[Senate Hearing 116-614]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                     S. Hrg. 116-614

                        RESEARCH AND INNOVATION:
                      ENSURING AMERICA'S ECONOMIC
                        AND STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, OCEANS, FISHERIES, 
                               AND WEATHER

                                 OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 22, 2019

                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation
                             
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                             


                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov

                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-763 PDF                    WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                 
              
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                  ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, 
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                      Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida                  JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
                       John Keast, Staff Director
                  Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
              Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                      Renae Black, Senior Counsel
                                 ------                                

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, OCEANS, FISHERIES, AND WEATHER

CORY GARDNER, Colorado, Chairman     TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin, Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas                      RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               GARY PETERS, Michigan
RICK SCOTT, Florida
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on October 22, 2019.................................     1
Statement of Senator Gardner.....................................     1
Statement of Senator Baldwin.....................................     2
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     4
Statement of Senator Sinema......................................     5
Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    29
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    30

                               Witnesses

Diane Souvaine, Ph.D., Chair, National Science Board, National 
  Science Foundation.............................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Dr. David Shaw, Provost and Executive Vice President, Mississippi 
  State University...............................................    14
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
Sethuraman (Panch) Panchanathan, Ph.D., Executive Vice President 
  and Chief Research and Innovation Officer, Arizona State 
  University.....................................................    18
    Prepared statement...........................................    19
Rebecca M. Blank, Chancellor, University of Wisconsin--Madison...    22
    Prepared statement...........................................    24

                                Appendix

Response to written questions submitted to Diane Souvaine, Ph.D. 
  by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    45
    Hon. Edward Markey...........................................    46
    Hon. Gary Peters.............................................    47
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. David Shaw by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    51
    Hon. Gary Peters.............................................    51
Response to written questions submitted to Sethuraman (Panch) 
  Panchanathan, Ph.D. by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    53
    Hon. Gary Peters.............................................    54
Response to written questions submitted to Rebecca M. Blank by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    55
    Hon. Gary Peters.............................................    56

 
                        RESEARCH AND INNOVATION:
                      ENSURING AMERICA'S ECONOMIC
                        AND STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2019

                               U.S. Senate,
    Subcommittee on Science, Oceans, Fisheries and 
                                           Weather,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in 
room SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Cory Gardner, 
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Gardner [presiding], Wicker, Sullivan, 
Scott, Baldwin, Blumenthal, Peters, and Sinema.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

    Senator Gardner. I'll call this hearing to order. Thank you 
for being here today and thanks to the Ranking Member, Ranking 
Member Baldwin, for joining me and leading this hearing today.
    Today's topic is about American competitiveness and the 
importance of investing in our Nation's research and 
development footprint.
    In August, President Xi Jinping announced that Shenzhen, a 
city known as China's own Silicon Valley, would be named as the 
fourth major national science center in the country. That 
designation carries with it Beijing's hefty investments in 
expanding the already growing research and development 
initiatives in Shenzhen and further pushes China forward on the 
scientific front.
    It's no surprise that President Xi selected Shenzhen for 
this new project. Shenzhen is a City of more than 12 million 
people and home to infamous Chinese tech and telecom companies 
like ZTE and Huawei.
    Futuristic skyscrapers crowd the horizon and millions of 
scientists and technology employees are working around the 
clock to try to make China the new world leader in research and 
development and technological advancement.
    As President Xi made this August announcement for science 
in China, violent protests raged in Hong Kong, just a few feet 
across the river from Shenzhen. The Mainland has been working 
to stifle democracy in Hong Kong at the same time they've been 
investing in gleaming cities, like Shenzhen.
    This is the current Chinese Communist model, advancement 
through repression, investment through confiscation, science 
through decree.
    Imagine a world where China discovered the latest and 
greatest innovations. It's a world where budding scientists and 
entrepreneurs would flock to Shenzhen and Quanzhou over San 
Francisco and Boulder. It's a world where free thinking and 
public-private partnerships would give way to the party line 
and centralized bureaucracy.
    Ultimately, it's a world that would deprive the United 
States of our reputation around the globe as the scientific 
innovator and chief and strip us of a major driver of our 
economy.
    In Colorado, our more than two dozen Federal labs 
contribute nearly $2 billion annually to the state and those 
labs have put nearly 8,000 Coloradans directly into high-paying 
jobs. Coupled with significant investments from the National 
Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and private 
technology and innovation companies, among others, the research 
economy is alive and well in Colorado and across the Nation.
    The need to strengthen the U.S. research and development 
enterprise is what led me to introduce, along with Senator 
Peters, The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act.
    Over the course of the last 18 months, our Innovation and 
Competitiveness Working Group convened discussions with 
academia, scientists, innovators, entrepreneurs, and industry 
to discuss what was working in U.S. science policy and what was 
not.
    Throughout this process, we held to the goal of a 
bipartisan solution to these issues and had the outstanding 
support of this entire committee. At the end of the day, we 
were left with a bipartisan package that reaffirmed the 
importance of science, research and development, to the United 
States.
    We made it clear that, yes, these issues do merit 
consistent Federal attention and that, yes, it can still be 
done in a bipartisan fashion.
    I'm looking forward to starting another conversation about 
what it will take to keep American competitive and ensure that 
the next generation--the next generation--the next great 
breakthrough happens right here in the United States.
    I'll turn to Senator Baldwin for her opening statement.

               STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN

    Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Chairman Gardner.
    I'm really very delighted that you're holding this 
important hearing and for your leadership supporting Federal 
research and innovation.
    I want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us here 
today to share your perspectives, and I want to extend a 
special welcome to Chancellor Rebecca Blank from my home state 
of Wisconsin. I'll be introducing you a little bit later.
    My grandfather was an NIH-funded scientist at the 
University of Wisconsin and I grew up visiting his lab and 
hearing about the pioneering work that he was doing to 
understand metabolism at the cellular level.
    Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to visit the 
Morgridge Institute for Research at UW--Madison. Chancellor 
Blank welcomed me there and I got a chance to meet with 
researchers who are continuing to build on the work that my 
grandfather began in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
    The Federal investment in his research made more than 70 
years ago are still paying dividends. That visit was a powerful 
reminder to me of the critical and lasting role the Federal 
Government plays in our research ecosystem.
    When my grandfather came to UW--Madison, our Nation was on 
the cusp of enormous scientific and technological 
accomplishments in computing, in robotics, in space 
exploration, medical science, and so many other areas.
    The United States led the world in no small part because of 
our sustained investment in research. This has paid enormous 
dividends even today, but we can't maintain that role as a 
global leader without continuing to make these critical 
investments, and we have a lot more competition today, as the 
Chairman shared, particularly from China.
    The United States' share of global research and development 
expenditures has declined from 37 percent in the year 2000 to 
26 percent in the year 2015. While our R&D spending remained 
the largest, China was literally nipping at our heels with 21 
percent of the global share.
    In order to stay ahead, we absolutely have to strengthen 
our research investments. As a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, I've been proud to support better and stronger 
investments in the National Institutes for Health.
    I look forward to seeing similar growth in funding for the 
National Science Foundation and other Federal research 
agencies.
    But we cannot rely on increased investment alone, and I 
look forward to hearing from our panel about what else we can 
do to make those Federal research dollars work better. We 
should identify administrative and other barriers that limit 
the return on Federal investment in university research. We 
need to strengthen the partnership that encourages private 
sector research and we have to do more to help translate 
federally funded research into commercial applications that 
drive innovation and economic growth.
    However, strengthening research investments is only part of 
the solution. I am concerned that we are failing to develop the 
STEM workforce our Nation needs to stay competitive.
    To put it simply, our STEM jobs pipeline is leaky. To begin 
with, the United States has not kept up with other nations 
regarding K through 12 STEM education with our country ranking 
in the middle of advanced economies in producing high-achieving 
STEM students.
    Even where we are making progress on STEM workforce 
development, we continue to see significant under-
representation of women and minorities in these fields. Women 
comprise just 29 percent of the STEM workforce and 
underrepresented minorities make up just over 15 percent.
    It is not just a question of equity. We are failing to tap 
an enormous resource that can contribute to our 
competitiveness.
    At every step from K through 12 participation to 
undergraduate and graduate programs to entering the STEM 
workforce, we lose more and more women and minorities. We have 
to find more ways to open up STEM opportunities and help 
individuals from all backgrounds move successfully into the 
STEM workforce.
    Finally, I believe that we must make more opportunities 
available to the next generation of researchers. In 2016, I 
championed legislation that directed NIH to focus on young 
researchers and I hope that we will consider similar efforts at 
NSF and other Federal research agencies.
    It is yet another way we can ensure future generations will 
have the tools to keep the United States a leader in global 
innovation and again I want to thank the Chairman for convening 
today's discussion.
    I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel.
    Senator Gardner. We're going to have a couple of 
introductions of the witnesses today. Of course, we're honored 
to be joined by the Full Committee Chairman, Senator Wicker.
    I'll turn it over to you, Senator Wicker.

                STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

    Senator Wicker. Well, I want to thank Chairman Gardner and 
Senator Baldwin for their leadership in this hearing and the 
Committee as a whole.
    I think it's OK to say that we, all three, are delighted to 
welcome our former colleague, former Representative Matt 
Salmon, who is in the hearing room today, assisting with 
Arizona State University. Matt, it's always good to see you and 
glad to have you back in Washington.
    Research and innovation and job creation are going well in 
Colorado and Wisconsin and I'm proud to say that Mississippi is 
playing a role and has played an important role over the years 
and in that regard, it's so great to welcome Dr. Shaw from 
Mississippi State University.
    Mississippi engineers and scientists were pivotal in the 
first moon landing. It goes back that far and the entire Apollo 
Program. It was the Stennis Space Center that tested the Saturn 
V Rocket and deemed it ready and worthy of setting forth to the 
Moon. So we've been at this a long time.
    Dr. David Shaw is one of the scientists in Mississippi who 
continues this legacy, pushing the boundaries of knowledge 
every day.
    Drones fly over our state of Mississippi and help map 
floodwaters. Super computers generate more accurate weather 
forecasts than ever before and professors and students use 
artificial intelligence to test driverless cars for off-road 
use, and one such MSU innovator is Dr. David Shaw. So we 
welcome him.
    This hearing is an opportunity for him and for the rest of 
us to examine the role of science and technology in our current 
and future economy. Everywhere we look, research and innovation 
is shaping the future of our lives. Support for research and 
innovation is critical to maintaining our country's global 
competitiveness.
    So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership, and I look 
forward to a great discussion.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And with that, I'll turn to Senator Baldwin.
    Senator Baldwin. I am pleased to welcome Dr. Rebecca Blank, 
Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin--Madison to our 
panel.
    Dr. Blank has served as Chancellor since 2013. Previously, 
she served as Deputy Secretary and Acting Secretary of Commerce 
in the Obama Administration and was a member of the Council of 
Economic Advisors under President Clinton.
    She's also served as Dean and Professor of Public Policy 
and Economics at the University of Michigan, as a faculty 
member at Northwestern and Princeton Universities and as a 
Fellow at the Brookings Institution.
    Chancellor Blank is an internationally respected economist 
who now leads a public university that regularly ranks as one 
of the top research institutions and largest recipients of 
Federal research dollars in the country.
    I look forward to hearing your insights today, Dr. Blank, 
welcome, and ``On Wisconsin!''.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you.
    Senator Sinema for an introduction.

               STATEMENT OF HON. KYRSTEN SINEMA, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

    Senator Sinema. Well, thank you, Chairman Gardner and 
Ranking Member Baldwin.
    I'm not a member of this subcommittee. So I very much 
appreciate the courtesy to allow me to introduce my friend and 
distinguished Arizonan, Dr. Panchanathan, who is testifying 
today.
    Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan, who goes by Panch, thank you 
for that,----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Sinema.--has an impressive list of accomplishments 
and accolades over his distinguished career as a world-class 
scientist, innovator, educator, and leader.
    He's a Chaired Professor and the Executive Vice President 
and Chief Research and Innovation Officer at Arizona State 
University, which U.S. News and World Reports has ranked for 
the last 5 years as the most innovative university in the 
United States. Thanks to his leadership, ASU is also the 
fastest-growing research university in the United States.
    Panch's own research focuses on human-centered multi-media 
computing, haptic user interfaces, computing technologies for 
enhancing the quality of life for individuals with 
disabilities, and machine learning for multimedia applications.
    He has published more than 500 papers in refereed journals 
and has mentored nearly 150 graduate students, postdocs, 
research engineers, and research scientists.
    In recognition of his contributions, President Obama 
appointed Panch as the first Indian American to serve on the 
United States National Science Board. He was also appointed by 
the former Secretary of Commerce to the National Advisory 
Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
    In Arizona, he serves as Senior Advisor for Science and 
Technology to Governor Doug Ducey.
    Panch has dedicated his life to public service through the 
advancement of education, science, technology, and innovation 
to address challenging issues in Arizona, the United States, 
and across the globe, and personally, I'm glad to know him and 
count him as a friend.
    Panch, thank you for your tireless work and for 
representing Arizona State University and the State of Arizona. 
We are so grateful for your testimony here today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Sinema, and thank you 
for introducing a name that I was afraid I would just totally 
slaughter. So, Dr. Panch, we're glad you're here. Thank you.
    Senator Sinema. I practiced.
    Senator Gardner. Very good.
    And I am going to introduce Dr. Souvaine. Thank you very 
much for being here.
    Dr. Souvaine is the Chair of the National Science Board 
where she has previously served as Vice Chair and Chair. Her 
tenure includes professorships at both Rutgers University and 
Tufts University, receiving her Ph.D. from Princeton 
University.
    Dr. Souvaine, thank you so much for being here today, and 
everybody else on the panel has spoken.
    Senator Peters, I don't know if you want to say anything up 
front.
    Dr. Souvaine, we'll go ahead and start with you since you 
patiently waited and go down the panel. Please limit your 
testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire statements will be 
submitted for the record.

  STATEMENT OF DIANE SOUVAINE, Ph.D., CHAIR, NATIONAL SCIENCE 
               BOARD, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

    Dr. Souvaine. Chairman Wicker, Chairman Gardner, Ranking 
Member Baldwin, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 
the opportunity to talk with you today.
    I want to begin by saying how much we appreciate the 
longstanding bipartisan support that Congress and this 
committee has shown for NSF.
    Chairman Gardner, for me testifying before your committee 
today is propitious. It was just a month ago that the Board 
visited Boulder and had a chance to visit three outstanding NSF 
facilities all within a few miles of each other. We visited 
NEON, the National Solar Observatory, and NCAR, and came away 
quite impressed.
    Federal investments in fundamental research drive 
innovation because only the Federal Government can make 
strategic long-term commitment to creating new knowledge. This 
is the seed corn for the entire U.S. science and engineering 
enterprise, a global competitive advantage and the starting 
point for over half of GDP growth since World War II, yet we no 
longer live in the world of Vannevar Bush, in which American 
leadership and S&E was almost inevitable.
    The world has changed, and while science is the endless 
frontier, we're not the only explorers. Research is now a truly 
global enterprise.
    We should react to this with excitement, not fear. We are 
well positioned to thrive if we again embrace discovery and 
exploration and lean into the advantages that have made us so 
successful.
    First, we need to compete both with intangibles and money. 
In recent years, both the private sector and Congress have 
responded to our peers worldwide with increased investment, 
including in NSF. For our part, we are grateful for Congress 
and the wisdom of Congress.
    This upward turn is not enough to keep up with the 
accelerating pace of research. Based on current trends, the 
Board predicts that China will overtake us in R&D investments 
this year, if they have not already done so.
    Between 2000 and 2017, while global investments tripled, 
NSF's funding rate fell from 33 percent to 21 percent, leaving 
billions of outstanding merit-reviewed ideas unfunded.
    Research areas, like AI and quantum computing, are now ripe 
for an explosion of public and private investment in part 
because NSF supported early stage research in these fields 
years ago. At its core, a central mission of NSF is to ask what 
is the next big thing? So it's also worth asking while we still 
lead in fundamental research are we leaving the next Google, 
LIGO, or Kevlar already on the cutting room floor?
    How many budding researchers see a foreign talent program 
as the only option for pursuing the work they love or see no 
option at all?
    As you consider reauthorizing our science agencies, I 
encourage you to confront this directly. What do our agencies 
need to accomplish their missions? What does our country need 
to retain preeminence in science and engineering?
    Second, we need to educate our own people and continue to 
attract and retain the best and the brightest from around the 
world. Recruiting the next generation means dispensing with 
outmoded stereotypes of scientists and engineers and doing more 
to diversify our STEM-capable workforce. No zip code or 
demographic group should be left out of the knowledge economy, 
and we need all of our domestic talent if we want to discover, 
invent, and innovate in this era of globalized science and 
engineering.
    To this end, we must improve STEM education in the U.S. 
from K-12 through higher ed. We need to remember that education 
is the public good and that public universities and colleges 
have special role to play in providing access to high-quality 
STEM education to students in every state and even as we work 
to build our domestic STEM-capable workforce at all levels, it 
is equally critical that we continue to welcome curious, 
creative, and ambitious researchers from overseas.
    Finally, we should recognize that America has not led with 
dollars alone but with our culture and our values. We should 
reaffirm our unambiguous commitment to the highest ethical and 
technical conduct of our research, leading the way in open 
worldwide collaborations, open publication, and archiving data 
for public use.
    The U.S. should remain confident in its conviction that 
behavior as a model citizen in the global community and will 
serve as an example for others to emulate and a magnet for the 
world's best minds. This does not mean naivete.
    We must protect our national security, but I firmly believe 
that if the U.S. continues to conduct its science and 
engineering enterprise consistent with the principal traditions 
that have yielded 70 years of success, the benefits we realize 
from nurturing a global community of similarly principled 
partners will far outweigh any losses suffered as a result of 
the openness that we champion.
    In conclusion, this is our ask: Be fearless. Let's not 
merely react to anxieties from global competition, concern 
about security threats or angst about constrained budgets. 
Instead, let's ask how can we lead the next era of science and 
engineering and remember the can-do attitude that defines 
America to ensure our continued preeminence in research and 
innovation. Let's unleash our strengths, a spirit of 
exploration, of wonder, of discovery, coupled with the 
willingness to take risks and an emphasis on freedom and 
individual creativity because the best way to lead the future 
is to invent it.
    Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Souvaine follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Diane Souvaine, Ph.D., Chair, 
          National Science Board, National Science Foundation
    Science has long been at the heart of the American experiment. ``An 
investment in knowledge always pays the best interest,'' noted Benjamin 
Franklin, and the revolutionaries who founded our Nation and enshrined 
the promotion of ``the progress of science and useful arts'' in the 
Constitution. Since World War II, advancements in science and 
technology have driven 85 percent of our economic growth, underpinned 
our national security, and transformed nearly every aspect of 
Americans' daily lives. New technologies built on federally-funded 
discovery research have led to new businesses, revolutionized health 
care, and created the mobile, digital world.
    Our preeminence has not happened by chance. Sustained, bipartisan 
commitment to investing in fundamental research has played a key role 
in establishing and maintaining our innovation enterprise. As we make 
the investments our country needs to compete in the 21st century global 
economy, we must renew our commitment to strengthening this key 
component of our national infrastructure and ensuring that we are not 
technologically surprised in key areas like quantum computing and 
artificial intelligence. Collectively, we must do this because the 
world has changed, and our country has changed. We no longer live in 
the world of Vannevar Bush, in which American S&E leadership was almost 
inevitable, or even on the edge of a gathering storm. Research is now a 
truly global enterprise, more connected, complex and nuanced than a 
``storm,'' with opportunities everywhere and humanity's collective 
knowledge growing exponentially. This is a brave new world, and while 
American preeminence is not assured, I think we should react with 
excitement, not fear. We are well positioned to compete, collaborate, 
and thrive.
    The freewheeling creativity and entrepreneurial ethos that infuses 
our researchers is the ``secret sauce'' of America's scientific and 
engineering (S&E) enterprise. A wonderful example of this ethos can be 
found in the story of this year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry. After 
arriving in the U.S. to take up a postdoctoral fellowship at Stanford 
University, Dr. Stanley Whittingham's research in fundamental chemistry 
focused on the phenomenon of intercalation in solid materials. His work 
led him to propose that these materials could be used as electrodes in 
powerful batteries. Using superconducting materials and lithium, he 
invented the rechargeable lithium battery while working as a research 
scientist at Exxon, which was interested in developing alternatives to 
gasoline-powered vehicles during the oil crisis of the 1970s. Dr. 
Whittingham was granted the original patent on the concept for this 
type of battery, and his foundational research, developed further by 
his co-laureates, ultimately led to the invention of rechargeable 
lithium-ion batteries--which now power everything from industrial 
technologies to the mobile phones we all hold in our hands.
    This story encapsulates many of the strengths of our Nation's S&E 
ecosystem--support for fundamental science from both the Federal 
Government and the private sector, welcoming of talent from around the 
globe, and giving the best minds the freedom to explore new frontiers 
and see where discovery leads them. The freedom of inquiry enabled by 
Federal support for fundamental research through NSF and other 
government agencies has led to surprising new knowledge that has 
advanced our Nation in unexpected, unpredictable ways. As President 
Ronald Reagan noted, ``The remarkable thing is that 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.'' The Federal Government is key to 
these endeavors, because it can make a strategic long-term commitment 
to creating new knowledge. History has shown that taking risks on 
creative researchers and bold ideas has paid off time and time again, 
with all sectors of our knowledge ecosystem--universities, government 
laboratories, industry--partnering to drive innovations.
    So, this is our ``ask'' for this committee: Be Fearless. Let us not 
merely react based on anxieties about increased global competition, 
security threats, or current budget limitations. Instead, ask how we 
can grow our economy, lead the next era of science and engineering, 
remember the ``can-do'' attitude that defines America, and recommit to 
the partnerships among governments, universities, and private 
industries that has driven our success. Let us unleash our strengths--a 
spirit of exploration, of wonder, of discovery; coupled with a 
willingness to take risks and an emphasis on freedom and individual 
creativity--to ensure America's continued preeminence in research and 
innovation in the 21st century. Because the best way to lead the future 
is to invent it.
U.S. Research and Innovation in the Global Context
    Since 2000, global research and development (R&D) investments have 
tripled, reflecting increased competition in knowledge-intensive 
industries and recognition of the crucial role R&D plays in addressing 
global health, security, and environmental challenges. NSB's 
forthcoming Science & Engineering Indicators 2020 report confirms a 
trend that NSB has observed for several years: while the U.S. remains a 
leading player, other countries have seen the benefits of investing in 
research and education and are following our example.\1\ The world of 
R&D performance, historically centered around the U.S., Western Europe, 
and Japan, has been shifting toward East and Southeast Asia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ National Science Board (2020). ``Research and Development: U.S. 
Trends and International Comparisons,'' Science & Engineering 
Indicators 2020, forthcoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While China is not the only story, it continues to exhibit a 
dramatic R&D growth trend. In 2018, the NSB issued a statement noting 
that China would likely surpass the U.S. in total R&D expenditures by 
the end of 2018. The most recent data, from 2017, show that while there 
was higher growth in U.S. business R&D than previously projected, the 
trend lines in Figure 1 suggest that China either has passed us already 
in R&D expenditures, or will by the end of 2019.


