being able
to take very large volumes of data, apply algorithms to that
data to improve operational efficiency for companies, or build
the next generation technology firm military.
And one of the things that has been of great--of great
success for us in Starkville is the ability to bring in people,
in that entire supply chain, to help curate data, to help
process that information, to develop the algorithms. The
combination of our work with the university to produce very
innovative products. Not only--information products I should
say. Not only for our military, but also our commercial
partners, as well. And that is not just engineers. That is a
broad range of people that it takes to facilitate that process
from tip to tail. And in doing that in place like Mississippi
and places in the center of the United States, I think, is
going to be very important for us to be competitive. Because
this type of workforce for the future has to be distributed
across the country, not just in certain tech hubs in the United
States.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you.
Senator Blackburn. Got it, thank you.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you for your questions, Senator
Blackburn. Senator Rosen.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member
Wicker, and for all the witnesses for being here today for what
you are working. And I do want to build a little bit upon what
Senator Blackburn is talking about with advanced manufacturing.
We have great bills out there. We need to develop that
workforce. It is really important.
But we also need to develop a diverse workforce, right? And
so, I am a former computer programmer and I spent decades
working in a traditionally male-dominated field. And so, I am
thrilled to see the emphasis on increasing representation in
STEM for women and for underrepresented communities and
communities of color. And of course, the legislation that we
are doing today expands STEM apprenticeship programs and is
committed to serving women, minorities, veterans, tribal
members, individuals with disabilities, and so many more.
But I think it is important--think about how we measure for
success. The data does tell a story. I say this over and over
again, if you are smart enough to listen to it. So, how are
existing NSF government programs--how are they working to close
the gaps in our STEM workforce? Because that is going to
increase our opportunities for folks and ensure that employers
have the workforce that they need.
So, Dr. Droegemeier, under the OSTP STEM Education
Strategic Plan, you prioritize groups that have historically
been underrepresented in STEM fields. Do you believe that the
OSTP has been successful? How are you measuring that? And where
do you think--what do you need to do to fill in--what do we
need to do to fill in those gaps, where we are not reaching out
and getting people?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, thank you, Senator, very much. That
report that you mentioned actually has three pillars to it. One
is a STEM literate society. Another one is creating a STEM
workforce, and the other one is, very importantly, the
broadening participation dimension.
One thing that I did not get to with I was at OSTP, but I
think we need to do as a nation, is really understand our bench
strength. We do not really have a good handle on all the
individuals that are out there, across all of America, who have
the capability, the capacity, the desire to actually come in,
if they were given the opportunity. We talk about that a lot
but, you know, where are they? Let us go find them. And there
are lots of ways that we could--that we could identify them,
but we have not really, I think, done that. So, we know they
exist, but we really need to go out and identify them and bring
them in.
So, increasing the diversity is very important. I think NSF
has a whole bunch of different programs that have done this,
have worked on this. We are seeing progress. It is not as slow
as we all would like. But I think there are innovations, in
terms of certain programs that are brining more women and
underrepresented minorities, into positions of leadership,
where others can be inspired by them and they can help mentor
those. But frankly, it is going to take folks like myself and
other folks that, you know, are not ethnic minorities, to come
in and be champions of these kinds of activities, to help do
the same thing.
And so, we really need a whole of nation approach to do
this. And I think, pardon me, that is something very important
to be happening. NSF finally has a committee called the
Committee on Equal Opportunity in Science and Engineering that
responds to Congress, submits a report. And they are mapping
out a real important national strategy for doing this, as well.
So, I think--I think we are poised to do even more. We have
a long way to go yet, but I think we are making progress.
Senator Rosen. Well, I think you are right. And I would
further say that I think we need to collect data before the
grants and after the grants, like you said, to build out what
our bench strength is.
But I would like to move on quickly to Ms. Rhoads and give
you a chance to comment on this, as well, since the W Fund
evaluates the inclusivity of women at the companies where it
invests. And so, how do you measure inclusivity?
Ms. Rhoads. Well, we are a small and very boutique fund,
directed exclusively at companies that are spinning out of
research institutions--public non-profit research institutions
and I do not think that inclusivity was part of our original
mandate. That said, we have been the beneficiary of efforts
within universities to promote women entrepreneurship. And so,
of our 19 companies, I think that five of them have women in
the C-suite or the founding team, and that was a wonderful
thing. But it is a big problem and on most of the company
boards on which I serve, I am the only woman and there is not a
woman in management.
Senator Rosen. I think we need to work on that, for sure. I
only have a few seconds left. I just would like to ask Dr.
Miranda, perhaps, if you want to talk about the role that
broadband plays--expanded broadband, in leveling the playing
field access for American economic competitiveness over the
next decade, in order for us to do all of these things. So,
perhaps you could just speak broadly to broadband. I guess that
is a little pun there. But maybe you could tell us how you
think us investing in broadband will help us move all of this
forward? Dr. Miranda?
Dr. Miranda. Thank you. I think one of the things we need
to do, as a country, is make sure that there is universal
access and universal high-quality access, to Internet services
in every corner of the country. So, the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic is huge on our children--our school-aged children. It
is much bigger on children who live in rural areas, or children
who live in urban areas that have poor Internet service.
I will tell you; we bought a farm in Indiana. We are 17
miles outside of South Bend. And I do not have good Internet
service. It is not because I am not willing to pay for it. It
is not because I cannot figure out the technology. I simply do
not have good Internet service. I worry daily about all the
kids who live in the farming communities around me, such as
their ability to continue to make progress in their schooling,
under the conditions of the pandemic.
Aside from the pandemic, the whole notion of, if we really
want a STEM literate workforce, we want a workforce that
reaches the entire country, and not just certain pockets here
and there, we have to make sure that Internet is universal--it
is like a utility now. And we would not be satisfied with water
service that sometimes worked and sometimes did not. Or
electricity that sometimes worked and sometimes did not. And
that is how we need to think about broadband access in this
country.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator
Rosen.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I yield back.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you. Senator Scott.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SCOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Scott. First, I want to thank Chair Cantwell and
Ranking Member Wicker for holding this important hearing.
Communist China has shown it is eager to assert its power
across the globe, undermine democracy and human rights, violate
U.S. sanctions, and prop up dictators. The United States must
now recognize that we are in a new Cold War with China--
Communist China. And we need to confront this threat using
every diplomatic and military option at our disposal. The
position we are in today is because of decades of appeasement
by Washington politicians, an attitude that is carried forward
by many.
My concern is whether President Biden will do what is
needed in this critical moment. His words and actions have only
emboldened Communist China in his administration's weakness
toward General Secretary Xi is gravely concerning. We cannot be
naive in thinking that Communist China wants to operate in the
modern world order and cooperate with other world powers.
I have sponsored and supported legislation focused on
addressing the security of our supply chains, holding Communist
China fully responsible for its genocide against the Uyghurs,
enhancing their ability to innovate new technology, and
countering Beijing for its unfair trade practices.
This is where our legislative efforts must begin. We need
to strategically decouple in critical technologies and out and
cut Communist China off from the American economy that it
relies so heavily upon, to feed the Communist oppressive
machine. Now is the time to display the true resolve of the
United States in addressing Communist China's destabilizing
actions and finally put policy in place that truly places
American interest first.
Dr. Droegemeier, last Congress I joined Senator Portman on
his Safeguarding American Innovation Act to provide a better
framework to keep Communist China's influence out of our
research programs at our universities. Last year, Homeland
Security and Government Affairs Committee--Governmental Affairs
Committee Subcommittee report exposed the National Science
Foundation's inability to protect Federal investments from
going to universities or researchers with ties to Communist
China's 1000 Talents program. Does this bill include any
measures to prevent that?
In addition, is the National Science Foundation equipped to
combat Communist China's attempts to steal and spy on U.S.
research and intellectual property? And is there any Federal
agency that might be better equipped?
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, Senator Scott. At the moment, I
do not think the bill contains any language regarding research
security. With regard to NSF, they have a really wonderful
research security officer that they brought on board, I think
about a year ago. And the White House issued, in January,
guidance to Federal agencies, through a National Security
Presidential Memorandum, of a policy to really help safeguard
and secure ourselves against foreign threats, broadly defined,
especially with regard to things like disclosure of those who
are receiving public funds through any Federal agency, disclose
certain kinds of things including relationships to talent
programs, and so on.
The trick is now, having--it is a uniform policy. The trick
is to get it implemented uniformly. I can tell you that NSF
takes this very, very seriously, as do other agencies. In fact,
they were--NSF and other agencies were putting forth their own
different policies and we wanted them to hold off just a little
bit, until we, kind of, created a uniform policy. But I do
believe that they are reacting very strongly, as are our
universities. They are taking actions, many actions, again, to
combat these threats. They recognize the challenges.
And so, I think, by working together with the Federal
Government, the universities, the private companies, with our
law enforcement or national security sector, we are going to
make, and are making, tremendous progress. But as I said before
you arrived, we are still on the early phases of this. There is
a lot of work to be done. And the work that you have done and
that other Members of Congress, are greatly appreciated. And I
think we still need to really be on top of this.
