[Senate Hearing 113-641]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-641
AMERICA COMPETES:
SCIENCE AND THE U.S. ECONOMY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 6, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-535 WASHINGTON : 2015
______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK WARNER, Virginia DAN COATS, Indiana
MARK BEGICH, Alaska TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
David Schwietert, Republican Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 6, 2013................................. 1
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 33
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 67
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 69
Statement of Senator Johnson..................................... 71
Statement of Senator Scott....................................... 73
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 75
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 77
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 79
Witnesses
Hon. Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senator from Tennessee................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Open letter dated October 9, 2013 to Hon. John D. Rockefeller
IV and Hon. John Thune..................................... 6
Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Vice President for Research, Regents'
Professor of Meteorology and Weathernews Chair Emeritus,
University of Oklahoma, and Vice Chairman, National Science
Board.......................................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Dr. Saul Perlmutter, Professor of Physics, University of
California, Berkeley; Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory............................................ 42
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Dr. Maria M. Klawe, President, Harvey Mudd College............... 51
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Stephen S. Tang, Ph.D., MBA, President and CEO, University City
Science Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania..................... 57
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Kelvin K.
Droegemeier by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 85
Hon. Mark Warner............................................. 89
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 94
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 95
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Saul Perlmutter
by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 98
Hon. Mark Warner............................................. 98
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 100
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Maria M. Klawe by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 100
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 101
Hon. Mark Warner............................................. 102
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 103
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Stephen S. Tang
by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 104
Hon. Mark Warner............................................. 105
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 107
AMERICA COMPETES:
SCIENCE AND THE U.S. ECONOMY
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D.
Rockefeller IV, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, this hearing will come
to order. And the vast attendance, let it fool you not, people
will be coming in. That I'm on time is something of a miracle.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Much less other members.
I have no way of expressing how happy I am to welcome
Senator Lamar Alexander.
I'm making, I just made the point to the Honorable Senator
Thune that you and my son's wife's father were roommates at law
school; is that correct?
Senator Alexander. That's correct.
The Chairman. Was that Georgetown?
Senator Alexander. NYU.
The Chairman. That's what I said.
And you, sir, have been a champion of this program from the
very, very beginning. And I know that you have to leave right
after your presentation, but we very much look forward to it.
And so you're on.
Senator Alexander. Well, thank you.
The Chairman. Give us history.
Senator Alexander. I thought I'd have the privilege of
listening to you and Senator Thune before, but I'll be glad to
go ahead.
The Chairman. We'll go right after you.
Senator Alexander. All right. Thanks very much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Ranking Member Thune, distinguished Senators. Thanks for
letting me come by.
I'll try to keep my remarks to five minutes. I think that's
what has been suggested to me. But let me start with exactly
what I'm asking you to consider doing, and that is to authorize
the appropriations committees to finish the job that the
Congress started in an overwhelming remarkable bipartisan way
in 2007 to double the research budgets of our--to double the
budgets of our major research institutions in the Federal
Government. That's what I am here to support.
And at the same time as you reauthorize America COMPETES,
look for duplicate programs, look for waste; this is a time
when we don't have any money to waste; and reauthorize the
necessary programs that were authorized in 2007 and 2010. But
the main goal is to finish the job stated in 2007 by
legislation that was sponsored by the majority leader and by
the minority leader and at one time, based on my memory, had 35
Republican sponsors and 35 Democratic sponsors. We'd never seen
anything quite like it.
And then when the Senate changed hands and we went from a
Republican to a Democratic Senate, the principle sponsors just
switched positions and sponsors became Senator Reed and Senator
McConnell. So that's the history of the American COMPETES
legislation. Now.
Let me see if I can be persuasive here by posing a
question. Why do you suppose that the United States is able to
produce 22 percent of all the money in the world and distribute
it among just below 5 percent of all the people in the world?
How did we get that fortunate?
Well, there are many reasons, but basically our brains are
the same as people around the world. We work hard, but we don't
work that much harder than people in other countries. So how
did this happen?
Most people believe that, while there are many factors,
that the overwhelming factor since World War II is our
technological advantage. In other words, we have a high
standard of living because of our technological advantage since
World War II.
It's because of stories like this, a small government
agency called DARPA in the Defense Department, which was
founded in 1958 at about the time of the Sputnik trouble and in
which the U.S. Government invests small amounts of money in
startup companies and then sends them out in the marketplace to
see if they survive and often buys what they produce.
DARPA has invented such things as the Internet, stealth,
speech-recognition software, and GPS, just a few things over
that long period of time. Or a cousin to DARPA, which was
created in 2007, by the legislation we're talking about today,
which is called ARPA-E, it's in the energy department, already
it has given a few million dollars, 4 million dollars, to a
startup company that has doubled the energy density of
rechargeable Lithium batteries. In other words, that could
make, that could cut in half the cost of a battery or cause an
electric car to go twice as far.
Or there's another invention, innovation going on in ARPA-
E, in which Senator, the Chairman will be especially
interested; it will use electricity and CO2 to make
liquid fuel. If that works, and it hasn't worked yet in a
commercially viable way, but if you can actually combine
electricity and CO2 in some way to produce liquid
fuel that could be sold, why then you could burn all the coal
we have in the United States because we already have a way to
deal with pollution from sulphur, nitrogen, and mercury. We
don't have a very good way to capture carbon, but if this
works, we would in a commercially viable way.
Then in the Office of Science, there has recently been an
innovation that creates an artificial retinae and literally
allows blind people to begin to see. It doesn't work for
everybody. It's just beginning, but it's a remarkable
beginning.
And perhaps the most extensive story is the role of the
Federal Government in unconventional gas. Our prosperity today
depends a lot on cheap natural gas. And of course much of that
came from our big market, from entrepreneurs, from capital,
from private landownership, all those things; but also from
support from the Federal Government in a hydraulic fracturing
demonstration project and inventing three-dimensional mapping.
So it's literally true what the scientists at Sandia
Laboratory told me, that it's hard to think of a major
development in the physical and biological sciences since World
War II that didn't have some government-sponsored research
behind it.
Now the rest of the world has noticed that we produce 22
percent of all the money in the world and just have a little
less than 5 percent of the people. In 2006 while we were first
starting America COMPETES, I was part of a Senators delegation
to China. I was lucky to go because it was led by Senator
Stevens, who flew the first cargo plane in 1944 into China and
Senator Inouye, who is a congressional Medal of Honor winner,
so they were well treated over there.
And President Hu and Vice President Wu spent a lot of time
with us. And what was interesting to me was instead of talking
about Iraq, Iran, North Korea, all those subjects; they wanted
to talk about American competitiveness and Chinese
competitiveness. And President Hu walked down the Great Hall of
China not long after that and announced that they would spend 4
percent of their GDP for 15 years in order to try to catch up
with the United States and with other countries in terms of
standard of living. So they wanted to use, they wanted to
create a brain-power advantage for their standard of living.
The same brain-power advantage we already have.
Now that's not how we have to do it in the United States.
President Obama can't just summon all of us to the Great Hall
of America and tell us what to do. We can't even tell ourselves
what to do. We have a messy democratic process we have to
follow, but we did that. And in 2005, I remember sitting in a
budget hearing, the end of a long day, I was getting very
discouraged because it reminded me of my days as Governor when
I would sit there and watch all the Medicaid costs go up and it
was taking money away from higher education and I knew that if
I wanted to a pro-growth state, I had to improve the schools
and the research and the higher education system.
I've seen the same thing happen here in the Federal budget.
All the money for entitlement is going up. We're squeezing out
the investments in the research that has given us our high
standard of living. So I walked down to the National Academy of
Sciences that day, they were completing a meeting, and I said,
``I believe if you all would tell us the ten things in priority
order that we could do as a Congress that would make America
more competitive, I believe we'd do it.'' Because what we
usually lack around here is the lack of a specific idea.
They assembled a distinguished group of 20, Norman
Augustine headed it, and very quickly they produced something,
a report called, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which
has gotten pretty famous. They recommended 20 things for us to
do. We went to work through three committees including this
one. It was very complicated. We had lots of Senators involved.
We had many hearings. We got President Bush involved.
Long and short, after 2 years we were at a point where we
almost unanimously passed a plan, whose major feature was to
authorize the doubling of research in our scientific
enterprises over the next 7 years. As I said, it was sponsored
by the majority and minority leader and it had 70 or 80 members
of the Senate as cosponsors of the bill and it had been through
three different committees to get it done.
Well, we haven't quite lived up to what we said we would
do, but we've done pretty well. About two-thirds of the
recommendations from here are enacted into law. We are asking
you to reauthorize those that work. And we've made some
progress on funding the National Academy of--the National
Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the Office of Science in the Department of Energy,
and the new little ARPA-E endeavor that I talked about, which
is $264 million of funding this year.
So what there is to do in this committee, I would
respectfully suggest, is to authorize the appropriations
committees to finish the job of doubling our funding for
research so we can keep our high standard of living.
Where does the money come from? These are tight times.
Well, our budget is $3.6 trillion. Our research funding is 4
percent of that, so $140 billion, which seems like a lot; but
the Chinese level of funding for the next 15 years is 4 percent
of their gross domestic product. If we were to do 4 percent of
our gross domestic product, we'd have a research budget of $600
billion, 4 times what it actually is.
And we ought to, you know, governing is about setting
priorities, there are plenty of things we do that are less
important than this, if we want to keep our high standard of
living. Now I know there are some on my side of the aisle who
sometimes think that the authorizing committees are supposed to
also be the appropriations committees. I don't. You know, if
that's the case, then we ought to get rid of one or the other.
So I think it's up to you, if I may say so, to authorize
what our goals should be. And it's up to those of us on the
appropriations committee to decide how much to spend each year.
So I thank you for your time. I wish you well in the
progress. I would like to rekindle the same enthusiasm that we
had when we began this in 2006 and 2007. And in case that
enthusiasm is slow coming, I can read you this one sentence
from the group of distinguished Americans who revisited our
competitive position in the world last year and issued this
question and this answer.
So where does America stand relative to its position of 5
years ago when the Gathering Storm report was prepared? Answer:
The unanimous view of the Committee members participating in
this preparation of this report is that our Nation's outlook
has not improved, but rather has worsened. There are a lot of
other people in the world who have good brains. There are a lot
of other people in the world who work hard. They see we've got
22, 23 percent of all the money in the world each year for just
5 percent of the people, and they want a bigger share. So if we
want to keep our standard of living, I suggest that we finish
the job.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Senator Alexander follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senator from Tennessee
I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for inviting me
here today to speak on this important topic, America's competitiveness,
and the law that helps to maintain America's competitiveness--The
America COMPETES Act.
America COMPETES Act was signed into law under President Bush in
2007. This act authorized several important programs to maintain
America's competitiveness.
To understand America COMPETES, it's important to recognize that
this was a major bipartisan effort, so much so, that the America
COMPETES legislation was introduced by the Senate Majority and Minority
leaders and had 30 Republican Senators, 38 Democratic Senators and 1
Independent Senator as cosponsors.
Few issues over the last decade have garnered this much bipartisan
support; so let me explain why this does.
In 2005, a Republican Congress, in response to concerns from the
National Academies and business and education leaders ``that a
weakening of science and technology in the United States would
inevitably degrade its social and economic conditions and in particular
erode the ability of its citizens to compete for high-quality jobs,''
sought to strengthen and ensure America's competitiveness.
We started this process by asking the National Academies what are
the 10 things that Congress can do to ensure America's competitiveness?
The National Academies organized a committee of business,
education, and science leaders led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman
Augustine, which then responded to Congress with 4 recommendations and
20 action items in the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report.
We took this report, recommendations from the Council on
Competitiveness, and President Bush's American Competitiveness
Initiative and developed the America COMPETES Act, which was signed
into law by President George W. Bush.
The results have been successful:
A 2012 Government Accountability Office review of ARPA-E
found that it ``successfully funded projects that would not
have been funded solely by private investors, in keeping with
its goals''--These types of projects include better batteries
for energy storage and addressing the growing global shortage
of rare earth materials used in magnets that are used in
electronics.
Many of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) programs are contributing to their stated
goals, such as integrating research with education, which has
resulted in ``more students deciding to go to graduate school
or to consider a career in research.''
Lastly, America COMPETES funds research at our national
labs, which are the crown jewel in the ``innovation
ecosystem.'' Just in the last decade there are several success
stories from our national labs such as:
Tools for increased border security like millimeter
wave scanners at airports
Energy efficiency technology that could save $5
billion in fuel costs for the long haul trucking industry
Advancing medicine like FDA-approved drugs for cancer
and AIDS treatment and artificial retina technology--that
allowed a blind man to detect motion and differentiate
simple objects.
Even with these successes the work is not over, which is why we
must reauthorize America COMPETES.
Just this month over 300 organizations, including universities from
all 50 states along with businesses like Intel, IBM, Proctor & Gamble &
Nissan USA, and chambers of commerce from across the country, sent a
letter urging Congress to close our ``innovation deficit'' by passing a
strong America COMPETES Act reauthorization bill.
Updates and changes to the programs need to be made to continue to
combat the ever-increasing global competition.
But these changes can be made while also encompassing the
principles suggested in the aforementioned letter--a bill that ``set[s]
funding targets that call for real and sustained growth in funding for
the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Standards
and Technology (NIST), Department of Energy Office of Science, and the
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).''
Even in our current times of fiscal constraints, we must continue
to fund research and development.
As Dr. Thom Mason, Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory has
said, ``It's hard to think of a major technological breakthrough in the
physical or biological sciences since World War II that has not been
helped by government-sponsored research.''
The Chairman. Powerful and eloquent.
Senator Alexander. And may I submit for the record two
things, Mr. Chairman? One is the abbreviated copy of this
original report. It's just a few pages. And that, not this, but
a few--a summary of it. And the second is a letter from, well,
more than--or from 200 university presidents and many
organizations across the country who support the importance of
this reauthorization of America COMPETES.
The Chairman. Is Chuck Vest on that list? He should be.
Senator Alexander. Well, Chuck Vest was a major----
The Chairman. He was head of MIT.
Senator Alexander.--force----
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Alexander.--in terms of the early efforts along
with Norm Augustine and a whole group of others. Chuck, he has
been a very important part of all of this from the beginning.
The Chairman. As have you, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
October 9, 2013
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Thune,
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Thune:
As over 200 university presidents have stated in an open letter to
President Obama and the U.S. Congress ``[t]he combination of eroding
Federal investments in research and higher education, additional cuts
due to sequestration, and the enormous resources other nations are
pouring into these areas is creating a new kind of deficit for the
United States: an innovation deficit.'' We write now, as leading higher
education, research, science and business organizations to urge you to
send a clear signal that the U.S. Congress is serious about closing the
innovation deficit by introducing and passing a strong America COMPETES
Act reauthorization bill that authorizes increased funding for key U.S.
science agencies.
In both 2007 and 2010, the U.S. Congress passed COMPETES
legislation with bipartisan support. With the passage of these bills,
Congress established funding targets aimed at doubling funding for
these key Federal research agencies within seven years with the goal of
ensuring continued U.S. leadership in science and technology which
provides the foundation for our global and economic competitiveness.
These bills sent an important message to the world that our Nation and
Congress were resolute about addressing concerns raised about the
future health of the United States economy by the 2007 National
Academies Report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' This report came
in response to a request from a bipartisan group of Senators and House
Members who asked what actions policy makers needed to take ``. . . to
enhance the science and technology enterprise so that the United States
can successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global
community of the 21st century''.
Despite the difficulty of achieving the doubling goal for research
funding in the current fiscal environment, we strongly believe a core
component of a renewed America COMPETES Act--and one that will be
essential for our support--must be to set funding targets that call for
real and sustained growth in funding for the National Science
Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Standards and Technology
(NIST), Department of Energy Office of Science, and the Advanced
Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E).
We stand ready to work with you to make the case to the public and
other Members of Congress that the Federal government must close the
innovation deficit by making robust investments in science and
education if we are to remain the world's innovation leader and
continue to reap the economic and national security benefits of such
investments.
Anything short of real and sustained growth in Federal science
investments will take our country backward as other nations surge
forward in their efforts to mimic America's success.
Sincerely,
The Following Endorsing Organizations (as of October 9, 2013):
Aerospace Industries Association
Alaska SeaLife Center
Albany Area Chamber of Commerce
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Educational Research Association
American Geophysical Union
American Geosciences Institute
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Mathematical Society
American Physical Society
American Physiological Society
American Political Science Association
American Psychological Association
American Society for Engineering Education
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Sociological Association
American Statistical Association
Annis Water Resources Institute, Grand Valley State University
Arizona State University
Arizona Technology Council
ASME
Association for Psychological Science
Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography
Association for Women Geoscientists
Association for Women in Science
Association of American Geographers
Association of American Universities
Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists
Association of Independent Research Institutes
Association of Population Centers
Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
Association of Research Libraries
ASTRA, the Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America
Auburn University
Battelle
Bay Area Science and Innovation Consortium--BASIC
Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences
Binghamton University, the State University of New York
Boise State
Boston University
Brown University
Business-Higher Education Forum
California State University, Fullerton
Carnegie Mellon University
Case Western Reserve University
Center for Coastal Marine Sciences, California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo
Center for Marine Science, University of North Carolina, Wilmington
Center for Policy on Emerging Technologies (C-PET)
Champaign County Economic Development Corporation
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory--University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science
CleanTECH San Diego
Clemson University
Coalition for National Science Funding
Cognitive Science Society
Columbia University
Columbus Chamber of Commerce
CompTIA
Computing Research Association
Consortium for Ocean Leadership
Consortium of Social Science Associations
Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Sciences,
Inc.
Council for Energy Research and Education Leaders
Council of Environmental Deans and Directors
Council of Graduate Schools
Council on Competitiveness
Council on Undergraduate Research
Cray, Inc.
Crop Science Society of America
Dauphin Island Sea Lab
Duke University
Ecological Society of America
Electrical Geodesics, Inc. (EGI)
The Electrochemical Society
Emory University
Energy Sciences Coalition
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
Federation of Associations in Behavioral & Brain Sciences
Federation of Materials Societies
Florida Gulf Coast University Vester Marine Field Station
Florida Institute of Oceanography
Florida State University
Fox/Atkins Development LLC
Franz Theodore Stone Laboratory, The Ohio State University
Friday Harbor Laboratories, University of Washington
Fusion Power Associates
Geological Society of America
Georgia Institute of Technology
Georgia Research Alliance, Inc.
Georgia State University
Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce
Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce
Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce
Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce
Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce
Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce
Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce
Grice Marine Lab, College of Charleston
Harvard University
Hatfield Marine Science Center, Oregon State University
Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii
Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Humboldt State University Marine Laboratory
IEEE-USA
Indiana University
Information Technology Industry Council
Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University
Institute of Marine Sciences, The University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill
Intel Corporation
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)
International Society for Developmental Psychology
Iowa State University
Johns Hopkins University
Kachemak Bay Marine Lab, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Kent State University
Kewalo Marine Laboratory, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Krell Institute
Large Lakes Observatory, University of Minnesota Duluth
Linguistic Society of America
Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA
Marine Sciences Center at the University of New England
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Materials Research Society
Mathematical Association of America
Michigan State University
Michigan Technological University
Microsoft
Mississippi State University
Missouri University of Science and Technology
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
Mote Marine Laboratory
Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory
National Association of Colleges and Employers
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of Marine Laboratories
National Cave and Karst Research Institute
National Communication Association
National Council for Science and the Environment
National Ecological Observatory Network, Inc.
National Science Teachers Association
Natural Science Collections Alliance
New Mexico State University
NextEd
North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature (NACSN)
North Carolina State University
North Carolina State University, Center for Marine Sciences and
Technology
North Dakota State University
Northeastern University
Northern Illinois University
The Ohio State University
The Optical Society
Orange County Business Council
ORAU (Oak Ridge Associated Universities)
Oregon Entrepreneurs Network
Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI)
Oregon State University
Pace University
Paleontological Society
PARC, a Xerox Company
The Pennsylvania State University
Population Association of America
Portland Business Alliance
Portland State University
Prince William Sound Science Center
Princeton University
Procter & Gamble Company
Psychonomic Society
Purdue University
QB3
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Rice University
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Rutgers University Marine Field Station
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco State University, Romberg Tiburon Center for
Environmental Studies
Savannah State University
The Science Coalition
Seahorse Key Marine Laboratory, University of Florida
Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Seismological Society of America
Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
Semiconductor Research Corporation
Shoals Marine Laboratory
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Society for Neuroscience
Society for Personality and Social Psychology
Society of Economic Geologists
Society of Experimental Social Psychology
Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists
Soil Science Society of America
South Dakota School of Mines & Technology
South Dakota State University
Southeastern Universities Research Association
Southern Arizona Leadership Council
SPIE, the international society for optics and photonics
Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce
SRI International
SSTI (State Science and Technology Institute)
Stanford University
The State University of New York
Stony Brook University
SupraSensor Technologies
Task Force on American Innovation
Technology Councils of North America (TECNA)
TechVoice
TechX
Texas A&M University
Texas Instruments
TRIDEC
Tucson Metro Chamber
Tufts University
Tulane University
UNAVCO
University at Buffalo
University of Alabama at Birmingham
University of Alaska Anchorage
University of Alaska, Fairbanks
University of Alaska, Southeast
University at Albany, State University of New York
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
University of Arizona
University of Arkansas
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Davis
University of California, Davis Bodega Marine Laboratory
University of California, Irvine
University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, Merced
University of California, Riverside
University of California, San Diego
University of California San Francisco
University of California, Santa Barbara
University of California, Santa Cruz
University of California System
University of Central Florida
University of Cincinnati
University of Colorado, Boulder
University of Connecticut
University of Delaware
University of Florida
University of Hawaii
University of Idaho
University of Illinois
University of Illinois at Chicago
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of Kentucky
University of Maine
University of Maryland
University of Massachusetts Boston
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of Missouri
University of Montana
University of Nebraska
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
University of Nevada, Reno
University of New Hampshire
University of New Hampshire Jackson Estuarine Laboratory
University of New Mexico
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of North Carolina Wilmington
University of Notre Dame
University of Oklahoma
University of Oregon
University of Pennsylvania
University of Pittsburgh
University of Rochester
University of South Carolina
University of South Dakota
University of South Florida
University of Southern California
University of Tennessee
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
The University of Texas System
The University of Toledo
University of Vermont
University of Virginia
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, School of Freshwater Sciences, Great
Lakes WATER Institute
University of Wyoming
Utah State University
Vaisala, Inc.
Valley Vision, Sacramento
Vanderbilt University
Van Fleet & Associates
Virginia Commonwealth University
Washington State University
Washington University in St. Louis
Wayne State University
West Virginia University
Western Michigan University
Whitney Lab for Marine Bioscience
Willamette Innovators Network
Women in Technology Tennessee
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Southern
California
Yale University
cc: Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
Identical letters sent to:
Members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
We were instructed that there will be no questions. And----
Senator Alexander. Well, you----
The Chairman. Well, your presentation was so intimidating,
I don't think you would have gotten any. Thank you, Senator
Alexander, very much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I'll go back to the regular order here. We're
here today to discuss one of the government's most visionary
functions, the funding of basic scientific research. The
question is, do we have the guts and the political will to so
do? Everyone in the room may already be aware of this, but it's
worth repeating that the Federal Government funds nearly one-
third of all research and development in the United States, and
that includes 60 percent of all academic research.
Federal funding of basic research, those studies that give
us the building blocks for new technologies and industries is
part of a pipeline that supports the U.S. economy and our
global competitiveness.
Now we know the results of basic research are inherently
unpredictable. It's very hard to determine what investments
will create the next economic miracle. But while the private
sector sometimes avoids high-risk research that may only
provide a return on investment over a very long period of time,
the--or may provide little or no return, the government has,
therefore, stepped into the breach.
These Federal investments have allowed the best ideas to
develop our knowledge of the world and to create billion-dollar
industries. These investments led to GPS, as the Senator
indicated; biotechnology; 3-D printing; and the Internet. They
have supported multibillion-dollar companies that are global
household names. They also continually support the creation of
new businesses across the country, which the Science Coalition
tracked in their latest report, Sparking Economic Growth, which
is this, it's a little bit smaller than what Senator Alexander
held up. I encourage you to read it.
These investments continue to help train our science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce. And without
these investments, we won't have the next generation of
researchers; we won't have the next biotechnology industry; we
won't have the next Internet. What we will have is a stagnant
economy.
Looking at the debate that we're having in Congress about
funding the government, well, that's where we're headed. The
reckless shutdown has eroded confidence in the United States as
a steadfast supporter of science. Researchers at our world's
leading labs were told to go home, including several Nobel
Laureates and grants were delayed when 99 percent of the
National Science Foundation was furloughed. Stunning.
The shutdown was sudden, and it was harmful, yes; but the
ongoing sequester is slowly but surely wearing away at the
foundation of U.S. scientific research. The sequester got a
little bit lost in the recent debates, et cetera, but the
sequester is the long-term enemy. It's inexorable unless it
gets eliminated.
Sequestration's indiscriminate cuts are costing us very
dearly. The National Science Foundation took a $356 million cut
in the past Fiscal Year. And that number will continue to go
down again under the continuing resolution. That means fewer
grants, less support for young researchers, and even scientists
moving their work abroad. It's only going to get worse if we
don't fix the sequester and continue to invest in our world-
class scientists. It will just continue to get worse.
Our competitors know that basic research is worth the
investment. And while we constrain ourselves; they are spending
more, and they are catching up. That's why instead of
retreating in the face of competition, we passed the America
COMPETES Act in 2007, and the reauthorization in 2010, with the
direction to double the funding of the National Science
Foundation, major research accounts at the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy's
Office of Science.
I will again push for the reauthorization of this important
piece of legislation. It may be the most important question we
face in this committee. I yield to the distinguished Ranking
Member.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the
hearing today to evaluate scientific research and development
and STEM education initiatives under the America COMPETES Act
authorizations. And I, like you, was pleased to welcome Senator
Alexander to today's hearing.
It was a good opportunity to discuss the impact that R&D
funding has on each of our states and on the U.S. economy
overall. I believe it's important to remember our current
budget realities and the need to set Federal funding priorities
in scientific research and continue to improve coordination.
And I know that Senator Alexander has worked closely
alongside, you, Mr. Chairman, and former Ranking Member Kay
Bailey Hutchison on the America COMPETES Act of 2007 and 2010.
And we appreciate, again, his participation today to provide us
with a history of those legislative efforts.
The America COMPETES Acts of 2007 and 2010 have served as
the authorizing vehicles for the National Science Foundation
and the National Institute of Standard and Technology under our
committee's jurisdiction, as well as for the Department of
Energy, Office of Science.
The NSF is the primary source of Federal funds, funding in
fields such as mathematics and computer science. Researchers in
my home State of South Dakota, as well as other states
represented by members of the Committee, benefit from NSF's
Experimental Program to Simulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR,
a program that is aimed at avoiding undue concentration of
research in certain States and improving R&D competitiveness
and STEM education throughout the United States.
Another agency of committee jurisdiction, NIST, carries out
its mission of promoting U.S. innovation in industrial
competitiveness by supporting research in fields such as
engineering and information technology at NIST Laboratories in
collaboration with private sector industry.
The Committee has looked to NIST this year with particular
interest on the issue of cybersecurity, passing a bipartisan
bill earlier this year that would authorize NIST to facilitate
the development of a voluntary set of standards and best
practices to reduce cyber risk to critical infrastructure.
And, as we will examine more closely next week when
Secretary Pritzker is before us, NIST is also seeking to bridge
the gap between cutting edge research and advanced
manufacturing.
DOE's Office of Science is the lead Federal agency
supporting fundamental scientific research for energy and the
largest Federal supporter of basic research in the physical
sciences. DOE, along with NSF, has supported cutting-edge
physics research at the world class Sanford Underground
Research Facility in Lead, South Dakota.
At SURF, as we refer to it, and as Dr. Perlmutter
appreciates more than most, physics researchers are leading the
Large Underground Xenon or LUX experiment a mile underground in
the former Homestake Gold Mine in an effort to detect the
existence of dark matter. Just last week researchers announced
results from the experiment's first run, indicating that it is
the most sensitive and capable dark matter detector in the
world and making SURF scientists more likely to discover dark
matter than anyone else.
The LUX experiments and other experiments at SURF search
for answers to some of our most fundamental science questions
and present a significant opportunity for U.S. leadership in
the area of physical sciences as prioritized by the earlier
America COMPETES Acts.
Federal support for basic research reflects a consensus
that such research is the foundation for many innovations. Many
have argued that closer cooperation among industry, government,
and academia could further stimulate innovation, lead to new
products and processes, and expand markets for U.S. businesses.
Along these lines, while I appreciate the importance of
foundational science and basic research, I also look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today about ways to improve
technology transfer and commercialization of federally funded
research, as well as some of the successful discoveries
stemming from Federal research dollars.
Finally, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about
their ideas on how to improve STEM education, as well as their
views on the challenges that affect our global competitiveness
in the STEM professional fields.
Mr. Chairman, thanks again for this hearing.
I want to thank those that are going to be on our panels.
And we look forward to hearing their insights. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
So the second panel will come forward, please. That would
be Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier. And he is Vice Chair--well, I'll
introduce you--no. Have a seat. I'll introduce you just before
you speak, OK?
Dr. Droegemeier is Vice Chairman of the National Science
Board and Vice President for Research, and a Regents' Professor
of Meteorology at the University of Oklahoma.