    Amid this dramatic growth in China's R&D investment, it is crucial 
to note that the U.S. maintains a significant advantage in basic 
research--which is the seed corn for our entire S&E enterprise. In 
2017, the U.S. invested $92 billion in basic research; China comes in a 
distant second, investing $27 billion. While U.S. business sector 
investment in total R&D has recently grown faster than the Federal 
Government's investment, the lion's share of their investment has been 
on the applied and development side. In the U.S., 42 percent of all 
basic research is funded by the Federal Government, about half of which 
is performed at higher education institutions.
    To produce results, R&D investments must be coupled with building a 
highly skilled, STEM-capable workforce, including everyone from 
associate's degree holders to PhDs. Today, we are seeing changes in S&E 
employment driven by international opportunities and competition, and 
by disproportionate growth in the number of jobs at all levels that 
require STEM skills. As of 2017, nearly 21 million workers with at 
least a four-year degree say that their job requires a ``bachelor's 
level'' of STEM expertise--and the vast majority of these workers (71 
percent) are employed by the business sector, the cornerstone of the 
Nation's economic competitiveness.
    These numbers do not include the more than 17 million people who 
use S&E skills in their job but do not have a bachelor's degree. As 
highlighted in the NSB's new report, ``The Skilled Technical Workforce: 
Crafting America's Science and Engineering Enterprise,'' these skilled 
technical jobs pay well, are found across the U.S., and are vital to 
the health of local economies as diverse as Detroit, Michigan; 
Florence, South Carolina; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana.\2\ These 
individuals, who account for more than 50 percent of all workers in 
many of America's advanced industries, bring digital, math, and coding 
skills to work as auto mechanics, health care technicians, 
electricians, welders, computer systems analysts and administrators, 
and operators of ``smart'' infrastructure. Skilled technical workers 
are also critical to our Nation's S&E infrastructure, for instance in 
building and maintaining the miles of high vacuum pipeline and two-
story banks of air filters that make the Laser Interferometer 
Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ National Science Board (2019). ``The Skilled Technical 
Workforce: Crafting America's Science & Engineering Enterprise,'' NSB-
2019-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Foreign-born individuals have long been major contributors to our 
S&E enterprise. As of 2017, over 40 percent of our doctoral-level S&E 
workforce was foreign-born,\3\ and over half of the doctoral degrees in 
engineering, computer sciences, and economics were earned by 
international students on temporary visas.\4\ Highly skilled S&E 
workers have become increasingly mobile and nations have adapted their 
immigration policies to make it easier for these valued workers to 
relocate and work in their countries. At the same time, the U.S. share 
of worldwide internationally mobile students has declined slightly, 
even as the number of these students has risen dramatically worldwide. 
These changes indicate an accelerating competition for globally mobile 
talent. As more countries offer their students reasons to stay in their 
own country for their education or to return home after earning a 
degree, the U.S. could face a shortage in a critical segment of its 
workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ National Science Board (2019). ``Science & Engineering Labor 
Force,'' Science & Engineering Indicators 2020. NSB-2019-8.
    \4\ National Science Board (2019). ``Higher Education in Science & 
Engineering,'' Science & Engineering Indicators 2020. NSB-2019-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking to the Future
    Why is U.S. preeminence in S&T so important? From quantum computing 
to artificial intelligence to the data revolution, scientific 
advancements come with both opportunities and risks. To mitigate those 
risks in an increasingly competitive world, it is essential that we 
stay at the forefront of science and cutting-edge research and maintain 
a strong economy. The past has shown that investment in basic research 
now will give us the keys to meeting the security, health, and economic 
challenges of the future--challenges we know will arise but whose 
nature we cannot predict.
    We know that China and other nations are actively working to lead 
in research areas that hold enormous promise for revolutionizing our 
world, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing. The 
White House and Congress are stepping up to meet this challenge, with 
increased focus and investment in key areas of S&E research and 
development. With sustained Federal investments, the Administration is 
advancing U.S. leadership in Industries of the Future: AI, quantum 
information sciences, 5G/advanced communications, synthetic biology, 
and advanced manufacturing R&D. The NSB applauds these efforts--it is 
wonderful to see the influx of national attention and both public and 
private sector investment in these areas, and NSF will continue to play 
a key role in addressing fundamental questions in these fields as we go 
forward.
    It is worth noting that many of these research areas are ripe for 
an explosion of public and private investment in part because NSF 
supported early-stage research in these fields years ago. So in 
addition to furthering the development of research fields that are 
cutting-edge and now widely recognized as important, at its core, a 
central mission of NSF is to ask: what is the next big thing? NSF is 
the only agency that supports basic research in and among all areas of 
science. Identifying the most promising, creative ideas of America's 
research community, through rigorous peer review, is what will lead to 
the transformative discoveries that will shape our world decades from 
now. To continue our success, I advocate three things.
1--Continued robust Federal funding for basic research
    First, the Nation needs robust, sustained Federal funding for 
research. The trends of other countries investing heavily in R&D are 
expected to continue as they recognize that such investments translate 
into economic growth and create jobs. Congress recognized this and 
responded in FY 2019; and we thank you also for the strong, bipartisan 
support shown for NSF in the initial FY 2020 Appropriations bills But 
even with these increases, government spending on R&D is 0.7 percent of 
GDP, as compared to 1.69 percent in 1960. Since 2000, as worldwide 
investments in R&D have tripled, NSF's funding rate for grant proposals 
has fallen from 33 percent (total submitted proposals: 29,508) in 2000 
to 21 percent (total submitted proposals 40,678) in 2017, leaving $1.6 
billion in great proposals unfunded.\5\ When that happens, the 
researcher may leave the country to pursue his/her work, submits the 
proposal elsewhere, perhaps to one of our international competitors, or 
the idea dies in the intellectual dustbin of unfulfilled promise, as 
the researcher drops the line of inquiry, or--worse--leaves S&E for 
another career. We need to maintain the trajectory on which your recent 
generous investments have placed NSF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Report to the National Science Board on NSF's Merit Review 
Process, Fiscal Year 2017, NSB-2019-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Funding without direction is akin to an airplane with no compass. 
As we seek to ``be the best version of ourselves,'' we need to 
formulate a strategy that considers everything from national needs to 
competitive advantages to technological opportunities. We need an 
enduring commitment to S&E leadership. An effective plan, built on a 
holistic evaluation of our national research portfolio, and a 
recognition that the best ideas come from researchers, would help us 
match our strategic priorities with our investments. If we are to 
continue to champion our ``secret sauce'' of freewheeling creativity 
and entrepreneurial ethos, our vision of the future cannot be limited 
to competing with other countries in the current areas of global 
importance. To pursue the next ``big thing,'' our brightest minds will 
need the time, space, and resources to scout the path to new frontiers.
    NSF has long sought a balanced portfolio, one that recognizes and 
embraces the knowledge that transformational discoveries often grow out 
of repeated ``dead-ends'' and small steps. Our portfolio balances 
large, long-term investments like LIGO with awards to individual 
investigators and small teams that can nimbly pursue innovative, out-
of-the-box research. In recognition of the growing complexity and cost 
of some research, NSF's portfolio also includes collaborations across 
disciplines, institutions, and research sectors, areas ripe for 
transformative discovery.
    In anticipating what's next for our national ecosystem, it is 
important to recognize the interdependent roles in our current one. A 
basic research agency like NSF has significant differences in scope and 
time horizons from private business and mission agencies. Partnerships 
among and between the Federal Government and universities, between 
universities and the private sector, and those with other non-profits 
have led to a system in which the Federal Government funds a majority 
of fundamental research, universities perform a majority of it, and 
industry funds and performs a majority of applied and developmental 
work. Public funding of curiosity-driven research is a sustained 
commitment over a long time horizon, and a competitive advantage for 
the United States. These investments set the table for directed 
research of the mission agencies and the private sector. Indeed, Figure 
2 shows that the percentage of U.S. patents derived from government-
funded research is near its all-time high.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Fleming et al., (2019). ``Government-funded research 
increasingly fuels innovation,'' Science, 364(6446) 1139-1141.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