Senator Scott. Thank you. Ms. Rhoads, I have serious doubts
that direct government payments to universities is the best
answer to meet China's advancing technology, or an efficient
return on investment for taxpayers. I come from the business
community and my view is, what we ought to do is, if the
government wants to accomplish something, what we ought to do
is, we ought to bid it out and see who can do the job, and
then, hold them accountable if they do not. So, Ms. Rhoads, how
can we instead empower, rather than using our universities,
empower private sector to create, innovate, and advance
technology, so the United States can reduce its reliance on our
adversaries, especially Communist China?
Ms. Rhoads. Well, I guess I would just like to first say
that apropos of your point, but also something that Senator
Cruz mentioned was, while illicit theft of university IP is a
huge concern, it is a terrible shame that Congress provides
universities with billions for research and not the single
digit millions to speculatively patent and protect the
resultant IP.
So that now, especially now that we are a first to file
country, we are inviting legal theft of our IP. So, that, in
and of itself, costs, especially for large universities doing
over a billion dollars of research a year, probably a couple
million dollars a year. And without those funds, we are
inviting other countries to take advantage of the innovation
that we create and then, go to colloquia and symposia and, even
if we are sophisticated about how to safeguard it without
patent funds we discuss.
But to your point, specifically about, I guess, customer-
directed or government-directed discovery, I think, while there
is a place for that, one of the magical things about university
innovation is that these researchers are often volcanos of
innovation. And there are so many different kinds of things
that they might innovate around and not all of them we can
foresee.
So, there is a place for directed innovation programs, with
results that we know that we want, and there is also a place
for having more open-ended research. And I definitely think
that programs where, perhaps, we match industry dollars with
non-dilutive dollars will tend to inspire industry and
companies and private investors to, depending on the stage of
the research, to be willing to either invest in the research
itself, or its outcomes. Because even when you have a research
result, these are so early that they are often too risky to
warrant return on investment dollars, unless there is non-
dilutive funding alongside.
So, I think there is a variety of forms programmatically
that those programs can take.
Senator Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Cantwell, for
holding this hearing.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Lujan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Lujan. First, I want to thank Chair Cantwell and
Ranking Member Wicker. I also want to recognize Leader Schumer
and Senator Young for prioritizing science and research and
development right out of the gate.
New Mexico is home to two world class Department of Energy
laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National
Laboratory, and also, DOD Air Force Research Labs. From the
Manhattan Project to the Human Genome Project, our labs have
been at the forefront of scientific discovery, to address our
Nation's and the world's greatest challenges.
Thanks to our national labs, the United States continues to
lead the world in pushing for boundaries in space-based
activities. For example, Los Alamos recently played a major
role in our mission to Mars. It was Los Alamos who manufactured
the fuel that propelled the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover.
Sandia National Labs, the first clean room, providing the chips
and circuitry that power computing and the internet.
In many of the areas that we are discussing today,
artificial intelligence, Quantum information sciences, biotech,
advanced manufacturing, high performance computing, and others,
the Department of Energy leads America's scientific efforts.
The Department and our labs perform open and collaborative
science and brings together academics, industries, and a wide
range of partners.
Let me offer a few additional examples. Currently, our
national labs lead five DOE funded national Quantum information
science research hubs. These hubs bring together industry,
universities, national labs, NSF, NIST, and others, to
strengthen our security, competitiveness, and scientific
leadership. Regarding high performance computing and artificial
intelligence, our Department of Energy labs currently operate
two out of the top three fastest supercomputers in the world,
and more coming online through the Exascale Computing
Initiative--the Exascale.
These machines serve as the infrastructure that powers the
most advanced artificial intelligence in the world. From
biotech to nomics, synthetic biology to advanced energy
batteries, industrial efficiency and material science, our
national labs support collaborative science in these areas and
are helping to create the industries of the future. As Congress
continues to invest and look forward to the R&D landscape, it
must prioritize investments across key agencies and improve
coordination across the Federal Government, including at our
Department of Energy labs.
I believe that the Committee's decision to focus on our
international competitiveness is timely, and our competitors
are increasing their investments, as they are looking at our
DOE labs as a model. We have already heard from adversaries,
including China, who have a deep interest in the United States
R&D system. And they have singled out and looked at large scale
national laboratories, which are at the center of our
scientific capabilities and our ability to meet urgent national
priorities. The President of China even characterized Los
Alamos, Argonne, Lawrence Berkeley as indispensable momentum
for the development and innovation of science and technology.
So, as you can see, I support the Department of Energy's
National Labs across the country and I believe that we need to
be driving investment in both areas, National Science
Foundation, as well as the Department of Energy. And I want to
join my colleagues who have shared that with us today.
Dr. Droegemeier, when you were Director of the Office of
Science and Technology and Policy, you led efforts to develop a
report that examined how to increase American leadership in the
industries of the future. What do you see as the role of our
national labs and the Department of Energy in this effort?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, Senator, thank you very much and I
think you have really accurately characterized the tremendous
role that DOE plays, and especially the 17 national labs. They
truly are a crown jewel of America. I think that, in this bill,
strengthening the National Science Foundation, because of its
unique capabilities of funding the preponderance of fundamental
non-medical and clinical, basic research in this country, very,
very important.
But certainly, the national labs have a role to play, as
well. And in that report you mentioned, the national labs were,
kind of, the centerpiece, really, of looking to leverage their
tremendous existing capabilities in computing and in facilities
and equipment and test beds, and things like that. And really
creating an infrastructure and a framework, I would call it,
that really goes all the way from fundamental research, all the
way to preproduction prototype development, and truly, scale
up. And frankly, the national labs are such a characteristic to
really help do that.
So, when I think you bring them into the mix with the
National Science Foundation, NIST, and other organizations that
you mentioned, we truly have the capability to do things in a
holistic, collaborative way. And we heard this from Chair
Cantwell earlier, that really is the critical thing, in my
view, to making this all work for America. So, it truly is not
a zero-sum game, as you say. There is plenty of room for NSF
enhancement, DOE lab involvement, and perhaps, enhancement, as
well.
You know, I think we all just need to recognize that we
have got a whole of nation strategy that is unlike anything
China can yield--can wield. And so, we really need to get in
there and make this work better for America and there are so
many things, I think, that we can do better, that do not take
massive investments, but they take more collaborations. It is
easy to create. It is tough to collaborate. We need to do both.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. And, Chair Cantwell, I
would like to ask unanimous consent to submit, for the record,
a letter from the directors of 17 national labs, which calls on
Congress to strengthen and increase investments across the
entire U.S. ecosystem.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you, without objections.
[The information referred to follows:]
Senator Lujan. I yield back, thank you.
Chair Cantwell. And certainly, agree that whatever
investments we make should, just as we did with COMPETES,
include something for our national labs and the great work that
they do. I think, unless Senator Lee is joining us remotely, I
think we next have Senator Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. Yes,
this is just such an important hearing, and it really just goes
to our future, the future of our country. Research is a field
of dreams from which we harvest the findings that give hope
that we are going to make the huge breakthroughs in just so
many critical areas of our existence. So, thank you for having
this very important hearing.
This committee, last year actually, passed out a piece of
legislation that was authored by myself, Senator Tillis,
Senator Collins, and Senator Peters. And that authorized $25
billion to be used for research at NIH, at DOE, at NOAA, at
NIST, at EPA--across the board. All these agencies that had
seen real fundamental hits made on their personnel and on their
ability to do research. And it did pass out of the Committee
last year and I would like to see it included in any package
that moves this year, obviously. And just wondering, Mr.
Bonvillian, if you could agree that the Endless Frontier Act
should include the provisions from the RISE Act, we called it.
That was Research Investment to Spark the Economy Act, which
has already passed out of our committee. Do you think that
should be included in the Endless Frontiers Act?
Chair Cantwell. Senator Markey, who was that directed
toward?
Senator Markey. Mr. Bonvillian. Mr. Bonvillian.
Chair Cantwell. OK, thank you.
Mr. Bonvillian. Can you hear me now?
Senator Markey. Yes.
Mr. Bonvillian. I just want to note, Senator, that the
university community and the university associations have been
very strongly supportive of your RISE legislation. The whole
research system took a major hit during COVID. Lots of research
projects had to be cut back. Graduate student careers were all
pushed back a year. Faculty and researchers were affected in
many, many ways. So, I know that there is very substantial
support for this legislation, and I am sure that the Committee,
having passed it out already, will be happy to reconsider this
here.
Some of my colleagues here on the panel are university
provosts, so I just want to note they may have some thoughts
about this, too.
Senator Markey. Is there anyone who would like to add their
comment on it, who is a university provost?
Chair Cantwell. You might have to tell them a little bit
about the--what was in the bill, Senator.
Senator Markey. OK, well, I think--I heard from Mr.
Bonvillian. I think that is great and speaks to what the
university community, writ large, was interested in when they
endorsed that legislation last year, as it came out of our
committee. And so, I thank you for that. And again, it is just
research funding across the board.