And if you are ready, sir, we will turn it over to you.
STATEMENT OF DR. KELVIN K. DROEGEMEIER,
VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH, REGENTS' PROFESSOR OF
METEOROLOGY AND WEATHERNEWS CHAIR EMERITUS,
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, AND VICE CHAIRMAN,
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, distinguished members of the Committee.
Ranking Member Thune, it's my great privilege to testify
before you today.
As you said, I am a member of the faculty at the University
of Oklahoma and also the Vice Chairman of the National Science
Board. And I will be testifying in capacity as Vice Chairman
today.
I just want to make three very brief points for you this
afternoon. The first point is about basic research. And it's
something that we perform as humans because of our innate
desire to really understand the depths of the world in which we
live. And it's really the DNA from which new innovations and
technologies are created to fuel our economy.
Basic research has created thousands of discoveries. And
very much like DNA, it can be assembled, it can be put on hold
for a while, it can be restructured, and it can be brought back
and reworked to create a variety of literally thousands,
literally tens of thousands of technologies from which we will
derive direct benefit. Without basic research, we have no
foundation upon which to build.
My second point concerns something that Senator Alexander
mentioned a moment ago, and that is that returns on basic
research are often unpredictable and are often times very
uncertain, and they take sometimes years to materialize. As a
consequence, the Federal Government has a very important
central role in supporting that research because it really is
too risky for private companies that are looking to make their
next quarter statement or the next half-year statement.
And President Roosevelt's science advisor, Vannevar Bush,
when he suggested the creation of the National Science
Foundation understood this point, that the Federal Government
really has to be out there on the bleeding edge of funding very
creative endeavors, that may, in fact, as the Chairman
mentioned a moment ago, really have no immediate practical
benefits for society.
The role of the National Science Foundation is quite unique
because it is the only Federal agency that funds basic research
across all disciplines of science and engineering, including
the social, behavioral, and economic sciences. It also funds
research infrastructure. It funds education and training of the
next generation of scientists and engineers. And very
importantly it supports activities that broaden the
participation of traditionally underrepresented groups and it
promotes partnerships in a variety of ways.
Continuing that point, I want to point out that the impacts
of basic research on our economy sometimes may be difficult to
pin down, but they're unmistakable. And I tell you, Senator
Alexander did such a beautiful job of describing that. And
there are so many situations where we can point to these
tremendous things that make our lives more efficient and make
our Nation more secure.
But there's one other point I want to bring out that I
think is sometimes overlooked, and that is, basic research
allows to us to prepare for the unexpected. 9/11 is a great
example. Basic research really takes a very methodical approach
to studying things, reproducing experiments to make sure the
results are right. But when something like 9/11 happens, we
don't have the luxury of time. We have to draw from our quiver
of capabilities, pull them together very quickly, and start
saving lives, protecting the war fighter, and protecting our
country. That is what basic research allows us to do is be
prepared for the unknown.
My final point concerns the word competition. We talk about
the American Competitive Act and the initiative. And what does
it mean to be competitive? I'm from Oklahoma. We play a lot of
football down there. We like to be competitive. And I can tell
you in sports, if you want to win, you have to be competitive.
You can't possibly win if you're not competitive.
So in order for this Nation to be globally competitive, we
have to be effective in our basic research. Many, many studies
show, as Senator Alexander eloquently said, that we're losing
our global competitiveness. And in fact, that was really why
the other COMPETES Act was created.
And I will end by just saying, and Senator Rockefeller, I
know you understand EPSCoR quite well, and Senator Thune, as
well; but we know how to be competitive in this Nation. And
EPSCoR is a great example. It's called the Experimental Program
to Stimulate Competitive Research. It began about 33 years ago.
And its sole focus is to help states that are traditionally not
competitive, for Federal funding and particularly at NSF, to
develop their infrastructure, their capabilities so they can be
competitive.
And many of the states that have received EPSCoR funding
have increased their competitiveness by nearly 50 percent, and
that means they're becoming more competitive, they're
contributing more to the science enterprise in this Nation. And
we have lots of examples that I could cite to show you the very
tremendous value of the EPSCoR program. And so I just want to
say that we, as a nation, know to compete and there's perfect
proof for that in EPSCoR.
And finally, as Senator Alexander noted, this is a very
challenging time for Federal budgets and for basic research,
but truly if we lose sight of supporting this fundamental
foundational activity that truly can trace back to all of the
important activities and devices and resources that improve our
quality of life, make our Nation safe, make us effective as a
society; if we lose that foundation, then we have nothing truly
upon which to build.
So ultimately basic research allows us to control our
destiny. And as the greatest nation on Earth, that's extremely
important. On behalf of the National Science Board, I want to
thank you for your incredibly strong and generous support of
basic science, and for the National Science Foundation. We all
look forward to continuing to work with you in this very
productive relationship in our service to our Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Droegemeier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Vice President for
Research, Regents' Professor of Meteorology and Weathernews Chair
Emeritus, University of Oklahoma; Vice Chairman, National Science Board
I thank Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of
the Committee for the privilege of testifying on the important role
played by science and engineering research and education in our
Nation's competitiveness. My name is Kelvin Droegemeier and I am Vice
President for Research, Regents' Professor of Meteorology, and
Weathernews Chair Emeritus at the University of Oklahoma. I also am a
member of the National Science Board (NSB, Board), which establishes
policy for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and serves as an
independent body of advisors to both the President and Congress on
matters related to science and engineering research and education. I am
testifying today in my role as NSB Vice Chairman.
On behalf of the Board, I thank the Members of this committee for
their long-standing commitment to fostering national prosperity,
economic security, quality education, and international competitiveness
through support for basic research in science, technology, engineering
and mathematics (STEM).
An important component of this commitment has been the America
COMPETES Act.
Enacted in 2007 and reauthorized in 2010, the Act provided a
framework for catalyzing research in areas of national priority and for
coordinating Federal STEM education efforts. At NSF, the Act enabled
continued investment in our Nation's scientific infrastructure,
innovation in STEM education, and development of a portfolio of
research investments that respond to current national challenges while
laying the foundation for a robust scientific and technological
enterprise into the mid-21st century. It also promoted excellence in
scholarship via training in the responsible conduct of research, and
the mentoring of post-doctoral researchers.
1. NSF and the Importance of Basic Research
The idea for NSF arose in the wake of the Second World War.
President Roosevelt, recognizing that wartime cooperation between the
Federal Government and scientific community had contributed to the U.S.
victory, asked his de facto science advisor, engineer Dr. Vannevar
Bush, to develop a report describing how the Government could promote
scientific progress in the postwar period. That report, Science--The
Endless Frontier, called for the creation of NSF and stressed the
essential role of the Federal Government in cultivating the Nation's
``scientific talent'' and in funding basic research.
Basic research, which represents structured inquiry motivated by
the innate human desire to understand the fundamental behavior of the
world in which we live, is the DNA from which new innovations and
technologies arise to fuel our Nation's economy. That DNA, representing
thousands of discoveries across all disciplines, can be assembled,
refined, set aside for a time until other advances call upon it, and
re-used in an almost infinite number of ways to produce outcomes that
have profoundly positive benefits for society. Bush argued that
investments in basic research were essential to American national
security and competitiveness, and that same wise notion was the
foundation of the COMPETES Act and is the principal reason NSF is
featured prominently within it.
NSF funds the highest quality projects having the potential to
advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge and advance
societal goals. Two criteria, ``Intellectual Merit'' and ``Broader
Impacts,'' shape the NSF merit review process, which is viewed as the
gold standard worldwide. NSB recently re-examined these criteria to
ensure that NSF maximizes the public's return on investment.
2. The U.S. Research and Innovation Ecosystem and NSF's Role in it
Basic research, applied research, and development in the U.S. are
dominated by development activities--78 percent of which are funded by
the private sector. Private industry also is the largest source of
funding for applied research. In this context, the Federal Government,
and NSF in particular, play a critical, complementary role by
supporting basic research, the majority of which is performed at our
Nation's colleges and universities. Private industry relies on the new
knowledge created by basic research to develop new and innovative
products and services.
Because the returns on investments in basic research are
unpredictable and may take years, if not decades, to materialize, the
private sector understandably invests relatively little money in it.
Consequently, as noted by Vannevar Bush, the Federal Government has an
essential role in supporting basic research. NSF's role in particular
is unique because it is the only agency that funds basic research and
education across all STEM disciplines (excluding clinical medical
research) and (presently) at all levels of STEM education.
3. Samples of Economic and Societal Returns on Investment in Basic
Research
For over 60 years, with the support of Congress, NSF has been
funding basic research, enabling our Nation to become the undisputed
world leader in science and technology. As noted previously, linking
basic research outcomes to innovated products and services can be
difficult because the path from the former to the latter is often
indistinct, sometimes evolving over long periods of time and
integrating elements from multiple disciplines and technologies.
However, examples large and small abound and are important for
demonstrating the value of basic research to, and the thoughtful
investment of tax dollars toward achieving, national competitiveness. A
few are provided below.
NSF-funded mathematicians have re-applied algorithms that
predict earthquake aftershocks and created a crime prediction
model. After police implemented the crime prediction model in
Los Angeles' Foothill precinct (300,000 residents), crime
decreased 12 percent relative to surrounding areas.
Almost 20,000 kidney transplants are conducted each year in
the U.S. Based on their knowledge of game theory and market
dynamics, NSF-funded economists developed an algorithm that
facilitates kidney matching for patients who have willing but
biologically incompatible donors. The number of transplants
performed through paired exchanges has risen dramatically: from
2 in 2000 to 443 in 2012.
Coronary artery disease, the major cause of heart attacks,
annually afflicts more than 700,000 Americans and costs the
Nation nearly $110 billion to treat annually. NSF-funded
researchers developed mathematical tools to better understand
and control interactions between arterial walls and blood flow.
Subsequently, scientists improved stents to help open narrowed
arteries and later formed a biotechnology company that is
publicly traded on NASDAQ and currently has a value of nearly
$950 million.
As part of its start-up funding, Qualcomm received a Small
Business Innovation Research award from NSF. Over 21,000
employees and 170 locations later, this company has forever
changed the face of digital wireless telecommunications
products and services. Qualcomm is now worth more than $100
billion.
One often overlooked aspect of basic research is that it helps our
Nation be prepared for the unexpected. When confronted with entirely
new challenges, time often does not exist to conduct the thoughtful,
intensive studies associated with basic research. Consequently, having
research outcomes in hand is essential. Nowhere is this more evident
than in current and rapidly evolving national security challenges,
where results from previous basic research in image processing,
electro-chemical sensing, and data mining have led to the rapid
creation of field-deployed technologies for enhancing security in
airports, better ensuring the safety of the war fighter, and fighting
new generation cyber attacks.
These and thousands of other examples--which show how basic
research in science and engineering leads to practical benefits via
innovation--directly impact the ability of the U.S. to be competitive
in a global society: competitive economically, competitive in
education, competitive technologically, and also secure. Consequently,
by virtue of its unique mission, NSF funding of basic research
continues to be central to U.S. competitiveness.
Another important and easily overlooked aspect of basic research is
the talent pool needed to perform it in our Nation's colleges and
universities, and to innovate with its outcomes in the private sector.
STEM education is the sine qua non for this workforce and is a
foundational component of NSF's portfolio. Without it, and without
efforts to ensure a diverse workforce that draws upon and reflects the
increasingly diverse structure of our Nation, the competitiveness of
the U.S. will suffer immeasurably.
4. Toward a Globally Competitive Nation
What does it mean to be competitive? In sports, business, and the
military, one cannot win unless one is competitive. The U.S. must be
globally competitive in order to be a world leader--in research,
technology, advanced manufacturing, educational attainment, private
sector innovation, public-private partnerships, economic prosperity,
and quality of life. Unfortunately, numerous metrics and studies show
that the U.S. is rapidly losing its competitiveness.
According to a 2012 report i by the U.S. Department of
Commerce, the strengthening economies of several countries around the
world are posing a competitive challenge for the U.S. The ability of
the U.S. to create jobs has slipped, and it has made little progress in
competitiveness during the past 2 decades, now ranking fourth in the
world in innovation-based competitiveness. The preparation of U.S.
students in math and science is notably problematic, with 17
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries
ranked above the U.S. Numerous equally sobering statistics exist and
are readily available. NSF is vitally important in restoring U.S.
competitiveness by building competitive capacity in many ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012: The Competitiveness and
Innovation Capacity of the United States. Available at http://
www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2012/january/
competes_010511_0.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, as noted previously and via a wide array of programs across
all disciplines, NSF funds basic research at the frontiers of discovery
and thus creates new knowledge--the DNA of innovation. Many of NSF's
activities focus on areas of national priority and thus lie at the
heart of national competitiveness. These include, at the present time,
advanced manufacturing, robotics and cyber-physical systems,
interdisciplinary research to enrich our understanding of the brain's
neural networks, nanotechnology, STEM education, global change
research, and cybersecurity research and development.
Second, NSF funds the construction of modern research
infrastructure that is critical to maintaining U.S. technological
competitiveness. Through its Major Research Equipment and Facilities
Construction (MREFC) account, NSF provides our Nation's scientists and
engineers with the powerful, large, complex tools necessary to perform
world-class research. This includes--but is not limited to--telescopes,
supercomputing facilities, ships, airplanes, and large arrays of
observing systems for long-term sampling of the planet below ground, at
the surface and in the atmosphere. Other programs, such as Major
Research Instrumentation (MRI), provide funding to colleges and
universities to both develop and acquire large pieces of equipment for
research and education, with the responsibility for long-term
sustainability borne by the receiving institution.
Third, NSF facilitates the education and training of the next
generation of scientists and engineers (graduate and undergraduate
students as well as post-doctoral researchers) by funding grants to
support their research and training. Flagship programs such as the NSF
Graduate Research Fellowship, which has produced several Nobel
Laureates over the past 6 decades, are seminal to U.S. competitiveness
and STEM workforce development. The longstanding NSF CAREER program,
which funds early-career faculty, is critical for ensuring that the
most outstanding new academic researchers get off to a strong start and
begin making seminal contributions as soon as possible.
Fourth, NSF supports numerous programs to broaden the participation
of traditionally underrepresented populations in STEM fields. This is
an extremely important challenge for U.S. competitiveness in light of
rapidly shifting national demographics, as well as the substantial
intellectual talent that goes untapped when underrepresented
individuals either leave STEM fields or fail to select them to begin
with. Although progress is being made, it is far slower than needed for
the U.S. to amass a STEM talent pool to ensure future competitiveness.
Fifth, NSF has undertaken efforts recently in partnership with the
private sector, via its Innovation Corps (I-Corps) program, to play a
direct role in the innovation process. Specifically, I-Corps is a set
of activities and programs that prepare scientists and engineers to
extend their focus beyond the laboratory and broadens the impact of
select, NSF-funded, basic-research projects. Although knowledge gained
from NSF-supported basic research frequently advances a particular
field of science or engineering, some results also show immediate
potential for broader applicability and impact in the commercial world.
Such results may be translated through I-Corps into technologies with
near-term benefits for the economy and society. Combining experience
and guidance from established entrepreneurs with a targeted curriculum,
I-Corps teaches grantees to identify valuable product opportunities
that can emerge from academic research, and offers entrepreneurship
training to student participants.
And finally, NSF's Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
program, as another example, provides seed money for high risk, high
reward private sector ventures. NSF recently conferred an SBIR award
that has the potential to lead to widespread recycling of the
wastewater produced in the process of natural gas extraction known as
``fracking.''
5. The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR):
A National Role Model for Capacity-Building and Enhancing
Competitiveness
NSF is mandated by statute to ensure that all geographic regions in
the U.S. contribute to science and engineering research and education
via NSF support, and as a consequence play a meaningful role in U.S.
competitiveness. A program foundational to achieving this goal is the
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), which
provides research capacity-building funding, based upon competitively-
reviewed proposals, to states (formally known as jurisdictions) which
historically have received comparatively small percentages of NSF
support. At the present time, 31 jurisdictions are eligible for NSF
support, and other agencies, including the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) and Department of Energy (DOE), have EPSCoR
programs.
The current NSF budget for EPSCoR is approximately $160 million per
year and is directed to a variety of programs designed specifically to
build research capacity. The flagship program, known as Research
Infrastructure Improvement (RII, Track-1), provides up to $20 million
for 5 years to support areas of strategic research importance for
jurisdictions based upon their state science and technology plans, most
commonly in alignment with national research priorities. Multi-
jurisdictional activities are becoming more common as a means for
leveraging capability for addressing larger, more complex challenges.
Additional leveraging occurs via mandated cost sharing from the
jurisdictions themselves.
Since the program's inception in 1980, competitiveness of EPSCoR
jurisdictions (which entered the program in four cohorts) has increased
by as much as 41 percent. Topics addressed range from bioinformatics
and climate adaptation to nanotechnology and STEM education. EPSCoR
funding also builds capacity in cyberinfrastructure in ways
strategically aligned with national research and education priorities.
In addition to building capacity for basic research, EPSCoR plays
an important role in economic development. As one of many examples, in
my own state of Oklahoma, EPSCoR funding helped support one of the
first NSF Science and Technology Centers in 1989, which I directed at
the University of Oklahoma. This center pioneered a new science of
computer-based prediction of thunderstorms, leading to the founding of
a private weather technology company that now employs more than 80
people. Outcomes from this research are being transitioned into
operations within the U.S. National Weather Service and hold promise
for increasing the lead time for tornado warnings from 15 minutes to
over an hour.
Additionally in Oklahoma, nanotechnology research funded by NSF
EPSCoR played a role in the creation of a private engineering company
that established the national standard (National Institute for
Standards and Technology--NIST) for purity of single-walled carbon
nanotubes--an essential element in hundreds of products. More than 20
nanotechnology companies are now located in Oklahoma, catalyzed in part
by the EPSCoR investment. Additionally, more than 12,000 K-12 students,
1,800 teachers, 7,000 university students, 2,000 university faculty,
and 59 businesses in Oklahoma have been served directly by EPSCoR
education and outreach programs during the past five years.
Similar examples can be found for other EPSCoR jurisdictions. In
Montana, substantial growth in academic research programs is credited
with increasing the number of high technology companies from 17 to 175.
In Idaho, it is estimated that every Federal dollar invested in EPSCoR
programs has yielded $18 to the local economy. In Louisiana, nearly 22
percent of students supported by EPSCoR have come from underrepresented
groups. And in Wyoming, research investments by EPSCoR helped position
the state to host a major supercomputing center for the National Center
for Atmospheric Research, which is catalyzing new research, education
and technology development activities across the entire region.
6. Summary and Closing Thoughts
More than 60 years after its establishment, NSF remains a crucial
component in the engine of U.S. innovation, competitiveness, and
security. The agency's work is more vital than ever because science now
has bearing on almost every aspect of our lives, from national security
and global economic competitiveness to our health, quality of life and
future workforce needs. NSF-sponsored research continues to open new
frontiers by balancing NSF's longstanding ``grass roots'' vision of
science with an agency-wide commitment to fund research addressing
national priorities.
NSF's work in STEM education remains vital to ensuring that
America's students, workers, and scientists remain competitive in the
globally connected world. Although the context in which NSF operates
today differs markedly from the post-World War II and Cold War worlds
out of which it arose, the necessity of Government support for basic
scientific research, for research infrastructure, and for educating the
next generation of researchers remains as true today as in 1950. Then
as now, basic research catalyzes the scientific and technological
ecosystem. Then, as now, neither industry nor academia alone could make
sufficient investments in basic science to sustain national
competitiveness and security.
This is a difficult time for Federal budgets and for individuals in
the academic, nonprofit and public sectors who rely on Federal support.
Investments in science and technology compete with a host of other
legitimate funding priorities. As other countries emulate our success
by building their innovation infrastructures, we must be vigilant in
sustaining our own innovative capacity. NSF remains committed to making
the hard decisions needed to ensure that its portfolio obtains the
greatest return on investment and maximizes the benefits of taxpayer
support.
On behalf of the National Science Board, I thank you for your
support of the National Science Foundation. We look forward to
continuing our productive working relationship with you in service to
the Nation.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Might I just suggest to staff that are present that it
would be really kind of nice if we had more members here.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. And therefore, please go to work on that. I
can't command one side, but I can command the other side.
[Laughter.]
Senator Coats. And I was just getting ready to leave.
The Chairman. I know. I caught you, Dan.
Senator Coats. I----
The Chairman. I caught you.
Senator Coats.--feel very guilty, but----
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Coats.--I do have a----
The Chairman. Well, you're a special person, so----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. But I did embarrass him, didn't I? Just a
bit.
All right. Now Dr. Saul Perlmutter, who is a Professor of
Physics at the University of California at Berkeley, a Senior
Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and a
2011 Nobel Laureate in physics.
Welcome, sir, we're honored by your presence.
STATEMENT OF DR. SAUL PERLMUTTER, PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY; SENIOR SCIENTIST, LAWRENCE
BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Perlmutter. Thank you.
All right, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me today.
I thought it might be helpful to begin with a few words
about the science I've been involved in since it provides a
good example for many of the issues that this committee is
addressing. Initially we set out to measure how much gravity
was slowing the expansion of the universe. And after 10 years
of hard work, we made a surprising discovery, the expansion of
the university isn't slowing down at all, it's actually
speeding up, the universe is expanding faster and faster and we
have no idea why.
This mystery has grabbed the attention of scientists around
the world, attracted new students to science, and triggered a
tidal wave of scientific creativity with new theories, new
technological inventions, and new computing methods, and of
course it also ended up winning a Nobel Prize.
Is the accelerating expansion of the universe due to some
previously unknown energy, we call it dark energy, that
dominates the stuff of the universe; or alternatively, maybe we
need to revise Einstein's theory of general relativity, his
theory of gravity? This is clearly exciting science, but why
should the government support such basic research? What's in it
for the taxpayer?
First, it's exactly these sorts of exciting questions that
attract the next generation to study science, engineering, and
mathematics and then to go on to careers that use these skills
in business and government and in academia.
Second, the challenges of basic science, which appeal to
the--to a universal human curiosity, end up somehow almost
magically being the source of our remarkable technological
capabilities and then our economic strength.
For example, I mentioned the close connection between our
surprising discovery and Einstein's theory of general
relativity. What could be more arcane, less practical sounding
than Einstein's theory? It deals with behavior of clocks
traveling near the speed of light. And yet if you've ever tried
to find your location with the iPhone in your pocket, you've
relied on Einstein's theory. Without this basic science, the
GPS locator on your flight into Reagan National Airport would
miss the runway.
So I have no idea today what an understanding of the
accelerating universe and dark energy will allow us to do, but
Einstein could never have guessed that his theory would power
this technology or the million-dollar GPS industry.
Third, the dividends from fundamental science benefit
society at large and cannot be directed in advance to fulfill a
particular commercial need. So, as was just mentioned, this is
not a job for private investors. These investments are exactly
the kind that the government is needed for.
Finally, my own work would never have happened without past
investments by the U.S. Government. My early research was
kicked off with NSF support. It never could have lasted those
10 years without the unique capabilities of a national
laboratory and the patient support of the Department of Energy,
which funds that lab. And in the end it depended on the space-
based capabilities of NASA and its Hubble Space Telescope.
Our project then succeeded because there was a stable and
robust network of agencies supporting fundamental research, an
ecosystem of innovation. This is why the U.S. has dominated the
Nobel Prizes and built a flourishing technologically-advanced
economy.
How do we ensure the health of this fundamental science
ecosystem so that it will drive the economic success for the
next generation? How do we make it possible for a young
scientist starting out today with a project like mine to make
her Nobel Prize-winning discovery?
I'm concerned that if I were that scientist starting my
project today, it wouldn't have happened. The trend lines in
the U.S. for all fields of sciences are disturbing. Already our
lack of investment in particle physics has moved its center of
gravity to Europe. It's beginning to happen in my field of dark
energy, as well, a field in which the Nation currently leads
the world.
For the first time I have seen post-doctoral students
choose positions abroad rather than the U.S. because they saw
the future there. We live in times of breathtaking scientific
opportunities, but America must stay in the game. We must
invest again in the sciences and the basic sciences with the
enthusiasm that we did before if we are going to stay
competitive with Europe, China and Japan and the rest of the
world, who are now redoubling their effort to build the
scientific infrastructure they saw make us so successful.
Such basic science is the root to another prosperous
century and a community of science and scientists that are
ready to handle the challenges of that century.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Perlmutter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Saul Perlmutter, Professor of Physics,
University of California, Berkeley; Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory
Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune and distinguished
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today about the importance of science to our Nation and to
the world. I am honored by the invitation and hope that my testimony
may be helpful to you and your staff as you draft important legislation
and make critical funding decisions that help to ensure the United
States of America's scientific leadership. I believe that without
scientific leadership, we will lose our leadership in technology and
innovation. Without technological leadership, our economic and national
security will be fundamentally weakened.
My name is Saul Perlmutter and I am a senior scientist at the
Department of Energy Office of Science's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory and a Professor of Physics at the University of California,
Berkeley. I am testifying today as a private citizen and not on behalf
of Berkeley Lab or the University. My testimony today will explore
these important issues:
1. Why curiosity-driven science is important and why we should care.
2. Why the whole of the United States' science enterprise--
consisting of an interdependent ecosystem of agencies,
universities, national laboratories and industry--is greater
than the sum of its parts.
3. Why waning Federal support for curiosity-driven science is
stagnating our science enterprise and weakening the Nation's
innovation foundation--immediately threatening our
international economic competitiveness and the prospects of a
more peaceful and productive world.
Why curiosity-driven science is important
In 2011, I was awarded, along with two other scientists, the Nobel
Prize in Physics for the discovery that the universe is expanding at an
accelerating rate. This discovery came as a huge surprise to me, to my
team and to the entire physics world. We had anticipated one of two
outcomes: either the expansion would be slowing down, but still
expanding forever; or that the universe was slowing so much that
someday it would come to a halt, and then, collapse in on itself--both
options due to the force of gravity.
Since our discovery in 1998, thousands of theories have been
published that attempt to explain this extraordinary phenomenon. The
most widely discussed idea is that an unknown energy fills all empty
space and counteracts gravity's pull enough to fuel the universe's
accelerating expansion. Scientists and the scientific media have dubbed
this unknown entity ``dark energy''--``dark'' only to signify that we
don't know what it is--and estimate that it makes up almost three
quarters of the ``stuff'' of the universe. This is a remarkable
prospect that begs further exploration--what is this stuff that makes
up the majority of our universe.
Although the concept of ``dark energy'' is mindboggling, it would
be even more earthshattering if the accelerating expansion is caused
instead by a flaw in the laws of gravity, which were originally set
down by Newton, and perfected by Einstein in his Theory of General
Relativity. Gravity and its properties are considered well understood--
down to many digits of certainty. Scientific and engineering
understanding of gravity made the industrial revolution possible and
ushered in the modern era. What if our current understanding is simply
the first step in a much bigger and more complex theory?
Either way, scientists are energized to explore this cosmic
mystery. These are questions that we must tackle. Curiosity drove our
initial research and experiments--today, curiosity drives us to ask new
questions and design new experiments to explore this cosmic riddle.
Why should the Federal Government fund this type of curiosity-
driven research? It's not just because it is exciting, although it is.
It's not just because this is exactly the type of science that attracts
young people to science and engineering careers, although it is that
too. It is primarily because, by broadening our base of knowledge and
deepening our understanding of the world, we will provide our children
with brighter, more peaceful futures, with more rewarding jobs, and
longer lives. In a nutshell, scientific knowledge gives us the power to
secure a better future.
I have no idea what the discovery of an accelerating universe will
mean to the health of our economy and our ability to build a better and
more peaceful world. Certainly, building experiments and tools, as we
did, to measure our universe with greater and greater fidelity and
efficiency has led to new and productive technologies, such as more
sensitive CCD detectors that are now being used in health care. These
spin-off technologies produce jobs and create economic activity. But,
even more importantly, no one can credibly claim to know what wide-
ranging benefits the discovery will ultimately have on society.
Pursuit of curiosity-driven science is not a luxury--it is the
foundation of how real progress and societal advancement is made. Grand
challenges that face our Nation and world require more than
incremental, marginal solutions. Short-term, near-horizon research and
development, also referred to as applied research, will not by itself
lead to transformational advances. Applied research is certainly
critical for moving solutions forward, but transformational leaps in
technologies and in answers to tough problems don't happen without new
discoveries that come from curiosity-driven science.
So although I don't know how my team's scientific accomplishments
will affect society broadly, I do know that big discoveries make us
stronger and more capable. I do know that the laser would not have been
invented if your goal were to build a laser printer or perform laser
surgery. The need for global positioning systems would not have spawned
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity--a theory so apparently
esoteric that it addresses questions such as ``what happens to clocks
traveling through space at speeds approaching the speed of light.'' I
do know that quantum mechanics, the theory of how matter and energy
behave at the atomic and subatomic levels, would not have been
developed if you were building a medical imaging device or the iPhone.
But, without the curiosity-driven science that led to the theory of
quantum physics, we would not have MRIs, electron microscopes or the
transistor, an invention underpinning the information technology world
in which we now live.
I am certain that the discovery in 1998 of the accelerating
expansion of the universe has and will make us a stronger nation and
help to build a better and more peaceful world. But a discovery like
this was not an easy task.