2--Fostering America's talent
    More countries than ever are competing for the best minds, and 
these individuals have choices today that did not exist as recently as 
20 years ago in selecting a place to study, perform research, and 
innovate. Industry and the Federal Government report that they are 
unable to find enough workers at all levels with enough STEM knowledge 
and skills. These reports are especially concerning in the national 
security arena, where employees must be U.S. citizens. For example, the 
National Security Agency has reported significant levels of attrition 
among personnel whose jobs require substantial STEM knowledge.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Nakashima, Ellen & Gregg, Aaron. ``NSA's top talent is leaving 
because of low pay, slumping morale and unpopular reorganization.'' 
Washington Post, Jan. 2, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our ability to discover, invent, and innovate relies on our ability 
to train our own people while continuing to attract and retain the best 
and brightest from around the world. Recruiting the next generation 
will mean dispensing with outmoded stereotypes of scientists and 
engineers. As ideas live in people--not papers--this is a striking 
opportunity for our country. Our nation's diversity of perspective and 
experience can be a boon to creativity; our culture of risk-taking and 
entrepreneurship is an asset for turning discoveries into innovations; 
and our values of individual freedom--including the freedom to fail--
openness and collaboration are natural accelerants of basic research.
    The NSF Act directed the Foundation to ``strengthen research and 
education in the sciences and engineering . . . throughout the United 
States, and to avoid undue concentration of such research and 
education.'' The Board strongly agrees with this charge--no zip code or 
demographic should be unable to participate in the S&E economy, and we 
need all of our domestic talent if we want to compete in this era of 
globalized discovery. We must use the abilities and creativity of all 
our citizens. To do so, we must do more to diversify our STEM-capable 
workforce, particularly as, according to the Census Bureau, by 2042 our 
country will be a majority-minority nation.
    NSB believes that for our Nation to continue to thrive and lead in 
the industries of the future we can no longer rely on a relatively 
small and distinct ``STEM workforce.'' Congress, the Administration, 
business leaders, educators, and other decision-makers must work 
together to ensure that Americans have the STEM knowledge and skills to 
thrive, leveraging the hard work, creativity, and ingenuity of women 
and men of all ages, education levels, and backgrounds.\8\ We must 
improve STEM education here in the U.S. by giving everyone the 
opportunity for hands-on learning starting at an early age, for 
example. We need to remember that education is a public good, and that 
public universities and colleges have a special role to play in 
providing access to high quality STEM education to students in every 
state. We must provide our citizens with the problem-solving skills 
needed for the lifelong learning that is now required to adapt and 
thrive in a rapidly changing job market, one often driven by advances 
in S&E. We need scientists in every region of the country searching for 
cures, engineers building stronger bridges, factory workers making our 
cars safer, technicians keeping our labs and hospitals operating, and 
farmers producing healthier crops using fewer resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ National Science Board (2018). ``Our Nation's Future 
Competitiveness Relies on Building a STEM-Capable U.S. Workforce,'' 
NSB-2018-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even as we work to build our domestic STEM-capable workforce at all 
levels, including the skilled technical workforce, there is another 
component to maintaining our preeminence in S&E. It is critical that we 
continue, through clear and consistent policies, to welcome curious, 
creative, and ambitious researchers from overseas. This does not mean 
being naive--other nations are actively courting this globally mobile 
talent, sometimes aggressively enough to violate U.S. government 
policies. Rather it means welcoming those who embrace our values.
3--Embracing and promulgating our values
    In the belief that the pursuit of knowledge is a universal global 
enterprise, best undertaken through an open exchange of ideas and 
sharing of outcomes, with limited national security exceptions, the 
U.S. must avoid the temptation to engage in a head-to-head competition 
with those who choose to conduct their fundamental science and 
engineering enterprise with less transparency. Instead, the U.S. should 
reaffirm its unambiguous commitment to the highest ethical and 
technical conduct of its research, leading the way in open worldwide 
collaborations, open publication, and archiving data for public use. 
The U.S. should work with those who share our values, remaining 
confident in its conviction that behavior as a model citizen in the 
science and engineering community will serve as an example for others 
to emulate, as well as maintaining the U.S. as the destination of 
choice for the world's best minds. Through principled leadership in the 
exercise of science and engineering research, the U.S. will retain its 
seat at the table of like-minded nations. The partnerships and research 
collaborations that flourish in an environment of shared values will 
provide an incubator for an unlimited variety of scientific and 
engineering discoveries. These discoveries, in turn, could generate new 
innovative solutions to global problems and/or reveal heretofore 
unknown secrets about our universe.
    This is not a naive vision of utopia. There are sensitive areas of 
research in which national security considerations must prevail. 
National security and economic espionage conducted or supported by 
foreign entities must be vigorously challenged. U.S. universities and 
colleges must help promote scientific openness and integrity and 
safeguard information that impacts national security and economic 
competitiveness, including rigorously adhering to conflict of interest 
and conflict of commitment policies. But, as stated in President 
Reagan's NSDD-189, ``The strength of American science requires a 
research environment conducive to creativity, an environment in which 
the free exchange of ideas is a vital component.'' National Security 
Advisor Condoleezza Rice reiterated this U.S. commitment in 2001, 
stating, ``The key to maintaining U.S. technological preeminence is to 
encourage open and collaborative basic research. The linkage between 
the free exchange of ideas and scientific innovation, prosperity, and 
U.S. national security is undeniable.'' Consistent with these 
pronouncements, distinctions must be made between the truly critical 
secrets and the inconvenient losses that can occur in an open society. 
If the U.S. continues to conduct its S&E enterprise consistent with the 
principled traditions that have yielded the success of the past 75 
years, the benefits it realizes from nurturing a global community of 
similarly principled partners will far outweigh the losses it may 
suffer as a result of the openness it champions.
Conclusion
    Fifty-nine years ago, President John F. Kennedy set America on a 
path to the Moon. In 2019, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of 
humanity's first steps on that new world, we find ourselves once again 
in ``an hour of change and challenge.'' Competition and excitement 
arise from science and technological advances everywhere, in every 
field, in research and industry and academia and business, and from 
many other nations, who are seeing their chance to rise. Healthy 
competition provides benefits to all of humanity--science, and 
particularly fundamental research conducted in a transparent and open 
fashion, is not a zero-sum game. New knowledge benefits everyone. If 
the U.S. wants to invent the future, then we must up our own game, 
emphasizing freedom, individuality, creativity, and risk-taking, 
building on a foundation of community that is diffuse and networked, 
open and transparent.
    Our national commitment to winning the race to the Moon, and our 
belief that we could do anything we put our minds to, spurred creative 
collaboration and competition that resulted in scientific and 
technological advances that have benefited every one of us, far beyond 
the original goal. Today, let us be inspired to once again dream boldly 
and take risks in the pursuit of fundamental knowledge and innovation. 
Maintaining our global leadership will require increased efforts from 
government and industry, working in partnership with our world-leading 
public and private universities. Together, we can pursue grand visions, 
enable revolutionary ideas, and see what unexpected advances may emerge 
from asking fundamental scientific questions.
    As I conclude, I return to the story of Dr. Whittingham, now at the 
State University of New York, where his continuing work to improve 
battery technology has been supported by NSF for over 30 years. He 
discovered a fundamental chemical property of specific solid materials, 
and then saw the potential applications of his discovery--taking him 
down a new, unexpected path that led to an invention that changed our 
world. Stories like this are why we need to attract and fund the best 
people, as well as the best ideas. For the U.S. to maintain preeminence 
in S&E, for us to invent the future, we need to develop and attract the 
best minds. Then we must give them the time and space--and resources--
to explore, to not be sure exactly what they might find, or why it 
might be useful; but being sure in the knowledge that discovery will 
ultimately reap huge, unexpected benefits for humanity. We know this 
because we have seen this story of unleashed creativity play out, over 
and over again. It is what has brought us the technology-driven world 
we live in today--and it is what will bring us the innovations that 
will shape our tomorrows.
    If we are bold. If we are fearless. If we are true to our heritage 
as a nation of people who were not circumscribed by the boundaries of 
others, but who instead looked over the horizon and asked: What's out 
there? What's next?

    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Dr. Souvaine.
    Dr. Shaw?

    STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID SHAW, PROVOST AND EXECUTIVE VICE 
            PRESIDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY

    Dr. Shaw. Chairman Wicker, Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member 
Baldwin, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify before you today.
    I'm here to share with you examples of the impact that 
universities can have on American economic and strategic 
leadership and at the same time encourage further investment in 
the research and innovation that is uniquely American.
    Mississippi State University has long played a leadership 
role in our state's economic development and has embraced that 
role as a means to lift us up.
    Federal research investment has made a tremendous 
difference in our state. MSU won a National Science Foundation 
Engineering Research Center in 1990 focused on computational 
field simulation. We have many success stories that came from 
that ERC but none more important than how it was used to 
attract Nissan to the state of Mississippi.
    We leverage the ERC to create a new Center for Advanced 
Vehicular Systems with a combination of basic research and 
industrial outreach to support the automotive industry in the 
state. In the past 10 years, CAVS has an impact of over $2.9 
billion in the state through jobs saved or created. Without 
that NSF investment, none of this would have been possible.
    Universities are also engines of entrepreneurship. At MSU, 
our Thad Cochran Research, Technology, and Economic Development 
Park is full to overflowing and an additional incubator has 
been purchased in downtown Starkville. We are proud to partner 
with leading technology companies, such as II-VI, Incorporated, 
Camgian Microsystems, HBM nCode, and Babel Street, and we have 
also developed companies from student and faculty 
entrepreneurs, such as Horne Cyber.
    Universities conduct research and development activities 
that enable civil applications of basic and defense-related 
research. MSU is the lead institution of the FAA Center of 
Excellence for unmanned aircraft systems, called ASSURE. It has 
been tasked with conducting research addressing FAA's highest 
priorities and has become the de facto standard for answering 
the most pressing questions regarding safe and effective use of 
drone technologies in civil applications.
    We've also partnered with NOAA to build the fourth fastest 
computer in U.S. academia focused on providing the tools 
necessary for advancing research in weather and severe storm 
simulation.
    We're also partnering with other agencies, such as USDA and 
Homeland Security, to meet their computational needs, as well.
    As a land grant, MSU is consistently recognized as a 
leading research institution in agriculture and natural 
resources. We have many success stories from the partnership 
that we have with USDA's Agricultural Research Service, but 
none more important than the Warm Water Aquaculture Program 
that has spawned a strong industry in the U.S. and provides 
safe, flavorful, and healthful products to the U.S. and 
international consumers.
    I provided examples relevant to my university, but I could 
tell similar stories from many other institutions. However, 
these success stories are in jeopardy without renewed 
investment from the Federal Government.
    To quote from the National Academy of Sciences' 2010 Study 
Rising Above the Gathering Storm Revisited, ``Today, for the 
first time in history, only a minority of American adults 
believe that the standard of living of their children will be 
higher than what they themselves have enjoyed. To reverse this 
foreboding outlook will require a sustained commitment by both 
individual citizens and by the Nation's government at all 
levels.''
    Members of the Committee, I urge you to seek Federal 
investment of research funding in just those terms: investment. 
These investments are critical if we are to ensure our future 
as an economic and strategic global leader and this investment 
must be, first, broad-based geographically. We must support the 
best and brightest students and researchers wherever they are.
    Second, must be trans-disciplinary in nature. The most 
challenging issues that we face today cannot be solved by 
anyone or even a few disciplines.
    Third, it must be broadly supportive of both fundamental 
and developmental research endeavors, and, finally, it must 
encourage Federal, state, university, and industry 
partnerships. We must find ways to invest in research that 
leads directly to innovation that spawns entrepreneurship and 
economic development in the private sector.
    Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member Baldwin, Chairman Wicker, 
Members of the Committee, I thank you again for the opportunity 
to testify before you today. Should there be any need for 
follow up conversations, I and Mississippi State University 
stand ready to serve.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Shaw follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Dr. David Shaw, Provost and Executive Vice 
                President, Mississippi State University
    Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member Baldwin, and members of the 
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
    I am here to share with you today several examples of the impact 
that universities can have on American economic and strategic 
leadership, and at the same time encourage further investment in the 
research and innovation that is uniquely American. The university 
system in the U.S. has been the envy of the world, and nowhere can a 
public, land-grant university have a bigger impact than on a state like 
Mississippi, where pressing needs can be changed to immense 
opportunity. Mississippi State University has long played a leadership 
role in our state's economic development, and has embraced that role as 
a means to lift us out of poverty and disadvantage. First and foremost, 
we believe that this impact comes from a high-quality education of our 
citizens, coupled with a strong work ethic, integrity, and passion for 
improvement.
    Federal investment in research has made a tremendous difference in 
our state. Mississippi State University (MSU) won a National Science 
Foundation (NSF) Engineering Research Center (ERC) in 1990, focused on 
computational field simulation. We have many success stories that came 
from that ERC, but none more important than how it was used to attract 
Nissan to the State of Mississippi. As a part of the incentive to 
attract Nissan, we leveraged the ERC to create a new Center for 
Advanced Vehicular Systems (CAVS) at MSU, with a combination of basic 
engineering research and industrial outreach to support the automotive 
industry in the state. In the past ten years, CAVS has had an impact of 
over $2.9 billion in the state through jobs saved or created, as 
measured by the U.S. Commerce Department. Without the NSF investment, I 
doubt any of this would have been possible.
    Universities are also engines of entrepreneurship. At MSU, our Thad 
Cochran Research, Technology and Economic Development Park is full to 
overflowing in phase 1, with phase 2 now being filled, and an 
additional incubator purchased in downtown Starkville. We are proud to 
partner with leading technology companies such as II-IV, Inc., Camgian 
Microsystems, HBM nCode, and Babel Street. However, we have also 
developed companies from student and faculty entrepreneurs. Horne Cyber 
is just such a company; founded based on technological capabilities of 
faculty, it is now one of the leading cyber-security companies in the 
U.S.
    Land-grant universities are heavily invested in community success 
as well. Our Carl Small Town Center has taken a nationally-recognized 
leadership role in helping smaller cities reimagine their future and 
develop a strategic plan to turn failing communities into thriving 
cities and towns. The MSU Gulf Coast Community Design Studio was 
created after Hurricane Katrina, and has won national awards for its 
design work for resilient and cost-effective housing after natural 
disasters.
    Universities conduct research and development activities that 
enable civil applications of basic and defense-related research. MSU is 
the lead institution of 23 universities that formed the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) Center of Excellence for unmanned 
aircraft integration into the national air space. The Center of 
Excellence for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Alliance for System Safety of 
UAS through Research Excellence (ASSURE) has been tasked with 
conducting research addressing FAA's highest priorities, including air-
to-ground collision modeling, detect-and-avoid technologies, control 
and communications, and human factor performance in operations. The 
ASSURE consortium has become the de facto standard for answering the 
most pressing questions regarding safe and effective use of drone 
technologies in civil applications. Since its founding in 1948, our 
Raspet Flight Research Lab has been a premier center of excellence for 
innovation. Raspet served as an incubator for Stark Aerospace, Airbus 
Helicopter, Honda Jet, GE Aviation, and Aurora Flight Sciences.
    Following graduation from the ERC program, which I mentioned 
earlier, MSU recognized the unique opportunity it had created, and 
heavily invested in high performance computing as a tool for modeling 
and simulation that would not be possible otherwise. As a result, we 
have partnered with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) to build the fourth-fastest computer in U.S. academia, focused 
on providing the tools necessary for advancing research in weather and 
severe storm simulation. We are also partnering with other agencies 
such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Homeland Security 
to meet their computational needs. This computing capability is also 
extended to corporate partners as well, moving their capabilities into 
a parallel-computing environment through our expertise.
    As a land-grant, MSU is consistently recognized as a leading 
research institution in agriculture and natural resources. We have 
many, many success stories from the partnership we have with USDA's 
Agricultural Research Service, but none more important than the 
warmwater aquaculture program that has spawned a strong industry in the 
U.S. that provides safe, flavorful, and healthful products to the U.S. 
and international consumers.
    I could continue with many other research and development successes 
that have come from my institution; however, these are sufficient to 
make the point--none of them would have happened without Federal 
investment of research dollars. Research funded by Defense, NOAA, FAA, 
USDA, Commerce, Interior, Homeland Security, and many other agencies 
has all stimulated innovative research findings that are leading change 
in our state and nation.
    I have provided examples relevant to my university, but I could 
also tell similar stories for many other institutions across the 
Nation. However, these success stories are in jeopardy without renewed 
investment from the Federal government. To quote from the National 
Academies of Science 2010 study ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 
Revisited'': ``Today, for the first time in history, America's younger 
generation is less well-educated than its parents. For the first time 
in the Nation's history, the health of the younger generation has the 
potential to be inferior to that of its parents. And only a minority of 
American adults believes that the standard of living of their children 
will be higher than what they themselves have enjoyed. To reverse this 
foreboding outlook will require a sustained commitment by both 
individual citizens and by the Nation's government . . . at all 
levels.''
    Members of the committee, I urge you to see Federal investment of 
research funding in just those terms: investment. These investments are 
critical if we are to ensure our future as an economic and strategic 
global leader. And, this investment must be:

  1.  Broad-based geographically. We must support the best and 
        brightest students and researchers wherever they are, not just 
        at a few locations if we as a nation are to make the progress 
        you envision.

  2.  Trans-disciplinary in nature. The most challenging issues we face 
        today cannot be solved by any one or even a few disciplines. 
        Rather, issues such as health disparity, food security, and 
        water scarcity can only be solved by the hard sciences and 
        social sciences working together in new and novel ways.

  3.  Broadly supportive of both fundamental and developmental research 
        endeavors. Both basic and applied research are critical if we 
        are to lead the world in innovation and entrepreneurship.

  4.  Encouraging federal, state, university and industry partnerships. 
        We must find ways to invest in research that leads directly to 
        innovation that spawns entrepreneurship and economic 
        development in the private sector. Historically, our economy is 
        based on this innovation, and with reduced private investment 
        in research, Federal funding is ever more important if we are 
        to continue to lead the world.

    Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member Baldwin, members of the committee, 
I thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. 
Should there be any need for follow-up conversations, I and Mississippi 
State University stand ready to serve.

    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Dr. Shaw.
    Dr. Panchanathan.