And I would like to just ask Mr. Bonvillian one final
question, and that is, a piece of legislation called the Cyber
Shield Act, which would create a program for IOT manufacturers
to voluntarily certify that their products meet industry-
leading cyber security benchmarks. They can display them with a
Cyber Shield label, that will help consumers to identify and
purchase more secure technology for their homes. Do you think
makes sense, Mr. Bonvillian, as something that we should be
including in this legislation?
Mr. Bonvillian. Senator, there is a genuine problem here,
obviously, as we are all understanding, about cybersecurity and
Internet security. There is an increasingly deep societal set
of issues here and it obviously affects consumers and the
public in a profound kind of way.
So, you know, one of the things about research and the
development of technology is, technology is always a two-edged
sword, right? There are going to be great things that come out
of technology, but there are going to be problems as well, as
you have recognized in this legislation. And we have got to
anticipate that, make sure that we are developing solutions in
parallel, as the technology evolves.
So, one of the obligations that we are going to have, if
this legislation moves, is to ensure that, in these critical
technologies, the other side of that two-edged sword is being
anticipated, thought about, and responded to. So, your Cyber
secure Shield legislation is, kind of, part of that story, I
believe.
Senator Markey. Oh, thank you. Yes, so we have to build in
the safeguards, the seatbelts, right up front, as we move
forward. There is a Dickensian quality to all these
technologies. They are the best of technologies and the worst
of technologies, simultaneously. They are only as good as the
human values that we animate them with. And so, having this
kind of a rating system for a Cyber Shield gives consumers the
ability to protect their families.
So, I thank you, Mr. Bonvillian, and I thank you, Madam
Chair.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Markey. For the
witnesses, we are getting to the end, but we do have a very
large committee. We also have a vote going on. But we will try
to get through this in the next 15 minutes, or so. So, Senator
Lee.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to all of you
for joining us today. Today's hearing is on the Endless
Frontier Act and it is part of an important debate about our
country's future and about our country's mobilization to defend
ourselves against China's threat to the U.S. homeland, to a
free and open Indo-Pacific, and to our democratic allies
abroad.
Properly counteracting the Chinese Communist Party is
necessarily going to require the United States to carefully
assess the threat and to consider how best to respond. Rushing
to enact government policy without review, and without adequate
debate, could really harm American interest. And if we are not
careful, it could end up having the opposite of the effect we
want, one where we harm our own interest and that harm, somehow
endures to the benefit of China.
It is important for us not to lose sight of how American
values, values of freedom, innovation, entrepreneurship,
market-based solutions, our commitment to free market
economics, make us a global leader. As we have this
conversation, I think we should not abandon these principals in
some sort of an attempt to compete with China by trying to beat
China at China's own game. We will lose that effort. But we
will win efforts if we focus on what has fostered the
development of the greatest civilization the world has ever
known.
China's communist approach centralizes the power of the
state and it harnesses that power, in order to control its own
people. What China pursues is nothing less than, and nothing
more than an authoritarian command and control industrial
policy. One in which ideas and innovation are subject to the
whims of the Communist Party officials, themselves. So, we
should not try to counter China by imitating China. It simply
does not work.
Dr. Droegemeier, I am concerned that our response to
increased Chinese investment in R&D is, or might become, just
to outspend China. Will, outspending China, or being like
China, in that regard, through Federal Government, actually
counter the Chinese threat?
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, Senator Lee. I think--I think
we really, certainly, do not want to operate like China. We
have our American values, that you so thoughtfully expressed.
But what I love about research is, they are very much the same
as research values--ethical behavior, mutual respect, and so
on--bold thinking.
No, I do not think outspending China--in fact, I think the
key thing is that, as we have talked about before, we really
have to do things differently. I think just pouring a lot of
money into existing frameworks is not going to get us there.
Now, we do need to increase funding. There is no question about
that. But I think to--you know, one of the things that we
talked about with the bill is to be smart and to look at
creating frameworks for allowing collaboration and interaction
across all the sectors of our research enterprise in ways that
we do not now do. And frankly, I think the pandemic gave us the
best use case for how we can accelerate, how we can really not
be completely hands tied behind our back in terms of certain
regulations that really impede progress and do not provide
value.
And so, I think, leading with our own values, but also
doing things smarter than China, better than China, and with
increased funding, I think that is really the solution for
success. It is not easy. But they take the easy route by just
doing stuff and without regard to a lot of things that we care
deeply about. We do not have to forsake those things. We can
actually use our capabilities in just the opposite way, I
think, to really lead the world, and with our values shining
brightly.
Senator Lee. That is a fair point. So, following up on
that, how much should the U.S. Government--the Federal
Government of this country, how much should it itself, not the
private sector in the United States--how much should the
Federal Government spend on R&D? 100 billion? 250 billion? Why
not a trillion dollars? Is there a point at which Federal
Government spending, in this area, becomes counterproductive?
Dr. Droegemeier. That is a great question that I have had.
As a scientist, I like look at data and say, OK, what do we
really need? What are the right numbers? And I think, you know,
we do not really have, in this country, a comprehensive science
of science policy framework to go by. I think we take the
baseline budget and say, let us add on top of it. What is it we
really need? We do have some hard data. NSF now fails to fund
about $4 billion of research every year that it could fund, if
it had the funds to do it. So, that is an important data point.
So, I do think that it is important to continue investing
in the fundamental discovery research that really is a primary
domain of the--of the Federal Government, and then, work
together with these other sectors. I think that question really
needs some serious thought, to say, what is the right number. I
do not, honestly, know what it is. And I think we, as a nation,
need to come to grips with that and we can.
I think we have the tools to really understand what it
would take to do certain levels of--of, you know,
competitiveness or achievement, if we have a long-term plan,
which we also do not have. We need a 50-year horizon, look
ahead in this country. China thinks very, very long-term. We
think the next budget cycle. We have got to think beyond--I
know it sounds weird for a meteorologist to say this. We need a
50-year--not a forecast, but a projection. An arc that allows
us to think about America over that 50-year time period.
Senator Lee. Madam Chair, I see my time has expired. Can I
just ask just one very brief follow-up question to that?
You would agree then, that there is a point--I am not sure
where it is, but there is a point beyond which Federal
Government spending might well be crowding out private
investment? And I think it is safe to say, is it not, that it
would end up spending money less efficiently than the private
sector would?
Dr. Droegemeier. I think that is right. Plus, it also can
change, I think, human behavior and expectations. It might make
people far less hungry to come up with innovative ideas. We do
not want to do that. We want people to be hungry and to work
really hard for the money they get. That is one of the
hallmarks of our system. But there is a balance point of that
and then, starving people because there is not enough funding
available.
Senator Lee. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Lee. Senator Warnock.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAPHAEL WARNOCK,
U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Warnock. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I think it
is pretty clear that we are not invested nearly enough in our
country's Federal research and development. And as a result, we
are seeing the impact of that. Certainly, I am seeing it in the
State of Georgia. West Point, Georgia is home of Kia Motors,
the only manufacturing facility for Kia in our country. It is a
factory that runs 24-hours a day. It employees more than 2,700
people, and it produces 340,000 vehicles per year. Yet, last
week, the Kia factory almost had to suspend production, for 2
days, due to the global semiconductor shortage.
The Endless Frontier Act would increase research at the
semiconductor design and fabrication, as well as protect
America's supply chains, which is also a national security
issue. So, for America to remain competitive, we have to build
public and private partnerships, and we have to invest in
research and development.
Mr. Bonvillian, how would investments in regional
innovation hubs take on some of our toughest challenges, such
as the global semiconductor shortage, as well as other issues
that can potentially cripple our manufacturing, in a state like
Georgia? You are muted.
Mr. Bonvillian. Senator, as you understand well, we need to
get through a series of stages before we get to that magical
production moment, in a way. And the role of regional
innovation is the seed bed where product, you know, can
actually materialize. You take the prototyping that has come
out of the earlier stages, including through these university
development centers and the test beds that the bill envisions.
But, you know, it is like making an airplane wing. Somebody has
got to put that wing onto an airplane, and somebody has got to
put the airplane into an airline.
The regional focus in the bill enables us to start building
innovation in-depth. It should not be focused on a few centers.
We need to broaden that innovation base across the country. And
a study that I cited in my testimony indicates there is
probably 102 different regions with the necessary assets of
university research, of community colleges and educational
institution mix, of strong businesses, both small and large, of
committed State and local government support, that can build
these ecosystems that we are going to need for regional
innovation.
So, I think that is our key element in this system that we
need to build here, if we are going to get to that production
moment. And it is true, not simply in fields like
semiconductors. It is true in the range of critical
technologies that we are discussing here. So, the regional
piece, I think, is a very important element.
Senator Warnock. Thank you so much. Another provision of
this Act is that it will dramatically increase the amount of
Federal funding and R&D available to colleges and universities.
But we know that all colleges and universities are not equally
equipped to apply for large Federal grants. Historically, such
funding has disproportionately accrued in a small handful of
large universities with very large endowments.
A recent report from the National Science Foundation found
that just 30 institutions account for 42 percent of all R&D
spending by colleges and universities across America. And none
of these 30 institutions were HBCUs--Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, or minority-serving institutions.