Our research began as a three-year project. Our energy level was
high and our expectations were even higher. Ten long years later we
finally presented the results that showed our universe was expanding at
an accelerating rate. Our results and those of another research team
sent the worldwide physics community reeling. We knew that it was a
tough problem. We knew we had to invent brand new technologies that
would help find the standard candles, a certain type of exploding star,
a supernova, needed to make our measurements and plot our points. We
knew this sort of experiment and analysis had never been done before.
We didn't know it would take us as long as it did.
Fortunately we did not have the pressures placed on companies by
vigilant investors eager for short-term returns. My team and I were
researchers at a Department of Energy Office of Science national
laboratory. There we were given the time, space and resources required
to accomplish our mission and were supported by a commitment to world-
class, leading-edge science.
Although it is a surprise to most people, DOE's Office of Science
is the Nation's largest funder of the physical sciences--including the
field of physics. The national laboratory provided me a supportive and
uniquely well-suited place to conduct my research. The Office of
Science, supported by the Federal Government, with a strong and
unwavering commitment to world-leading science, has the patience,
resources and institutions needed to consistently deliver
groundbreaking scientific and technological advances--the type of
advances that win Nobel Prizes and create new knowledge that leapfrogs
current understanding.
Why the whole of the United States scientific enterprise is greater
than the sum of its parts
My research is primarily supported by the DOE Office of Science,
but from the beginnings of my graduate and postdoctoral education and
training through today, I am most certainly a product of the Federal
Government's investment in a wide range of agencies, research programs,
universities and facilities. As an early career scientist, I received
funding from the National Science Foundation for research at the Center
for Particle Astrophysics at Berkeley. This early funding helped to
hone my skills as a researcher, prepared me for a successful science
career, and initiated my research. Likewise, funding from NASA has
supported work throughout my tenure as a scientist by providing
valuable time on the Hubble Space Telescope and NASA grants for
research. Collaborations with universities, industry, and other
national laboratories have been a constant and critical part of my
research career. In other words, it may not take a village, but it does
take an ecosystem to advance scientific and innovation progress.
As illustrated by my career, the Nation's science and innovation
enterprise is underpinned by this complex ecosystem of people, ideas
and tools. This scientific infrastructure, until recently, has been
unmatched and has been the envy of the world. It grew out of a post-
World War II commitment made by the Federal Government to support basic
scientific research conducted at U.S. universities and national
laboratories.
Our nation has never had a comprehensive science strategy. From
time to time we marshal our scientific resources and talents to focus
intently on certain large problems and opportunities, such as the
Manhattan Project, the Race to Space and the Human Genome Project. But
by and large, the development of our innovation enterprise has been an
organic one, fueled by an entrepreneurial American spirit that embraces
progress and always seeks to improve society by new knowledge and
understanding.
People like Ernest Orlando Lawrence, the inventor of the cyclotron
and the founder of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, begged,
borrowed, and otherwise obtained the resources needed to move science
forward. In Lawrence's case he established a laboratory in 1931 on the
campus of the University of California, Berkeley, that today is an
international leader in basic science and energy technology
development. Individuals like Lawrence, Fermi, Oppenheimer, and others,
pushed the boundaries of knowledge and physics to aid in the Allied
effort to defeat Nazism--in the process building the infrastructure and
intellectual capacity that would lead to the national laboratory
system. Other scientific, policy and political leaders worked
tirelessly to establish the National Science Foundation and set its
course as one of the greatest scientific grant-making organizations in
the world. Miraculously, or serendipitously, these scientific
initiatives, now agencies, and others, such as NASA, DARPA, NIST and
NIH, have developed collectively into a powerhouse ecosystem of
innovation. The results have been spectacular. A basic, but telling,
metric is that of all the Nobel Prizes awarded in the sciences,
medicine and economics, 48 percent of the winners have been from the
United States.
As in a natural ecosystem, each component of our research and
development enterprise has a role to play--contributing to its vitality
and sustainability. For example, it is widely accepted that health
research conducted by the NIH is very important. Each of us has a
personal story about how advances in medicine and health care have
touched our lives, our families and our friends. However, without
discoveries in the physical sciences--such as in physics and
chemistry--many of the breakthroughs and leapfrog advances in health
care will not take place. Better understanding of materials and
organisms at the most fundamental atomic and molecular levels leads to
new discoveries that find their way into new medicines and treatments.
Unfortunately, this linkage and the symbiotic nature of our scientific
enterprise is not obvious and certainly not mainstream knowledge. So,
please indulge me as I take a moment to describe the roles of various
participants in the Nation's innovation ecosystem. This description is
not all-inclusive, but hopefully will provide a better sense of its
nature and structure.
Universities
From the very beginning of our national history, universities have
been centers of scientific inquiry and technology advancement.
Referring to the 1862 founding of West Virginia University, a local
paper wrote, ``a place more eligible for the quiet and successful
pursuit of science . . . is nowhere to be found.'' E.O. Lawrence,
inventor of the cyclotron and founder of Berkeley Lab, graduated from
the University of South Dakota in 1922--his grounding in the sciences
there laid the foundation for remarkable contributions to science and
society. Universities educate and train future scientists and
engineers, like Lawrence, and host research in an open and encouraging
environment.
Universities are the great scientific hot houses that provide
fertile ground for scientific collaboration and exploration. Science is
typically an intimate endeavor at universities with principal
investigators working side by side with their team of students and
postdoctoral colleagues, conducting cutting edge research with new
ideas and great enthusiasm. It is an environment of opportunity and
passion that is very hard to replicate and generally unique to the
university setting. The NSF, NIH, DOE's Office of Science and other
grant making agencies fund the best and brightest at our universities
to conduct the most compelling research--research that neither
industry, nor any other institution would have the means or will to
fund.
National Laboratories
DOE's national laboratories, spawned from the Manhattan project and
subsequently home to large teams of scientists and scientific
resources, build and maintain unique, large-scale and world-leading
research tools that are utilized broadly by university and industrial
researchers. These tools, such as the Advanced Light Source at Berkeley
Lab, the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge, and the Center for
Nanoscale Materials at Argonne--over 30 facilities in total throughout
the DOE complex--provide tens of thousands of American researchers
access to critical scientific capabilities that help them to maintain
the Nation's scientific leadership. These researchers come from both
academia and industry; are funded by a host of Federal agencies,
philanthropic organizations and companies; and come from every state in
the union.
National laboratories, from their inception, have assembled and
nurtured multi-disciplinary teams of scientific experts to meet Federal
needs and address national R&D priorities and challenges of scale. With
a more focused and flexible organizational system than universities,
national laboratories can more easily adjust to concentrate
intellectual and capital resources on Federal mission needs and
scientific advancement.
As mentioned previously, my research requires a broad team of
astrophysicists, engineers, students, postdocs and others to accomplish
its goals. These collaborations often include researchers from dozens
of universities, other national laboratories and industry partners. Our
accomplishments would not have been possible without this team approach
and a national laboratory as the organizing and supporting institution.
Industry
Unfortunately, the days of the big industrial basic science
laboratory are over. As the Department of Commerce's January 2012
report on ``The Competitiveness and Innovative Capacity of the United
States'' expounded upon, investments in basic, curiosity-driven science
don't pay out directly for commercial investors, whereas the returns
for society are eventually large. Even so, industry still plays a
different but important role in the innovation ecosystem.
Industry delivers technological advances to the marketplace and to
society by making strategic, early investments in new technology.
Businesses rely on scientific and engineering talent produced by
universities and trained at national laboratories to meet their
workforce needs and remain globally competitive. Through in-house
applied research and by harnessing scientific advances and technology
developed at universities and national laboratories, industry drives
commerce and innovation. And, finally, researchers from industry
utilize the unique scientific tools of the national laboratories to
move technologies to the marketplace.
Why economic and national security are threatened by waning support for
science
As a Nobel Laureate, I am constantly invited to events to launch
new scientific initiatives and inaugurate or review new research
programs. Unfortunately, the majority of these invitations are coming
from other countries--China, South Korea, Germany, France, Saudi
Arabia, Switzerland, etc.--not from the U.S. Although my experience is
certainly anecdotal, the implications are backed up by real data. The
data clearly shows how other nations are increasing their investments
in basic science, unlike in the U.S. where support for and forward
movement on basic science appears to be stagnating. Data supporting
this may be found at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c0/c0i.htm
and attached to this testimony.
My field of physics and astrophysics offers a cautionary tale about
the effects of scientific stagnation on innovation leadership. With the
demise of U.S. plans to build the Superconducting Super Collider in the
1993, and the corresponding rise of European leadership to build the
Large Hadron Collider at CERN, the center of gravity for particle
physics at the energy frontier moved from America to Europe. Now,
instead of doing their research on American soil, U.S. science
students, postdocs and early career scientists who study the Higgs
boson and other high-energy particles are cutting their teeth in
Europe.
Fortunately, in some physics fields, such as my field of study,
astrophysics and cosmology--the study of the cosmos--the United States
still maintains scientific leadership. But, that leadership, too, is
threatened. Since shortly after the discovery of dark energy, my
colleagues and I, and other research teams around the country, have
proposed follow-up experiments, both large and small, in space and
ground-based, to study dark energy with greater precision. Even with
high rankings from agencies and the scientific community for each of
these proposed experiments, interagency gridlock and now ``no new
starts'' have left them in a state of almost suspended animation.
Meanwhile the European Space Agency is moving ahead with plans to
launch their own dark energy space mission, called Euclid, as early as
2020--seizing leadership in dark energy research. Research thrives on
competition; we need to compete, not forfeit.
Some will argue that during periods of constrained budgets all
Federal investments must be curtailed, cut back and reduced.
Admittedly, there are always opportunities to find efficiencies and
reduce costs. But, scrimping on science and holding up scientific
progress, for whatever reason, is penny wise and pound foolish. Even in
tough economic times and tight budgets it is possible to spend money
wisely and make the investments necessary to reap a brighter future.
The economic argument, though perhaps not immediately obvious to some,
is singularly compelling. Yet, there is a broader and perhaps more
important argument to be examined. Scientific advancement has made the
world a better place--living standards are rising across the planet,
fewer people are hungry and life spans are increasing. Science paves
the way for a more peaceful and productive existence.
Yet, when trouble arises somewhere around the world or at home,
whether natural or manmade, we must be prepared. Our response to
natural and manmade disasters of the future will require sophisticated
technologies yet invented. Threats may include comets or asteroids
crashing to earth, volcanoes darkening the planet's skies and, of
course, the scourge of war. Today our Nation has a strong base of
innovation and technological leadership because we have funded and
nurtured the best curiosity-driven science portfolio the world has ever
known. If we don't continue to nurture curiosity-driven science, will
we have the capacity to meet the threats of the future--say in twenty
or thirty years? If we lose our scientific leadership, we weaken our
true national security. It is that simple.
Even if faced with tough budgets, science cannot stand still. By
its very nature it is new and ever changing, and requires consistent
and continuous forward movement. ``No new starts'' means not doing
science. It means losing the U.S.'s role as a light and leader for the
world. It means not attracting and educating the next generation of
scientists. It means not being ready for future challenges. Science is
the act of discovery. It is not science if it sits still.
Conclusion
With the current fixation on short time lines and near horizons, I
doubt that my team's Nobel Prize winning research would be funded
today. How many young scientists with Nobel Prize quality ideas and
ambitions are not being funded today in the United States? How many are
now doing or will do their research in other countries, winning for
them the gold of the Prize, but also the economic potential of their
discoveries? America set the bar high in its support of science and
technology development. Other countries, admirably, are ramping up
their innovation engines and in many ways are attempting to emulate our
successes. Although we should applaud these efforts, we cannot afford
to be complacent and let other countries pass us by. We must stay in
the race and compete. Regardless of when and where the mystery of
``dark energy'' is uncovered it will be a tremendous accomplishment for
the world. Yet, from my perspective, as a United States scientist and
teacher, I hope that we make these advances here, at home and thereby
contribute to humanity's progress.
In closing, the U.S. innovation ecosystem is one of our most
precious assets--indeed, one of the world's most precious assets. The
Federal Government has a fundamental responsibility to keep this
ecosystem healthy because it gives the Nation a powerful competitive
edge, providing solutions to major national challenges and fueling
economic growth, and because it continues to make the world a better
place. Universities and laboratories have a responsibility to conduct
first-rate research on key scientific and technological problems with
intellectual rigor and efficient use of resources. Working together, we
strive to transfer the results of this research to markets and people
around the world for the benefit of society as a whole.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing.
I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The latest OECD estimates on Gross Expenditures on R&D (GERD)
confirm that the modest recovery initiated in 2010 continued into 2011.
For the whole OECD area, total R&D expenditures grew in real terms
by 1.3 percent in 2010, mainly driven by the higher education and
government sectors, while business R&D only increased by 0.6 percent.
OECD estimates indicate an overall real growth rate for GERD of 2.1
percent in 2011 driven by a gradual recovery in business R&D (2.8
percent) and sustained growth in research in the higher education
sector (2.5 percent), despite a reduction in government R&D (-1.2
percent).
In the EU area, total GERD grew by 3.2 percent in 2011, driven by
the business sector (4.2 percent), mainly Germany's (6.4 percent). In
contrast, U.S. R&D fell by 0.5 percent in real terms, with growth in
higher education offset by lower government and business R&D. After a
2.5 percent drop in 2010, U.S. business R&D (BERD) declined by a
further 0.4 percent in 2011.
GERD in China continued to growth at a rapid pace (14.1 percent),
mainly driven by business R&D which in 2011 reached more than half the
level of U.S. BERD, and 81 percent of EU BERD.
Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI) 2013/1
Last update: 16 July 2013
Direct link to the MSTI dataset in OECD.stat
Short address for this page: www.oecd.org/sti/msti
The Chairman. Thank you, sir, very, very much.
Dr. Maria Klawe.
Dr. Klawe. Klawe. Well done.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Well, I had a little phonetic help here.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Klawe. Thank you, gentlemen.
The Chairman. You know what, I have to say who you are.
Dr. Klawe. Oh.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Not only are you the President of Harvey Mudd
College, in fact, you are the first woman to lead the college
in its almost 60 years of history.
So we welcome you.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF DR. MARIA M. KLAWE, PRESIDENT,
HARVEY MUDD COLLEGE
Dr. Klawe. Thank you very much.
Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Senator Thune----
How about now?
The Chairman. Yes.
Dr. Klawe. All right. I'm off to a great start.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Klawe. Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Senator
Thune, distinguished members of the Committee, it's really a
pleasure to be here.
I'll just mention that in addition to being the President
of Harvey Mudd College, I'm also on the boards of a couple of
technology companies, Microsoft and Broadcom. I'm a computer
scientist, and so I'm going to bring a slightly different
perspective than our first two witnesses.
I'm the designated hitter for talking about STEM education,
and in particular for talking about my particular passion,
which is making all STEM disciplines nurturing and supportive
to everyone independent of gender or race or whether they're
football players or poets or lesbian, gay, or anything else.
And one of the things that Harvey Mudd College does, as a
tiny undergraduate institution, is try to be a lab for
innovation in STEM education. Not just at the undergraduate
level, which is what we are, but also in terms of innovating in
partnership with middle school and high schools.
I'm going to focus on talking about computer science
because I think it's a particularly important discipline for a
number of reasons. The first reason is that in terms of the
economic demand, the U.S. economy needs more computer science
grads than anything else. The second reason is that computer
science is the only discipline in science and engineering where
participation by women has declined over the last three decades
instead of increased.
Right now about 13 percent of the graduates receiving
bachelor's degrees in computer science are female; 4.5 percent
are African-American; and 6.3 percent are Hispanic. So computer
science has one of the worst diversity records.
It's also important because computer science affects every
possible part of our society. It affects health care. It
affects education, entertainment, and every area of industry.
And so if we don't figure out how to get a larger part of our
population to actually participate in this field, we will not
be in great shape. But the other reason I want to talk about it
is, this is actually not rocket science. It's not even physics.
The death of computer science majors is easy to fix.
I'm going to use the rest of my time to tell you how Harvey
Mudd College changed our percentage of students majoring in
computer science from 10 percent female to 40 percent in 4
years, and how we've kept it there. We have between 35 and 45
percent any given year. And we also have great participation
from our African-American and our Hispanic students as well.
I will also talk about how NSF funding helped make that
happen and not only helped make it happen at Mudd, but is
helping us disseminate our approaches not only to other
colleges and universities, which is happening, but also to high
schools and middle schools.
So why don't women and African-Americans and Hispanic
students want to major in computer science? Number one, they
think it's boring. Number two, they think that the kinds of
people who do it aren't cool. That computer scientists are guys
with no social skills that they wouldn't want to hang out with.
And number three, they think they wouldn't be good at computer
science.
Harvey Mudd College fixed the gender imbalance by fixing
those three things. First of all, we changed our intro CS class
to make it the most fun and least intimidating course ever
while keeping the rigor. The class has been so successful that
now more than half of the students in it are from the other
Claremont colleges. And if you don't know about the Claremont
colleges I will tell you that Harvey Mudd College is known to
have the toughest courses among all the colleges, so usually
Pomona and Claremont McKenna and Scripps students and Pitzer
students don't take our courses. They love this intro course so
much that they take it.
We provided our female CS students with undergraduate
research experiences, funded largely by NSF. We know that for
both female students and underrepresented minority students,
early access to research experiences helps keep students in the
system. Finally, we took students to the Grace Hopper
Celebration of Women in Computing. NSF funds a certain number
of scholarships for undergraduates and graduate students to
attend that conference every year. The conference is an amazing
experience. Imagine 4,800 participants, of which perhaps a
hundred are male, celebrating computer science and careers in
computing. It's inspirational to young people.
NSF is supporting our dissemination of these approaches to
colleges, to middle school teachers, to high school teachers
who are developing curriculum. We thank NSF and we thank you
for the support of this committee in making this possible. We
are changing the world. And with you, we can change it even
faster.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Klawe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Maria M. Klawe, President,
Harvey Mudd College
Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune and members of the
Committee, my name is Maria Klawe, and I am the President of Harvey
Mudd College in Claremont, California. Harvey Mudd is a small,
undergraduate-only college of 800 high achieving students. It is a
premier science, engineering and mathematics college that prepares the
Nation's brightest students to become ethical problem solvers who
develop a clear understanding of the impact their work has on society.
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on the
subject of Federal support of basic scientific research and the
societal benefits of such research. I will describe some of the
challenges in STEM education today and solutions currently underway to
address these challenges. Additionally, I will address the role that
government funding and private funding play in supporting these
solutions.
Challenges
America's first challenge is K-12 math and science education. We do
not have the level of math and science teaching that we need in grades
K-12 to ensure there are enough students who are interested in STEM and
capable of doing well in these subjects once they get to college. We
need more engaging and rigorous curricula, teachers who have a strong
background in their respective subject areas and more resources for
STEM teachers on effective practices.
The second challenge is that the few students who do go on to study
STEM in college often choose to major in fields that are not well
aligned with where job opportunities exist. Higher education in the
U.S. produces more graduates in the life sciences (biology and
chemistry) than the economy can employ. These two disciplines, and
particularly biology--the most popular science major--tend to include
limited study of mathematics, computer science and physics.
So when we think about issues in STEM and where we need additional
investment, we should focus on the disciplines where the number of
graduates is much smaller than the job opportunities; where the economy
needs more people--not just on which academic disciplines students
today are interested in studying.
The demand from industry today, in terms of the need for STEM
graduates, is for software engineers. Even hardware companies like
Intel, Broadcom and Qualcomm that have relied primarily on hardware
engineers are shifting to hiring more software engineers. Until
recently, they have hired one-third software engineers and two-thirds
hardware engineers. They predict that these ratios will be reversed
within five years.
Here we have a clear disparity between the needs of industry and
the number of computer science graduates we produce. We simply do not
have enough students graduating high school with an interest in
pursuing computer science. This is in large part due to the striking
lack of women and students of color who choose to go into computer
science. Nationwide, only 13 percent of computer science majors are
female; 6.3 percent are Hispanic and 4.5 percent are black or African
American (Computing Research Association, 2012 Taulbee Survey,
www.cra.org/resources/taulbee). We cannot meet the needs of industry if
we are drawing from less than half the population. We also cannot
develop the best, most creative solutions when teams are homogenous.
Diverse teams with different perspectives create the best solutions.
Research shows that young women especially are reluctant to study
computer science for three reasons: (1) Young women think computer
science is boring; (2) Young women think that computer scientists are
nerdy people with poor social skills; and (3) Young women think they
won't be good at computer science. There are also a large number of
white and Asian males who don't pursue computer science because of our
Nation's negative stereotype of computer scientists.
Solutions
There are many bright, dedicated people working on STEM reform in
both K-12 and higher education, and I'd like to briefly describe some
of the more successful efforts that are supported with both government
and private funding and that deserve to be shared widely.
Redesigned Introductory Computer Science Class Attracts Diverse
Students
Harvey Mudd College and other leading institutions have
intentionally addressed the lack of interest in computer science by
redesigning the introductory computer science course to make it much
more compelling and enjoyable for a broad swath of people, including
students of color and women, in particular.
To spark interest, Harvey Mudd's computer science faculty changed
its CS 5 course from a Java programming class into one that introduces
students to a broader range of topics in computer science. We made the
class all about finding creative solutions to fun problems in science
and engineering using computational approaches. The course uses the
Python language, which is easier to apply to Web development and
problem solving. CS 5 is now our most popular first-semester course.
To increase women's confidence, we separated the course into two
sections, Gold and Black (our school colors), where Gold is for
students with no prior computer science experience. This grouping has
resulted in a confidence-boosting atmosphere, especially for beginners,
who are disproportionately women and students of color. Students who
are experienced programmers don't discourage less-experienced, but
equally talented, classmates.
This effort began in 2006, and within four years the percentage of
female computer science majors at Harvey Mudd jumped from 10 percent to
40 percent, the highest of any co-ed college we know. We now average
between 40 to 45 percent.
A National Science Foundation grant (CPATH-2) for $800,000 allowed
us to disseminate our highly successful CS 5 curriculum and share our
approaches with other institutions, many of which are now teaching the
course in its entirety or adapting it with great results.
To increase our female students' sense of belonging in the
technology field, we also take a large cohort of first-year female
students to the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing.
Students are able to see the variety of jobs available within the
discipline and meet successful role models at all career stages, as
well as experience an effervescent and welcoming culture. The
conference has proved to be a powerful tool in encouraging young women
to take more computer science classes and ultimately major in computer
science.
Undergraduate Research Opportunities
Several studies have shown that early research experiences for
undergraduate women and other underrepresented students increase
retention in STEM fields and the likelihood they will attend graduate
school. NSF funding has helped Harvey Mudd to increase the number of
undergraduate research opportunities available to students, beginning
in the summer after their first year. These research projects allow
first-years to apply their knowledge, boost their confidence and deepen
their interest in the discipline. Female students in particular embrace
the opportunity to engage in 10 weeks of intensive, challenging summer
research on projects such as artificial intelligence, robotics and
educational video games. The experience has helped them discover they
are not only able to do the work of a computer scientist but also enjoy
it.
Innovative Engineering Education
In engineering education, NSF funding has supported the development
of more experiential, project-based learning, proven to be effective in
improving learning outcomes.
At Harvey Mudd, we have found that project-based learning,
especially early on, also supports retention and diversity in the
engineering program. We incorporate design instruction and experiential
learning into our students' very first engineering courses. Our
engineering design problems require students to work in small teams in
order to apply techniques for solving design problems. The team setting
builds confidence and allows for a diversity of talent to emerge. Once
we get students into the upper courses--the traditional, theoretically
based courses--they handle the theory better. We have found that the
earlier we expose students to project-based learning, the clearer their
learning experience is. Now they see complicated theoretical topics in
a way our students, now alumni, couldn't see them even 10 years ago.
There is a real slingshot effect; students come out of their first
three to four semesters quite advanced. They are not afraid of the
technology. They are not afraid of building and testing--having it
break and doing it again.
This approach to engineering education has raised retention rates
and increased the number of women in the major. In the past 10 years,
we've gone from 30 percent female engineering majors in the Class of
2003 to 42 percent female majors in the Class of 2013. We are on track
this year to have our first female majority of engineering majors in a
graduating class; of engineering majors in the Class of 2014, 56
percent are female.
NSF funding has supported the sharing of our educational models
through its support of the Mudd Design Workshops, a biennial program
that brings together engineering educators, practitioners and
researchers to discuss issues of innovation in design and engineering
education. Engineering faculty share effective educational practices
about the inclusion of design courses and elements into other
institutions' engineering curricula.
NSF Grant for the Flipped Classroom Study
Government funding supports research into STEM teaching and
learning and the development of new, more effective learning
technologies. For example, flipped classrooms are being implemented
nationwide, much like the concept of massive open online courses
(MOOCs). In a flipped or inverted classroom, lectures are delivered
outside of class--via online videos or screencasts--and viewed by
students during their free time. Classroom time is then used for
instructor-mediated, hands-on learning. Many think that the flipped
format has the potential to transform STEM education by increasing
student time spent on what research has proven to be the most effective
teaching techniques without sacrificing material coverage or
educational scaffolding.
Educators are beginning to invert their classrooms, but there is
limited data on learning gains from controlled studies. Four Harvey
Mudd College professors have been awarded a three-year, $199,544 NSF
grant to rigorously examine the impact of inverting three STEM
courses--in chemistry, engineering and mathematics--by measuring
student learning gains. Several STEM fields were included in the study
so that results could be applicable across fields and institutions.
K-12 Outreach
Our nation's economic future depends upon improving the K-12
pipeline into the STEM fields. We must expand the talent pool of
interested and qualified students capable of pursuing STEM careers,
crucial for U.S. economic competitiveness and growth, as well as for
developing solutions to the pressing challenges-energy, climate,
healthcare, security-facing our world. Yet many students never make it
into the STEM pipeline, because of inadequate preparation in math and
science in their K-12 systems.
Federal research and development funding as well as private funding
are playing a vital role in college outreach programs that seek to
strengthen K-12 STEM education. NSF funding allows colleges and
universities to share their expertise and develop new learning
technologies to improve the quality of STEM teaching and learning in K-
12 classrooms across the country. These programs depend on government
funding to support their efforts to transform K-12 STEM instruction.
MyCS--Bringing Computer Science to Middle Schools and High Schools
The NSF funds an innovative computer science outreach program for
middle schools and high schools that do not have the resources to offer
such courses. Computer scientists at Harvey Mudd have developed a model
program, funded by a $596,501 NSF grant, called ``MyCS: Middle Years
Computer Science.'' The goal is to develop positive computational
identities among middle-school students: encouraging their self-
efficacy, enjoyment and future engagement in computer science. MyCS is
designed to pique the interest of early adolescent students, especially
from groups underrepresented in computer science, and build a
foundation of computer science vocabulary, algorithmic thinking and
skills. The MyCS program works with several schools with predominately
Latino-Latina and Pacific Islander populations. The classes expose
these students to computer science while they are in the pivotal years
of identity formation and excite them about computational creativity
before they have been convinced that CS is something ``people like me''
don't do.
The program includes professional development workshops for
teachers--to provide the foundation for teaching MyCS--and academic-
year support for MyCS students and teachers, provided by Harvey Mudd
students and faculty. It also includes assessments to record changes in
students' and teachers' computational self-efficacy and the influence
of MyCS on their future computational choices. The benefits: these
communities will continue to develop computationally confident students
even after the project concludes. Second, assessments will cull less
effective variations and facets of MyCS, providing a ready-to-go
curriculum that will succeed in further regional deployment and will be
prepared for larger-scale vetting, national trials and broader
adaptations.
What 10K Novice Teachers Can Learn from Teachers with 10K Hours of
Experience
High school computer science teachers, especially beginners, face
significant challenges in making the subject comprehensible for their
young audiences. A broad NSF-sponsored computer science initiative
seeks to create 10,000 new, well-qualified computer science teachers in
10,000 high schools by 2017. As part of that initiative, Harvey Mudd CS
professor Colleen Lewis recently received a three-year, $598,513 NSF
grant to develop a library of online resources that will help beginning
and developing high school computer science instructors teach 90 basic
computer science concepts. Lewis' project will allow teachers to go
online, find the concept they are struggling with and identify five to
10 effective strategies. Her project, ``What 10K Novice Teachers Can
Learn from Teachers with 10K Hours of Experience,'' seeks to develop
better and additional computer science teachers, improve the overall
quality of computer science instruction and increase access to computer
science for students of color and those who are economically
disadvantaged.
The Games Network: Games for Students, Games by Students
An NSF grant has expanded a K-12 outreach program in which Harvey
Mudd computer science students work with middle-school social studies
teachers to develop educational video games. The program's goal is to
shatter stereotypes about the computer science field by introducing
younger students to the fun, creative side of software development.
Sixth- and seventh-grade students test the games and provide feedback
to the college-level students, who gain the opportunity to create games
for an audience other than themselves. The grant also funds the
creation of a guidebook to help other schools start similar projects.
Private Funding
While federally-funded programs play a vital role in improving K-12
STEM education, it will take multiple efforts and partnerships to
implement better STEM learning opportunities for all of the Nation's K-
12 students. Private funding, both in conjunction with Federal funding
and on its own, plays an essential role in supporting flexible programs
that strengthen K-12 STEM education and increase students' ability to
succeed in STEM careers.