       STATEMENT OF SETHURAMAN (PANCH) PANCHANATHAN, PhD,

          EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF RESEARCH

        AND INNOVATION OFFICER, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Chairman 
Gardner, Ranking Member Baldwin, and Senator Peters for this 
opportunity.
    First of all, I would be remiss if I didn't thank Senator 
Sinema for the wonderful kind introduction and her friendship. 
We are proud of her, as our phenomenal Senator from the great 
state of Arizona, as well as her fellow Senator.
    It is a privilege to have the opportunity to discuss how to 
use innovation as a means for advancing our Nation's 
competitiveness into the future. I thank you for holding the 
hearing on this very important topic today.
    Our nation has entered a new bold frontier in science and 
technology. At no other time in our history have advancements 
been accelerating at the scale and the scope that we're seeing 
today.
    Our country has always been in the vanguard because of the 
innovative spirit that permeates everything that we do. We are 
not only in a competition to be ahead of other countries, but 
in a race to outperform ourselves. This is the ticket to 
ensuring economic competitiveness and strategic leadership.
    I would like to talk about four elements that I believe are 
important for economic competitiveness. Number 1, a strong 
research and development ecosystem. My colleagues have written 
on this, too. We are a global leader because of the strong 
Federal investments in science, technology, engineering, higher 
education, and workforce development.
    I'm enthusiastic about American leadership in the 
industries of the future, especially in the areas of AI, data 
science, 5G, advanced manufacturing, synthetic biology, and 
quantum science.
    As a member of the National Science Board, I'm proud of the 
National Science Foundation's efforts, such as the Big 10 
ideas, which will contribute significantly to enhancing our 
global competitiveness.
    It is imperative that there is increasing focus on 
stimulating and seeding bold, large-scale foundational research 
with meaningful vital impact.
    Number 2, a strong learner ecosystem. A wider element of 
advancing U.S. competitiveness involves preparing all citizens 
for the future. Automation is changing the ways we learn, live, 
and work. Some jobs will be augmented, new roles will be born, 
and some positions may disappear.
    Therefore, citizens must become master learners with the 
capability to adjust and adapt throughout their life. In order 
to prepare our learners for the future of work, we should not 
only provide them with skill sets, but also endow them with 
mindsets for success. It is imperative that quality education 
and training opportunities, up-skilling and re-skilling of 
talent, are accessible to all, regardless of their 
socioeconomic background, geographic location, or where they 
are in their career or educational trajectory.
    Thanks to the proliferation of technology, we cannot only 
train the skilled technical workforce, but also virtually 
connect this talent to exciting job opportunities.
    Number 3, a strong partnership ecosystem. Partnerships and 
collaborations with and among regions are key to furthering our 
competitiveness, leadership positions, and prosperity.
    This necessitates developing synergistic alliances between 
academia, corporates, government, and nonprofit organizations. 
We should incentivize building corporate research laboratories 
that seamlessly span academic and industry to get the best-
trained workforce, as well as the fastest technology transfer 
outcomes.
    It is important to catalyze such partnerships at scale to 
ensure prosperity across both urban and rural areas of our 
Nation.
    Number 4, a strong economic development ecosystem. To 
create a robust economic development ecosystem, it is critical 
that we rapidly translate basic scientific research to the 
marketplace. This is achieved through bold translational 
research, corporate partnership with seamless technology 
transfer processes, and incubating business ventures.
    The recent NIST Green Paper, Unleashing American 
Innovation, has put forth options for enhancing technology 
transfer outcomes. At ASU, we have many programs that serve as 
portals for unleashing the innovative spirit in our community.
    For example, the Venture Vets Program taps into the immense 
entrepreneurial potential that is resident in our military 
population to launch their ideas into successful ventures.
    We need such programs replicated in all regions across the 
Nation. I am confident that if we can address some of these 
priorities, we will continue to be in the vanguard of global 
competitiveness and economic prosperity.
    Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this timely 
and important discussion. I look forward to answering any 
questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Panchanathan follows:]

Prepared Statement of Sethuraman (Panch) Panchanathan, Ph.D., Executive 
Vice President and Chief Research and Innovation Officer, Arizona State 
                               University
    ASU Charter:

        ASU is a comprehensive public research university, measured not 
        by whom it excludes, but by whom it includes and how they 
        succeed; advancing research and discovery of public value; and 
        assuming fundamental responsibility for the economic, social, 
        cultural and overall health of the communities it serves.

    Our nation has entered a new, bold frontier in science and 
technology. At no other time in our history have advancements in 
science and technology been accelerating at the scale and scope we are 
seeing today. This will undoubtedly continue into the future. Our 
country has always been in the vanguard because of the innovative spirt 
that permeates everything that we do. We are looked upon as a model to 
be emulated by countries across the globe.
    I would like to emphasize that innovation is not only a skill set, 
but more importantly, a mindset. We therefore need to do everything 
possible to cultivate, nurture, and advance this innovative spirit to 
ensure America's competitiveness and strategic leadership. We are not 
only in a competition to be ahead of other countries, but also in a 
race to outperform ourselves. This is the ticket to ensuring our 
economic competitiveness and well-being. How we, as a country, act and 
advance our science and technology aspirations will have a direct 
impact on our economic and national security. I am pleased and grateful 
that we are having this discussion today.
    I would like to now outline some of the ways in which we can 
continue to be in the forefront.
Strong Research and Development Ecosystem
    We are a global leader because of the strong Federal investments 
over several decades in science, technology, engineering, higher 
education, and workforce development. Over the last four decades, total 
U.S. R&D investment as a proportion of the GDP has remained around 2.5 
percent with Federal R&D at 11-13 percent of discretionary spending 
\1\. A strong research environment in academia and industry supported 
by a robust investment strategy will guarantee a vibrant innovation 
economy for our Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ American Association for the Advancement of Science. Federal 
R&D Budget Trends: A Short Summary. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While it is imperative to have a robust foundation of basic science 
and technology research, we should also augment this with focused 
efforts in thematic areas that position our Nation as a global leader 
in emerging and critical areas. I am enthusiastic about American 
leadership in the Industries of the Future in the areas such as AI, 
data science, 5G, advanced manufacturing, synthetic biology, and 
quantum science \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ White House. America Will Dominate the Industries of the 
Future. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A strong R&D ecosystem with Federal labs, academia, and industry 
focused on advancing new ideas can be a powerful recipe for economic 
development. For example, the multitude of research laboratories in 
Colorado have been an impetus for significant economic progress, 
primarily because of the ideas generated from basic research being 
translated into solutions \3\. At Arizona State University, we are 
focused on advancing fundamental science and discovery at scale, and 
working seamlessly across disciplines to address global grand 
challenges. Our researchers have pioneered solutions to pandemics such 
as Ebola and Zika \4\, addressed new energy futures with an industry 
consortium by designing low cost solar photovoltaics \5\, and deployed 
flexible displays for situational awareness critical to ensuring the 
safety of our warfighters \6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Colorado Office of Economic Development and International 
Trade. Economic Development Commission.2019.
    \4\ Arizona State University. Origins of World's First Cure for 
Ebola had Roots at ASU. 2019.
    \5\ National Science Foundation. New Research Center to Make High-
Efficiency Solar Energy Technologies Sustainable, Ubiquitous, and Cost-
Effective. 2011.
    \6\ Arizona State University. ASU Center Produces New Largest Color 
Flex Display. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a member of the National Science Board, I am proud of the 
National Science Foundation's efforts such as Big 10 Ideas \7\ which 
will contribute significantly to enhancing our global competitiveness. 
It is imperative that we increasingly focus on stimulating and seeding 
bold, large-scale foundational research with meaningful societal 
impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ National Science Foundation. NSF's 10 Big Ideas. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our competitors are increasing their investments at a much greater 
pace than before \1\. Global R&D investment has increased by 100 
percent since 2000 with U.S. investment increasing by 40 percent. We 
are now 10th in research intensity (R&D as a proportion of GDP) behind 
countries such as Germany, South Korea, Singapore, and China \1\--this 
comes as a result of economic growth strategies set by those countries. 
There is an impending need for continuing strong investments in 
research and development to expand basic science and engineering 
research as well in focused areas of national importance in order to 
strengthen our economic competitiveness.
Strong Learner Ecosystem
``Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at 
        death.''
    --Albert Einstein