When the National Academies of Science examined the
underrepresentation of people of color in STEM fields. They
concluded that HBCUs and minority-serving institutions play a
critical role in training students of color for careers in
STEM. They also recommended that the Federal Government offer
grants to HBCUs and minority-serving institutions to help build
institutional research capacity, so that they can compete for
these large grants.
I would like to ask Dr. Droegemeier, what is the role of
HBCUs and MSIs in educating America's STEM workforce? And do
you see that as a big part of the issue around research and
development and its impact on supply chains?
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, Senator Warnock. Absolutely.
MSIs, HBCUs have a great role to play, and I think, in fact I
made a couple of suggestions in my written testimony in that
regard. The first one was that, as you say, a lot of these
institutions did not have the research administrative
infrastructures to support increased funding by sponsored
programs--externally sponsored research programs. So, I think
some of the funding in the bill ought to be directed to that
purpose. Because, in some cases, the worst thing you can do is
provide a lot of additional funding but not provide the
underlying infrastructure to manage it. And then, you open up
those very institutions to vulnerabilities of mismanagement of
funds, or whatever, through no fault of their own, simply
because they do not have the resources necessary to do it.
The second point is, a lot of those institutions have very
strong histories, very positive histories of teaching and
additional research funding could change, fundamentally, some
of their philosophies about how they handle, you know,
promotion and tenure guidelines, and things like that. So, I
think the presidents and chancellors of HBCUs, which meet
together as a group every year, they and others need to be
brought into the conversation early on to really understand how
the cultures of their institutions might change, were they to
get involved in additional research.
And certainly, with regard to supply chain, as you
mentioned, it is a very, very critical factor, and we need all
hands on deck. And I can tell you, I have worked with a lot of
HBCUs and minority-serving institutions, and also in small
institutions throughout the country. And when you go visit
those places, you find extraordinary talent doing extraordinary
things. So, by bringing them all to the table, I think we, as a
Nation, will realize a much greater return on the investment of
our talent than we are right now, simply because some of these
institutions, historically, have not been major players in
research, but have the capability to. We just need to help
empower them.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you. We have to go to
Senator Lummis. Thank you so much, Senator Warnock.
Senator Warnock. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Lummis. Thank you, Madam Chairman and thanks to our
panel. Really appreciate your time today. Mr. Shaw, one of the
concerns I have about NSF funding, in general, is the disparity
in funding allocation. In 2018, seven states received half of
all NSF funding and the bottom 10 states shared 3 percent of
funding. So, to put a finer point on it, California, in 2018,
received $774 million from NSF and Wyoming received $49
million. So, what can we do to alleviate this disparity and
make sure rural America has a fair shot at funding?
Dr. Shaw. Senator, thank you for the question. That is
certainly a great question and I spoke to that in some of my
opening remarks and have expanded on that in some of the
written comments that I have provided.
I think you have laid your finger on something that really
is critical if we are going to be able to move forward as a
Nation. The opportunity that we see in the--some of the
proposed language that I have seen, that highlights the EPSCoR,
the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, is
very heartening to see. And as a participant in that in our
state and, frankly, as the previous principle investigator for
our statewide EPSCoR program, I can speak very directly to the
benefits of that program.
I think we need to be looking at how we can use those
EPSCoR funds and funds like that, to be able to use it to
enhance the research infrastructure in our states. And frankly,
one of the things that we have seen in our state is, that it
also enhances something else that we have talked about a lot
during the hearing today, and that is collaboration. All of the
research institutions in the States, for Track 1 programs
within EPSCoR, are required to work together. And that is
something that has been extraordinarily beneficial in our
State, and I know in all of the other 28 jurisdictions that
fall within the EPSCoR program.
I think, above and beyond that, we need to be thinking very
broadly about some of the other programs that are outlined in
this, and that have been under discussion for quite some time.
Everything from undergraduate research programs that are very
strongly supported by NSF, but I think we need to be thinking
about that in regard to the technology directorate and ways
that we can involve undergraduate students much more directly
and broadly. All the way to some of the support that has been
suggested that we provide for, not only PhD students, but in
particular, post-graduate programs.
Senator Lummis. Thank you, Dr. Shaw. In a former life I was
on University of Wyoming's EPSCoR coordinating committee. So,
when you are talking about EPSCoR, you are near and dear to my
heart.
Mr. Droegemeier, the Endless Frontier Act plans to
establish regional technology hubs to focus on research and
commercialization of new and emerging technology. Now, keeping
in mind the disparity in NSF funding, it is important to ensure
geographic diversity in the placement of these technology hubs,
too, to see that rural states, like, Wyoming, Montana, and
North Dakota receive some locations. So, how can the bill be
updated to ensure rural and frontier states will host some of
these technology hubs and not just spoked around the big cities
and the big universities?
Dr. Droegemeier. Well, thank you, Senator. Coming from
Oklahoma, I could not agree more. As I mentioned, these sorts
of states have tremendous capabilities and, in fact, I think we
talked earlier about expanding. I think it said at least one of
those would be in an EPSCoR jurisdiction. And as Dr. Shaw just
mentioned, the one beautiful thing about EPSCoR, as you well
know, it brings the entire state together. All the different
institutions working together. So, I would see that they would
be especially competitive to put forth proposals to create
these innovation ecosystems. And frankly, if you look up and
down the middle part of the country, at all the--you know, all
the way from the Dakotas down to the Gulf Coast, you find some
of the major corporations in America, not just energy
companies, but Tyson Foods, and other companies like that.
So, I think we are--and of course, they depend a lot upon
technology. So, I think those states are really poised to do
this. And I think the bill needs to be stronger, as we heard
suggested earlier, to bring in some of these other
jurisdictions that do not historically perform as well, as far
as sponsored research to do these innovation hubs. It really
should not be a one size fits all program, frankly. A
different--a hub that is going to be, say, in one part of the
country is not going to look like a hub in another. And so,
they ought to not really be competed against one another, but
competed against what is best for America.
Senator Lummis. OK. Loved your answers. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Chair Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Lummis. Excuse me. Thank
you, Senator Lummis and I think that concludes our questions. I
just want to thank our witnesses, both here in the Capitol--I
mean, here in the building and those virtually attending. It
was such a great discussion today. We know there is a lot of
depth and breadth here to cover.
We ask you to respond to questions that members will be
submitting in writing. I plan to submit some. I think Ms.
Rhoads made a great point about whether we should be funding
patent filings, or not, for universities. I think that is a
really great way to protect our intellectual property, and
maybe you can give us comments on that.
We had a lot of conversations about STEM. I am definitely
going to submit something to ask about where we really should
we be with STEM funding, because you have all made suggestions
from fellowships to diversity, and I think this is one aspect
of it we need to focus on. And obviously, we need some more
work on the regionalism component.
But I cannot thank you enough. This has been very
illuminating and I can see from this panel, which I think does
represent diverse geography, as well as diverse interest. I
think if we left it to the people who were on this panel, we
could come up with a resolution to our questions and move
forward on getting this legislation on the Senate floor.
So, thank you very much. The hearing record will remain
open for two weeks, until April 28. Any Senators who would like
to submit questions for the record, please do so by the 21st.
Then, we ask witnesses to respond to the Committee by the 28th.
But that concludes the hearing. Thank you again for everybody's
participation. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier
Question 1. Fundamental research has enabled the technologies that
drive the modern world, from the Internet and web browsers to GPS
navigation, and led to the creation of a new digital economy. What
steps should NSF take to protect its basic research portfolio while
ensuring that we continue to create and prepare for technological
change?
Answer. Your points are exactly correct, and as I mentioned in my
written testimony, oral testimony, and response to questions at the
hearing, it is crucial NSF not lose its foundational mandate and
exceptional track record of funding curiosity-driven discovery (aka
basic) research. I do believe, however, NSF can indeed continue this
history-changing mandate while also embracing a larger role within its
organization of supporting additional use-inspired research that is
linked to specific areas of technology vital to American interests (as
mentioned in my written testimony, NSF already supports use-inspired
research in all of its seven directorates).
To your specific questions about actions NSF can take to protect
its basic research portfolio in balance with supporting use-inspired
technology research, I recommend the following:
1. To the extent NSF has the flexibility to do so via funds
appropriated within its Research and Related Activities (R&RA)
Account, NSF should increase significantly funding of the other
seven directorates to a) support the $4 billion or so of
unfunded projects judged each year to be as meritorious as
those which are funded, b) support new projects within the
other directorates that are especially of high intellectual
risk and potentially high societal reward, c) create a new
Industry Graduate Research Fellowship that is funded 1/3rd by
NSF and 2/3rds by industry, thereby greatly increasing the flow
of students into the system. Importantly, these fellowships
would not be of the traditional nature in focusing solely on
creating future researchers and faculty members, but rather
have a broader perspective of helping train students, via the
industry and other sector engagements in the Regional
Technology Hubs, in entrepreneurship, IP, business practices,
etc. That would set them apart from traditional NSF Graduate
Research Fellowships and be highly complementary to them.
2. NSF should make the new directorate specifically dependent upon
basic research funded by other parts of the Foundation.