Math for America
Math for America, of which I am a board member, is a nonprofit
organization that seeks to significantly improve math education in
public schools by providing professional development and support for
outstanding math and science teachers at the high school and middle
school levels. For example, the Math for America Teaching Fellows
Program recruits participants with a strong math background, who
receive funding to complete a master's degree in education. Fellows
commit to teaching math in public schools for at least four years and
to participating in professional development and coaching programs. In
exchange they receive an annual stipend of up to $20,000. Math for
America was founded in New York by mathematician and philanthropist
James Simons. Its expansion to other cities including Los Angeles,
Boston, Salt Lake City, San Diego and Washington, D.C. is supported by
matching funding from the NSF, which has been critical in extending its
reach across the Nation.
Homework Hotline
James Simons also supports Harvey Mudd College's Homework Hotline,
an over-the-phone, mathematics and science tutoring service for
students in grades 4-12. Launched in February 2010, the hotline was
modeled after the successful Homework Hotline created at Rose-Hulman
Institute of Technology in 1991. Harvey Mudd partnered with RHIT to
bring the program to the College's local communities. RHIT and Harvey
Mudd share a common mission to enhance academic performance, reinforce
classroom concepts and promote interest in mathematics and science.
RHIT shared its system with us, provided technical advice for its
implementation and continues to be a valued collaborator. Harvey Mudd
College Homework Hotline tutors helped 2,478 students last fall, a 21
percent increase from the previous year in the number of 4th- through
12th-graders successfully coached in STEM subjects through the free
hotline.
Physics and Computer Science MOOCs for High Schools
Many high schools, especially those serving populations
underrepresented in STEM, are not able to offer AP physics or computer
science classes because they lack resources or teachers trained in
these subjects. With the help of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
Harvey Mudd is developing two MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) for
high school teachers who would like to teach AP physics or computer
science but who don't have the expertise. These two MOOCs will provide
teachers, who already have the pedagogy training, with lectures, hands-
on activities, and problem sets in computer science or AP physics. The
MOOCs will draw on the best educational practices and proven strategies
for learning these two topics. A team of faculty, students and an
alumna of Harvey Mudd is creating the MOOCs and is set to deploy them
this fall, first in local high schools and then regionally and
nationally.
Community Outreach Programs: Science Bus, Pathways
Harvey Mudd recently received a $150,000 grant from the Ralph M.
Parsons Foundation to support community engagement, including outreach
to K-12. The funding helps support programs such as Science Bus, a
student-run outreach effort at Harvey Mudd based on a model developed
at Stanford University. Science Bus coordinates student volunteers to
visit local elementary schools and teach hands-on science lessons.
Lessons include a science demonstration, an experiment and a
discussion, with an overarching focus to build positive associations
with science. The program's goal is to inspire more young women and
men, especially from groups that are currently underrepresented, to
pursue higher education and careers in science.
Another such effort is Pathways, a Los Angeles-area mathematics
outreach program based in the Department of Mathematics at Harvey Mudd.
Professional mathematicians eager to share their love of mathematics
with elementary, junior high and high school students visit LA-area
schools whose populations are often predominantly underrepresented in
STEM. The volunteers give 40-50 minute presentations designed to expose
students to parts of mathematics that are often unseen outside of
college, but that are nonetheless accessible and often incredibly eye-
opening. Similar outreach programs exist at many colleges and
universities; they can play an important role in sparking interest in
STEM and deserve greater support.
Conclusion
Our primary challenge in STEM education today is to make K-12
science, math and technology classes engaging and rigorous so that more
students are both interested in and capable of pursuing degrees in
STEM. We must also attract more undergraduate students--particularly
women and students of color--to major in fields that are in demand in
industry; thus spurring the economic growth and technological
innovation upon which our country's economic success depends. Federal
research and development funding, as well as private funding, are vital
to our current and future efforts to strengthen the K-12 pipeline,
increase the diversity of the STEM talent pool, and ultimately improve
our Nation's capacity to tackle the challenges of an increasingly
technological world.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much.
I don't understand why computer science is not cool. I
disagree with the premise.
Dr. Klawe. No, no, no. It's not that it's not cool; it's
very cool. It's the coolest field there is. The problem is that
our young people, and young women in particular, don't think
it's cool.
The Chairman. I know, but I--why?
Dr. Klawe. Because of the image of the----
The Chairman. They think they can't----
Dr. Klawe.--people who do it.
The Chairman.--do it. They think they can't do it.
Dr. Klawe. They think they can't do it, but they also think
it's for guys. They think it's a boy thing.
The Chairman. Wow.
Dr. Klawe. There is tons of research on it, including done
by myself.
The Chairman. Maria and Amy, will you--are you willing to
change that?
Senator Cantwell. I'm well aware, and we'll have questions
when we get to that. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar. Being that we're in computer states
alike.
The Chairman. All right. Well, that's both inspiring and
depressing.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Klawe. It's not often that you get a twofer.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. No, but I mean generally speaking, in my
office, I mean, I think that if women ran the world, we'd be a
lot better world.
Dr. Klawe. Of course.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. So women should be able to understand that
computer science is OK.
Dr. Klawe. And at Harvey Mudd they do.
The Chairman. OK. There we go.
And finally, Dr. Stephen Tang, President and CEO of the
University City Science Center in Philadelphia.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN S. TANG, Ph.D., MBA, PRESIDENT
AND CEO, UNIVERSITY CITY SCIENCE CENTER,
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Dr. Tang. Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking
Member Thune.
And good afternoon, everyone.
I am Steve Tang. I'm the President and CEO of the
University City Science Center in Philadelphia. And I'm honored
to join my distinguished colleagues on today's panel.
I'd like to start by confirming that the Science Center
supports the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. Since
2007, America COMPETES has provided critical investments in
science, space, energy, STEM education, and innovation, all
with the goal of increasing our Nation's global
competitiveness. The Science Center also supports the Act's
establishment of a regional innovation program to encourage
regional innovation strategies for technology commercialization
and tech-based economic development.
And toward the end of my remarks, I'd like to share with
you a few new ideas on how Congress can help encourage still
more technology transfer that will ultimately lead to new
companies, new jobs, and new economic growth.
With a PhD in Chemical Engineering from Lehigh University,
an MBA from the Wharton School, and a bachelor's degree from
the College of William and Mary, I admit to being one of those
socially inept males----
[Laughter.]
Dr. Tang. That Dr. Klawe was speaking about. But I also
have an extensive background in science, business, and
entrepreneurship. I have a firsthand understanding of the power
and potential of technology commercialization, too. I also
served as a member of the U.S. Department of Commerce's
Innovation Advisory Board, which guided the 2012 study of the
Nation's economic competitiveness in innovation capacity
pursuant to the last reauthorization of America COMPETES.
This report made several thoughtful recommendations, and
the President has since issued a number of Executive Orders
that have drawn attention to this subject; however, I believe
that additional legislative action is needed to translate these
ideas into concrete results.
At the Science Center we cultivate and expand the
possibilities that open up when research moves out of the lab
and into the marketplace. We are the Nation's oldest and
largest urban research park. And I'm proud to report that we
are celebrating our 50th anniversary. As an independent
nonprofit organization, we are a dynamic hub for innovation and
entrepreneurship in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. We
provide space, services, and support to academics and
entrepreneurs working in diverse emerging technologies such as
materials, information technology, life sciences, and clean
tech.
Over the past 50 years graduates from our incubators have
created more than 15,000 direct jobs that remain in Greater
Philadelphia today and contribute more than $9 billion to the
region's economy annually.
Our current startups are pursuing technological
breakthroughs in fields such as food safety and cancer
treatment. Many of these companies rely on targeted Federal
funding from NSF and other agencies covered under America
COMPETES. For example, one of our current residents, Graphene
Frontiers, a spinout from the University of Pennsylvania, is
developing a large-scale production process for graphene, a
nano-material with an unbeatable combination of strength,
flexibility, and conductivity that promises to revolutionize
everything from scientific instruments to consumer electronics.
Graphene Frontiers has received nearly a million dollars
from NSF funds. We're also collaborating with the Children's
Hospital of Philadelphia on the commercialization of an online
interactive health, wellness, and prevention system. This
project is funded in part by a million dollar grant from NSF's
Accelerating Innovation Research program.
At the Science Center we support technology
commercialization in the broadest sense by acting as an
innovation intermediary, or linchpin, if you will, that brings
together academia, industry, and capital. Our QED Proof of
Concept Program provides business support for academics working
on life-science technologies with high commercial potential.
The goal is to retire the business risk in these early stage
projects so that they can attract follow-on investment. Twenty-
two colleges, universities, hospitals, and research
institutions throughout the Greater Philadelphia area
participate in QED.
Of the 12 research projects that have completed the
program, five have resulted in new licenses or companies based
on those technologies. And what's more, these five projects
have also attracted more than $9 billion in follow-on funding
from the private sector.
In our new Phase 1 Ventures Program, we'll help early stage
companies apply for and obtain SBIR and STTR grants and then
provide the companies with management support and access to
outside expertise, as well as connections to private sector
funding in order to help them grow.
The Science Center's vast network of relationships and
connections helps make us a leader in technology-based economic
development, or TBED. Yet like other research parks and other
nonprofit TBED organizations, we are unable to fulfill our
potential as catalysts for tech transfer and commercialization
simply because we're not eligible to apply for most grants from
NSF or other Federal agencies. This lack of eligibility is due
to the fact that we're not an academic institution. As a rule,
access to most grant opportunities from NSF and other agencies
are limited to degree-granting academic institutions.
I certainly fully appreciate the current budget situation
and understand that in many ways we're playing a zero-sum game.
However, I believe there are more effective ways we can
allocate and deploy existing research dollars to maximize the
Nation's return on investment.
So I appear before you today to advocate not only for the
reauthorization of COMPETES, but for two other proposals.
First, the Science Center supports an increase in allocation of
existing Federal funding for translational research,
commercialization, and tech transfer by universities and
companies alike as a critical and logical compliment to the
Nation's historic emphasis on basic research. And second, we
support an expansion of the ability of TBED organizations like
the Science Center, which are not degree-granting academic
institutions, to apply for and secure Federal grants from NSF
and other agencies.
These moves would enable organizations like ours to
ultimately help speed the acceleration of cutting-edge
technologies from lab to the market. In addition, the Science
Center supports measures such as H.R. 2981, the TRANSFER Act of
2013, which would allocate existing funds to proof-of-concept
activities that validate the commercial potential of early
stage research.
This legislation would require that agencies such as NIH,
NSF, DOD, and DOE devote a small portion of the already-
scheduled increase in their STTR funding to earlier stage
proof-of-concept and prototype development research. This
reallocation of funding would further incentivize the
commercialization of new technologies and the creation of small
businesses.
I thank you very much for your time, your attention, and
your interest in this important topic. And I welcome your
comments and questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Tang follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen S. Tang, Ph.D., MBA, President and CEO,
University City Science Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Thune. And good
afternoon, everyone.
I'm Steve Tang, President and CEO of the University City Science
Center in Philadelphia. It's an honor to join my distinguished
colleagues on today's panel.
I'd like to start by confirming that the Science Center supports
the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. Since 2007, America
COMPETES has provided critical investments in science, space, energy,
STEM education, and innovation, all with the goal of increasing our
Nation's global competitiveness.
The Science Center also supports the Act's establishment of a
``Regional Innovation Program'' to encourage regional innovation
strategies for technology commercialization and tech-based economic
development.
And toward the end of my remarks, I'd like to share with you a few
new ideas on how Congress can help encourage still more technology
transfer that will ultimately lead to new companies, new jobs and new
economic growth.
With a PhD in chemical engineering from Lehigh and an MBA from
Wharton, and with an extensive background in science, business and
entrepreneurship, I have a first-hand understanding of the power and
potential of technology commercialization.
I also served as a member of the U.S. Commerce Department's
Innovation Advisory Board, which guided the 2012 study of the Nation's
economic competitiveness and innovation capacity, pursuant to the last
reauthorization of America COMPETES. This report made several
thoughtful recommendations, and the President has since issued a number
of Executive Orders that have drawn attention to this subject. However,
I believe that additional legislative action is needed to translate
these ideas into concrete results.
At the Science Center, we cultivate and expand the possibilities
that open up when research moves out of the lab and into the
marketplace. We are the Nation's oldest and largest urban research
park, and I am proud to report that we are celebrating our 50th
anniversary.
As an independent nonprofit organization, we are a dynamic hub for
innovation and entrepreneurship in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and
Delaware. We provide space, services and support to academics and
entrepreneurs working in diverse emerging technologies, such as
materials, IT, life sciences and clean tech.
Over the past 50 years, graduates of our incubators have created
more than 15,000 direct jobs that remain in Greater Philadelphia today
and contribute more than $9 billion to the regional economy annually.
Our current start-ups are pursuing technological breakthroughs in
fields such as food safety and cancer treatment. Many of these
companies rely on targeted Federal funding from NSF and other agencies
covered under America COMPETES.
For example, one of our current residents, Graphene Frontiers, a
spinout from the University of Pennsylvania, is developing a large-
scale production process for graphene, a nanomaterial with an
unbeatable combination of strength, flexibility and conductivity that
promises to revolutionize everything from scientific instruments to
consumer electronics. Graphene Frontiers has received nearly $1 million
in NSF grants.
We're also collaborating with the Children's Hospital of
Philadelphia on the commercialization of an online interactive health,
wellness and prevention system. This project is funded in part by a $1
million grant from NSF's Accelerating Innovation Research program.
At the Science Center, we support technology commercialization in
the broadest sense, by acting as an innovation intermediary--or
linchpin--that brings together academia, industry and capital.
Our QED Proof-of-Concept Program provides business support for
academics working on life science technologies with high commercial
potential. The goal is to retire the business risk in these early-stage
projects, so that they can attract follow-on investment.
Twenty two colleges, universities, hospitals and research
institutions throughout Greater Philadelphia participate in QED. Of the
12 research projects that have completed the program, five have
resulted in new licenses or new companies based on their technologies.
What's more, these five projects have so far attracted more than $9
million in follow-on funding from the private sector.
And our new Phase 1 Ventures Program helps early-stage companies
apply for and obtain SBIR and STTR grants, and then provides the
companies with management support and access to outside expertise, as
well as connections to private sector funding, in order to help them
grow.
The Science Center's vast networks of relationships and connections
help make us a leader in technology-based economic development, or
TBED.
Yet, like other research parks and other non-profit TBED
organizations, we are unable to fulfill our potential as catalysts for
tech transfer and commercialization, simply because we are not eligible
to apply for most grants from NSF and other Federal agencies. This lack
of eligibility is due to the fact that we are not an academic
institution. As a rule, access to most grant opportunities at NSF and
other agencies are limited to degree-granting academic institutions.
I fully appreciate the current budget situation, and understand
that we're playing a zero-sum game. However, I believe there are more
effective ways we can allocate and deploy existing research dollars, to
maximize the Nation's return on investment.
So I appear before you today to advocate not only for the
reauthorization of COMPETES, but also for two other proposals. First,
the Science Center supports an increase in the allocation of existing
Federal funding for translational research, commercialization, and tech
transfer by universities and companies alike, as a critical, and
logical, complement to the Nation's historic emphasis on basic
research. Second, we support an expansion of the ability of TBED
organizations like the Science Center, which are not degree-granting
academic institutions, to apply for and secure Federal grants from NSF
and other agencies.
These moves would enable organizations like ours to ultimately help
speed the acceleration of cutting-edge technologies from lab to market.
In addition, the Science Center supports measures such as HR 2981,
the TRANSFER Act of 2013, which would allocate existing funding to
proof-of-concept activities that validate the commercial potential of
early-stage research. This legislation would require that agencies such
as NIH, NSF, DOD, and DOE devote a small portion of the already
scheduled increase in their STTR funding to earlier stage proof-of-
concept and prototype development research. This re-allocation of
funding would further incentivize the commercialization of new
technologies and creation of small businesses.
Thank you for your time, your attention, and your interest in this
important topic! I welcome your comments and questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, sir.
I'm going to start out, maybe this is a little bit
controversial, but it isn't to me, I think we have to face up
to it in the Congress and as a nation; and that is the whole
question of sequestration. Well before sequestration, The
Science Coalition published this: Sparking Economic Growth, and
it highlights companies created from federally-funded
university research fueling American innovation and economic
growth.
We have copies for anybody who wants to have that. It is
sort of a follow-up to a previous report and includes this
quote: ``a daunting outlook for America if it were to continue
on the perilous path it has been following in recent decades
with regards to sustained competitiveness.''
Sequestration has just made things worse. It sort of got in
by accident. Yes, we voted it in, but it was not meant to stick
around. I think on both sides of the aisle there's quite a lot
of frustration with it particularly as it affects one's own
university research and other types of things and in general. I
mean, you know, in West Virginia food stamps are important and
a lot of people will be getting far fewer food stamps. There
are so many dimensions to it. It affects all aspects of our
life.
The Vice Chancellor for research at the University of
Kansas referred to sequestration as a slowly growing cancer
that threatens young scientists' careers.
And I think, Dr. Klawe, that people dream and are inspired
toward careers not always by literal things, but sort of by a
sense of open space, open possibilities. Sequestration is
something that closes that sense of open possibilities.
The University of Maryland's chief research officer said
that he's witnessing a brain-drain with top researchers looking
to move abroad. And it used to be, I believe, that we welcomed
budding scientists from overseas, from the Philippines, from
Taiwan, from India, from various places, China, et cetera; and
they would come and they would stay at our universities. They'd
get their degrees, and they would stay. And what they do now is
they get their degrees, and then they go home.
I can't criticize that. I can't criticize that because they
belong to nations that need them in other ways. On the other
hand, I mourn it simply because of what we are losing, and it's
not incidental. I think it's due to the lack of resources. They
don't see a resource-based platform which gives them reason to
hope.
So question for all of you, each of you, do each of you
agree with the concerns raised by these comments? That's a
little bit direct, but that's the way I'm feeling. How would
each of you describe the situation in this country in terms of
our ability to train a scientific workforce to innovate and be
competitive?
Dr. Droegemeier, just----
Dr. Droegemeier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, indeed, I think you've hit the point very, very well.
At NSF and in FY 2013 budget, NSF was able to mitigate some of
the damage from sequestration, but that's not going to be
possible going forward. And there's great deep concern about
the impacts in terms of reducing numbers of grants which will
fund our students to become next-generation scientists. It will
have a huge impact on facilities, perhaps leading to the
nonconstruction of facilities that are planned or maybe even in
the shuttering of facilities that already exist.
One thing I'm very concerned about is the participation
broadening that is so important that we heard in terms of
drawing women and underrepresented individuals in the
workforce. Given what the demographics of our Nation will look
like 20 or 30 years from now, we simply won't have the people
to do the innovation, to do the research to keep us
competitive.
And the other thing I think that's quite concerning is the
fact that sequestration, then with the government shutdown, as
well, on top of already very problematic budgets and very, very
tough success rates, low success rates in agencies, in Federal
agencies; people are getting discouraged. We're seeing students
say, you know, I really don't think I want science as a career.
I look at my faculty mentors. I hear what they're saying. I
watch their body language. So not only are we potentially
losing the generation we already have, but the next generation
coming in, they're quite discouraged.
And as you said earlier, we had a hurdle to overcome when
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' was written. It's not only
gotten worse, it's a problem that is not symmetric in its
dimension. It--you can reduce the funding very quickly and we
can go down the hill very quickly, but climbing back up takes a
much, much longer period of time. So it's not easily
reversible. You can't just turn it around and get back as
quickly as you lost ground to begin with.
The Chairman. Dr. Perlmutter.
Dr. Perlmutter. And I think I can echo that. And I would
say that the cumulative effect of having not only sequestration
but also a series of continuing resolutions and then of course
recently the shutdown has created a rather extra problem for
the sciences that you see in the very difficult time that any
of the agencies have in making any new starts. So beginning any
new programs becomes very, very difficult in an environment
where they can't predict where they're going to be in an
upcoming--you know, during the year, let alone over several
years.
And of course for the sciences, not doing new starts is
particularly damaging. If you aren't starting new things in the
sciences, you really aren't doing science.
In the examples where I was describing today this work on
dark energy, I can see it in both the big and in the small.
In--there was a large, a very interesting satellite program
that we've been working on, oh, since the year 2000, which had
been approved and was, you know, would have gone ahead in any
other environment; but it's been kicked down the road over and
over again to the point that now Europe is moving forward with
their own version of a satellite telescope to explore dark
energy.
And in fact, the post doc that I just mentioned was
planning to be in Europe, so they would get to do their dark
energy work there.
Even smaller projects, projects such as the Dark Energy
Spectrographic Instrument (DESI) are being negatively affected.
A space project is still something that is very, very viable.
It's called W-first. And it's something that we obviously
should definitely do before we are beaten at our own project by
the Europeans.
On the small-scale projects like the ground-based project
called DESI, it's a few tens of millions of dollars, and
projects like that can't get going even though they're highly
ranked, they're approved, and yet the lack of certainty for the
agencies means that they can't actually commit to beginning
anything new. And you know, these are just two examples--DESI
and WFIRST--that I'm closely aware of because they're in my own
immediate field, but talking to the scientists around me, it's
the same problem everywhere.
And of course, this just isn't doing science at the level
that the United States, you know, is known for.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Klawe. So----
The Chairman. Doctor.
Dr. Klawe.--one of the things I'm really excited about that
the NSF has been pushing for several years now is broadening
participation in computer science so that we do attract young
women, African-Americans, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans,
Hispanics and other underrepresented groups to computer
science.
As I watched what happened at NSF several months ago due to
sequestration, I saw a two-week process unfold. Week one, the
person who leads this particular program, in CS did a
presentation at the White House and was told that wonderful
results were coming out of the program and how exciting it was
and so forth. Week two, her entire budget was cut--gone.
They've done some juggling, and they've tried to put some
of it back; but I mean, it's just so frustrating because I--
it's just like doing big science projects, if you're going to
try and change the way that we teach computer science, the way
that we attract young people to be interested in this field and
then all of a sudden all of your, everything grinds to a halt,
you just slide backward so quickly.
So I agree with the comments that you read out.
Sequestration is not just hurting our research, our basic
research, it's hurting innovation, and it's also hurting our
efforts to attract more young people into STEM disciplines
where they are so deeply needed.
The Chairman. I thank you.
Dr. Tang.
Dr. Tang. Mr. Chairman, there's no question sequestration
has hurt and will continue to hurt the business of science. And
I use those words intentionally. All businesses and business
decisions always require minimal uncertainty in either revenue
or expenses. And sequestration has caused many universities to
reconsider their overall commitment, particularly to younger
faculty members.
We see this through our 31 shareholders, which are all
universities and research institutions in Greater Philadelphia.
The economy in Greater Philadelphia is largely driven by higher
education and the hundred institutes of higher education there.
And it's--so I would say it's a very fragile situation.
And I would refer to Senator Alexander's opening comments
about the commitment that as a nation China is making as a
percentage of its GDP to the sciences and to innovation.
We cannot afford fits and starts in the funding for
research overall. And I think it ultimately disadvantages us.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Senator Thune.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, I
want you to know that you are living proof that it's possible
to be both brainy and cool.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. It can happen.
The Chairman. I'm his friend.
Senator Warner. Is that for the record?
Senator Thune. That's for the record.
Dr. Tang, could you elaborate on the potential for
federally funded research to be conducted by consortia that
consist of multiple research institutions, with or without
industry participation, as opposed to single institutions that
may compete with each other for the same Federal funding? What
are the potential benefits of a consortium approach, if you are
willing?
Dr. Tang. Well, the advantages are numerous, Senator. Thank
you for the question.
We see in Greater Philadelphia the ability to connect
resources between universities as one of the differentiating
factors that the Science Center brings together through its
shareholders.
You mentioned with or without industry. I would strongly
submit that it has to be with industry. The great inventions
that need to come into the marketplace need to be validated by
industry. This is one distinct difference in the way we look at
applied research and translational research in that it requires
market validation, not peer review to elevate good ideas. So
there's always better strength when you connect the university
resources to industry, and to each other.
What we've found in our own experience is that often even
within universities there's not great communication or
collaboration, and so we have to be the catalyst that creates
that link between them.
We also think that our role as a nonprofit serving the
interest of academia in industry is vitally important, as well.
So that intermediary role helps catalyze much more innovation
than you would have in the absence.
Senator Thune. How can current research grant programs be
structured to encourage and better leverage funding from
multiple public and private sources, including state and local
governments, corporations and foundations? You talked a little
bit about the role that you play in that, but what are the
current opportunities and roadblocks for those types of public-
private partnerships?
Dr. Tang. Well, the science--thank you.
The Science Center is--was formed 50 years ago as a public-
private partnership, and we continue as one today. And we've
had great success in aligning the interests of the City, State,
and Federal Government in funding our programs because we've
been able to show the impact both at a local and a national
level. So I think it's a very powerful formula for
sustainability of programs. And it perhaps is an alternative to
looking at just line items in a budget for single institutions
and single--with single causes.
So we're very much in favor of that by all----
Senator Thune. And what roadblocks to that? I mean, what do
you see? What are the things that stand in the way of that
happening on a more regular basis?
Dr. Tang. Well, there's the normal, I think, red tape at
the City and the State and the Federal level; but I also think
that the cultures between academia and industry are quite
different. And so you need an organization that can interpret
those differences and align them. And that's certainly one of
our jobs.
Senator Thune. I want to direct this, if I might, to Dr.
Perlmutter. In this committee we routinely discuss the need for
a U.S. global competitiveness in leadership and science. With
DOE's Office of Science, with the National Science Foundation,
and support from the State of South Dakota; the United States
has established a world-leading underground research facility
that I mentioned earlier, we referred to it as SURF in the
former Homestake Gold Mine.
And my question is, given the worldwide shortage of similar
underground research space, can you describe what scientific
frontiers could be explored by leveraging the unique
opportunity to pull ahead of global competitors in the fields
of high energy and nuclear physics?
Dr. Perlmutter. It was very--actually, that--yes. It was
quite exciting to see just even last week the announcement of
the very first of these big steps forward in the SURF
underground lab from the LUX experiment. This--for those who
aren't following closely, along with this mystery of, what is
most of the universe made up of in its energy content, this
dark energy; there's also a longstanding mystery of what is
most of the, you know, ordinary matter of the universe made of;
and that's this dark matter question.
And so now in your state, an experiment at the Sanford
Underground Research Facility has pulled ahead of other
experiments as the leading technique for studying dark matter.
The larger issue is that SURF is an excellent example of the
sort of facility that national resources can build for
fundamental research that can be used for many, many different
experiments and different purposes. And it's very difficult to
do it in any other way than with national resources.
Right now my understanding is that it's near that awkward
stage of trying to figure out what's going to happen into the
future because there isn't this long-term perspective in the
agencies and that--and they don't know what their funding
profiles are going to be that they can promise that they should
be building up the capabilities of SURF.
In principle you should be able to use it to be at the
receiving end of the--of an accelerator experiment that starts
over at Fermilab in Illinois, which would be a fascinating
experiment to see run. It can also be a site to do other very
fundamental physics experiments, as well, waiting to see, you
know, if protons could decay. There's a whole portfolio of
questions that you would have assumed that by now we would
already be up and running and building if we were able to move
more, you know, aggressively into the future with, you know,
with our funding and our understanding of what it was that we
want to do for fundamental science.
Senator Thune. Thank you. And that's some really cool stuff
that's going on out there.
My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. We've got a lot of cool stuff going on.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. It's very cool.
The Chairman. Senator Thune and I both come from highly
urban----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman.--states with multiple universities and
subsistence, so we compete a little bit sometimes.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
for this important hearing and to bringing up these points
about sequestration, because as a state that heavily depends on
research with the north, you know, the Pacific Northwest Lab in
Richland, Washington, and the University of Washington getting
so much funding from NIH; we are definitely impacted. And just
NIH alone, those jobs of research are about 8,000 jobs in the
Puget Sound area, to say nothing about the jobs at the labs.
So I think a few years ago the Chairman of Microsoft, Bill
Gates, and the Cummins CEO advocated for a very large increase
in ARPA-E as a way to say this is what we were missing as far
as the opportunity to continue research there. And I certainly
appreciate everything that's been said about STEM today.
And so I guess I have a couple of questions for you, Dr.
Klawe, about particularly--well, my understanding is that
there's something, and this was a few years ago, a need in the
U.S. for something like 300,000 computer scientists, in which
we graduate something like 70,000 a year. So we're constantly
falling behind, and thereby the immigration issue becomes an
active debate.
And so part of it is making up, as you are saying, with the
female population. I once asked an Asian engineer why there
were so many engineers, women engineers in China. And she said,
well, because we have a national saying that women hold up half
the sky. And she said, so we know that it's part of our
responsibility. Here I'm not sure we have the same incentives.
And certainly now today money is part of the issue.
And so I guess two questions I have for you. One, do you
think taking some of these resources of America COMPETES and
directly increasing the number of slots at our major
engineering facilities as a way to catch up to that number that
we need on annual basis is a good idea? And then the second
idea is, I just keep, as I go through my State, and we've met
many people, there's a former NAACP Chairman, Carl Mack, who
has an organization that is just SEEK, Summer Experience For
Engineering For Kids, that's focused, again, on minority kids.
That they're doing great things, getting younger kids more
involved.
When I went to high school, I ended up taking Latin and
typing. Typing was the requirement. Latin was part of the
language requirement. To me the most important language today
is computer programming language.
Should we look at incentives at the Federal level to
encourage states to make something like C++ or Java as part of
a 1-year curriculum requirement for high schools or incent high
schools to do that so more and more people are exposed? Just as
I was forced to take typing, get people exposed to what really
is going to be the language of the 21st century.