    Global competitiveness demands a strong focus on science, 
technology, engineering, and math. It requires a workforce comprised of 
lifelong learners capable of thinking critically, pivoting when 
necessary, and successfully adapting to our ever-changing science and 
technology landscape. A vital element of advancing U.S. competitiveness 
involves preparing all citizens for the fourth industrial revolution 
and into the future. Automation is changing the ways we learn, live, 
and work. Some jobs will be augmented, new roles will be born, and some 
positions may dissipate. Citizens must become master learners with the 
capability to adjust and adapt throughout their life.
    In order to prepare our learners for the future of work, we should 
not only provide them with skill sets, but also endow them with 
mindsets for success. Important components of these mindsets include 
creative thinking, problem solving, working across disciplines, and an 
entrepreneurial approach. These qualities are best imbibed by students 
when the institutions of learning exemplify them.
    It is imperative that quality education and training opportunities, 
and upskilling and reskilling of talent are accessible to all, 
regardless of their socioeconomic background, geographic location, or 
where they are in their career and educational trajectory. Empowering 
online learning platforms like MIT edX \8\ and ASU EdPlus \9\ offer 
quality higher education accessible to all. These universal learning 
models help reshape society by democratizing access to learning. While 
innovation leading to start-ups is a great beginning, we need to be 
able grow these enterprises domestically. This requires a spectrum of 
talent that is available at scale. Thanks to the proliferation of 
technology, we can not only train the skilled technical workforce but 
also virtually connect this talent to meet the demands of these 
enterprises. More importantly, this ensures prosperity across the 
Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Massachusetts Institute of Technology edX. 2019.
    \9\ Arizona State University. EdPlus at ASU Partners to Provide 
Universal Learning Techniques to Youth. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strong Partnership Ecosystem
    Partnerships and collaborations within and among regions are key to 
furthering our competitiveness, leadership position, and prosperity. 
This necessitates developing synergistic alliances between academia, 
corporates, government, and non-profit organizations. The recent inter-
agency efforts around AI is an excellent example of how agencies can 
work together to mutually leverage investments to position us into the 
future \10\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ White House. Artificial Intelligence for the American People. 
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Of the $542B of the U.S. R&D expenditures in 2017, 73 percent was 
by the business sector, and 13 percent by universities and colleges 
\11\. Programs that promote strong partnerships between academia and 
industry can take full advantage of the collective investments by 
Federal agencies, states, and corporates. Companies need this rich, 
symbiotic relationship with universities to generate new ideas and 
train the highly talented workforce that is necessary for them to be 
successful. The recent White House Industries of the Future initiative 
calls for leveraging the strength of our unique R&D ecosystem 
consisting of the Federal government, private industry, colleges and 
universities, research institutions, and science philanthropies \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ National Science Foundation. U.S. R&D Increased by $22 Billion 
in 2016, to $515 Billion; Estimates for 2017 Indicate a Rise to $542 
Billion. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, Clemson University's International Center for 
Automotive Research (CU-ICAR) \12\ involves several partners for 
advancing research, development, and translation that has led to high-
value job creation in the sustainable automotive industry. The variety 
of partnership models enables industry and community partners to 
customize their relationships to derive the maximal value. ASU has 
cultivated strong partnerships with corporates locally, nationally, and 
globally. For example, ASU and Starbucks partner on the College 
Achievement Plan \13\, which provides educational opportunities for 
Starbucks employees, a model program of an academic-corporate 
partnership towards building a strong workforce. We have more than 
13,000 students enrolled in this program with 3,000 graduates already 
over the past 5 years. These are exemplars of how such partnerships 
create real impact at the individual, community, and macroeconomic 
level. Similarly, as the Advisor for Science & Technology to the 
Governor of Arizona, my role is to work diligently to connect industry 
and academia around thematic areas, with the goal of creating a 
statewide innovation ecosystem that propels us into the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Clemson University International Center for Automotive 
Research. 2019.
    \13\ Arizona State University. More than Tuition: Trailblazing 
Starbucks College Achievement Plan Continues to Offer Partners Support, 
Flexibility with ASU Online. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We should incentivize building corporate research laboratories that 
seamlessly span academia and industry to get the best trained 
workforce, as well as the fastest technology transfer outcomes. It is 
important to catalyze partnerships at scale to ensure prosperity across 
both urban and rural areas of our Nation.
Strong Economic Development Ecosystem
    To create a robust economic development ecosystem, it is critical 
that we rapidly translate the basic scientific research to the 
marketplace. This is achieved through bold translational research, 
corporate partnerships with seamless technology transfer processes, and 
incubating business ventures, all enabled through interagency and 
regional cooperation.
    Partnership frameworks that accelerate the continuum from basic 
research to translational research to licensing/startups to impact, 
will increasingly become a driving force. We need to ensure ease and 
speed of translation through streamlined IP policies and new models for 
agreements for commercializing technology. As a recent participant on 
the advisory council for the green paper focused on ``Unleashing 
American Innovation'' by the National Institute for Standards and 
Technology (NIST), I was gratified to see the options put forth for 
enhancing technology transfer including streamlining Federal 
regulations, enabling greater flexibility for public-private 
partnerships, increasing engagement with private-sector investors, 
building a more entrepreneurial workforce, and improving support for 
innovation \14\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ NIST. NIST Releases Findings on Increasing the Innovation 
Impacts of Federally Funded R&D. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At ASU, we have evolved a three-pronged strategy: working with the 
state and cities to help expand the footprint of existing companies, 
attracting new companies from outside Arizona (and the U.S.), and 
incubating new ventures to rapidly vitalize the Arizona economic 
development ecosystem and the state's competitiveness. We find 
decision-makers have often cited the strong partnership between ASU and 
the regional entities as the critical factor in their decision to 
expand or relocate to Arizona \15\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Arizona State University. ASU, Infosys Partnership will 
Accelerate Workforce Development in Arizona. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We also work in partnership with the cities in Arizona using the 
platform of innovation campuses. For example, ASU's Skysong Innovation 
campus, in partnership with the City of Scottsdale, houses small and 
medium enterprises from across the globe, as well as entrepreneurial 
ventures led by our students, faculty, and the community. This co-
working environment fully leverages all assets and creates a synergy 
that benefits all. It is anticipated to have over $30B of economic 
impact over 30 years \16\. We also have many programs that serve as 
portals for unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit in our community. For 
example, our Venture Vets program taps into the immense entrepreneurial 
potential that is resident in our active, reserve, and veteran 
personnel, as well as in active duty military spouses, to launch their 
innovative ideas into successful ventures \17\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Skysong. SkySong Projected to Make Major Economic Impact on 
Scottsdale and Valley of the Sun Over the Next 30 Years. 2016.
    \17\ Arizona State University. Operation Start-up: ASU Launches 
Veteran Accelerator for Aspiring Entrepreneurs. 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is imperative that we leverage the broad demographic of talent 
that exists across the Nation. While we have such models primarily 
concentrated in highly populated areas, we need to ensure that these 
are replicated in all regions across the country. A vibrant economic 
development ecosystem ensues when there is a strong partnership between 
the federal, state, and local entities co-investing in innovation, 
industries of the future, education and workforce development, and 
start-up ventures.
    I am confident that if we can address and continue to deploy these 
priorities, we will continue to be in the vanguard of global 
competitiveness and economic prosperity.
    Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this timely and 
important discussion. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may 
have.

    Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
    Dr. Blank.

   STATEMENT OF REBECCA M. BLANK, CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF 
                       WISCONSIN-MADISON