Additionally, NSF should require the new directorate to spend a
significant fraction of its budget funding work in partnership
with other directorates, and also partner with external
interests, such as private sector companies at the
institutional strategic level, to leverage Federal resources
and create a true, tightly knit multi-sector ecosystem. This
will ensure the new directorate is always dependent upon basic
research in other parts of NSF and does not become a self-
sufficient entity unto itself.
3. To improve the engagement of all parts of America in basic
research, NSF should undertake an effort to create a strategic
plan for EPSCoR that is bold and contextualized by a new
directorate and the various things the bill seeks to
accomplish. Given NSF's strong capability to drive change in
the community, a stronger and more visionary EPSCoR program at
NSF likewise would create needed change in associated
universities, both tangible and culturally.
Question 2. What would you describe as the key characteristics that
NSF now requires to be successful?
Answer. This is a good and very important question, and I believe
NSF, going forward, needs to be an organization that (arbitrary order):
1. Does not rest on its laurels or is driven by historical inertia,
but rather leverages its powerful reputation to try new things,
such as innovative frameworks for partnering across all sectors
of the research ecosystem (industry, academia, for-profit
companies, and non-profit research foundations);
2. Funds bold, curiosity-driven research that might overturn
established paradigms but, if successful, could be
transformational--balanced with support of more use-inspired
research linked to specific societal problems;
3. Is adroit at moving certain types of research outcomes into
products and services for the benefit of society;
4. Sets the standard for innovative partnerships with private
industry at the institutional level, i.e., via direct
interaction between the NSF Director and leaders of various
companies;
5. Adjusts its internal policies and procedures (e.g., budgetary
thresholds requiring NSB approval) in ways that allow it to
move more quickly in designing and executing programs;
6. Has employees, up and down the line, who think as boldly and
transformatively as NSF and NSB leadership;
7. Engages effectively with its international counterparts,
creating bold new alliances that leverage funding, facilities,
and human capital;
8. Leads among Federal agencies in its approach to securing
research assets in a manner balanced with the open sort of
environment--including supporting researchers who come to
America to study--that is needed for America to continue
leading research globally;
9. Sets the standard for broadening participation in science and
engineering research, education and technology, both within NSF
and within the external community, in the most expansive way in
which the phrase can be defined;
10. Sets the standard for reducing administrative workload on
researchers and eliminating compliance activities that show no
real value; and
11. Promotes very strongly the values of research (e.g., honesty,
integrity, collaboration, sharing, openness, rigorous civil
debate, etc), the importance of adhering to them, and the
manner in which they reflect American values as a means for
promoting America as a collaborative partner around the world.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by the Hon. Shelley Moore
Capito
to Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier
Question 1. The Established Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR) Program is a critically important program for small,
rural states like mine. EPSCoR helps states like mine build research
capacity. Even during the COVID-pandemic, funding through EPSCoR has
allowed West Virginia to continue with various research projects in
areas ranging from advanced materials to robotics. How can Congress
better leverage the potential in EPSCoR jurisdictions?
Answer. Coming from an EPSCoR jurisdiction and having chaired the
committee that developed Oklahoma's EPSCoR Strategic Plan, I agree
completely with your statement about the importance of EPSCoR.
Unfortunately, studies have shown that, although EPSCoR has enabled
states such as West Virginia to keep pace with non-EPSCoR states (e.g.,
California, Massachusetts, Washington, Illinois), it has not narrowed
the gap between them. EPSCoR's fundamental role is to increase the
competitiveness of its jurisdictions, which I interpret to mean
improving their capabilities relative to their peers. That is not
happening for many reasons.
I believe Congress can be helpful by taking the following actions:
(1) Tasking the National Science Foundation (NSF) to undertake a
strategic planning effort for the EPSCoR program that
specifically recognizes the heterogeneity of EPSCoR
jurisdictions and the importance of allowing them to play to
their unique strengths. The current NSF grants program to
EPSCoR jurisdictions (especially the Track 1 program), in my
view, takes too much of a ``one size fits all'' approach.
Although the word ``experimental'' is now gone from the EPSCoR
definition, I believe Congress should encourage NSF to allow
much greater flexibility in what EPSCoR states propose and use
them as test beds for experimenting with new approaches to
research, e.g., engagements with industry, partnerships with
indigenous peoples.
(2) Provide waivers to EPSCoR jurisdictions of certain
administrative compliance requirements that have little to no
practical benefit but consume enormous amounts of researcher
time. Three separate surveys, conducted roughly 7 years apart
over the past 20 years, show that, on average, university
faculty funded by Federal research grants spend 42 percent to
44 percent of their time on administrative activities unrelated
to the research itself. This is an enormous waste of
intellectual horsepower not to mention taxpayer funds. Many
other studies show how these numbers can be reduced without
sacrificing transparency and accountability. Consequently,
Congress should ``run an experiment'' with EPSCoR jurisdictions
to demonstrate how greater efficiency and cost savings can be
achieved, collect data on outcomes, and carefully evaluate the
results. The COVID pandemic clearly demonstrated that America's
research enterprise can move with much greater speed and
efficiency than most thought possible if certain regulations
are streamlined or suspended--all without losing integrity or
compromising quality or accountability. Those lessons learned
should be harvested and applied more broadly, and the EPSCoR
program is the perfect place to begin with an experiment.
Question 2. Last Congress, this Committee and President Trump
signed the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act into law.
Also known as ``rip and replace,'' this legislation authorized funding
for smaller providers to ``rip'' vulnerable equipment in their
communications networks and replace it with secure alternatives. In
December, Congress was also able to provide $1.9 billion to fund this
legislation. It is for this reason--I believe--we need to reduce our
reliance on foreign production, especially in critical systems, and
encourage a more diverse supply chain. How can we encourage smaller
companies, like rural Internet service providers, to incentivize the
diversification of their supply chains over more expedient choices?
Answer. Thank you very much for supporting the TCNA. As former
Director of OSTP, I am keenly aware of the extraordinary threats posed
by malevolent actors in our communications systems and strongly believe
in securing supply chains and enhancing domestic providers. With regard
to smaller companies, especially those servicing rural areas, operating
on very thin margins provides little capability for them to address the
important problem you mention. Yet those very same areas are the ones
typically left behind by bigger carriers for the same reason. I believe
a Federal grant program might work best, in which smaller and rural-
provider companies could compete for funds, sharing some of the costs
themselves. In comparison to a pure Federal subsidy, a competition
would require such companies to take a more entrepreneurial approach,
putting skin in the game and perhaps teaming with other local providers
to maximize capability while not compromising quality of service that
rural communities rightly expect.
Additionally, agricultural extension offices at Land-grant
institutions could play an important role here as the new Land-grant
concept involves supporting not only agriculture, but also rural
technological development. As you know, each Land-grant institution has
extension offices in every county, and that connective tissue can be
leveraged to build out from agricultural support to technology and
other areas of economic development. Your staff may wish to speak with
University of West Virginia President, Dr. Gordon Gee, who is an
exceptional leader and may have additional thoughts about how Land-
grants can assist in addressing your good question. In fact, having
Land-grants coordinate the funding I mentioned above, working with
rural telecommunications providers, would be a powerful mechanism for
leveraging the assets of public university investment in ensuring
national security.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Marie Lynn Miranda, Ph.D.
Question 1. In your testimony, you mentioned that iNDustry Labs at
the University of Notre Dame works to link faculty, students, and R&D
capabilities with companies in the region to enhance the local
innovation ecosystem. Which elements of that program can be replicated
at other universities?
Answer. INDustry Labs at the University of Notre Dame operates in a
way that is similar to land grant universities' agricultural extension
programs and the manufacturing extension programs (MEPs) mentioned
during the hearing that are administered by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology. The iNDustry Lab team works with regional
partners to identify opportunities to apply modern strategies, advanced
technologies, and business management processes, helping them to remain
competitive and meet dynamically changing market needs.
As Notre Dame's mechanism for collaboration with local industry,
iNDustry Labs has dedicated resources and streamlined processes to
assist small-and medium-sized businesses unfamiliar with navigating the
opportunities presented by an R1 research institution. Its goal is to
lower the barriers to collaboration and benefit all parties.
At the heart of iNDustry Labs is an experienced staff that is savvy
in both technology and business to serve as the interface with regional
industry. These experts include ``engineers in residence''--
practitioners with strong regional ties and extensive industry
experience who match business needs with university resources,
including sophisticated labs and instrumentation as well as STEM
students and faculty members. In doing so, they function as an
innovation and transformation program for regional businesses.
The beauty of this model is that it helps modernize and grow
regional businesses, creating employment in rural areas and small
cities, while also providing university students and faculty with a
laboratory in which to apply their knowledge and skills to real-world
problems, strengthening our region and university. Connecting students
with local industry partners also creates relationships that can lead
to post-graduate employment--a win for both students and regions that
compete to attract the talented workforce they need to modernize.
INDustry Labs' broader scope--extending beyond the manufacturing
sector--distinguishes it from the MEP model. By design, iNDustry Labs
programs complement, and do not compete with or duplicate, programs run
by Purdue MEP.