Dr. Klawe. I had to take Home Ec----
Senator Cantwell. OK.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Klawe.--which I was really bad at. Any time I get near
a sewing machine, it breaks.
Computers on the other hand--so let me start by answering
your first question, then I'll get to your second question. The
answer is yes in both cases, but let me explain why.
Every institution that I know of is overloaded by the
number of students who want to study computer science right
now. I'll give you an example at Harvey Mudd. We're a tiny
place. We have 800 students in total. We used to graduate
roughly 25 to 30 of our roughly 200 majors a year in computer
science; now we have 80 of the 200 majors. And we also have a
huge overload from the other colleges who all want to take our
CS courses.
So just to give you a sense, the number of faculty in our
computer science department is ten. The number of faculty in
our engineering department, which used to graduate 80 or 90
majors, is 19. I cannot, as President, take an engineer over
here and say, hi, wouldn't you like to be a computer science
faculty now?
There's just no way, other than increasing the size of the
college, which is politically the most difficult thing--it's
worse than sequestration, it's worse than anything that you can
imagine. Well, we have just decided to do that because I've got
no way to deal with it. There is just no way to deal with it at
all.
So could we use help from Federal and State levels to be
able to fund additional positions? Absolutely. That would be
huge. And you know, we're a tiny place, but the issue is the
same at UCSD, the whole UC system. It's the same.
Senator Cantwell. University of Washington. So----
Dr. Klawe. University of Washington.
I mean, we're all seeing it. And we basically can do one of
two things. We can cut the number of slots so that we don't
kill our faculty, and that's not meeting the needs of the
nation; or we can let our course sizes grow to a thousand
people in a classroom, which is not good either. So I think
help from the Federal Government would be enormously
appreciated.
Now let me talk about efforts to provide more exposure to
young people about how cool and, yes, Chairman Rockefeller,
you're absolutely right, computer science is incredibly fun and
cool and creative and anyone can do it.
Right now there's an organization called Code.org that is
working really hard to provide opportunities at both elementary
school, middle school, and high school for students to learn
how to code. And I'll also tell you that my favorite
programming language is not C++ or Java, it's Python. Now it's
not because my son met his girlfriend at a Python meet-up. It's
because Python brings many things to the table that Java and
C++ and other programming languages don't. One is, it's much
more forgiving. It's much easier to learn. It's something that
certainly a fifth grader can learn, whereas C++ and Java, as
you know, are not.
Senator Cantwell. Yes.
Dr. Klawe. But two, it's actually used in industry. It's
the favorite prototyping language of most software developers.
They'll develop it first in Python and then they'll take the
parts that need to run fast and they'll recode it in C++ or
Java. Once you've learned Python, you can get a summer job,
which is really important to many of our young people,
particularly people from low-income backgrounds.
So there are efforts out there. There are many initiatives.
But the one thing that's not there in most places is a
requirement to take some computer science either in middle
school or in high school. And we need it. So yes, that would be
a wonderful thing to have happen at the State level and any
help from the Federal Government would be very, very welcome.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
The Chairman. That's it.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, I'll start again here with Dr. Klawe. And I was, when
Senator Cantwell and I were talking while you were talking
about the lack of women in computer science, I was remembering
back to my days in college in 1982 when I learned a very hard
computer program. Because back then it wasn't easy, and you had
to learn all the function keys so that I could type my senior
essay. And I would walk a mile to the computer lab at Yale and
type in this senior essay.
And there was a group of guys that ran the computer lab, it
was the only lab I could use, that ran it; and they would
control it centrally, and they would play jokes with me and
turn things upside down on my screen. So maybe it wasn't as
welcoming for women back then in the area. But the best part of
the story is I was one of the few students who learned it that
wasn't in science, and so I typed umpteen senior essays for a
dollar a page at the computer lab when I got mine done. So it
was a marketable skill.
But just on that topic of women, I know you were recently
in Minneapolis for a conference on the topic, and I think our
state is ahead of the curve, as you know we are the home of
many major Fortune 500 companies including innovative companies
like 3M and Medtronic and we have a very high number of women
in the workplace.
But what more can we do when we see in the American
Association of University of Women, between 2000 and 2008
reported there was a 79 percent decline in the number of
incoming undergraduate women interested in majoring in computer
science?
Dr. Klawe. Yes.
Senator Klobuchar. And I know you haven't seen that. And
I'm comparing this. I'm looking at this not just from some
feminist standpoint, because I think this is where a lot of the
high-paying jobs or the future of these skills are going to be
necessary for women to do well, but I'm also looking at it as
job needs. Because my state is down to 5.1 percent
unemployment. We have job openings. And I have many managers
tell me, how do we get more women into either manufacturing,
science, or into computer science?
So if you could address that.
Dr. Klawe. Thank you.
And yes, the conference was not the only time I've been to
Minneapolis. I've been there many times. I was on the Geometry
Center Advisory Board for 5 years back in the 1980s. So let me
talk about what it takes to get women into computer science.
It's really not particularly difficult, but it does require
consistent, coherent, persistent work on the part of both the
people teaching and the people in the workplace who hire women.
For whatever reason, and I have no idea of whether this is
something that's biological or something that's just part of
the culture of our society--I suspect it's the second though I
really don't know--most women who are working in areas where
women are underrepresented, so that means essentially all
technology careers, suffer from something called----
Senator Klobuchar. And in Congress.
Dr. Klawe. And in Congress, yes.
Suffer from something called the imposter syndrome. You
don't, Senator, I'm sure, I hope, but I do. And it means that
no matter how successful you are, you constantly feel like
you're a failure. And one of the problems with this is it means
that women--both as students majoring in an area like computer
science or engineering or as young people or senior women in a
tech career--are more likely to leave when something goes
wrong.
So we have a retention problem. And one of the things we do
at Harvey Mudd College, and I do it every single year to the
incoming classes, is I talk about the imposter syndrome. And I
talk about the fact that, yes, we have a very rigorous
curriculum and well, almost every kid who attends the college
was the smartest kid in their school. But you're going to feel
pretty much within the first week, many of you, that you don't
belong here. So we talk about that, and we talk about providing
support.
We make sure that in our classrooms we don't have a couple
of guys in our intro classes acting like they have been
programming since they were three. And maybe they were
programming since they were three. We handle that by having our
instructors talk to these young men. They say, ``Joe, I love
having you in my course, you're one of the best prepared
students I've ever had, I love talking to you about everything
you know; but if we could just do it in private because when we
do it in public, it intimidates a lot of the other students.
And we know that you don't mean to do that, all right?'' The
problem goes away. It just goes away.
We stream our classes. Our school colors are black and
gold. We have CS5 Gold, which is for the students who have no
prior computer science experience--that's the vast majority of
our young women, but it's many of our young men, particularly
our young men of color in that class as well. Then we have CS5
Black, which is for the students who have a lot of prior
experience.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. I just have one quick other
question----
Dr. Klawe. Yep.
Senator Klobuchar.--because I'm running out of time. I'll
ask you, Mr. Droegemeier, if you could, Doctor, if you could
tell me, given that our Federal Government's spending is a
percentage of GDP and a percentage of the Federal Government
has declined over the last few decades and other nations are
surpassing us for R&D and science; is there some ideal target
that you would like to see for Federal support of R&D as a
percentage of GDP?
Dr. Droegemeier. That's a great question, Senator.
I think overall R&D is about 0.8 percent, 0.8 of 1 percent
of GDP, and about, if you look at research, it's about 0.4
percent. I think we would like to see that comfort level to be
around 1.5 percent to 2 percent of GDP. I think historically it
was, you know way back when, it was up around that level. And
to get back there would be incredibly helpful.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Well, that was specific and
quick.
And Senator Pryor and I are interested in the Python meet-
up, Dr. Klawe, so we will ask you that in some questions that
will be submitted later about what that is. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
And now Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a pretty interesting discussion. As long as we're
kind of going back in history in terms of our experience, I
know when I chose my career, I chose it based on whether I
could get a job and what that job would pay. Now I ended up
going through accounting, business school, and then--but I
fully understood that people that did the harder work, but not
necessarily the coolest classes or the easiest classes, but,
you know, went into physics and the sciences, were going to
make more money.
So I guess from my standpoint with what should be
incentivizing our kids to get into college would be to actually
be able to have a career, make a good living, have a successful
life. Somehow we have a disconnect on that now. What--why?
What's happened?
Dr. Perlmutter.
Dr. Perlmutter. Well, I think it's actually, you know, it's
a combination of effects that we're--that we have just been
talking about. You know, the fact that right now it's much less
clear what kind of career you would be lucky to have in, for
example, in the basic sciences than it was when I was starting
out. And in fact, even worse than it was, you know, 10 years
before me. So I think we see that that's going on.
But what's interesting is that I think what's motivating
the people who were going through the very basic sciences is
also just a possibility of a, the fun of exploration, the fact
that they'll be able to try to, you know, invent the new things
and create the new things and discover the new things. And that
is also becoming a much more discouraging scene as we've been
all discussing. It's----
Senator Johnson. Do we have any problem filling our college
of engineering with foreign students?
Dr. Perlmutter. You can always find people from abroad
today for----
Senator Johnson. Well, what attracts them? What
incentivizes them to come over here and fill up our
engineering--colleges of engineering?
Dr. Perlmutter. I think we still have the reputation of a
very strong educational----
Senator Johnson. Sure, I understand, but--why they want to
come here, but why do they want to take engineering courses----
Dr. Perlmutter. Oh.
Senator Johnson.--as opposed to----
Dr. Perlmutter. Yes.
Senator Johnson.--fill-in-the-blank studies courses which
so many of our students are doing? That, you know----
Dr. Perlmutter. No, and I think in most of the world I
think the way to, you know, a great career is still to become
technologically capable. And then you could, you know, if you
have that computer science degree, if you have an engineering
degree, and, in fact, if you have a physics degree you can find
top jobs back home if you have your American credential.
Senator Johnson. OK.
Dr. Perlmutter. It's--now it's just become much, much
harder to do that if you stay in America.
Senator Johnson. OK. I think the point I'm trying to make,
as a fiscal conservative, I really believe the Federal
Government has a role in basic research because there's no
profit motive and we certainly have a history of that really
benefiting our economy and really benefiting the world.
But, you know, the Chairman brought up sequestration, he
called it a slowly growing cancer. Now I would argue the slowly
growing cancer in America is a growing culture of entitlement
and dependency that is then resulted in a $17 trillion level of
debt. And you know, you guys can do math, but let me tell you
the ugly math that those of us that are highly concerned about
this are dealing with.
From 1970 to 1999, the average interest rate the Federal
Government paid on its debt was 5.3 percent. A pretty
reasonable interest rate, right, about what we'd pay for
mortgages. The last 4 years because we've been printing money,
the average interest rate has been 1.5 percent.
Dr. Perlmutter. Right.
Senator Johnson. Now let's do some math. If we revert to
that 5.3 percent interest rate, which the CBO says we'll do in
10 years, but it could spike if we're no longer the world's
reserve currency, if we can no longer print money. You take 3.8
percent differential times 17 trillion dollars worth of debt,
that equals 650 billion dollars.
So to a certain extent we are whistling by the graveyard
here asking for additional funding paid for by what? Additional
debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids?
I mean, I'd love to be talking about spending money on
basic research and this, that, and the other thing. Until we
face that very hard truth about what we are really doing to our
country, what we are really doing to our children's future when
we're talking about educating our kids and giving them an
opportunity. We are stealing the opportunity and future
prosperity for our kids.
So listen, I don't like sequestration. I did not vote for
that bill. I thought it was a pretty mindless approach. But
until we also start wrestling with the fact that two-thirds of
our budget is off budget, is on an automatic pilot, is out of
control; until we bring that under control, until we actually
admit we have a problem and start properly defining it; these
discussions, pretty interesting academic discussions, but,
again, we are truly doing a service to our--disservice to our
kids.
And just, oh, by the way, as we entice them into taking on
collectively a trillion dollars of student loan debt and
offering degrees in fill-in-the-blank studies program, that I
am sorry, employers are not valuing; we're making it easy for
them to not take the hard choice and understand the fact that,
you know, you are going to have to get a job. And you would be
better off getting a job in an area that actually will reward
you properly.
So those are the incentives that I think we ought to be
talking about. And I'm all for designing classes so they're fun
and cool, but achievement really requires rigor and hard work,
and that's the message we need to start really conveying to our
young people.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
Senator Scott.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM SCOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Scott. Thank you, sir.
Thank you to the panelists for being here today and
providing us with a lot of thoughts to think about. One of the
things I'm thinking about immediately is how to pronounce your
last names.
Dr. Klawe. Klawe.
[Laughter.]
Senator Scott. Because there's not a single one of them I
can pronounce without asking that question. I've heard 15
different ways of pronouncing it and only 14 people have
spoken. So that's part of my challenge.
I will tell you that what Senator Johnson just talked
about, I find quite relevant, which is the number of applicants
that are applying to our universities from outside of the
country and inside the country.
And I'll tell you my nephew just graduated from Georgia
Tech last year. And I believe the number was 70 percent of the
applicants for their, I think it's their masters degree level
courses come from outside of the United States; but their new
online masters program, 78 percent of the applicants come from
within the United States.
So Dr. Klawe? Dr. Klawe?
Dr. Klawe. Klawe.
Senator Scott. Klawe, yes. So Senator Rockefeller was right
indeed then, Dr. Klawe. Can you talk to me about some of the
successes that would be necessary to create an online
environment that would be conducive to seeing our colleges
populated with students that come from America if we had more
access to it?
My nephew went to a math and science high school. And so
his natural inclination led him to look at Georgia Tech as one
of the destinations he wanted in--for college.
I would love to hear, I know that Khan Academy seems to be
a success story. I wonder how do we create that type of
accessibility through online education. If you'd talk to that a
little bit, I'd appreciate it.
Dr. Klawe. Thank you.
The first thing I want to say is that making something cool
and fun doesn't mean that you're taking away the rigor, all
right? They're not in opposition. So let me talk a little----
Senator Scott. Well, my nephew finds it cool and fun to be
up at 3 a.m. studying for the next day's exam. So----
Dr. Klawe. I like it. That's what our students----
Senator Scott.--I'm going to poke fun at him.
Dr. Klawe.--do all the time.
Senator Scott. Thank God he did it.
Dr. Klawe. And I also just want to say that we're number
one for return on investment according to pay scale, which
compares lifetime earnings against the debt that you graduate
with.
So let me talk about online learning. Yes, Khan Academy has
gotten a lot of press and yes, a lot of people use their
website; but if you actually look at the result of what people
are doing, it's not so much of watching the videos, they're
actually doing the online exercises and taking the tests.
And I think that the future that we will see in terms of
online education is providing activities that combine
personalized learning, a lot of interaction, communication
amongst small groups, as well as watching lectures taught by
some of the most inspirational, not just Nobel Laureates like
this guy, but also some of the most inspirational students.
So one of the things we are doing right now with funding
from the Gates Foundation is to do a massive open online
course, a MOOC, for AP Physics C and also for exploring
computer science. Not so much so that we'll have gazillions of
students taking them from high schools, but so that teachers
who would like to be able to teach that course could use our
materials.
And we're going make sure that we have African-Americans
and Hispanic students and females and males and Caucasians and
Asians actually doing the demos in this course. So that we're
also going to be showing off students from Pomona, which is
just next door to Claremont, who are basically 50 percent
African-American, 50 percent Hispanic, taking these materials
and using them. So that we can show that yes, it's fun, but
yes, you don't have to be white or Asian to be really doing
well at this kind of stuff.
So it's the combination of inspiration, interactive
activities, and getting rapid feedback on what you're doing
that will make these kinds of courses attractive to students
all over the country.
Senator Scott. Thank you very much.
Dr. Tang.
Dr. Tang. Tang.
Senator Scott. Tang. Hot diggety dog. There seems to be a
lot of discussion and efforts in the past and present to help
bridge the gap between scientific research and product
development. To make a real impact on our economy, I'd love to
hear your thoughts on perhaps the weakest links in the process
of technology transfer and economic development. Perhaps talk
for a second or two or 26 seconds actually on the impediments
perhaps.
Dr. Tang. Certainly, Senator.
Well, the pathway between basic research and
commercialization is not a linear pathway by any means.
Senator Scott. No doubt.
Dr. Tang. It's a very tortuous pathway. Today I think the
biggest gap is in the area referred to as proof-of-concept
funding, which is to do enough validation that the concept in
the laboratory can be successful in the marketplace. That's an
area that's not getting enough investment from the venture
capital world.
As the Nation and the world have become more risk averse,
they view that area as not investable because the returns are
too speculative and the horizons for payback are too long and
the exits are nonexistent.
So we can't afford to have a pipeline of innovation that
stalls because there's no proof-of-concept funding. And so
therefore, that's become a domain of technology-based economic-
development organizations like the Science Center to jump into
the breach, because we don't require those return on
investments and we can look at the developments as a pipeline,
if you will, for new jobs.
So that to me is the biggest missing link today. We need
more risk capital in the marketplace to be able to fund these
ideas. And as a result, you know, we have to be very creative.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Are you sure that's all?
Senator Scott. I'm sure, that's all.
The Chairman. OK.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much for being here and
welcome to Washington.
I see by the smiles on your faces----
The Chairman. Yes, what a nasty thing to say.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I say that, I'm new here, too.
And you know, a lot of the debate on this issue depends on how
the question is phrased. If we regard the spending that's been
described earlier and the deficits and the financial challenges
that our Nation faces and we have to face them as being out-of-
control spending, that's one way of looking at the picture.
What we're talking about here, I think, is an investment.
An investment in research, in the skills that produce better
research, the skills of young people. Rather than stealing from
their futures, in fact, enhancing and enriching their futures.
And so this Act, the America COMPETES Act of 2007, I think,
is an enormous step forward. I can take no credit whatsoever
for it. I give full credit to our chairman and other leaders
who have really broadened our vision and had the courage to
really stand up and speak out, as you do in your communities,
meaning your intellectual communities, your university
communities, and your professional communities. And I want to
salute and thank you for doing so.
I don't know whether Ronald Reagan has been quoted yet
today, but he said, and I'm quoting, ``although basic research
does not begin with a particular practical goal; when you look
at the results over the years, it ends up being one of the most
practical things government does.''
And at an age where the capacity of government to get
things done is in question and widely doubted, I think that is
a truth that is undeniable about what government can and should
do. Investing in basic research is one of those things. And yet
my understanding is that the United States global advantage in
research development is, in fact, receding in terms of our
economic competition.
The Federal Government funds 31 percent of all R&D in the
United States, and we are behind other nations in terms of what
we invest in R&D as a percentage of our gross domestic product.
So focusing on one of the areas that concerns me greatly as a
member of the Armed Services Committee, as well, as this
committee, national security, particularly cyber.
There is an area where the Federal Government has a
distinct and undeniable responsibility, and I wonder if you
could give us, I'm not going to ask any particular witness, but
maybe if you could give us your assessments of where we are on
basic research for our national security, in particular cyber.
Dr. Klawe. Maybe I'll take that one. I would say that this
is a critically important area. I think virtually every high-
tech company has been hacked into by the Chinese. And in many
cases it was only with the help of Federal cybersecurity teams
that companies actually found out that they'd been hacked into.
My sense is that we currently still lead the world in terms
of the kinds of areas of computer science that you need to do
this, but that a lot more funding is needed and that China is
investing huge sums in this area. And, you know, I think it's
really important that it's funded both through NSF and through
DARPA. I think it's of critical importance to the Nation. And
it gets more important every day.
Dr. Droegemeier. Yes, if I could respond just briefly. NSF
is the primary funder of all computer science research in this
country, I think about 80, 75, 80 percent; and it has a major
initiative that is in line with the Federal initiative in
cybersecurity; but also the networking information technology
R&D program, which has been around for quite some time is a
major flagship program, as well.
So although NSF doesn't do classified research, fund
classified research like places like DARPA, a lot of the very
fundamental research in cryptography and the things that really
lead to the systems that we depend on for our security today
are really funded by NSF.
And finally, NSF has a new cyber infrastructure framework
for the 21st century. Infrastructure being very broadly
defined; people, physical systems, technologies, and so on. And
that is a big part of the CIF-21 framework, as well.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. My time has expired, but I,
again, I really want to thank you, each of you for your great
work. And thank you for being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator
Schatz.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much to the panelists for offering your
views. America COMPETES provided bold direction when it was
first passed in 2007 and reauthorized in 2010 by addressing
innovation, coordination, and STEM funding for research. The
COMPETES report provides an assessment of where we stand.
I want to first talk about some of the findings of the
report, in particular STEM education. As you know the
administration recently proposed a consolidation of STEM
programs. And many Senators were concerned about the effect of
consolidation on the blossoming programs in various
communities. For example, in Hawaii, people are really learning
science through culture and culture through science. And I've
seen it with my own eyes with my own children and across the
Department of Education in the State of Hawaii.
And I and many other Senators objected to the
administration's proposal because we were fearful that it would
extinguish the great momentum that is occurring in lots of
communities across the Nation. As a result as you know, no
action was taken to implement the consolidation proposal in the
Senate version of the bill. But this proposal from the
administration is not without merit.
The idea behind it was essentially efficiency, allowing all
communities to compete for these funding resources where
they're not necessarily available to every community, to every
nonprofit, to every agency. And finally, sort of a QA piece,
standards and an assurance that these STEM programs are meeting
minimum standards. Many of them are excellent. But the
consolidation piece would have actually helped us to make sure
that all of them were meeting minimum standards.
So this is a question for all of the panelists. Can you
talk about the balance that needs to be struck between the
administration's very reasonable goals of trying to get
efficiency, accountability, and fairness, but also, you know,
not stifling the innovation and the exciting thing that is
happening?
And one other aspect of STEM education that I think is so
important from the standpoint of Hawaii, but really from all of
our communities is that a lot of it is place based. A lot of it
is grounded in the culture and the community in which it
occurs. And that's a way to plug kids into science who might
not otherwise be interested. But there's a tension there, and
I'd like you to talk about it, maybe starting with Dr. Tang.
Dr. Tang. Thank you, Senator.
So I'll refer to your comments on learning through culture.
At the Science Center, we are advocates of STEM education;
science, technology, engineering, and math. But we are also
advocates of STEAM education; that's science, technology,
engineering, art, and math. What we found, the cliff that I
think Dr. Klawe spoke about, girls studying science subjects,
typically if they're not interested in the sciences as
traditionally taught by the 8th grade, you lose them for the
rest of their lives.
So by introducing the arts into STEM education, it allows
for right-brain/left-brain thinking in meeting their interests
where they are. And so I think that's very important. The
construct we have for science, technology, engineering, and
math education today has sustained us very well to date, but I
think we all are aware that other nations are overtaking us in
those areas. And so we have to find a way of being appealing
and accountable to the interests of our children to get them
interested in these areas.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Dr. Klawe.
Dr. Klawe. It turns out that one of our explore computer
science projects for middle school students are going on in
Hawaii. And we had something like 20 middle school teachers
working with us this last summer. I'm a very big believer in
allowing teachers to personalize what they're doing for their
students. On the other hand, I'm a very strong supporter of the
common-core standards because they're not in conflict with each
other.
If you set a set of objectives for what our students should
learn, but then give the teachers the professional development
and the freedom--and I have to tell you I think No Child Left
Behind is awful legislation because it has resulted in so many
of our teachers teaching to the test. You really want teachers
teaching to the students, not to the test.
So I support a blend of setting high rigorous standards and
empowering teachers to really teach to the students they have
to achieve those.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Dr. Perlmutter. I should preface some comments by just
saying that this is not an area that I've looked at very
closely myself, but I have been hearing the concerns from the
science community that if you consolidate all of the science
education in a place where the scientists don't live, then
you'll, it's very easy to lose touch with the cutting-edge
science world. And so the concern has been that, you know, the
NIH scientists were actually getting quite involved in
teaching, you know, their areas. And the NASA scientists were
getting involved in teaching things that had to do with their
areas. And that if this is all moved out of their orbit, you
know, to some professional, you know, group that is not
necessarily from the science side, that you can lose some of
the whole point of science education.
So this was just one extra concern that had a very similar
flavor to the one you're describing in terms of the cultural,
you know, engagement that you're describing.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Dr. Droegemeier. As you can imagine, Senator, NSF watched
with great interest the consolidation of the programs where NSF
was provided the undergraduate and the graduate programs. I can
tell you right now the National Science Board is working with
NSF leadership on a really kind of a deep dive into the
education-research portfolio at NSF, which is about $830
million, so it's one of the bigger directorates.
And so it's something that's getting our attention right
now. And in fact, we'll be meeting here in a couple of weeks to
really do the next big dive to see really where that program
can go. And so we're looking quite intensely at that very
important problem.
Senator Schatz. Great.
Thank you, all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Massachusetts, we are number one in math, verbal, and
science at the----
The Chairman. Oh, what a way to show off.
Senator Markey.--4th, 8th, and 10th grades.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. And we have a high percentage of
minorities. We're number one at 4th, 8th, and 10th; math,
verbal, and science. If we were a country, we would be 6th in
the world behind Finland, Singapore, but we'd be number 6. Our
little 6.5 million people up there.
We see it as part of a plan, a business plan actually. The
higher the education level of these kids, the more likely
they're going to get hired by the companies that have been
looking for a workforce, that they are then going to be able to
place their company where it is, that the kids who have the
highest scores on math, verbal, and science at the 4th, 8th,
and 10th grades are going to get hired. So we see that as a
little business plan.
And when it comes to research and building a strong base
for America's high-tech economy, I am concerned about three
things. Number one, is that we're starving America's innovation
engine of funding through sequestration and mindless budgets
cuts. We can't have an honest conversation about research
without acknowledging that elephant in the room, sequestration.
A high-tech economy like ours needs research investments to
keep the innovation pipeline stocked, period. We need to stop
playing budget games which undermine our Nation's long-term
economic competitiveness. And that is the subject of our
hearing today.
Massachusetts is 2 percent of America's population. We have
a business plan. You are the business plan. America is 4
percent of the world's population. That has to be our business
plan. We can't compete with these other countries in these
other areas. If we don't have a business plan that involves
what you all are talking about here today, then we're going to
lose because the other countries are coming.
You don't have to fear China, but you should respect them.
They have a plan. The others have plans. We need a plan. And
you have to understand the plan.
Second, we must continue to support high-risk high-reward
discovery. We must support science for the sake of science even
if there is not necessarily a specific commercial application
in sight. Doppa.net was not intended to create Google, eBay,
Amazon, Hulu, and YouTube, but it did. Well, cracking the human
genome was not intended to create companies all over America,
but it did. There were other purposes that originally were just
rooted in basic science and technology, but you get the payoff
if your country is the one that is making the investment.
And third, we need to look at public-private partnership
models and help get innovation out of the lab and into the
factory. We have some deeply entrenched industries that do not
invest in innovation. That's the paradox of them. OK. They
might be the world's leaders, but then they don't even invest
in innovation of the future because they're happy with their
monopoly or what they think is their monopoly until some young
kid, you know, comes up with the idea; but we have to create
the conditions whereby that kid is getting the education they
need and access to the technologies they need to crack the
monopoly, because we have to keep our lead competitively over
the rest of the world, over their kids who are going to be
thirsting to make these changes that are going to be made.
You just can't hold on to a technological lead. You just
have to keep moving. We have some basic history on this. We
know it's all part of ensuring that there is an adaptation to
new business models. We have to keep keeping the pressure on.
In those sectors we need to look at ways of partnering with our
innovators on proof-of-concept and demonstration projects so
that more breakthroughs can bridge the valley of death and
reach the market.
And I know that's something that the chairman is interested
in, that Mr. Thune is interested in, and I think we should be
able to do something, you know, that reflects that in the
legislation that we are considering.
I actually have a bill that I plan to introduce soon that
would address the issue that leads to, you know, kind of
solving this valley-of-death problem. And I think we have to do
it if we're going to be successful. And I'd like to work with
you on that.
Dr. Tang, do you agree that there is a legitimate
government role here to partner with the private sector to
prove out and demonstrate new technologies?
Dr. Tang. Senator, absolutely. I think the--it's--let me go
back to what you said about the plan. Unless we view the
combination of STEM education, basic research, translational
research, and commercialization as a continuum and all part of
an economic development plan overall, I think that we'll miss
key components that continue to make us successful.
So part of what you mentioned in part--in public-private
partnerships is that that, I think, has to be part of the plan,
as well. There have to be incentives to perform and sustain
programs that can help by combining the private sector,
government, and nonprofits.
Senator Markey. So, Dr. Tang, do you agree that supporting
translational research and proof-of-concept activities increase
competition in the market and help to overcome the types of
corporate risk aversion that keep promising technologies
bottled up?
Dr. Tang. Absolutely. I--and I noted earlier, I think that
is the key missing part of the plan right now, is there are
promising developments in the laboratories, in our great
academic institutions that don't see the light of day because
there is not that risk capital to provide proof-of-concept
funding and further that development.
Senator Markey. You know, I've heard from many of
scientists in Massachusetts that they first got interested in
when they were taken over to the Boston Museum of Science when
they were kids or----
Dr. Tang. Yes.
Senator Markey.--over to the Boston Aquarium when they were
kids and they were kind of excited by the science that they saw
there and a kind of light bulb went off and they said, let's
think about that as a career.
Can we help to increase the diversity of our future science
and engineering workforce by having more education outside of
the classroom? So that we're, you know, encouraging and
inspiring kids.
Dr. Klawe.