Other colleges and universities can apply and adopt every aspect of
this program to help identify and address regional needs. What would be
required is a grants program funded through federal, state, and county
partnerships, similar to the mechanisms that currently fund
agricultural extension programs--or possibly by expanding the scope of
the MEP charter to increase their flexibility to both serve regionally
targeted industries beyond the manufacturing sector and draw more
substantively from the resources of regional universities. Ideally, any
of these partnerships would also involve (as Notre Dame's program does)
community colleges so that they can offer a full range of educational
and workforce development programs.
STEM Diversity. In your testimony, you spoke to the value of
broadening participation in STEM fields and the importance of both the
Graduate Research Fellowship Program and the Research Experiences for
Undergraduates program at universities across the Nation.
Question 2. What can the Federal government do to increase the
total number of people going into STEM fields?
Answer. First, it is important not to view the many careers in
STEMM fields as a single pipeline, but instead as a variety of pathways
that lead to many different careers within a STEMM-enabled workforce.
The diverse workforce required to ensure our security and global
competitiveness includes those working in STEMM fields ranging from
basic discovery science to design, development, and deployment of new
technologies such as precision agriculture, medical diagnostics, and
tele-education, to advanced manufacturing, for example.
What these pathways have in common is a fundamental understanding
and ability to apply basic science and mathematics concepts that most
students should gain in K-12 education programs. From this foundation,
pathways diverge. Some students will pursue bachelor, masters or
Ph.D.s, discovering, designing, and developing our future. Others may
pursue an associate degree, apprenticeships, or training in skilled
trade, serving as the users, deployers, and managers of advanced
technology applications. Some will identify these career paths early in
their academic training, others only after they have had real-world
experience to help them discover a fulfilling career goal.
We need all of these people and career pathways, and we should
encourage all students to pursue the level and field that best suits
them. We should also guard against the tyranny of low expectations.
Instead, we should enable and encourage all students to pursue their
highest aspirations.
To do so, we need to create funding and support mechanisms that
encourage research institutions to collaborate with middle schools and
high schools at scale, including professional development of middle and
high school science teachers who deliver STEMM curricula and support
for science-focused after school programs and summer programs at
universities. We need these students to gain meaningful on-campus STEMM
experiences. We should separately fund a full-scale analysis of the
effectiveness of different approaches.
In parallel, we should fund the development and maintenance of
networks designed to provide mentorship, research rotations,
internships, shadowing programs, support systems, and career
advancement in STEMM fields at all levels, especially as they are
relevant to gender, racial, ethnic, income, and geographic diversity.
For those pursuing higher-level STEMM degrees, we should seed-fund
the development of wrap-around services for first-generation students
and those from low resource backgrounds to ensure they can prosper in
STEMM fields. The Notre Dame Scholars program provides a good model for
such efforts, offering smaller classes, STEMM enrichment activities,
and programs that teach these students how to study and prepare more
effectively to succeed in rigorous STEMM curricula. Separately we
should fund a full-scale analysis to assess effectiveness of different
interventions and different elements of interventions, preferably as
randomized controlled trials.
At the highest educational levels, we should dramatically expand
funding for NSF Graduate Research Fellowships (GRFs) and Research
Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs), programs that are incredibly
effective at attracting and retaining young scholars in STEMM. We
should also craft and fund similar programs for high school students
and masters-level students, allowing them to gain on-campus experiences
at universities to show them what is possible for them via the pursuit
of higher-level education.
Question 3. Are there steps the Federal government should take to
ensure universities have capacity to absorb additional STEM students?
Answer. Significantly increasing the number and diversity of
university students who pursue STEMM education will require a
consequent increase in the number of faculty members required to teach
them. Moreover, as we have learned at Notre Dame, encouraging first-
generation and underrepresented minority students--who are very capable
yet often are not as well prepared coming out of high school as other
students--to persist in their chosen majors requires smaller class
sizes and additional enrichment efforts, including exposure to research
and learning skills development. Again, these students are very
capable--but once their grades (and esteem) meet the reality of
college-level chemistry and calculus, they all-too-frequently change
majors, costing our Nation talented STEMM graduates.
The Federal government could address this issue by:
(1) Providing 3-5 year grants to universities to develop the wrap-
around services that students from low resource backgrounds
require to achieve high STEMM persistence rates.
(2) Supporting serious evaluations of what works and what does not
work to develop the best practice evidence basis for
dissemination across higher education.
(3) Helping fund additional STEMM faculty members through a 5-year
program in which the government pays a portion of a new STEMM
faculty member's salary. This would create the ``ramp'' to
follow-on endowment or other faculty funding mechanisms that
could include industry partnerships or other public-private
funding. The same program should be available to community
colleges. NSF funded a similar effort in 2018 to stimulate
advances in quantum computing.
Question 4. What are the best metrics to use when evaluating
interventions aimed at improving STEM diversity?
Answer. The more specific the metrics, the better. We should seek
to measure intervention and program effectiveness by their impact on
the following:
Number and demographics of those who intend/declare STEMM
majors
Year-by-year persistence in STEMM both in total and
disaggregated by demographics
Year-by-year progress toward a STEMM degree as measured by
courses taken both in total and disaggregated by demographics
Number and percentage of students who engage in STEMM
research both in total and disaggregated by demographics
Number and percentage of students who engage in a STEMM-
related summer experience both in total and disaggregated by
demographics
Number and percentage of students who graduate with a STEMM
degree both in total and disaggregated by demographics
Number and percentage of students intending to pursue STEMM
careers both in total and disaggregated by demographics
Year-by-year evaluation of student satisfaction with STEMM
courses, STEMM majors, research experiences, advising,
internship opportunities, and supportiveness of the environment
for diverse students
At the macro level, we should also measure the number and
characterize the nature of the STEMM jobs available nationally,
regionally, and locally, so that we can tailor programs to meet demand.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Marie Lynn Miranda, Ph.D.
Diversity in STEM. Ensuring diversity in STEM education is a top
priority for me. One study found that women's authorship of scientific
journal papers declined 23 percent during the pandemic.
Question 1. Can you speak to the trends you are seeing on your
college campus of women and minorities' engagement in STEM related
research and studies?
Answer. Pandemic Impacts on Women: Evidence from a grant and
teaching relief program Notre Dame established to assist faculty whose
research and creative endeavors were disrupted by the pandemic suggests
that the pandemic negatively affected women faculty members more than
men. To be clear, we were not trying to assess gender-specific pandemic
impacts. However, women, who comprise 33 percent of our faculty,
represented 44 percent of those who applied for assistance grants and
57 percent of applications for relief from teaching courses.
Women Pursuing STEMM Education: The University of Notre Dame is a
private, residential Catholic research university with about 8,500
undergraduate students and 3,700 graduate and professional students.
Roughly 10 percent of our undergraduates attend medical schools after
graduation. As such, we have long enjoyed an above average percentage
of women pursuing science, engineering, and mathematics degrees
compared with large public research universities. In recent years, we
also have seen increased female enrollment in mathematics-heavy
programs such as neuro-biology, psychology, and economics, a field long
dominated by men.
The percentage of women undergraduates in our College of
Engineering (33 percent) is above the national average (22.5 percent).
However, this percentage has not increased during the past five years,
despite national data indicating that women increasingly graduate high
school more ``STEMM-ready'' for college than men, and we are working to
change this.
During the past five years, we have seen a 40 percent increase in
the number of women declaring majors in our College of Science. Women
currently comprise about 60 percent of our science majors even as the
overall number of students in our College of Science has increased by
roughly 43 percent. The number and percentage of women undergraduate
students receiving summer research fellowships in science has remained
roughly constant during this same time.
Underrepresented Minorities Pursuing STEMM Education: In recent
years, an increasing number of underrepresented minorities have
enrolled at Notre Dame intending to pursue a STEMM degree. However,
many of these very capable students have not had the benefit of
advanced high school science, engineering, and mathematics enrichment
courses and programs that their white counterparts have experienced. As
a result, the confidence and self-esteem of these first-generation and
underrepresented minority students suffer when they encounter the
rigors of college-level science and engineering curricula, and many
choose to transfer to other academic degree programs.
To address this concern, in 2018 Notre Dame created a STEMM
Scholars Program to support, encourage, and mentor first-year students
pursuing STEMM degrees who may not be as well-prepared as other
students. We assign them to carefully designed cohorts with smaller
classes and provide them with enrichment programs that feature selected
faculty members, who are often underrepresented minorities or were
first-generation students themselves. Through multiple years of data
collection and analyses, we know that these students can succeed in
STEMM fields and that they bring important diversity to our university
community. Data collected to assess the effectiveness of this program
indicate that students taking part in the program are more likely to be
``on track'' toward STEMM degree completion. In the first cohort, 80
percent of program participants were taking appropriate courses in
sequence compared to 69 percent of similar students in a control group.
In the second cohort, 96 percent of program participants were on track
compared with 90 percent of the control group. Moreover, 86 percent of
program participants have a grade point average above 3.0, compared
with 69 percent of students in the control group. Though the results of
this program are encouraging, this effort suffered a setback during the
pandemic when restrictions limited in-person student engagement with
faculty members and peers. Though we have yet to conduct a detailed
analysis of the effects, we have seen an increase in the number of
first-year women and minority students who transferred from STEMM to
other degree programs during 2021. We will redouble our efforts to
reverse this decline starting in the fall of 2021.
Question 2. In your view, what more can be done to help increase
women and minorities pursuing careers in STEM?
Answer. The importance of women and underrepresented minority role
models in STEMM fields cannot be overstated. We need to help young
women and minority students see others who look like themselves leading
and succeeding in STEMM careers so that they believe it is possible for
them to succeed as well.
It also is important not to view the many careers in STEMM fields
as a single ``pipeline,'' but rather as a variety of pathways that lead
to many different STEMM careers. What these pathways have in common is
a fundamental understanding and ability to apply basic science and
mathematics concepts that students should begin gaining in K-12
education programs.
From this foundation, pathways diverge. Some students will pursue a
bachelor's, master's, or Ph.D., discovering, designing, and developing
our future. Others may pursue an associate's degree, apprenticeships,
or training in a skilled trade, serving as the users, deployers, and
managers of advanced technology applications. Some identify these
career paths early in their academic training, others only after they
have had real-world experience to help them discover a fulfilling
career goal. We must guard against the tyranny of low expectations.
Instead, we should enable and encourage all students to pursue their
highest aspirations. In my written testimony, I highlighted the need to
fund and support mechanisms that encourage research institutions to
collaborate with middle schools and high schools at scale, including
professional development of middle and high school science teachers who
deliver STEMM curricula and support for science-focused after-school
programs and summer programs at universities. We need these students to
gain meaningful on-campus STEMM experiences. We should separately fund
a full-scale analysis of the effectiveness of different approaches. In
parallel, we should fund the development and maintenance of networks
designed to provide mentorship, research rotations, internships,
shadowing programs, support systems, and career advancement in STEMM
fields at all levels, especially as they are relevant to gender,
racial, ethnic, income, and geographic diversity.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to
Marie Lynn Miranda, Ph.D.
Question 1. Last Congress, I join my colleague Senator Rosen in
introducing the Building Blocks of STEM Act. Among other things, this
legislation modified NSF's Discovery Research PreK-12 program to more
equitably distribute funding to elementary and prekindergarten
education. Last Congress, we were able to get this legislation passed
and signed into law. I was proud to work with Senator Rosen on this
bipartisan legislation to encourage more young women to explore STEM
fields. How important is it to instill creativity and curiosity in
younger students--and especially young girls?
Answer. I commend Senator Capito, Senator Rosen, and their
colleagues for their bipartisan efforts to pass the Building Blocks of
STEM Act during the 116th Congress. Curiosity, creativity, and problem-
solving skills are all essential building blocks for anyone pursuing
STEMM (science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine) careers,
and this is especially true for Pre-K girls and underrepresented
minority students.
Just as we know from literacy studies that reading interventions
for kindergarten students result, on average, in a 15 percent higher
reading score in the 3rd grade \1\, so too do we know that mathematics
interventions targeted to 3-to-5-year-olds, such as Rightstart, Pre-K
Mathematics, and Building Blocks, help students develop numerical and
spatial/geometric reasoning. Large scale studies of these curricula
have shown that low-income students participating in these programs
out-performed not only a control group of similar peers, but also
students from middle-class backgrounds embedded in a mathematics
enriched environment. Other non-achievement-based outcomes also are
shaped in critical ways at this age level \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Wanzek, J., Stevens, E. A., Williams, K. J., Scammacca, N.,
Vaughn, S., & Sargent, K. (2018). Current evidence on the effects of
intensive early reading interventions. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 51(6), 612-624.
\2\ Clement, D., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood mathematics
intervention. Science, 333(6045), 968-970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In one study, children ages 3 to 7, working with a curriculum using
engineering storybooks more strongly identified themselves as potential
engineers following the experience \3\. Promising early childhood
interventions, therefore, address both cognitive development and the
development of STEMM identities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pantoya, M. L., Aguirre-Munoz, Z., & Hunt, E. M. (2015).
Developing an engineering identity in early childhood. American Journal
of Engineering Education, 6(2), 61-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, as we look at representation across the STEMM
disciplines, it is necessary to take a nuanced approach to analyzing
the conditions that are fertile for the flourishing of women in STEMM
pathways. While data reported by the National Science Foundation
indicate that women now earn the majority of degrees in certain STEMM
fields (e.g., at least 60 percent of bachelors and master's degrees,
and more than half of doctoral degrees in biological sciences), women
remain persistently underrepresented in a number of disciplines,
including computer science, engineering, and mathematics, and
statistics \4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321/report/field-of-degree-
women#overview
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, it is important to identify ways in which young people
can be exposed to a range of experiences in underrepresented sectors of
STEMM at an early age, so that we foster their interest, help them
construct a positive identity toward these disciplines, and reduce the
potential for them to form negative stereotypes.
There is growing evidence that young children, even in pre-school,
develop persistent and individualized interest in activities and topics
that impact subsequent learning and development \5\. Early
opportunities to engage in meaningful STEMM, such as the types of
experiences in pre-kindergarten and the elementary grades that you
advocated for in your legislation, can have powerful and formative
impacts on young students that can prime them for the ongoing
development of creativity and curiosity during future years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2015). Early science learning
experiences: Triggered and maintained interest. In Renninger K. A.,
Nieswandt M., Hidi S. (Eds.), Interest in mathematics and science
learning (pp. 17-32). American Educational Research Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At Notre Dame, we recognize the importance of early childhood
interventions and the roles they play in the flourishing of children.
For example, the Head Start on Engineering project, co-directed by Dr.
Gina Navoa Svarovsky at Notre Dame's Center for STEM Education, looks
at how 4-and 5-year-old children and their families engage with
appropriate engineering activities as a way to build early engineering
interest and understanding.
Findings from Dr. Svarovsky's work suggest that an early interest
in STEMM education for young children is not only an individual
phenomenon, but also one that occurs at the family level--thereby
pointing to new avenues and pathways that may lead to increased
curiosity and creativity, and ultimately, more students pursuing STEMM
careers \6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Pattison, S., Svarovsky, G., Ramos-Montanez, S., Gontan, I.,
Weiss, S., Nunez, V., Corrie, P., Smith, C., & Benne, M. (2020).
Understanding early childhood engineering interest development as a
family-level systems phenomenon: Findings from the Head Start on
Engineering Project. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education
Research (J-PEER), 10(1), 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, it is the combination of interest and identity--formed by
curiosity and creativity at a young age--that lead children to pursue
STEMM education and careers. It starts with children asking questions,
seeking answers, and constructing meaning about the world around them,
all practices that are foundational to science, mathematics,
engineering, and computer science.
Moreover, we see evidence from large data sets of high school
students that these motivational variables, interest and identity, are
the strongest predictors of an individual's desire to pursue a STEMM
career. This is particularly important for underrepresented populations
in STEMM, like women and minorities \7\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Andersen, L., & Ward, T. (2014). Expectancy-value models for
the STEM persistence plans of ninth-grade, high-ability students: A
comparison between black, Hispanic, and white students. Science
Education, 98(2), 216-242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Dr. David Shaw
Question. I recently visited the Rose-Hulman Institute of
Technology in Indiana, which has adopted a unique model of partnering
with local industry to give students real world engineering and
entrepreneurship experience. You talked about the importance of
entrepreneurship in your testimony. What can we learn about teaching
engineering and entrepreneurship from your experience at Mississippi
State?
Answer. Mississippi State University's Entrepreneurship Center (E-
Center) is an award-winning program that is led by the College of
Business but with student and faculty participation from across the
university. The E-Center is responsible for a number of successful
student startup companies. Its primary location is on the MSU campus,
but has opened up an Idea Shop in downtown Starkville as well as a
Maker Space downtown. The E-Center participates in the National Science
Foundation's I-Corps program, which provides training to learn the
fundamentals of building business models, along with travel funds, and
access to follow-on grants from the NSF in excess of $1M. The E-Center
has created a comprehensive, co-curricular program for MSU's students
and faculty who are interested in starting a successful, investor-
backed company called VentureCatalyst.
What continually amazes me is the creativity of our students when
given the opportunity to collaborate across disciplines, generating
ideas that engender enthusiasm from our alumni supporters as well as
the venture capital community. Entrepreneurship can happen anywhere in
the U.S. where innovation is fostered and encouraged.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to
Dr. David Shaw
Question 1. The Established Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR) Program is a critically important program for small,
rural states like mine. EPSCoR helps states like mine build research
capacity. Even during the COVID-pandemic, funding through EPSCoR has
allowed West Virginia to continue with various research projects in
areas ranging from advanced materials to robotics. How can Congress
better leverage the potential in EPSCoR jurisdictions?
Answer. The EPSCoR program does in fact play a vital role in
building research capacity in qualifying jurisdictions. EPSCoR states
are blessed with highly competent researchers, and we simply need to be
given the opportunity to compete on a level playing field in order to
maximize the scientific benefits derived from these investments.