Dr. Klawe. Absolutely. Informal science education, which is
what goes on in museums and after-school clubs and all kinds of
other things is an important component. However, it's most
effective when it's actually tied, when it's combined with
formal science education, as well. So it's a great thing when a
teacher will actually take her class on a field trip to the
Boston Science Center and then come back and actually teach
material that ties into what they experienced there.
Senator Markey. Yes. And you know, it's kind of part of the
modern era that we're in that you have members of the Senate
and the House just kind of mocking basic research, you know,
like it's not special, you know. Why should we tease that out
and just make sure that we keep that on the front burner, you
know. Who cares if the National Institutes of Health get cut 7
percent a year for 9 years in a row, you know.
That--will that impact on finding the cure for Alzheimer's
or heart disease or--no, no, the private sector will go and do
it anyway even if there is no commercial likelihood that
they're going to get a reward for doing it. So why do we do
this? We do it so that, you know, we encourage the best and the
brightest to go into these fields. You know, you have to create
a draw so that they come over here because they can use the
same 800s in their boards to write an algorithm for a hedge
fund that doesn't contribute one iota to the overall
productivity or well-being of the planet.
And they're equally drawn as they're going through
educational process over to this other early payoff financially
set of companies that will draw them away. So you need to have
the basic research if for no other reason than you're going to
draw the kids over there.
But let me give one other practical example. Last year in
the United States we spent $131 billion on Alzheimer's
patients. And the chairman and I, we've both had personal
experiences with this disease. $131 billion. The entire defense
budget in our country is $600 billion. So Medicare and Medicaid
paid $131 billion to some of the 5 million families that now
have an Alzheimer's patient.
Well, the baby boomers, when they're all retired, there's
going to be 15 million baby boomers with Alzheimer's. So 131
times 3 is, you know, pretty much $400 billion, two-thirds of
the defense budget of our country for one disease, unless we
find the cure. Unless we draw the smartest kids in science and
mathematics into these fields to find the cure.
And you just can't say, well, we're going to cut the budget
every year for 9 years in a row, because now you're dooming our
country to making it impossible to have a balanced budget in
the future because you're not investing in those programs that
are going to pay the big dividend for those families that dread
that that disease is going through their family, or Parkinsons
or heart disease or diabetes or you name it.
And you have to believe we can do it, but you have to
invest in the basic science even though you don't know exactly
where the payoff is. And that's why sequestration is the
stupidest idea of all time. That it treats agriculture
subsidies and finding the cure for Alzheimer's equally, that
basic research is treated as though it's just another
expendable, you know, a commodity that the government really
shouldn't be in.
As though the private sector is going to do the basic
research, they are not. We've learned this. And so, Mr.
Chairman, I'll just end by saying this, that each year for
better or worse, you know, we have Americans that win Nobel
Prizes in science. And I get invited with my wife, you know, to
go to just the little reception. And I'm always in awe.
And one year they asked one of the scientists, do you think
we'll be able to compete against the Chinese and the Indians 30
years from now for Nobel Prizes? And the scientist said, we are
here today, the 6 of us because of an investment made 30 and 40
years ago in us. We do know--we do not yet know the wisdom of
this generation. That generation had the wisdom to invest.
And so that's what's in the balance here, you know, despite
of how wise we are, to make the investment in the kinds of
science and technology that will continue to keep America
cutting edge, but also make the changes that so profoundly
effect American's families.
We can't have a more important hearing than this, Mr.
Chairman. I thank you for having it.
The Chairman. No, I mean, you've just spoken nothing but
one piece of wisdom after another, which is typical of you.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I want to add on precisely to that. Because
I'm not going to do something that I'm meant to be doing,
because I don't know of anything which is more important than
this hearing or the implications of this hearing, whether this
hearing has--changes any minds, has any impact or not.
I started out talking about sequestration with some vigor,
Senator Markey.
And it's horrible and it's inexorable, but something else
happened which struck me, we had a government shutdown. It was
not a government shutdown that lasted, you know, for 6 months.
It lasted a relatively short period of time, but during that
time, I think, 99 percent of all the people at the National
Science Foundation were furloughed.
And in that it was an event which predictably would come to
an end, because there was a political calculus that showed that
it could only last so long without so much damage being done
politically, much less to the country, that one could have
said, well, we can work with this.
But I think you, Dr. Klawe, I think you used the word body
language at one point in an earlier part of your presentation.
The body language of a shutdown haphazard, it just
happened, wasn't planned, made for political purposes, shutoff
by political purposes is precisely what Senator Markey is
talking about. And that is, you commit yourself to something or
you don't. Your students know it. You indicated that through
the use of the word body language. I'm investing in you
something which I perhaps am mistaken in, but you can tell a
great deal from body language about that person's view of the
present and of the future, whatever.
I think it's true nationally. If we can do things like
have, first of all, sequester, which I agree with Senator
Markey, is it's so horrible. And what scares me is that I'm not
sure the American people have any idea how it aggregates and
destroys unless we can shut it off.
But in this political world, one group feels that's the way
you keep government small and keeping government small is an
end in and of itself of celestial purpose. Not so from my point
of view. What Senator Markey said, 30 years ago some people
decided to invest in me and here I am today and I have a Nobel
Prize; these things cannot happen haphazardly and have a good
result.
I think we in America, and I'm guilty of this myself, I
look at some of these things that are happening, and I think,
yes, OK, America is America; we always come back, we always get
out, we always have the most innovative people, people are
still coming to us, we always lead in technology and all the
rest of it.
And it's not that I'm beginning to doubt myself, but I'm
beginning to doubt the underpinnings of the decisions that
we're making and am therefore doubting myself.
People have to believe that you mean it for real and that
you're investing in it for real and come hell or high water we
will not be detoured. It's a national priority. If it's not a
national priority, then you have a government shutdown of small
consequence in terms of time, but I don't think we have any
idea yet of the alteration or the diminution of the curiosity
of young people, of young teachers who are working in smaller
institutions who want to get an EPSCoR grant and they're going
to, and maybe they're women and they can break through the
ceiling and maybe they're not and they can still break through
the ceiling, but you don't have to go to Harvard, Yale, or
Princeton or Stanford or Boston College. That's where he's
from. OK.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. And you don't have to do that. Wherever you
are, if you are good, you will be found out about and we will
help you succeed. We will secure your future by investing in
you. And you can only do that with money. We don't teach; you
teach, but we help with money.
And so the concept of both the sequestration not being
understood fully the American people or at all by the American
people, not just understood fully by this Congress and not
understood deliberately by parts of this Congress is
terrifying. And then you add on the instance that come up, the
shutdown, well, whatever it might be.
And there's EPSCOT, there's EPSCoR, there are all kinds of
things that are at risk. People clearly in line to do
something, clearly have their minds set on something say, oops,
I can't depend on that for certain. And what is the tipping
point? Is the shutdown? Is it suddenly they understand
sequestration?
It doesn't matter. Whatever it is, if it doesn't work
properly, they're out. And you not only lose all that you've
put into them up until this point, but you lose all that you
will get from them from this point.
And I worry about that, Senator, and I'm sure you do, too.
I mean, this is just such an incredibly serious business.
It's discovery. It's innovation. The curiosity of minds. The
curious mind feeling supported, that they're part of an elite,
that they're valued by their country, they're supported by
their country come hell or high water. And in simpler days
that's the way it worked.
Oh, but we'll conquer that; we're America. Maybe not so
certain if, as Senator Markey said, the scientist said, I can
just judge where I am today because 30 or 40 years ago people
believed in me and invested in me.
So that's what we in this committee have hearings like this
for is to take people like Senator Markey and myself and others
who are really worried about this and who really want to help
it. He comes from whatever he described Massachusetts as. I
come from West Virginia, which is just a bit different.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. But I yield in no way, shape, or form. In
fact, I remember facing down Erick Block, Dr. Erick Block. He
was head of NSF. And I took to them the idea of EPSCoR, of
giving money to not the top tier, but to others in other States
so that you would have more of a collaborative we're-all-in-it-
together type of atmosphere. And it's worked absolutely
wonderfully except now it's going to be grabbed by
sequestration. And 99 percent of the NSF people were furloughed
during those several weeks.
We're such a great country. We have so much to be proud of.
People that come to this country and stay. We have to protect
it. I'm really trying hard not to make a speech here, but we
have to protect it. We just absolutely have to do it.
And you have to help us by involving your folks who fund
you and who you have access to, to put pressure on the Congress
to get rid of this ridiculous thing called sequestration. It
will not go otherwise. Because there's a tool that those who
want to keep cutting government have and it's locked into law
and all they have to do is filibuster and we can't get 60 votes
to overcome that filibuster and so sequestration goes on and on
and you go down and down, which is what we do not want.
So I guess I challenge all of us that we have to overcome
this. And the tipping point may not be that far off. And I have
every right to be nervous and a bit scared about it and with a
vast desire to do something about it.
And so I thank all of you very much for coming and for
putting up with us. And this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:34 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier
Question 1. According to a recent survey of scientists performed by
the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 53 percent
of respondents have turned away promising researchers due to a lack of
funding and 18 percent are considering moving their research outside of
the United States. Last year, a CEO of a major U.S. corporation was
quoted as saying that his company was expanding abroad due, in part, to
the ``moribund interest in science in the U.S.''
How would you describe the long-term effects of lower funding in
terms of training the scientific workforce, attracting and keeping top
talent, and supporting innovation and have you started to see these
effects already?
Answer. Since the end of World War II, the long-term, forward-
thinking commitment of Congress and multiple Presidential
administrations to supporting transformative basic research and the
education of our next generation of scientists and engineers has
underpinned our national health, security, and economic prosperity. At
the present time, the U.S. is the global leader in research output,
producing the highest share of ``highly-cited'' research papers and
``triadic'' patents, and also leading the world in the share of value-
added high-tech (HT) manufacturing and knowledge-intensive (KI) service
industries.
Although the U.S. research enterprise is strong, our status as the
world's leader is, without question, in jeopardy. Other countries are
gaining ground on the metrics noted above as they invest heavily in
their own innovation capacity. Several foreign competitors have
significantly increased their funding of higher education, bolstered
their investment in R&D, and increased their output of research
publications. These investments by other nations have, disturbingly,
coincided with a slowing of U.S. Federal investments in R&D and an
increasingly uncertain funding landscape for the U.S. scientific
enterprise.
Budgetary uncertainty, sequestration, and government shutdowns have
deleterious effects on our scientific enterprise. Occurring in
isolation, they are extremely significant. However, because they have
occurred simultaneously, their combined effects are vastly more
harmful. These include meritorious projects that are never undertaken,
insufficient funding for existing projects that leads to a de-scoping
and thus a diminution of output, inadequate training of the next
generation of scientists and the loss of large numbers of individuals
who might have pursued STEM as a career, and strains on facilities used
for scientific research or the failure to construct facilities that
could ensure a global leadership position for the U.S. (this is
particularly true in high energy physics and nuclear science). The
effects of sequestration are clearly evident already: the National
Science Foundation (NSF, Foundation) awarded about 700 fewer grants in
FY 2013 than in FY 2012. NIH Director, Francis Collins, announced that
NIH would make 650 fewer new competitive awards in 2013. Fewer awards
mean less research, less innovation, a smaller STEM workforce, and a
decrease in national competitiveness. According to the survey you cite,
about 54 percent of scientists reported they know a colleague who has
lost a job.
At my own institution, the University of Oklahoma, sequestration
has led to the loss of $6.4 million in competitive funding, which is
about 6 percent of the total amount awarded per year to my campus.
Importantly, however, this 6 percent impacted three large projects,
each of which was performing extraordinary and transformative research.
Such projects take a disproportionately large amount of time and
institutional investment to win and start, and thus their reduction or
elimination has a proportionally greater negative impact on science and
personnel. Ultimately, however, the impact is felt in the loss of high-
paying jobs and national capability, including, in the case of these
projects, national security.
Further, scientists are less inclined to recommend a career in
science to their students because the life of a researcher is
increasingly unattractive, unappreciated, and unable to compete with
jobs in other fields in terms of lifelong earning potential. Lower
grant funding rates mean more time is spent writing proposals, rather
than performing research, with lower prospects of success. Declining
state support for universities leads to less time and support for
research. High tuition means students will face significant debt after
graduate study, and uncertain funding for research means they might not
secure jobs to repay that debt. Thus, the pool of outstanding students
is decreasing, and competition for those in the pipeline is intense.
Uncertainty or pessimism about future budgets makes anticipating
improvement notably difficult, even for the eternal optimist. If we
overtly and with unmistakably clear messaging discourage our best and
brightest from a career in science, we might well never recover from
the leadership gap we will create. Today's Nobel Laureates in the U.S.
succeeded because they were attracted to science, and because the
Nation invested in them twenty or thirty years ago. If no such
investments occur today, the future is predictable, and the picture is
bleak.
Thus, the consequences of sequestration and stagnating Federal
research budgets will reverberate well into the future. Lack of funding
today means we will be without the new knowledge that seeds innovation
and prepares our Nation to meet unexpected challenges. It also means
diminished support for the training of our future scientists,
engineers, innovators, and entrepreneurs. Finally, the lack of stable,
strong research funding today will indelibly weaken the public and
private institutions that rely on strong government support for
civilian science. Universities and businesses will be less able attract
and retain top domestic and foreign talent, U.S. businesses will be
more inclined to make R&D investments abroad, and careers in STEM will
be less appealing to our students.
Question 2. Some have argued that the United States should focus
its R&D efforts more on applied research and less on basic research, as
some other countries have done.
Dr. Droegemeier, if the United States chose not to invest heavily
in basic research, could we simply import the knowledge and expertise
from other countries?
Answer. Innovation is often mischaracterized as a linear process
proceeding through distinct stages: basic research in universities,
followed by applied research and development at the boundary between
academia and industry, and then innovation within the private sector.
In reality, innovations emerge from a complex ecosystem consisting of
the fluid interplay of knowledge, application, development, and
commercialization, all undertaken by individuals and teams working in
close coordination spanning the public and private sectors. Rather than
proceeding in a linear fashion, innovation has numerous feedbacks and
loops that occur at different points in the process, with these points
differing for different types of research.
The innovation ecosystem also includes research facilities and
equipment, transportation, communication, and education systems, and is
influenced by other factors, such as the business cycle, and tax,
regulatory, and trade policies. Our Nation's ability to create new
businesses and bolster our health and prosperity rests squarely on
these interdependent components working together in mutually
reinforcing ways to produce innovations. We must be careful to not
oversimplify the portrayal of this complex interplay of organizations
and cultures, as some try to do, for four key reasons.
First, the ecosystem is only as strong as its weakest link, and in
the United States, all components have been strong historically. Such
is not the case today as all elements are being weakened dramatically,
some faster than others. For example, U.S. research universities are
among the best in the world and a vital part of this system. These
institutions have benefited from long-standing Federal support of basic
research in all disciplines, forming the bedrock of our Nation's
capacity to innovate. Academic research produces a deep reservoir of
knowledge upon which other researchers across disciplines and sectors
can draw now and in the future. And knowledge produced by basic
research is just as important as the expertise it builds among students
and researchers in private companies and federally-funded laboratories.
Second, the foundation for the ecosystem is basic research, the
outcomes of which usually are neither predictable nor demonstrable in
their tangible benefits for society. However, basic research is without
question responsible for the technological, military, and economic
leadership position of the U.S. in the world today. Foregoing basic
research would undermine our innovation ecosystem by weakening the
ability of our universities to produce the knowledge that seeds
innovation and trains our current and future scientists and engineers.
Additionally, U.S. universities, particularly public institutions,
often perform research and produce human capital tailored to a state or
region. Universities generate local ``spillover'' effects in the form
of industry/university partnerships, local startup companies, and the
production of talent for existing and new businesses.
For example, the high tech corridors of Silicon Valley and Route
128 were made possible because of the intense commitment to basic
science research at Stanford and MIT, respectively. Universities and
other institutions that perform basic research produce a reliable, on-
demand supply of knowledge and expertise, much of which could have
national security implications. If basic research were no longer
performed domestically, its availability would be uncertain and our
innovation ecosystem would be wholly dependent on other countries to
function effectively. That simply cannot be allowed to occur. As noted
in my oral testimony, basic research allows the United States to
control its own destiny.
Thirdly, different parts of the ecosystem function on vastly
different time scales. A diminution of basic research capability today
may, in some areas of society, not be evident for several years or even
two or three decades; however, when the impact occurs, it will be
dramatic, and it will be hard to reverse. We as a Nation do not
understand that point because in our rich but short history, we have
never experienced it. Thus, we do not believe it will occur.
Unfortunately, history shows otherwise.
And finally, it is because of the strength of our national
innovation ecosystem, and in particular, the preeminence of our
research universities, that the U.S. already imports significant
knowledge and expertise. In 2009, students on temporary visas earned
about one-third of all S&E doctoral degrees, including over 50 percent
of the doctoral degrees awarded in engineering, computer science, and
physics. Likewise, foreign students who receive their degrees from U.S.
universities tend to remain in the U.S. The proportion of foreign S&E
doctoral degree recipients who report that they plan to remain in the
U.S. rose from about 50 percent in the 1980s to 77 percent in the 2006-
2009 period. If we fail to continue investing aggressively in U.S.
basic research, we will no longer be able to attract and retain top
foreign talent, thus further eroding our Nation's ability to innovate.
Question 3. Investments in the social, behavioral, and economic
sciences can help to combat crime, protect people during disasters,
limit the spread of disease, and improve cybersecurity. However, some
policymakers have targeted the social sciences for budget cuts.
Dr. Droegemeier, can you help me to understand how social,
behavioral, and economic science research benefit U.S. security and
economic interests and provide examples?
Answer. Rigorous research in the social, behavioral, and economic
(SBE) sciences is vital to understanding what drives the behavior,
social interactions, and motivations of people in our Nation and the
world. SBE research helps us understand the factors that support
economic development and social stability, that drive the activities of
rogue states and terrorists, and that promote the general welfare. This
research helps us find ways to improve our health, educate our young
people effectively, ensure public safety, and preserve the vitality of
our democracy. Sound policymaking on matters, including national
security and economic competitiveness, requires the insights of the SBE
sciences.
The Federal Government's modest investments in SBE research have
reaped large rewards for the taxpayer. The recent joint NSF/SBE-
Department of Defense (DOD) Social and Behavioral Dimensions of
National Security, Conflict and Cooperation initiative has deepened our
knowledge of the social and behavioral dimensions of national security
issues. Psychologists, anthropologists, economists, political
scientists, and demographers are helping us understand the drivers of
civil conflict and unstable states, the conditions that promote
terrorism and other forms of extremism, and the effects of various
responses to national security threats in both the traditional
geopolitical and cybersecurity realms. NSF-funded SBE research has also
resulted in new decision-making tools for shipping container screening,
thereby enhancing the safety of our ports and shipping traffic. And
NSF-funded SBE research is helping us to better understand non-verbal
communications across cultures. This is vital knowledge for our troops
who rely on body language cues with non-English speaking civilians
overseas and for whom miscommunication can result in a dangerous
escalation of an otherwise benign situation.
SBE research has also been crucial to promoting our Nation's
economic interest. In the private sector, such research has enabled
companies to better understand their customers and to align their
products and services accordingly. For example, social science research
in the fields of network analysis, decision making and user behavior
helps Google maintain its edge in an increasingly competitive global
marketplace. In the public sector, NSF-supported SBE research on how to
reapportion the Federal Communications Commission's airwave spectrum
has resulted in over $60 billion in revenue for the Federal Government
since 1994.
SBE research is also critical to maximizing the return on our
Nation's investments in other realms of medical and scientific
research. SBE research into the barriers to the adoption of healthy
behaviors is crucial if we are to capitalize on the insights of the
biomedical sciences into the drivers of obesity and disease. Similarly,
in my own field of meteorology, SBE research that helps us understand
human responses to weather conditions and warnings provides an
important complement to technological breakthroughs in forecasting, as
noted in my written testimony. Both types of knowledge are essential if
we are to minimize the loss of life amid storms. And the potential for
additional cross disciplinary collaboration continues to grow as
physical scientists and engineers recognize that they have hit ``brick
walls'' by seeking purely technological solutions to problems driven by
human behavior.
For over 50 years, NSF has helped catalyze transformative SBE
research and make the U.S. the world leader in these fields. Today, NSF
awards 1,200 grants annually through its Directorate for Social,
Behavior, and Economic Sciences, supporting the work of nearly 7,400
social, behavioral, and economic scientists. Maintaining our Nation's
leadership in SBE research is crucial to protect our country's economic
and security interests, realize the full potential of our innovation
ecosystem, and create public policy rooted in facts and science. The
National Science Board (NSB, Board) vigorously supports Federal funding
across all areas of research in its current portfolio and believes that
targeted reductions in SBE programs will have profoundly negative
consequences to all areas of science and engineering.
Question 4. EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research) helps avoid unfair geographic concentration of Federal
research funding in large states. West Virginia, South Dakota, and
Oklahoma are just three of 31 EPSCoR jurisdictions.
Dr. Droegemeier, you've been heavily involved in EPSCoR and have
discussed its strategic direction. As we look forward to renewing
America COMPETES, how do we ensure that students from every state and
background have access to STEM education and research opportunities?
Answer. Encouraging students to engage in the science and
engineering enterprise and providing opportunities to do so are vital
components of continuing our Nation's long-term success. To meet this
challenge, NSF has several programs designed to recruit and retain
students from every state and background. For example, NSF's Research
Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program funds dozens of sites
annually where hundreds of students from all around the Nation, and
across numerous disciplines, assemble for significant periods of time
to participate in cutting-edge research. EPSCoR-state students are
fully welcomed by REU sites, and the REU program has proven successful
in developing student interest and persistence in science majors.
Further, the vast majority of NSF research proposals include
funding for undergraduate and/or graduate students, who participate as
research assistants. Thus, whenever an EPSCoR project is funded, it is
highly likely that students will be gaining access to exceptionally
high quality, hands-on science education and research experiences.
Additional targeted funding for students would be welcomed in the
Reauthorization Act because there is no higher priority than investing
in the next generation of STEM professionals as they help perform the
research that will maintain our Nation's global S&T leadership.
Finally, and of notable importance, NSF has been watching with
interest the rapid growth of new technologies that enable on-line
access to high quality education. The Foundation already has put in
place several programs that fund research into making these
technologies effective for STEM education and assessing their impacts.
This work should be of special value in the long run for students in
rural settings or in locales where fewer options exist for obtaining a
high-quality, place-based STEM education.
Question 5. I understand that you started a company, Weather
Decision Technologies, based on research conducted from an EPSCoR
award. Would you have been able to start this company without Federal
support, and how can EPSCoR contribute to the overall economy?
Answer. I absolutely would not have been able to start WDT without
EPSCoR funding.
More specifically, EPSCoR was instrumental in funding an NSF
Science and Technology Center (the Center for Analysis and Prediction
of Storms, or CAPS), one of the first 11 such centers created in 1989
when the program was initiated. Centers such as CAPS were designed to
tackle profoundly deep intellectual questions which, according to the
state of the science at the time, were thought to be unlikely or even
impossible to solve. In the case of CAPS, the challenge was using
computer models to predict extreme weather such as thunderstorms and
tornadoes--a capability thought to be fundamentally impossible given
the chaotic and unpredictable nature of the atmosphere on fine scales.
The research conducted at CAPS was foundational to starting WDT, Inc.
Not only did CAPS achieve its goal, but the theories it developed,
and the practical capabilities it demonstrated experimentally, are now
being implemented in the National Weather Service as part of the
Weather Ready Nation program. Further, an entirely new paradigm--
warning of extreme weather, such as tornadoes even before the parent
storm exists (the so-called Warn on Forecast concept)--offers the hope
of achieving the ultimate goal: zero deaths. However, to the point made
above, that goal will be absolutely impossible to achieve without an
integrative focus on social and behavioral science, because an
increased warning lead time must be accompanied by an understanding of
how humans behave in extreme situations when given substantially more
time than is available to them today. All of this from a center that
dared to tackle a problem that was viewed as impossible to solve, and
from Federal funding--especially from EPSCoR--that allowed the Nation
to take the risk. If we as a Nation focus only on ``safe science'' in
which the outcomes are predictable, and if we focus only on the
physical science and engineering disciplines under the mistaken notion
that technology will solve all of our problems, then we will cede our
world leadership position to nations that embrace a holistic view.
The benefits of the EPSCoR investment in CAPS continue to this day
in the private sector, where the company you mention, Weather Decision
Technologies, has for more than a decade been developing and deploying
life-saving technologies, garnering numerous awards and now employing
more than 80 people in high-paying STEM jobs. Neither this company nor
the promise of an hour or more of additional lead time for issuing
tornado warnings would exist today, without EPSCoR funding. And this is
not a unique success story but rather one of numerous examples in which
Federal funding broadly, and EPSCoR funding more specifically, has
created jobs in important small businesses, built wealth, improved
safety and our quality of life, and spurred innovation unrivaled
anywhere in the world.
With regard to the overall impacts of EPSCoR to our economy, a
state's capacity to influence competitiveness requires coordination,
which an integral part of the EPSCoR program. For example, EPSCoR's
Research Infrastructure Improvement program supports research based on
a state's science and technology plan, often in alignment with national
research priorities. Since the inception of EPSCoR in 1980, the
research competitiveness of EPSCoR jurisdictions has increased by as
much as 41 percent. Other NSF programs, such as Innovation Corps (I-
Corps) and Industry & University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC),
enable academic researchers to begin translation of fundamental
research discoveries, encourage academia and industry to collaborate
(especially regionally), and prepare students to be entrepreneurial
leaders in innovation. In short, EPSCoR contributes to the overall
economy by making sure that all 50 states are meaningful contributors
to the Nation's innovation.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Warner to
Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier
Question 1. More than half of all basic research in the United
States is funded by the Federal Government--American universities and
colleges are responsible for 53 percent of this research. I believe
that we should be doing more to commercialize federally funded
research, where possible. However, there is a disparity between the
amount of commercialization coming from top tier research schools
versus lower performing schools. A recent report from the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) found that top
tier schools tend to do very well in terms of funding, while lower
performing schools are more constrained in their ability to
commercialize their research.
One problem I have noticed is that there are a series of closed
markets in terms of who controls intellectual property (IP) within
universities. Bob Litan, an innovation expert, was recently quoted in
Forbes noting that ``one of the big disadvantages of the traditional
TLO model is that the TLO exerts the entire control over which
innovations reach the market, in what form, and how fast.''
Another issue is that some schools have surpassed others in terms
of the amount of technology they are able to commercialize. One example
is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Deshpande Center, which
has funded 100 projects totaling over $13 million. The Center has also
seen the creation of 28 spinout companies that have raised over $400
million in capital.
I have worked with Senator Moran on a proposal to accelerate
commercialization within underperforming university tech transfer
offices as a part of the Startup Act.
What is the most aggressive thing that we can do to spur more
commercialization similar to what has been happening at schools like
MIT?
Additionally, do you think that crowdfunding has any role in tech
transfer? I was interested to learn that the University of Utah has
recently launched its ``Technology Commercialization Office'' which
uses crowdfunding as an alternative to traditional university
``technology licensing offices'' (TLOs). What do you think about this?
Answer. To your first question about spurring commercialization, I
do not believe that a single ``silver bullet'' exists, but rather, a
combination of actions can be taken to dramatically improve the
situation.
First and foremost, in the context of innovation, it is important
to give many ideas a chance and not to judge them by inappropriate or
naive criteria. These are key precepts at the National Science
Foundation (NSF, Foundation). The Foundation asks scientists to submit
their best ideas then asks other scientists to open-mindedly assess
their potential. NSF works hard to not pre-define the kinds of ideas it
is willing to consider, and to be mindful that unconventional thinking
can yield important and even transformative results. This is true not
only for basic research, but also for an innovation ecosystem that
allows the best ideas and entrepreneurs to flourish.
In many respects, Congress significantly catalyzed university-based
commercialization activities in 1980 with the passage of the Bayh-Dole
Act. Bayh-Dole aligned university incentives with societal goals in a
way that made possible the establishment of MIT's Technology Licensing
Office and similar offices at other universities. Because of that bill,
and other opportunities driven by leaders like you, there now exists an
unprecedented number of new types of mechanisms available for
technology transfer. Many states, agencies, and universities also see a
critical need, resulting in intense interest in replicating successes
and finding more effective and efficient methods for moving innovations
from the lab to the marketplace.
For example, NSF is aggressively seeking to accelerate
commercialization and entrepreneurial education through the I-Corps
program. By deploying a multi-scale network of nodes, sites, and teams,
we hope to replicate some of the elements that underpin the success of
the Deshpande Center and catalyze the development of the local and
regional innovation clusters that are essential components of
commercialization at places like MIT and Stanford University. NSF is
also working to better connect the I-Corps program with existing SBIR
and STTR programs, and other agencies are looking to implement their
own versions of I-Corps.
Many of my fellow ``Vice Presidents for Research'' have formally
added ``and Economic Development'' to their titles as U.S. universities
engage creatively with these new ideas and diversify the incentives and
arrangements offered to their faculty in order to encourage greater
social contribution. In this regard, I can recommend to you a 2013
Department of Commerce report entitled ``The Innovative and
Entrepreneurial University: Higher Education, Innovation and
Entrepreneurship in Focus.'' That report is filled with examples of how
universities are taking new approaches to spur both student and faculty
entrepreneurship and technology transfer, including my own university's
Growth Fund that helps scientists develop prototypes, among other
things.