Currently there is discussion about 20 percent provision to the EPSCoR
program; this would be a substantial and appropriate level of funding
to ensure the geographic diversity that all recognize is needed.
It is exciting to see some of the ideas put forth in the Endless
Frontier Act language that recognizes the need to give students,
regardless of geography, the opportunity to participate in cutting edge
scientific endeavors. However, the language does not go far enough in
ensuring that the same few major research institutions do not yet again
receive most of this funding. That is not to say that high-quality,
peer-reviewed science should not be funded. Rather, specifying that a
substantial portion of the funds be set aside for competition among
institutions who are not in the top 1 percent of NSF funding would
accomplish this effectively, ensuring geographic diversity and
maximizing impact on our Nation.
In addition, the concept of additional funding for technology
development research, with a portion set aside for the EPSCoR program,
is very encouraging. Ensuring additional funding targeted for EPSCoR
jurisdictions will provide tremendous benefit to our states. This
program will, in many instances, dramatically benefit EPSCoR states,
since our institutions often are very focused on applied science and
technology development for our states, since this is a often a pressing
need.
Question 2. In 2018, my home state of West Virginia received $280
million out of the total $125 billion Federal investment in research
and development. Dr. Shaw, I agree with your sentiments that Congress
should address the disparity between states. How can Congress ensure a
more balanced geographic distribution of Federal research funding?
Answer. Several suggestions have been given above, all of which
would greatly aid in a more equitable geographic distribution of NSF
funding. In addition, Regional Hubs, Manufacturing USA consortia, and
Innovation Centers all contain language that gives a nod to the
involvement of universities in EPSCoR jurisdictions, and to geographic
diversity. However, this simply is not enough. In many past instances,
the same few universities that receive the vast majority of funds
simply add an institution in an EPSCoR jurisdiction, without providing
significant funding or leadership roles. To balance this, NSF should be
required to have a substantial number of these various consortia and
centers to be led by institutions in EPSCoR jurisdictions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
William B. Bonvillian
Question 1. Investing in cybersecurity workforce development on a
broad scale is a priority for me and for the Washington State economy.
During the New Deal era, Washington workers benefitted from public
works programs that included job training. How can today's Federal
government leverage existing programs and, as appropriate, establish
new programs to rapidly and substantially grow the cybersecurity
workforce?
Answer. I noted in my testimony to the Committee on April 14th the
important role played by NSF's Advanced Technological Education (ATE)
Program. This program is already playing a significant role in the
massive task of training a skilled cybersecurity workforce, and could
be further expanded. As the Committee knows, the ATE program provides
grants for the development of innovative workforce education efforts
for educated highly skilled technicians for industries important to the
future of our economy. Cybersecurity is one of those fields. Because
they are nation's key mechanism for skilled workforce education,
educators at 2-year institutions--community and technical colleges--are
the major recipients of ATE funding, and the program encourages
consortia led by these schools that include industry and universities.
The 2-year schools offer career pathways with certificates and degrees
that can lead to jobs in key technical fields. ATE funds both Centers
of Excellence in advanced fields, as well as smaller more focused
project grants. In cybersecurity education, ATE has funded five
Centers, and each in turn, helps create cybersecurity programs at
numerous participating schools (see, Mariacopa CC and NSF, ATE Centers
for Cybersecurity Education, 2016 (updated)). To cite one example, the
center in Daytona, Florida developed curricula and five fully
accessible cybersecurity courses for 2-year institutions with video and
scenarios that promote ``real life'' technical skills and technical
report-writing, it developed online courses for cybersecurity faculty
training at 58 institutions in 25 states, and it held and enabled high
school-level cyber camps to encourage participation in this new field.
The other four centers have launched comparable innovative programs.
In my view, further expansion of ATE programs, and ensuring close
connections and linked programs between ATE and the new Technology
Directorate proposed in the Endless Frontier Act, as well as the
proposed university tech development centers and the proposed regional
innovation centers, could further improve technical education in
critical new technology areas. A workforce education component should
be built into their roles.
In addition, a new Advanced Manufacturing Institute (CyManII--
https://cymanii.org/about-us/) for cybersecurity in manufacturing has
recently been established through DOE. Headquartered in Texas, its 59
initial members include major companies and universities. Workforce
education along with technology development is a specific mission for
Institutes. While this institute is starting up, other Institutes have
created workforce education programs that:
Develop competencies and ``Knowledge, Skill and Abilities''
(KSA) in the Institute's technology area that can be used by
employers and education institutions.
Develop demonstration and training centers for workforces to
train on new equipment and processes--and for student training
programs.
Engage in training efforts with regional industry, community
colleges and high schools.
Map skill demands and develop skill roadmaps in their
technology areas and tie these to their technology development
roadmaps
Track evidence of trends in workforce skill development in
the technology area affected by the Institute's programs.
Develop online education in their technology area (and in
some cases, computer gaming and VR/AR for hands on learning),
which is key to scaling.
Certify education programs in their technology area and
develop, as needed, with their industry members, new industry-
approved credentials, so educators and workers know what to
train for.
Thus, the Manufacturing Institutes are developing an important
workforce education role in advanced technologies, as well, and merit
further support, as the Endless Frontier Act proposes.
Question 2. Innovation requires an ecosystem and that ecosystem
can't work without trained workers. You have previously reviewed the
Manufacturing USA program, which is experimenting with new ways to
train the workforce, and work at MIT, a leader in online education.
Given your experience with those efforts, what elements and best
practices are necessary to build a workforce that's ready to lead the
way on new technologies, particularly to train individuals who
typically do not have access to other educational programs?
Answer. Drawing from the specific findings from a benchmarking
study for the State of Massachusetts on best practices for advanced
manufacturing education (see, MIT Open Learning, MassBridge: Advanced
Manufacturing Education Workforce Education Program, 44-46 (April
2021)), which I prepared with MIT colleagues, as well as from a new
book (see, Workforce Education, A New Roadmap, 207-235 (2021), with
Sanjay Sarma), below are a series of recommendations that exemplify
some of the best practices in workforce education, which may be useful
to the committee:
1. Break down the work/learn barrier. Employers and educational
institutions need collaborate closely on content development
and content delivery for workforce education. Strong programs
offer a work component for students, which can range from
internships to formal apprenticeships, along with academic
instruction.
2. Employers should collaborate with each other. Stand-alone
programs where individual firms provide their own training tend
to be inefficient; it is better if groups of firms share the
costs and risks of workforce education. Better still is where
larger firms and their regional suppliers can band together
since efficient workforce education requires adoption across
supply chains. These employers in turn need to work with area
educational institutions and state education and labor
programs, in offering programs and in designing and updating
curricula to meet workplace needs. Education institutions can
help manage the infrastructure for these consortia, shouldering
much of the administrative burden.
3. Reach new entrant, underemployed, and incumbent workers.
Educational institutions need to adapt their program mix to
reach all of these participants. If an institution--a community
college and/or employer consortia--can reach all three groups,
the elements become reinforcing. A program for incumbent
workers requires close contact with employers, which helps keep
programs for all students current with industry needs.
Community college or employer programs can also reach high
school students, helping to break down the work/learn barrier
and link high school students to college opportunities.
4. Embrace certificates and shorter-term programs. In addition to
offering only full degrees earned in a fixed period of time,
educational institutions should be encouraged to provide
shorter-term certificates, based on acquired competencies, that
be stacked and can accumulate toward degrees. Certificate
programs can help workforce education fit students with limited
time availability and employers with particular skill
requirements. Degrees that take two years or more will still be
needed but can be based on a series of related, stackable
credentials. This, in turn, can enable short programs that help
workers get to required skills and employment earlier, plus
there is a pathway toward additional skills or a degree, as
desired.
5. Embed an industry-recognized credential into education
institutions' certificates. Academic credentials are not
enough. Many employers increasingly want the assurance of skill
knowledge that an industry-approved and accepted credential
provides. It creates an additional and parallel pathway to help
students toward employment. It also ensures that academic
programs are relevant to actual industry needs.
6. Ensure access to advanced manufacturing equipment. Employers want
students who have actual experience with the latest production
technologies. Because of the cost of equipment, there is a
significant challenge in getting students hands-on learning,
particularly for advanced equipment. One approach is for a
state to create regional technology centers shared by consortia
of community colleges, high schools, and employers. In addition
to providing efficient student access to equipment, providing
companies access can help them test and experiment with new
equipment, evaluating how it can improve their production
process, and assist in training for their workers.
7. Apply new education technologies that can scale. We are not
educating adequate numbers of workers with skills required for
the new technologies, so online education, which can scale
rapidly, will be a key step. Education offerings with new
content can be blended, combining face-to-face with online
education, which can help expand their reach to much higher
numbers of students. Hands-on learning remains critical, but
actual equipment can be supplemented with advanced
technologies, including computer gaming-based courses and
Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality (VR/AR) technologies.
8. Create cross-state industry and community college coordination
mechanisms. A state-wide organization for employers in key
industrial sectors, as well as working consortia of the state's
community colleges, that work together to implement workforce
education programs for new technologies, is needed. This
ongoing industry and school collaboration is key to developing
new programs and keeping them current.