I believe Congress can best help the commercialization process by
continuing to incentivize a range of mechanisms and by supporting
unfettered scientific inquiry. Specifically, you can help by working
with agencies and stakeholders to eliminate regulatory obstacles to
innovative partnerships (I elaborate on this point in one of your
subsequent questions), by ensuring that the ability of researchers to
pursue the best ideas is not restricted by ``one size fits all''
regulations, and by making sure that the creative freedom that
underpins the government-university partnership is not undermined by
politics or bureaucracy. Over the last 50 years, this partnership has
thrived, performing over half of basic research in the United States,
and creating the new knowledge that is the ``seed corn'' for our
innovation economy.
As Dr. Litan alludes, if university administrators are the sole
judges of which ideas might reach the marketplace, we may miss
important opportunities. Instead, we should encourage multiple, robust
mechanisms to help scientists consider whether their ideas might have
market value, and then ensure that incentives exist for those
researchers to invest time and thought into application and
commercialization.
The University of Oklahoma (OU), in its Center for the Creation of
Economic Wealth (CCEW) offers a wonderful example of this strategy.
CCEW brings together students from all disciplines with a common thread
of entrepreneurship courses taught in the business college--along with
successful alumni businesspersons and innovative faculty counselors.
CCEW has transformed the landscape of OU intellectual property
commercialization and is becoming a force for regional economic
development in Oklahoma.
A second, and often overlooked issue with regard to academic-
corporate interactions, involves direct funding of university research
by private companies. Although it is true that universities focus
considerable attention on basic research, certain disciplines, such as
those in engineering, also perform applied research as well as
development. The amount of money coming to research universities from
private companies has been essentially stagnant for the past two
decades, which suggests that considerable unrealized potential exists
in academic-corporate partnerships, as noted in the recent National
Research Council (NRC) report chaired by Mr. Chad Holliday. In my
personal view, Federal and state policies should be examined to
identify barriers to such partnerships, especially with regard to the
disposition of intellectual property.
Universities have spent significant sums of money to create
technology transfer organizations yet the amount of revenue coming to
universities from such licenses is relatively small. The principal
benefit to universities from linkages with the private sector is
funding for research and development, support for equipment, and
stipends for students and post-doctoral researchers. Moreover, contrary
to popular belief, private companies are willing to support more
fundamental ``basic'' research in the context of work having a more
applied focus--because private companies realize they too must
contribute to basic research. The Federal Government cannot do
everything.
If access to intellectual property by private companies that fund
universities could be greatly streamlined, as is now being done by
institutions such as the University of Illinois and University of
Minnesota, the private sector could unlock enormous benefits from the
public investment in basic research and thus dramatically and quickly
transform the competitiveness of a state. Universities would reap
substantially greater benefits from strategic corporate linkages than
are possible today. In my personal view, a positive disruption to
longstanding, burdensome practices regarding intellectual property and
corporate-academic interactions could yield an impact on
commercialization.
To your second question, crowdfunding engines like the one you
mention at Utah can be efficient and effective at matching ideas with
investors who believe in their potential. This helps with a specific,
sticky part of the innovation pipeline: the point at which a scientist
or university has an outcome or idea but cannot conduct expensive
market research to see if it really has potential. The NSF I-Corps
program addresses this and a few other sticky parts of the innovation
pipeline by actively teaching researchers to think entrepreneurially
from the outset. It also educates such researchers about how to build
an early-stage company.
I also should mention that NSF funds scientific research that
explores factors that enable innovation and diffusion of innovations.
This is quite a vibrant social science topic. NSF-funded researchers
have found, for example, that geographical concentrations of ``star''
researchers in a field are the best predictor that a given region will
be an innovation ``hot spot'' in that field. That is, the stars
themselves, rather than their disembodied discoveries or their firms,
seem to be what matters most.
Others have identified some of the important social factors that
impede diffusion of new, unproven technologies. There is much more to
learn, of course, and the new era of ``big data'' promises to be a
great boon to those who study this sort of phenomenon. Consequently, we
can look forward to continued progress in understanding how best to
promote and support innovations for the Nation's greater well-being
provided that adequate funding is directed toward the social,
behavioral, and economic sciences.
Question 2. According to a 2007 report by the National Academies,
faculty working on Federally funded research spend 42 percent of their
time on administrative duties, such as compliance with Federal
regulations. Additionally, a November 2012 PCAST report states:
``Over the last two decades, the Government has added a steady
stream of new compliance and reporting requirements, many of
which vastly increase the flow of paper without causing any
improvements in actual performance. Sometimes these
requirements stand in the way of performance improvements.''
Some solutions proposed include eliminating overly burdensome
regulations, such as effort reporting, harmonizing regulation across
agencies, focusing regulations on performance rather than process, as
well as others.
What actions should be taken to make University research
regulations more efficient, while still maintaining a high level of
accountability?
Do you have any specific examples of burdensome regulations that
should be reformed?
Answer. I agree wholeheartedly with your concern and with the
observations of the PCAST report. As a vice president for research at a
tier-1 comprehensive research university, I can attest to the growing
number of unfunded compliance and reporting requirements and their
deleterious impact on research. I hasten to add that researchers and
university research leaders understand and appreciate the importance of
appropriate compliance rules and regulations. Indeed, the academic
enterprise rests on the integrity of its participants. However, the
important issue at hand is the extent to which aggregated regulations
are appropriately structured, implemented, and evaluated with regard to
their effectiveness and unintended or unnecessary consequences. It is
also important to note that this is not just a Federal problem. States,
accrediting organizations, and universities themselves all contribute
to administrative burdens.
Reports, such as the National Academies' (Federal Demonstration
Partnership) report you cite, indicate that the costs in time and lost
opportunity are significant. In my view, funding scientists to perform
administrative tasks instead of research is a significant waste of
taxpayer dollars.
My NSB colleagues share these concerns. In December 2012, under the
leadership of NSB Member, Dr. Arthur Bienenstock of Stanford University
and former Associate Director for Science with the Office of Science
and Technology Policy, the NSB created the Task Force on Administrative
Burdens to examine this issue and offer recommendations. In March 2013,
our task force issued an open Request for Information (RFI) to
scientists with Federal research funding to identify those Federal and
university requirements that contribute most to their administrative
workload and to offer recommendations for reducing it--precisely the
questions you raise. We also held a series of roundtable discussions
across the Nation and have invited comment on our preliminary analyses
from agencies, working groups, and organizations that can play a
potential role in the current level of administrative burden and have
the authority to reduce it.
It is our expectation that our recommendations and findings, which
are just now being finalized, will offer a detailed and comprehensive
answer to your question. We would like to provide you our full report
and any briefings or supporting materials that will be of help to you
just as soon as our findings and recommendations have Board approval,
which should be early 2014.
Preliminarily, I can say that our findings confirm and extend many
of those in the 2012 Faculty Workload Survey that you cite. Effort
reporting, as you note, is often characterized as a particular source
of burden. This is consistent with our preliminary findings. Our task
force responded to the Office of Management and Budget Notice of
Proposed Guidance Reform expressing support for effort reporting
reforms and encouraging swift implementation.
Beyond this, we see wide agreement in the RFI comments that adding
regulations per se adds burden and that fear of audits can precipitate
unintended, detrimental levels of risk aversion and reporting
requirements. The proposed solutions you cite--harmonizing regulations
across agencies and focusing regulations on performance rather than
process--also have been recommended frequently in our RFI. My
colleagues and I concur that identifying regulations and requirements
that lead to undue burden and eliminating, modifying, or harmonizing
them is essential to improving the research enterprise and fully
capitalizing on Federal investments in scientific research.
We are also highly supportive of the principle that scientific
stakeholder communities need to be represented in any and all efforts
to prioritize and streamline Federal regulations if we want to achieve
productive reform. Scientific activities and the universities that
house them have some unique, and sometimes fragile, core
characteristics. If these are not considered as regulations are
revised, reforms could be ineffective or even harmful.
Question 3. I am very supportive of efforts to consolidate STEM
programs and funding streams. President Obama's 2014 budget decreases
the number of STEM programs by 50 percent, from 226 to 112. I know that
some Members have expressed concerns about this consolidation, but I
believe this a great way to reduce administrative overhead and to get
more funding to students.
In considering the reauthorization of COMPETES, do you have any
recommendations for further consolidation of STEM programs?
Answer. The National Science Board has followed the proposed
consolidations with interest. We, too, are supportive of the goals,
both the efficiency goal and, particularly, the goal of ensuring that
the most effective STEM education practices are identified and diffused
quickly and widely across all Federal STEM educational efforts. Ongoing
coordination across agencies will be essential for diffusion of
effective practice. The consolidations should be done in an evidence-
based way with engagement of stakeholders.
As plans related to consolidation move forward, we encourage
healthy stakeholder engagement and coordination processes centered
around evidence of effective educational practices. NSF has a special
role to play in this regard. The Foundation is only one of a few
Federal agencies that funds basic research into learning and learning
environments, including valid methods for evaluation of learning, which
will underpin any evidence-based approach to improving STEM education
practices. The Foundation is therefore positioned to identify evidence-
based research agendas that will enable the timely diffusion and
coordination of effective STEM education practices in Federal agencies.
This is a role that the Foundation is equipped to handle well.
Question 4. I believe that America is lacking a long-term vision
for economic growth and international competitiveness. There has not
been enough of an effort to come together across government sectors and
devise a strategy for going forward.
I included an amendment in the 2010 COMPETES reauthorization that
directed the Department of Commerce to create a National
Competitiveness Strategy. However, I was disappointed by the way the
process played out. I did not feel like the report did enough to
concisely and effectively establish solutions for key issues like
infrastructure investment, immigration policy, research and development
funding, and others.
In your opinion, what targeted investment in R&D would do the most
to help America stay ahead of our global competition?
What recent investments in R&D have had the most potential impact
to American global competitiveness?
Answer. America's ``innovation ecosystem'' has propelled our
success, and my personal view is that a long-term vision and strategic
plan would help ensure effective stewardship of available resources and
strategic emphasis on areas of greatest strength and value. Ensuring
that this ecosystem retains the ingredients that have allowed our
Nation's researchers, engineers, and businesses to flourish is critical
to retaining our competitive global edge. U.S. researchers benefit from
unparalleled freedom to pursue their best ideas; as we think about the
future, we need to ensure we do not lose this critical component of our
R&D enterprise.
In our increasingly interconnected, big data, high-tech world,
strong, stable investment in R&D across all disciplines will need to
continue. Fields of science and engineering are growing ever more
interdependent in order to address large-scale and complex problems,
ranging from natural resource scarcity to national security and health
risks. The insights social sciences can provide us about human behavior
weave throughout all these national challenges. Therefore, it is
crucially important that we continue to fund all areas of science and
technology, and that we erect no barriers between them. In fact, we
need to maximize the ability for researchers in multiple fields to
collaborative effectively.
We need to continue building our STEM workforce, both by investing
in the training of U.S. students as well as attracting and retaining
foreign STEM students to contribute their ideas and skills to our
workforce. One significant aspect of U.S. innovation success lies in
the creativity of our students; we must make sure that the creative
edge is not lost in an environment increasingly focused on passing
standardized tests, and we must continue our Nation's long tradition of
attracting and retaining the best and brightest foreign-born students
We need to leverage our R&D investments with interagency
collaborations that extend the reach and yield of our investments and
encourage academic-industry partnerships. The Foundation's Industry/
University Cooperative Research Centers are a good model of such a
partnership.
Steady, predictable Federal funding will help colleges,
universities, businesses, and others who perform or rely on federally-
funded basic research to make wise, forward-thinking decisions that
yield maximal returns on taxpayers' investments. I cannot overstate the
importance of this issue. Risk taking, which is a foundational notion
of basic research, simply cannot be pursued in today's environment of
fiscal uncertainty. Likewise, strong, consistent Federal support is
crucial to recruiting and retaining future generations of scientists
and engineers. America needs its young people to view S&T as a
promising career path, and without question, the emerging generation of
researchers is quite troubled by the lack support for S&T and many are
choosing other careers. Slowly and surely this is eating away at our
competitive advantage.
Investments in R&D that figure prominently in our global
competitiveness include both those geared toward generating ingenious
new ideas and those focused on nurturing the next generation of
innovators. As you know, due to the nature of basic research, its
impact is not immediately felt. Likewise, the education and training of
the next generation of scientists and engineers is a decades-long
endeavor. These are both long-term investments where the payoffs come
later.
Thousands of fundamental scientific discoveries made across all
disciplines can be used and re-used in an almost infinite number of
ways now and decades into the future to produce outcomes that have
extraordinary benefits for society. R&D investments that integrate
elements from multiple disciplines and technologies also have great
potential. Many of the Foundation's activities focus on areas of
national priority and thus lie at the heart of national competitiveness
and well-being. These include advanced manufacturing, robotics, and
interdisciplinary research to enrich our understanding of the brain's
neural networks, nanotechnology, STEM education, global change
research, and cybersecurity R&D.
Equally important is investment in the education and training of a
scientifically literate, globally competitive U.S. workforce that
includes scientists and engineers, who will advance our fundamental
understanding of the world around us, and innovators and entrepreneurs,
who will use that knowledge to create new products and new industries.
STEM education initiatives, such as research into learning and pedagogy
and opportunities for hands-on research experiences, are vital to
developing our Nation's talent pool. Given the trajectory of
demographics in the U.S., enhancing the diversity of the STEM workforce
is not simply a good idea--it is essential if we are to continue as a
leader in S&T research and businesses.
Finally, a modern research infrastructure is critical to
maintaining our Nation's competitiveness. Through its Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction account, NSF provides U.S.
scientists and engineers with the large, shared tools necessary to
perform world-class research, such as supercomputing facilities, ships,
airplanes, and large arrays of observing systems to gauge changes
occurring on our planet.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier
Question. How do your mission agency STEM education programs, such
as the NOAA Sea Grant education program, contribute to the
competitiveness of the United States?
Answer. A STEM-literate workforce is absolutely essential for the
U.S. to be competitive in our knowledge-and technology-intensive global
economy. Consequently, the National Science Foundation (NSF) operates
programs across its directorates and divisions to ensure a high-
quality, STEM-literate workforce and citizenry and to enable
universities and other organizations to produce the best, most
innovative research scientists and engineers in the world. In that
context, although the National Science Board (NSB; Board) does not have
purview over NOAA's Sea Grant program (and likewise the NASA Space
Grant Consortium), such programs provide critical training and
education in STEM fields and are a fundamental component of the mission
of NOAA, NASA, and NSF.
NSF currently makes investments in STEM education at every level:
pre-K, K-12, undergraduate, graduate, and informal/public. Its major,
focused education investments fall, for the most part, into four
categories:
NSF Fellowships and Scholarships, such as the flagship
Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF), which attracts the best and
the brightest of our Nation's students to STEM careers and
helps enable them to complete their STEM educations. Numerous
individuals funded by the GRF over its 60-year history are now
members of the National Academies and some have won the Nobel
Prize.
Basic Education Research programs, such as Research on
Education and Learning, that addresses fundamental questions,
and produces valuable evaluative data, about how learning
(particularly in STEM fields) occurs and ways to improve
learning environments.
STEM Education Improvement programs, such as Improving
Undergraduate STEM Education, which translate scientific
evidence and research outcomes about STEM learning into
innovative materials and practices. It further assesses those
innovations and disseminates the most valuable ones for
implementation.
Research Experience Programs, such as REU Sites (Research
Experiences for Undergraduate Sites), which bring numbers of
students together with leading faculty to initiate and conduct
projects together. These sorts of learning opportunities can be
transformative for students and faculty alike.
It is also important to note that a large majority of NSF-funded
research projects, ranging from ``individual investigator'' awards to
center activities to large, multi-user facilities, include funding for
undergraduate students to participate as research assistants as they
seek their B.S. degrees. Such hands-on engagement in cutting-edge
science constitutes excellent STEM education in and of itself and has
been shown to increase a student's likelihood of completing a STEM
major and pursuing a career in science. Additionally, projects also
frequently fund M.S. and Ph.D. students. In this sense, almost all NSF
research investments are also investments in the future of the U.S.
scientific workforce, and therefore, in U.S. competitiveness.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier
Question 1. Oklahoma like Nebraska is an EPSCoR state, which means
our states receive a limited amount of Federal research funding. Over
the past three years (2010-2012), according to NSF, Oklahoma received
0.46 percent of all NSF research funding and Nebraska received 0.38
percent. At a time when technology, innovation, and research are so
important to industry and job creation, how can states like ours become
more competitive quickly?
Answer. As noted in my oral and written testimony, states like
Nebraska and Oklahoma possess exceptional capabilities in the quality
of their research universities, in the organization and prioritization
of their overall research capabilities in alignment with state and
institutional assets and goals, and in their ability to leverage
resources, partner with others in innovative ways, and respond quickly
to opportunity. Such is the hallmark of EPSCoR states.
Yet, as shown by the newly released National Research Council (NRC)
report, although EPSCoR states have enhanced their competitiveness by
traditional measures, so have non-EPSCoR states-thereby leaving the
relative position of states like Nebraska and Oklahoma essentially
unchanged. Your question, therefore, is extremely relevant: Even with
EPSCoR, our states are not achieving their full potential and more must
be done-as soon as possible-to help them contribute maximally to our
Nation's competitiveness. Failing in this effort means that significant
national potential will remain unrealized, which is not an acceptable
outcome when our Nation faces continually increasing competition in
science and engineering.
Embracing the full potential of an economy that is increasingly
reliant on knowledge and technology entails both near-term and long-
term strategies to maximize competitiveness. Although many factors
influence competitiveness, a state's capacity to conduct leading-edge
research, and to innovate within the private sector, are foremost among
them. Building research and innovation capacity within a state requires
coordinated and complementary state and Federal policies as well as
forward-looking leadership.
On relatively long time scales, at the state level, investments in
formal and informal education at all levels that ensure a local
concentration and retention of a scientifically literate workforce, and
policies that attract and retain technology-oriented businesses (e.g.,
tax incentives, innovative partnerships, research campuses that house
start-up companies and provide support for developing business plans
and taking basic research across the valley of death, the provision of
consulting support from university faculty to private companies) are
crucial to success.
To your specific question about enhancing competitiveness quickly,
as one example, Oklahoma created in 2003 a program called EDGE
(Economic Development Generating Excellence), which was a state-wide
effort to prioritize our assets and identify areas where strategic
investment in research could lead to rapid job creation and enhanced
competitiveness. Based upon the EDGE plan, the legislature authorized
the creation of a $1 billion endowment to support research and the
transfer of technology to the private sector that would make Oklahoma
the ``Research Capital of the Plains.'' Several funding competitions
were held, leading to the creation of new companies and the rapid
movement of research outcomes into innovative products and services,
especially in the biomedical sector. Other states have enacted similar
programs, and their ultimate success depends upon a close alignment of
research university strengths with private sector capabilities and
workforce availability and retention.
At the Federal level, innovation capacity is fostered by investment
in unfettered basic research across all disciplines including the
social, behavioral, and economic sciences. Further, redundant and
outdated regulations must be streamlined to ensure that much of every
dollar invested in research actually goes toward research. Finally,
barriers to academic-industry partnerships must be removed, and
incentives and support provided, so that promising research results can
be innovated quickly into products and services. This is especially
important given that the time from discovery to innovation is now
measured in months, rather than in years.
To the point just made, an often overlooked issue with regard to
academic-corporate interactions involves direct funding of university
research by private companies. Although it is true that universities
focus considerable attention on basic research, certain disciplines,
such as those in engineering, also perform applied research as well as
development. The amount of money coming to research universities from
private companies has been essentially stagnant for the past two
decades, which suggests that considerable unrealized potential exists
in academic-corporate partnerships, as noted in the recent NRC report
chaired by Chad Holliday. In my personal view, Federal and state
policies should be examined to identify barriers to such partnerships,
especially with regard to the disposition of intellectual property.
Universities have spent significant sums of money to create
technology transfer organizations yet the amount of revenue coming to
universities from such licenses is relatively small. The principal
benefit to universities from linkages with the private sector is
funding for research and development, support for equipment, and
stipends for students and post-doctoral researchers. Moreover, contrary
to popular belief, private companies are willing to support more
fundamental ``basic'' research in the context of work having a more
applied focus--because private companies realize they too must
contribute to basic research. The Federal Government cannot do
everything.
If access to intellectual property by private companies that fund
universities could be greatly streamlined, as is now being done by
institutions such as the University of Illinois and University of
Minnesota, the private sector could unlock enormous benefits from the
public investment in basic research and thus dramatically and quickly
transform the competitiveness of a state. Universities would reap
substantially greater benefits from strategic corporate linkages than
are possible today. In my personal view, a positive disruption to
longstanding, burdensome practices regarding intellectual property and
corporate-academic interactions could yield an impact on
commercialization.
More specific to NSF, EPSCoR facilitates competitiveness not only
through support for basic research and STEM education, but also through
targeted programs that build research capacity within states, encourage
public-private partnerships, and promote technology transfer. For
example, EPSCoR provides funding based on competitively-reviewed
proposals to states such as Nebraska that historically have received
comparatively small percentages of NSF support. EPSCoR's Research
Infrastructure Improvement program supports research based on a state's
science and technology plans, usually in alignment with national
research priorities. Since the program's inception in 1980,
competitiveness of EPSCoR jurisdictions has increased by as much as 41
percent. Other NSF programs, such as Innovation Corps (I-Corps) and
Industry & University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC), enable
academic researchers to begin translation of fundamental research
discoveries, encourage academia and industry to collaborate (especially
regionally), and prepare students to be entrepreneurial leaders in
innovation.
Continued, stable support for basic research, STEM education
programs, and activities like EPSCoR, Innovation Corps (I-Corps), and
the Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC) will
strengthen Nebraska's colleges, universities, and industries in
mutually beneficial ways.
Question 2. Economic growth and job creation are critical to any
state. I am quite proud of Nebraska's recent success in this area with
one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, many good jobs,
and successful businesses. What do you see as the underpinnings for a
vibrant economy and jobs in the future? How can this legislation
contribute to that?
Answer. Our nation's economic prosperity rests on complex, often
interconnected factors: health care, energy and energy security,
transportation and infrastructure, national security, and education, to
name a few. The progress of science underpins all of these. As
highlighted in the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm
report, the majority of U.S. economic growth since World War II is
attributable to advances in science and technology (S&T). The National
Science Board believes this trend will continue provided that
sustained, stable support exists for basic research. Although the cynic
might expect such a statement from a board whose mission involves
fostering exceptional research for the nation, the facts of more than
60 years of investment attest to the pronouncement's veracity.
The progress of S&T requires an unwavering commitment to pursuing
transformative basic research and developing our Nation's human
capital. As noted in my written testimony, basic research is the DNA
from which new innovations and technologies arise to fuel our Nation's
economic prosperity, health, and welfare. That DNA, composed of
thousands of discoveries made across all disciplines, can be used and
re-used in an almost infinite number of ways now and decades into the
future to produce outcomes that have extraordinary benefits for
society.
Equally important is human capital development--the education and
training of a scientifically literate, globally competitive U.S.
workforce. This workforce includes scientists and engineers, who will
advance our fundamental understanding of the world, and our innovators
and entrepreneurs, who will use that knowledge to create new products
and new industries. STEM education initiatives, such as research into
learning and pedagogy and opportunities for hands-on research
experiences are vital to developing our Nation's talent pool.
Although continued support of basic research and increased STEM
literacy are critical, as noted above, we also need investments in
projects like the ''Nebraska Innovation Campus,'' where industry,
entrepreneurs, and academic faculty work together in public-private
partnerships to move discovery from the lab to the marketplace. The
Nebraska Innovation Campus was created as a research campus that
enhances opportunities for private business to access faculty to
develop marketable innovations and the first building is scheduled to
open in spring 2014.
I can attest to the tremendous potential of the Nebraska Innovation
Campus because I traveled to Lincoln a few years ago to meet with the
President and Chancellor to share the experiences of my own institution
and its counterpart--the University of Oklahoma Research Campus. On
this campus, we built a million square feet, fully occupied in less
than a decade, and the Research Campus was named the 2013 Research Park
of the Year by the Association of University Research Parks. NU is
heading in this same direction. Such tremendous assets are very quickly
becoming magnets for both intellectual and economic vitality in states
like Nebraska and Oklahoma, and I urge that careful attention be paid
to ``research campuses and parks'' at the Federal level as a means for
rapidly enhancing national competitiveness via the close integration of
government, industry, and academia (often referred to as the triple
helix).
To your specific question, the Reauthorization Act can facilitate
local, regional, and national economic prosperity by sustaining long-
standing Congressional support for the U.S. S&T enterprise. It can do
this in three mutually reinforcing ways:
The Reauthorization Act can provide a vision for strong,
stable Federal funding for basic research in all areas of STEM,
including the social, behavioral and economic sciences. I
cannot overstate the importance of that point. Basic research
is a long-term investment, and providing steady, predictable
Federal funding will help colleges, universities, businesses,
and others who perform or rely on federally-funded basic
research make wise, forward-thinking decisions that yield
maximal returns on taxpayers' investments. Likewise, strong,
consistent Federal support is crucial for recruiting and
retaining future generations of scientists and engineers. These
young people must view S&T as a viable and attractive career,
and it is abundantly clear they will not do so unless they see,
and can have confidence in, more than a few feet down a pathway
of a thousand miles.
The Reauthorization Act can enhance investment in the
education and training of the next generation of scientists and
engineers. To remain globally competitive, the U.S. will need
an ``all-hands-on-deck'' approach, bringing all of its assets
to bear. This means not only strengthening investments in STEM
education, but also committing to efforts to ensure a diverse
workforce that harnesses and reflects the Nation's increasingly
diverse population. In this regard, funding for additional
graduate fellowships, undergraduate research programs, and
efforts that meaningfully enhance participation are essential.
To the latter point, EPSCoR states like Nebraska and Oklahoma
can play an especially vital role if they focus on their own
specific strengths (e.g., Native Americans in the case of
Oklahoma) and work toward a sustainable framework for bringing
underrepresented groups into STEM fields and helping them
succeed.
The Reauthorization Act can augment our ability to transform
basic research discoveries into future innovations by fostering
linkages between the public and private sectors and
streamlining the process for translating research into
marketable products and processes. NSF has several programs
that can serve as models for this legislation: the I/UCRC and
the I-Corps programs aim to stimulate academia-industry
partnerships (especially regionally), leverage industrial
support, accelerate technology transfer and commercialization,
and prepare students to be entrepreneurial leaders. In
addition, NSF's Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
program and its Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
program provide incentives and enable startups and small
business to undertake R&D. Finally, this legislation could call
for a study that seeks to understand and eliminate barriers to
academic-corporate partnerships, particularly with regard to
Federal tax policies that tend to tie research universities'
hands.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Dr. Saul Perlmutter
Question. According to a recent survey of scientists performed by
the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 53 percent
of respondents have turned away promising researchers due to a lack of
funding and 18 percent are considering moving their research outside of
the United States. Last year, a CEO of a major U.S. corporation was
quoted as saying that his company was expanding abroad due, in part, to
the ``moribund interest in science in the U.S.'' How would you describe
the long-term effects of lower funding in terms of training the
scientific workforce, attracting and keeping top talent, and supporting
innovation and have you started to see these effects already?
Answer. Researchers want to conduct research. I believe it is that
simple. Without adequate opportunities to conduct science, young
researchers will look elsewhere. Also, younger students in high school
and college still planning their careers will be discouraged from
joining scientific fields without obvious employment opportunities.
My research group and many other groups around me have been forced
to turn down the applications of promising researchers--the next
generation of world leading scientists--as funding levels have dropped.
As I stated in my testimony, for the first time in my career, I have
seen examples of researchers choosing to join research groups abroad in
fields in which the United States' investments have stagnated and our
leadership is waning.
That said, I am encouraged by legislation such as the America
COMPETES Act that if passed would renew America's commitment to
increasing funding for basic research, and help us to train a next
generation of world leading scientists here at home.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Warner to
Dr. Saul Perlmutter
Question 1. More than half of all basic research in the United
States is funded by the Federal Government--American universities and
colleges are responsible for 53 percent of this research. I believe
that we should be doing more to commercialize federally funded
research, where possible. However, there is a disparity between the
amount of commercialization coming from top tier research schools
versus lower performing schools. A recent report from the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) found that top
tier schools tend to do very well in terms of funding, while lower
performing schools are more constrained in their ability to
commercialize their research.
One problem I have noticed is that there are a series of closed
markets in terms of who controls intellectual property (IP) within
universities. Bob Litan, an innovation expert, was recently quoted in
Forbes noting that ``one of the big disadvantages of the traditional
TLO model is that the TLO exerts the entire control over which
innovations reach the market, in what form, and how fast.''
Another issue is that some schools have surpassed others in terms
of the amount of technology they are able to commercialize. One example
is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Deshpande Center, which
has funded 100 projects totaling over $13 million. The Center has also
seen the creation of 28 spinout companies that have raised over $400
million in capital.
I have worked with Senator Moran on a proposal to accelerate
commercialization within underperforming university tech transfer
offices as a part of the Startup Act.
Question 1a. What is the most aggressive thing that we can do to
spur more commercialization similar to what has been happening at
schools like MIT?
Question 1b. Additionally, do you think that crowdfunding has any
role in tech transfer? I was interested to learn that the University of
Utah has recently launched its ``Technology Commercialization Office''
which uses crowdfunding as an alternative to traditional university
``technology licensing offices'' (TLOs). What do you think about this?
Answer. In answer to both a) and b) I am quiet interested in
learning more about the efforts at MIT, Utah and other institutions to
commercialize research, but without knowing more I hesitate to offer an
opinion on this. However, I do believe that the most important first
ingredient of technology development, especially for those that are
breakthrough technologies, stems from basic science discoveries. That
is the reason I strongly support healthy Federal investment in basic
science and am pleased that the COMPETES Act would support increased
funding for this research.
Question 2. According to a 2007 report by the National Academies,
faculty working on federally funded research spend 42 percent of their
time on administrative duties, such as compliance with Federal
regulations. Additionally, a November 2012 PCAST report states:
``Over the last two decades, the Government has added a steady
stream of new compliance and reporting requirements, many of
which vastly increase the flow of paper without causing any
improvements in actual performance. Sometimes these
requirements stand in the way of performance improvements.''
Some solutions proposed include eliminating overly burdensome
regulations, such as effort reporting, harmonizing regulation across
agencies, focusing regulations on performance rather than process, as
well as others.
Question 2a. What actions should be taken to make University
research regulations more efficient, while still maintaining a high
level of accountability?
Question 2b. Do you have any specific examples of burdensome
regulations that should be reformed?
Answer. In answer to both a) and b), I strongly agree with the
PCAST report. Micromanagement and over regulation stifles the
creativity and scientific productivity of the scientists. Although it
may appear that fewer mistakes are being made, the truth is that the
result is smaller scientific returns on the Federal investment. You
cannot regulate your way to great science (this has been tried,
unsuccessfully, by other countries). Although at the moment I do not
have a list of suggestions for specific reform. However, I do believe
that Congress could send a strong message to the agencies and
scientific program managers by making it clear that they care more
about researchers spending their productive time on science rather than
on accounting processes and reporting.
Question 3. I am very supportive of efforts to consolidate STEM
programs and funding streams. President Obama's 2014 budget decreases
the number of STEM programs by 50 percent, from 226 to 112. I know that
some Members have expressed concerns about this consolidation, but I
believe this a great way to reduce administrative overhead and to get
more funding to students. In considering the reauthorization of
COMPETES, do you have any recommendations for further consolidation of
STEM programs?
Answer. At this time I do not have an opinion on the proposed
consolidation of STEM programs.
Question 4. I believe that America is lacking a long-term vision
for economic growth and international competitiveness. There has not
been enough of an effort to come together across government sectors and
devise a strategy for going forward.
I included an amendment in the 2010 COMPETES reauthorization that
directed the Department of Commerce to create a National
Competitiveness Strategy. However, I was disappointed by the way the
process played out. I did not feel like the report did enough to
concisely and effectively establish solutions for key issues like
infrastructure investment, immigration policy, research and development
funding, and others.
Question 4a. In your opinion, what targeted investment in R&D would
do the most to help America stay ahead of our global competition?
Question 4b. What recent investments in R&D have had the most
potential impact to American global competitiveness?
Answer. In answer to both a) and b), I believe that the most
important and strategic investment that the Federal Government can make
in research and development is in basic science funding--discovery
science; science with no obvious commercial application. As articulated
in the National Academies' Gathering Storm Report, and as reflected in
the goals and objectives of the COMPETES Act, basic science drives not
only real technological advancement, but also seeds progress in the
development of solutions and speeds delivery of technologies to society
across a broad range of industries and technical areas. Basic
scientific discoveries, funded by Federal agencies, have led to
commercial breakthroughs in the application of nanotechnology, biology
for energy and environmental solutions, and Nobel Prizes. We don't know
from where the next ``solution'' or ``technology'' may come. But, we do
not that it will not come at all without basic science discoveries.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Dr. Saul Perlmutter
Question. Economic growth and job creation are critical to any
state. I am quite proud of Nebraska's recent success in this area with
one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, many good jobs,
and successful businesses. What do you see as the underpinnings for a
vibrant economy and jobs in the future? How can this legislation
[America COMPETES] contribute to that?
Answer. As my testimony indicated, it appears that the economic
health of today stems from past investments in education and in
research. Surprisingly enough, basic science has proven a crucial part
of this mix--not just applied research that may appear the most obvious
contributor. Therefore, legislation like the America COMPETES Act is
vital to economic growth and for job creation throughout the United
States. By authorizing increases in the levels of Federal investment in
science, including basic research, the COMPETES Act would ensure that
the United States remains a leader in scientific productivity and has a
strong innovation and economic foundation. I am particularly pleased
that the COMPETES Act contains increased funding authorization for the
Department of Energy's Office of Science--a organization that is an
important part of the Nation's innovation ecosystem.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Dr. Maria M. Klawe
Question 1. According to a recent survey of scientists performed by
the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 53 percent
of respondents have turned away promising researchers due to a lack of
funding and 18 percent are considering moving their research outside of
the United States. Last year, a CEO of a major U.S. corporation was
quoted as saying that his company was expanding abroad due, in part, to
the ``moribund interest in science in the U.S.''
How would you describe the long-term effects of lower funding in
terms of training the scientific workforce, attracting and keeping top
talent, and supporting innovation and have you started to see these
effects already?
Answer. When students, both undergraduate and graduate, and post-
docs see their faculty having serious difficulty in finding funding to
support their research, it discourages them from pursuing academic and
research careers in the United States. I am already seeing a decrease
in top U.S. undergraduate students choosing to enter Ph.D. programs and
an increase in top U.S. Ph.D. and post-docs looking for academic and
research positions in other countries.
Question 2. What changes to the education system might be necessary
to ensure that U.S. companies can access a healthy, U.S.-based STEM
workforce?
Answer. The key changes that are needed are:
Improving recruitment and retention in STEM degree programs
especially for women and under-represented minorities in areas
like computer science and some areas of engineering where
participation and retention rates are particularly low.
Strategies that have been demonstrated to be highly effective
in doing this include:
Making introductory courses relevant, interesting and
non-intimidating though inclusion of applications and
providing appropriate support for less well-prepared
students;
Providing early (within the first two undergraduate
years) team-based hands-on experiences via projects or
research;
Providing exposure to role-models from industry who
can demonstrate the career opportunities for graduates in
various disciplines;
Hiring more diverse faculty (women, minorities, and
people with industry experience); and
Placing equal emphasis on excellence in teaching as on
excellence in research for promotion, tenure and salary
increases.
Federal funding via NSF and other agencies can play a huge
role in driving these changes through:
Funding for development and dissemination of more
effective introductory courses;
Funding for early research experiences for
undergraduates as well as for more senior undergraduates;
Funding for regional and national workshops and
conferences that bring students and faculty together with
industry professionals at all levels (e.g., the Grace
Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing, The Society of
Women Engineers (SWE), etc.);
Programs that provide funding for salary and start-up
research costs for faculty that diversify a department; and
Programs that provide significant funding for
curriculum development and research to assistant and
associate professors who are stars in both teaching and
research (like the NSF Career Awards but with more emphasis
on teaching).
Question 3. Some have argued that the United States should focus
its R&D efforts more on applied research and less on basic research, as
some other countries have done.
Dr. Klawe, what would a reduction in basic research funding mean
for universities?
Answer. Reducing funding for basic research in U.S. universities
would significantly impact innovation in the U.S. economy. The U.S.
leads the world in innovation, and, to a certain extent, other
countries are able to draft behind us by focusing their research
investments on applications resulting from our discoveries. By leading
the world in basic research, we get a head start on commercializing
applications from fundamental discoveries. This is why China is making
significant investments in building basic research at their top
universities.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Dr. Maria M. Klawe
Question. Dr. Klawe, you spoke about computer programming languages
and making them more accessible by helping students and the public
understand programming and options for learning that may be useful to
securing a career in computer science. I understand there are multiple
programming languages--can you discuss these and how educators and
industries can help make computer science studies more accessible and
understood?
Answer. Different programming languages have different purposes.
Some are easier to learn and/or use, but either run more slowly or can
only be used to create a limited range of kinds of software. For
example there are visual programming languages like Scratch and Alice
whose purpose is to make it easy for new learners, especially younger
students, to build simple programs and understand their structure, but
no one would try to build anything complicated with them. A visual
language allows students to assemble virtual building blocks to make a
program that accomplishes the desired task. Examples of this approach
can be seen on the code.org website.
Most languages used for serious software development are text-
based, where programmers type a list of instructions for the computer
to execute. For example, Python is a language that is easy to learn and
can be used to easily build almost anything, but it runs too slowly for
some kinds of commercial applications. Languages like C, C++, and Java
are general-purpose languages designed for building large software
systems that run very efficiently but are harder to learn and use. In
addition there are languages that are designed to make it easier to
prove that a program runs correctly or to facilitate a particular
approach to programming or to build a particular kind of software
system like a database. Professional software developers will often
build the first version of a new piece of software using a good
prototyping language like Python, and then rewrite the pieces of code
that need to run more quickly in a language like C++ or Java.
Our understanding of how best to teach computer science has evolved
quite a bit over the last three decades. As in some other disciplines
there are differences of opinion on the best approach, but there is
growing support for the following strategy. For elementary, middle
school or early high school students, start by teaching some central
concepts and have students understand them by solving puzzles using a
visual language. For older students with more mathematics knowledge
(high school juniors and seniors, college students), teach a broader
set of core concepts by having students solve interesting applied
problems using an easy to learn, text-based language such as Python.
There are several reasons why Python is increasingly popular as an
introductory text-based language for students to learn. First, it's
easy. Second, because it's used by many professional software
developers, knowledge of Python helps students to get a summer job.
Last but not least, the transition from Python to languages like C++ or
Java is much easier than from a visual language.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Warner to
Dr. Maria M. Klawe
Question 1. More than half of all basic research in the United
States is funded by the Federal Government--American universities and
colleges are responsible for 53 percent of this research. I believe
that we should be doing more to commercialize federally funded
research, where possible. However, there is a disparity between the
amount of commercialization coming from top tier research schools
versus lower performing schools. A recent report from the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) found that top
tier schools tend to do very well in terms of funding, while lower
performing schools are more constrained in their ability to
commercialize their research.
One problem I have noticed is that there are a series of closed
markets in terms of who controls intellectual property (IP) within
universities. Bob Litan, an innovation expert, was recently quoted in
Forbes noting that ``one of the big disadvantages of the traditional
TLO model is that the TLO exerts the entire control over which
innovations reach the market, in what form, and how fast.''
Another issue is that some schools have surpassed others in terms
of the amount of technology they are able to commercialize. One example
is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Deshpande Center, which
has funded 100 projects totaling over $13 million. The Center has also
seen the creation of 28 spinout companies that have raised over $400
million in capital.
I have worked with Senator Moran on a proposal to accelerate
commercialization within underperforming university tech transfer
offices as a part of the Startup Act.
What is the most aggressive thing that we can do to spur more
commercialization similar to what has been happening at schools like
MIT?
Additionally, do you think that crowdfunding has any role in tech
transfer? I was interested to learn that the University of Utah has
recently launched its ``Technology Commercialization Office'' which
uses crowdfunding as an alternative to traditional university
``technology licensing offices'' (TLOs). What do you think about this?
Answer. In my experience the faculty and student culture around
commercialization is as important as the TLO in achieving great
commercialization outcomes. Institutions that support and reward
faculty and students who commercialize their inventions end up with a
lot more patents, licenses and spin-off companies than those that
don't. Some factors that positively influence the culture include:
Facilitating leaves for faculty and students who are
creating spin-off companies;
Creating commercialization and entrepreneurship courses for
undergraduate and graduate students so they can learn the
process of getting patents, writing business plans, and getting
angel and VC funding;
Holding commercialization and business plan competitions to
get angel funding;
Giving faculty and students more control of the IP,
especially when the work results from research primarily funded
from non-institutional funds (e.g., NSF or other government
agencies).
For smaller universities and colleges, approaches like the
Philadelphia Science Center that provide TLO services for many
institutions make a lot of sense. It's important to make sure that
there are not barriers in access to funding programs for multi-
institutional TLO operations.
Crowdfunding for tech transfer makes lots of sense. It's what many
start-ups are doing these days in any case, and it should be possible
to make the model work for tech transfer as well.
Question 2. According to a 2007 report by the National Academies,
faculty working on Federally funded research spend 42 percent of their
time on administrative duties, such as compliance with Federal
regulations. Additionally, a November 2012 PCAST report states:
``Over the last two decades, the Government has added a steady
stream of new compliance and reporting requirements, many of
which vastly increase the flow of paper without causing any
improvements in actual performance. Sometimes these
requirements stand in the way of performance improvements.''
Some solutions proposed include eliminating overly burdensome
regulations, such as effort reporting, harmonizing regulation across
agencies, focusing regulations on performance rather than process, as
well as others.
What actions should be taken to make University research
regulations more efficient, while still maintaining a high level of
accountability?
Do you have any specific examples of burdensome regulations that
should be reformed?
Answer. It should be possible to significantly streamline the
reporting obligations without reducing accountability, but even as, or
more, importantly, the amount of time that faculty spend in writing
grant applications needs to be reduced. My experience is that faculty
spend much more time working on grant applications than on reporting.
This is partly due to the length and complexity of grant proposals and
partly because of the low percentage of applications being funded.
My recommendation is to focus on improving the grant application
and awarding process.
Question 3. I am very supportive of efforts to consolidate STEM
programs and funding streams. President Obama's 2014 budget decreases
the number of STEM programs by 50 percent, from 226 to 112. I know that
some Members have expressed concerns about this consolidation, but I
believe this a great way to reduce administrative overhead and to get
more funding to students.
In considering the reauthorization of COMPETES, do you have any
recommendations for further consolidation of STEM programs?
Answer. Unfortunately I don't know enough about this issue to make
a responsible recommendation.
Question 4. I believe that America is lacking a long-term vision
for economic growth and international competitiveness. There has not
been enough of an effort to come together across government sectors and
devise a strategy for going forward.
I included an amendment in the 2010 COMPETES reauthorization that
directed the Department of Commerce to create a National
Competitiveness Strategy. However, I was disappointed by the way the
process played out. I did not feel like the report did enough to
concisely and effectively establish solutions for key issues like
infrastructure investment, immigration policy, research and development
funding, and others.
In your opinion, what targeted investment in R&D would do the most
to help America stay ahead of our global competition?
What recent investments in R&D have had the most potential impact
to American global competitiveness?
Answer. In my opinion, the biggest economic opportunities will come
from increased investment at the interface between computer science and
electrical engineering and other disciplines such as medicine (and
healthcare), statistics, economics, education, environment, and
entertainment. The impact of advances in data analysis, sensors, and
other areas of software and hardware, on all sectors of the economy is
just beginning. This interface is what is driving competitiveness
around the world, and we need to be at the forefront.
The most important investment in terms of actual impact over the
last decade has been in information technology research, plus the
networking infrastructure. The investment in genomics and proteomics
also has great potential impact, as does the investment in
nanotechnology.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Dr. Maria M. Klawe
Question. Economic growth and job creation are critical to any
state. I am quite proud of Nebraska's recent success in this area with
one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, many good jobs,
and successful businesses. What do you see as the underpinnings for a
vibrant economy and jobs in the future? How can this legislation
contribute to that?
Answer. Innovation and new technology underpin a vibrant economy,
accompanied by a strong, well-educated, entrepreneurial STEM workforce.
The foundation for innovation is basic scientific research, and
government funding such as the COMPETES Act plays a central role in
supporting this research. Government support keeps the U.S. in the lead
in terms of innovation and its commercialization.
Government funding also plays a vital role in educating the
scientific workforce. COMPETES supports STEM education, especially
efforts to improve STEM education and grow and diversify the STEM
workforce--critical for meeting the needs of industry and spurring
economic growth.
Computing has become the universal underpinning of scientific
advancement and economic activity; there is incredible economic
opportunity at the interface between computer science and virtually
every discipline, especially the life sciences and engineering, but
nearly every field is starting to advance rapidly by incorporating
computer science. The U.S. needs to lead in the R&D at this interface,
and in its application and commercialization, to maintain a robust,
competitive economy.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Dr. Stephen S. Tang
Question 1. According to a recent survey of scientists performed by
the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 53 percent
of respondents have turned away promising researchers due to a lack of
funding and 18 percent are considering moving their research outside of
the United States. Last year, a CEO of a major U.S. corporation was
quoted as saying that his company was expanding abroad due, in part, to
the ``moribund interest in science in the U.S.''
How would you describe the long-term effects of lower funding in
terms of training the scientific workforce, attracting and keeping top
talent, and supporting innovation and have you started to see these
effects already?
Answer. There is no doubt that in order to attract top talent and
ensure that our country remains a leader in innovation, the Federal
Government must prioritize investment in research activities. The
economic downturn disrupted traditional financing channels for budding
entrepreneurs. Since 2000, our country as a whole has seen a decline in
commercialization of research. At a time when private capital is most
limited, it is even more important that the government provide support
for innovation and economic growth.
At the Science Center, we have witnessed a greater need for Federal
investment for basic and applied research. While we strongly believe in
public-private partnerships, often the private sector funds only the
least risky and most lucrative endeavors. Federal resources are
necessary to ensure that innovators apply their knowledge and expertise
widely and respond to market forces.
Question 2. Dr. Tang, drawing on your corporate experience, how
does the availability of quality STEM graduates and promising
researchers affect corporate decisions about where to conduct research
and where to manufacture goods?
Answer. Corporate leaders understand the necessity of employing a
skilled workforce to achieve success. Tech-based entrepreneurs and
innovators depend on STEM talent to achieve their goals. While STEM is
a growing field in this country, the demand for individuals
specializing in science and math still outpaces the demand. Often in an
attempt to capture these talents, corporate entities establish a
presence within areas highly concentrated with STEM professionals.
At the Science Center, we witnessed this in late 2010, when Eli
Lilly acquired Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, a startup company located on
our campus. The Greater Philadelphia region is home to a number of
leading research institutions which have spun out a number of startup
companies that have attracted interest from Lilly and other large
firms. Business, industry and venture capital firms will relocate to
areas where talent is dense and resources are rich. STEM professionals
are the backbone to innovation and as a country we must encourage top
talents to embrace this field.
Question 3. Some have argued that the United States should focus
its R&D efforts more on applied research and less on basic research, as
some other countries have done.
Dr. Tang, if the Federal Government significantly cut back its
investment in basic research, could the Nation depend on the private
sector to close the funding gap or is government-industry collaboration
necessary?
Answer. If the Federal Government significantly cut back its
investment in basic research, I do not believe that the private sector
would close the funding gap entirely on its own. As noted in the
Department of Commerce's study of the Nation's economic competitiveness
and innovation capacity, issued in January 2012 pursuant to the last
reauthorization of America COMPETES, the Federal Government is the
logical primary funder of basic research because the knowledge
generated by basic research is considered to be a ``public good'':
A public good has two main characteristics: (1) one person's
consumption of that good does not reduce the amount available for
others to consume and (2) it is difficult to exclude others from
consuming the good . . .
What this means, particularly for basic research, is that it may
not be possible for those conducting the research to fully appreciate
the benefits from research and innovation. In such cases, the social
benefits (those that accrue to society as a whole) from these
innovative activities likely exceed the private benefits (those that
accrue just to the entity conducting the research). . . . Because
individual researchers cannot recoup the full value of their work, the
incentive to produce a socially optimal amount of innovative activity
is lacking. This creates a potential role for government to fund
innovative activity to raise this activity closer to the social
optimum.
The Competitiveness and Innovative Capacity of the United States,
prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce in consultation with the
National Economic Council, January 2012, pp. 3-2--3-3. (I had the
privilege of serving on the 15-member Innovation Advisory Board,
appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, which provided advice with
respect to the conduct of the study.)
Accordingly, I believe it is critical that the Federal Government,
at a minimum, maintain its level of investment in basic research so
that the United States can maintain its position as a world leader in
innovation. However, government-industry collaboration should continue
to be encouraged, where feasible or appropriate, with respect to both
basic and applied research. As noted in the Department of Commerce
report, ``Federal funding, coupled with private industry funding, was
critical for the development of the transistor by Bell Labs in the
1950s, the growth of the semiconductor industry, and the birth of
Silicon Valley in the 1980s.'' The Competitiveness and Innovative
Capacity of the United States, p. 3-7. In addition, simplifying and
extending the corporate R&D tax credit would encourage private industry
to undertake the risks associated with R&D activity and spending.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Warner to
Dr. Stephen S. Tang
Question 1. More than half of all basic research in the United
States is funded by the Federal Government--American universities and
colleges are responsible for 53 percent of this research. I believe
that we should be doing more to commercialize federally funded
research, where possible. However, there is a disparity between the
amount of commercialization coming from top tier research schools
versus lower performing schools. A recent report from the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) found that top
tier schools tend to do very well in terms of funding, while lower
performing schools are more constrained in their ability to
commercialize their research.
One problem I have noticed is that there are a series of closed
markets in terms of who controls intellectual property (IP) within
universities. Bob Litan, an innovation expert, was recently quoted in
Forbes noting that ``one of the big disadvantages of the traditional
TLO model is that the TLO exerts the entire control over which
innovations reach the market, in what form, and how fast.''
Another issue is that some schools have surpassed others in terms
of the amount of technology they are able to commercialize. One example
is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Deshpande Center, which
has funded 100 projects totaling over $13 million. The Center has also
seen the creation of 28 spinout companies that have raised over $400
million in capital.
I have worked with Senator Moran on a proposal to accelerate
commercialization within underperforming university tech transfer
offices as a part of the Startup Act.
What is the most aggressive thing that we can do to spur more
commercialization similar to what has been happening at schools like
MIT?
Additionally, do you think that crowdfunding has any role in tech
transfer? I was interested to learn that the University of Utah has
recently launched its ``Technology Commercialization Office'' which
uses crowdfunding as an alternative to traditional university
``technology licensing offices'' (TLOs). What do you think about this?
Answer. I am aware of the provision to which you are referring to
in your legislation, the StartUp Act. We at the Science Center are
highly supportive of this effort and applaud your attention to the need
for a Federal commitment to commercialization.
I believe that this specific provision could be further
strengthened by allowing eligible non-profit venture development
organizations (VDOs) to assist universities with commercialization
activities. As you mention, some universities and research institutions
are more adept at tech transfer than others. There are VDOs across the
country, including research parks and other technology-based economic
development organizations, which have extensive experience with
evaluating commercialization potential and market viability. I urge you
to allow universities the ability to contract with VDOs like the
Science Center to provide proof-of-concept and other commercial
research. Often these entities match resources and leverage additional
funding, to enable a TLO to be able to do more than it could on its
own.
An example of this is the Science Center's QED Proof-of-Concept
Program. While QED was modeled after MIT's Deshpande Center, our
program is unique in that it is multi-institutional, and currently
counts 21 colleges, universities, hospitals and research institutions
in the Greater Philadelphia area as participants. All of these
institutions have agreed to common terms and conditions of
participation.
When we started QED, our premise was that given access to
appropriate funding, business advice and other resources, participating
institutions that have not previously taken a lead in commercialization
would have marketable technologies. After five years of running the
program, we have found this premise to be true. While many of the
winners do come from institutions like the University of Pennsylvania
and Drexel University, we have also funded projects from Philadelphia
University, the University of Delaware, Lehigh University and Rutgers
University. The QED program has resulted in six licenses and $9 million
in follow on capital to date. We strongly believe this multi-
institutional model could be replicated across the country, in
virtually any R&D domain.
Crowdfunding could be an important tool in the toolbox of
entrepreneurs interested in commercialization of technology. As has
been mentioned, the private markets only invest in low-risk, high-yield
projects. Crowdfunding could provide access to capital for technologies
or therapies with market potential.
That said, it is imperative that safeguards be put in place to
ensure that individuals who can participate in crowdfunding
arrangements meet certain criteria and agree to specific terms of
return on investment. Fraud prevention measure must also be put into
place by the Federal Government to protect investors.
Question 2. According to a 2007 report by the National Academies,
faculty working on Federally funded research spend 42 percent of their
time on administrative duties, such as compliance with Federal
regulations. Additionally, a November 2012 PCAST report states:
``Over the last two decades, the Government has added a steady
stream of new compliance and reporting requirements, many of which
vastly increase the flow of paper without causing any improvements in
actual performance. Sometimes these requirements stand in the way of
performance improvements.''
Some solutions proposed include eliminating overly burdensome
regulations, such as effort reporting, harmonizing regulation across
agencies, focusing regulations on performance rather than process, as
well as others.
What actions should be taken to make University research
regulations more efficient, while still maintaining a high level of
accountability?
Do you have any specific examples of burdensome regulations that
should be reformed?
Answer. Redundant and overly burdensome regulations impact not only
universities but the productivity of their researchers. Some of our
university partners have mentioned that regulations related to conflict
of interest can often discourage research faculty from working with
industry. We at the Science Center believe that university/industry
partnership can spur commercialization and job creation, and therefore
would support efforts to modify the regulations so as to encourage
faculty to work with industry.
The corporate tax rate of 35 percent in this country provides a
competitive advantage for other countries to house our talent and
capital. We lose American educated researchers abroad due to antiquated
immigration laws as well as uncompetitive tax policy. I would support
repatriation incentives for U.S. companies to move operations back
onshore in an effort to retain both talent and economic growth.
Question 3. I am very supportive of efforts to consolidate STEM
programs and funding streams. President Obama's 2014 budget decreases
the number of STEM programs by 50 percent, from 226 to 112. I know that
some Members have expressed concerns about this consolidation, but I
believe this a great way to reduce administrative overhead and to get
more funding to students.
In considering the reauthorization of COMPETES, do you have any
recommendations for further consolidation of STEM programs?
Answer. In general I am supportive of coordinating programs with
similar or dual missions to maximize resources and reduce redundancy. I
understand that when programs are consolidated there are always
concerns that the specific focus of each program will diminish. As long
as we continue to prioritize STEM education, I support providing one
entity (the NSF) with resources to improve inter-agency collaboration
and promote a nationwide STEM agenda.
Question 4. I believe that America is lacking a long-term vision
for economic growth and international competitiveness. There has not
been enough of an effort to come together across government sectors and
devise a strategy for going forward.
I included an amendment in the 2010 COMPETES reauthorization that
directed the Department of Commerce to create a National
Competitiveness Strategy. However, I was disappointed by the way the
process played out. I did not feel like the report did enough to
concisely and effectively establish solutions for key issues like
infrastructure investment, immigration policy, research and development
funding, and others.
In your opinion, what targeted investment in R&D would do the most
to help America stay ahead of our global competition?
What recent investments in R&D have had the most potential impact
to American global competitiveness?
Answer. As a member of the Innovation Advisory Board that drafted
the report on U.S. competitiveness and innovative capacity, I also had
hoped for a more comprehensive document.
Related to your question about R&D priorities, I strongly believe
the Federal Government must invest more in applied research, as a
complement to the Nation's continued support of basic research. To be
clear, I do not advocate for commercialization at the expense of basic
research; however, we must empower researchers to study proof-of-
concept and think about market viability. In large part, a shift in
culture at many universities must occur to create environments that
support commercialization activities, and a commitment from the Federal
Government could help spur this change.
I would argue that Federal investment in human capital through STEM
education is the most significant in terms of potential for American
global competitiveness. There is no one technology or therapy that
makes America competitive alone; rather, it is our talented researchers
that are continually investigating, finding new products and creating
new companies. Significant and important technologies have been
developed with the assistance of Federal funds in the fields of life
sciences, national defense, and space exploration, all of which make
our country competitive among nations. Without a talented and education
workforce these developments would never come about.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Dr. Stephen S. Tang
Question. Economic growth and job creation are critical to any
state. I am quite proud of Nebraska's recent success in this area with
one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, many good jobs,
and successful businesses. What do you see as the underpinnings for a
vibrant economy and jobs in the future? How can this legislation
contribute to that?
Answer. Regional economies must recognize their strengths and build
an environment where all necessary economic components can work
together and collaborate. In Philadelphia we are fortunate to have a
large concentration of life sciences resources, leading research
institutions and industry, in close proximity. For regional economies
to prosper, essential components--such as investors, inventors and
entrepreneurs--should be given the space, opportunity and incentive to
collaborate on a regular basis.
In particular, I am a strong proponent of ``scalable innovation,''
in which regional economies assess their innovation capacity in
conjunction with their particular assets and strengths, and then scale
in accordance with local market forces. While Southeastern
Pennsylvania, for example, is focused on an innovation economy that
highlights the life sciences, other areas could ``scale'' innovation in
manufacturing, energy or other industries in which they have strength.
The Federal government should support local, regional and state
efforts to create innovative and vibrant economies. The America
COMPETES Act is an important tool that reinforces this commitment. At
the Science Center, and at other technology-based economic development
entities across the nation, we work to commercialize federally funded
research; that is, to transform the significant investment the
government has made in basic research into marketable technologies and
companies. America COMPETES's creation of the Office of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship at the Department of Commerce has spurred a focus on
and investment in translational research and commercialization. The
Regional Innovation Program will assist local economies in scaling to
their innovation potential. Finally, the reauthorization of America
COMPETES provides us with the opportunity to further capitalize on
promising research and allow for a focus on job creation. With
additional tools, such as the ability to compete directly for a larger
number of National Science Foundation grants, non-profit economic
development entities across the Nation could significantly boost their
efforts to assist academic researchers and start-up entrepreneurs,
thereby leading to more economic development and job creation.
[all]