    Dr. Blank. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Baldwin, thank 
you very much for inviting me to be part of this hearing.
    I am proud to lead one of the top research universities in 
the world. The University of Wisconsin in Madison is ranked 
sixth in the Nation in terms of research expenditures and 
funding from the Federal Government supports about 2,000 awards 
at my institution every year.
    My message to you today is twofold. First, U.S. global 
leadership in science, technology, and innovation is threatened 
as other countries rapidly increase their investments in these 
areas.
    Second, this is not inevitable. We can take steps to 
maintain our long-term leadership in innovation and discovery.
    A strong and sustained commitment to Federal investments in 
scientific research will drive the U.S. economy forward and 
lead to improvements in the human condition.
    Let me start with the first point. U.S. global leadership 
in science, technology, and innovation is threatened.
    The U.S. is one of the few countries in the OECD whose 
public investments in R&D have declined in the past 25 years. 
South Korea and Germany have surpassed the U.S. in the share of 
GDP going into publicly funded research. Most notably, China's 
investment in R&D has risen rapidly and is expected to surpass 
the U.S. in the next few years.
    Furthermore, declines in research dollars go along with 
declines in U.S. published research articles and in patents. 
The U.S. now trails both the EU and China in producing 
Bachelor's degrees in science and engineering. We're also 
behind the EU and will soon trail China in the number of 
science Ph.Ds.
    Today's basic science research is the foundation on which 
future advances in technology, health, and productivity are 
built. Countries that are expanding their R&D investments will 
reap the benefits for decades to come. The U.S., with reduced 
investments in science, will no longer be the future leader of 
innovation.
    My second major point is this relative decline in U.S. 
research leadership is not inevitable. If we don't want to lose 
ground, research funding increases should at least match 
inflation, but if we want to catch up with our competitors, 
funding must grow even faster.
    While NIH has seen funding increases, it is important that 
other key research agencies, such as the National Science 
Foundation, not get left behind. Too many researchers are vying 
for limited resources which is particularly challenging for new 
and mid-career investigators.
    The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, the 21st 
Century Cures Act, and the Next Generation Researchers Act are 
all moving us in the right direction, and I want to thank those 
of you who have led in sponsoring this legislation, including 
Senators Baldwin, Gardner, and Peters.
    The research funded today leads to life-saving discoveries 
in the future and also helps to drive the U.S. economy as 
cutting edge scientific research is translated into real-world 
activities, sometimes sparking entirely new industries.
    Here's one example. Last year, a group from UW--Madison 
started the Forward Bio Institute. It focuses on bio-
manufacturing. One project involves manufacturing 3-D human 
brain tissue that contains tumors as a way to test drug 
therapies.
    UW--Madison discoveries have already created more than 350 
startup companies and added 2.3 billion to the Wisconsin 
economy.
    But the impact of investments in research is more than just 
economic. Research improves our lives and our health. One of 
the most salient examples comes from the war on cancer.
    In 2009, six economists published a large study that looked 
at cancer outcomes between 1988 and 2000. They found the 
likelihood of surviving cancer of any kind improved markedly 
between these years and this was closely linked to scientific 
advances in research and treatment.
    In fact, better treatments developed through scientific 
research gave cancer patients in the U.S. 23 million additional 
years of life in just that 12-year period.
    If the U.S. wants to maintain its innovative edge, create 
meaningful jobs, realize economic growth, and improve our 
quality of life, we must make funding for basic science a 
national priority.
    I encourage Congress to renew the partnership between the 
Federal Government and research universities. This means stable 
and predictable research funding to build labs, experiment with 
new ideas, and complete long-term research projects.
    It means training the next generation of scientists by 
supporting trainees with individual fellowships and 
institutional grants. It means prioritizing science in the 
Federal budget. It means a strategic plan to promote U.S. 
science.
    With this type of investment, the U.S. will maintain its 
position as the global leader in research.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Blank follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Rebecca M. Blank, Chancellor, 
                    University of Wisconsin--Madison
    Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member Baldwin, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to discuss international 
competitiveness and the importance of Federal investments in research. 
Much of our Nation's Federal research funding goes to America's leading 
research universities, including the University of Wisconsin--Madison, 
where I serve as Chancellor. UW--Madison is ranked six in the Nation 
for overall research expenditures annually, and funding from the 
Federal government supports about 2,000 awards at my institution each 
year.
    My message to you today is two-fold: First, U.S. global leadership 
in science, technology and innovation is threatened, as other countries 
rapidly increase their investments in research and grow their STEM 
workforce.
    Second, this is not inevitable; we can take steps to maintain our 
long-term leadership in innovation and discovery. With a strong and 
sustained commitment to Federal investment in scientific research we 
can continue to be a world leader. Such investments will drive the U.S. 
economy forward and lead to improvements in the human condition.
    Let me start with the first point: U.S. global leadership in 
science, technology, and innovation is threatened.
    The U.S. is one of the few Organisation for Economic Co-operation 
and Development (OECD) countries whose public investments in research 
and development have declined in the past 25 years. Countries that are 
highly competitive with the U.S., such as South Korea and Germany, have 
been investing more and more public funds in R&D and have surpassed the 
U.S. in the share of GDP going into publicly-funded research.
    Most notably, China's investment in R&D has risen rapidly and is 
expected to surpass the U.S. in the next few years.
    That country's Made in China 2025 initiative outlines the intent to 
become an international leader in frontier sectors such as advanced 
robotics, aerospace, and biotechnology. Meanwhile, the U.S. 
Government's investment in research and development (R&D) is roughly 
half what it was in the mid-1970s as a percent of GDP, according to 
American Association for the Advancement of Science data estimates.
    In recent years, Congress has started to close the gap, but greater 
investment is still needed. The increases Congress has provided 
agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over the last 
four years are helping to correct the devastating effects of 
sequestration and budgets that declined in inflation-adjusted dollars.
    However, while NIH has seen funding increases, it is important that 
other key research agencies such as the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) see similar increases and not get left behind. We know that too 
many researchers are vying for limited resources, creating a 
hypercompetitive environment that is particularly challenging for new-
and mid-career investigators. Many highly meritorious research proposal 
applications go unfunded. In financial year 2016, the NIH received 
26,187 applications for new R01 grants. Only 17.3 percent were funded.
    As specified in the 21st Century Cures Act, NIH continues to pursue 
a number of important initiatives, including the Cancer Moonshot, the 
All of Us program (formerly the Precision Medicine Initiative), and the 
Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) 
Initiative.
    These programs focus resources on specific areas of human health 
that are critical for further discovery-oriented research. But they 
build upon decades of more basic biological research that created the 
scientific knowledge necessary for more targeted, disease-focused 
efforts to succeed. To advance our knowledge and lay the groundwork for 
similar opportunities in the future, the U.S. must continue to invest 
in basic as well as translational research, and to incentivize creative 
investigator-initiated inquiry.
    Chinese R&D investment has grown remarkably over the past two 
decades according to NSF data. Among all countries, China is now number 
two in expenditures on R&D, and accounts for 20 percent of total world 
R&D expenditure. Its rate of R&D investment growth greatly exceeds that 
of the U.S. and the E.U.
    Unfortunately, the U.S. is not just failing to keep pace with other 
countries in terms of research dollars. According to the 2019 benchmark 
report from the Task Force on American Innovation (TFAI)--an alliance 
of leading American companies and business associations, research 
university associations, and scientific societies--while U.S. 
researchers will produce more published articles than other countries, 
that output is declining and China is catching up. China ranks just 
behind the U.S. in terms of annual research publications, particularly 
in fields such as computer sciences and engineering, highlighting the 
country's research priorities.
    The report also highlights declines in the U.S.'s patent 
productivity in recent years, while East Asian economies such as South 
Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore have accelerated their patent output.
    Other nations also outperform the U.S. in science and engineering 
education.
    The TFAI report notes that the U.S. trails the E.U. and China in 
output of bachelor's degrees in science and engineering. China is now 
the world's number one producer of undergraduates with science and 
engineering degrees, delivering almost one quarter of first university 
degrees in science and engineering globally.
    The U.S. also trails the E.U. in total doctoral degrees awarded in 
science and engineering, with China rapidly gaining. Since 2007, China 
has awarded more Ph.D. degrees in natural sciences and engineering than 
any other country. As our share of trained Ph.D. researchers falls, so 
will our share of future research output.
    China has been transparent about its goals in research and wants to 
lead the world in key areas.
    Let me give you an example of where China is ramping up its 
research resources in an area historically dominated by the United 
States--weather satellites.
    Last year, China launched 38 satellites, more than any other 
country, as it attempts to catch up with the West's satellite 
infrastructure. China's government has made conquering space a key 
strategic priority, with the Nation's reported $8 billion space budget 
second only to that of the U.S., according to the American non-profit 
Space Foundation.
    At UW--Madison, we take satellite research seriously and have long 
had one of the top-ranked research departments in this field. Our Space 
Science and Engineering Center (SSEC) and our Cooperative Institute for 
Meteorological Satellite Studies (CIMSS), an internationally renowned 
satellite meteorology research center, hold the world's largest, online 
and publicly available geostationary weather satellite data archive. 
This archive provides high quality, geophysical data to researchers who 
study weather and to industries affected by weather, from agriculture 
to energy and aviation.
    The University of Wisconsin--Madison has long been a strong 
proponent in the international sharing of satellite data, going back to 
the early days of Verner Suomi, who is often referred to as the father 
of satellite meteorology. As a result, the U.S. and Europe have 
partnered on numerous agreements to share weather data from our 
respective satellites.
    The U.S., however, is not staying ahead of international 
competition. In the 21st century, China has become an important co-
equal partner in the global satellite observing system.
    For example, the Chinese recently launched the Geostationary 
Interferometric Infrared Sounder, the world's most modern geostationary 
satellite weather monitoring system.
    While they developed the technologies to build and launch the 
instrument, they were building on widely used and published design 
concepts that originated at the University of Wisconsin.
    Today's basic scientific research is the foundation on which future 
advances in technology, health, and productivity are built. Countries 
expanding their R&D investments will reap the benefits in future 
decades. The U.S., with reduced investments in science, will no longer 
be the future leader in innovation.
    My second major point is that the relative decline in U.S. research 
leadership is not inevitable; we can take steps to maintain our long-
term leadership in innovation and discovery.
    I urge you to continue to provide meaningful and predictable annual 
budget increases that support basic and translational research at our 
Nation's universities. At a minimum, if we don't want to lose ground, 
research funding increases should match with the rate of inflation. But 
funding must grow even faster if we want to catch up with our 
competitors.
    In addition to assuring that basic and translational science is 
funded at America's leading research universities, we also need to 
improve the commercialization of federally funded research. Supporting 
the rapid and efficient transfer of information from academia to the 
private sector, as well as among researchers worldwide, is necessary if 
we want to achieve maximum benefit from new technological advances. 
This requires effective collaborations.
    Federally-funded research discoveries often provide the basis for 
innovations commercialized by the private sector. This public-private 
partnership has been critical to U.S. leadership in both manufacturing 
and the biomedical sciences.
    Let me highlight some examples in medical research. Entrepreneurs, 
such as those at UW--Madison, have been instrumental in helping to 
advance areas such as stem cell research, organ transplantation, gene 
therapy, computerized X-ray images of blood vessels, brain plasticity 
research, head injury treatment, and asthma research.
    According to a recent article in the Proceedings of the National 
Academy of Sciences, all 210 new molecular entities approved by the 
Food and Drug Administration between 2010 and 2016 were associated with 
NIH-supported research. Importantly, 84 of those new drugs involved a 
newly discovered mechanism of action or biological target in the body.
    The commercial opportunities created from NIH research fuels our 
economy and creates jobs. According to an updated 2019 report, NIH 
research funding in FY 2018 supported more than 430,000 jobs and 
generated nearly $74 billion in total economic activity nationwide.
    Of course, this research isn't important just because of its effect 
on jobs. The long-term effects of this research are crucial to advances 
in human health. Investments in cancer research, including projects at 
UW--Madison, have helped reduce the death rate from all cancers in the 
U.S. over the past two decades, according to the American Cancer 
Society. As of 2015, the cancer death rate for men and women combined 
had fallen 26 percent from its peak in 1991, translating to nearly 2.4 
million lives saved.
    In 2009, six economists published a large study entitled An 
Economic Evaluation of the War on Cancer. They look at cancer outcomes 
between 1988 and 2000, which allows time for the early research to show 
results in clinical practice. Their analysis indicates the likelihood 
of cancer survival (across all cancers) improved markedly between 1988 
and 2000. By their analysis, 80 percent of the increase in survival was 
due to better treatment as a result of research advances. Over this 
time period, that adds up to 23 million additional years of life across 
the U.S., years that these patients can enjoy with their families.
    Beyond the positive results that emerge from research findings, 
Federally-funded research at universities also plays a critical role in 
training the next generation of scientists by supporting trainees with 
individual fellowships and institutional grants.
    To build the STEM workforce this country needs, we must continue to 
invest in training for highly skilled graduates in the STEM fields. 
These students build their skills by working with faculty on research 
projects.
    Thank you, Senators Gardner and Peters, for co-authoring the 
American Innovation and Competitive Act, which was signed in 2017. This 
bipartisan Federal research and technology policy not only maximizes 
basic research opportunities, reduces administrative burdens for 
researchers, encourages scientific entrepreneurship, and promotes 
oversight of taxpayer-funded research, it also promotes diversity in 
STEM fields, incentivizes private-sector innovation, and boosts 
manufacturing.
    There are three aspects of that policy that are key for the future 
of American scientific leadership. The Act:

   Promotes diversity in STEM fields by creating a working 
        group to study how to improve inclusion of women and 
        underrepresented individuals in STEM fields, and reaffirming 
        the necessity of broadening participation in STEM fields 
        through NSF programs;

   Bolsters scientific entrepreneurship by authorizing the 
        successful I-Corps program to help scientists move their 
        research from the laboratory to the marketplace; and

   Reaffirms the importance of commercialization by directing 
        NSF to continue awarding translational research grants and 
        strengthening public-private cooperation.

    We also need to invest in new and mid-career researchers. I commend 
Congress for passing the 21st Century Cures Act, and including the Next 
Generation Researchers Act in the bill, as championed by Sen. Tammy 
Baldwin. This law is a big step in the right direction. These 
initiatives will expand opportunities for new scientists and promote 
growth, stability, and diversity of the biomedical research workforce.
    Today, significant challenges loom before us: The opioid epidemic 
is a national public health crisis. An aging population will mean 
increased incidence of heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, 
arthritis, and cancer. Recent weather patterns threaten coastal areas. 
America's infrastructure is aging.
    America's research universities are working on these challenges. We 
know that addressing such complex problems will require us to reach 
across disciplines in areas such as global health, agriculture, 
language, political studies, climate, and many more. At UW--Madison, we 
embrace collaboration as a means of accelerating discovery.
    Such work goes faster when we share ideas and best practices with 
scientists around the world. But we also know these collaborations must 
be thoughtful and in our best national interests.
    All of this requires a stable environment in which the R&D 
enterprise can thrive.
    The partnership between the Federal government and research 
universities is long-standing in the United States and has produced an 
unparalleled set of discoveries and inventions that have improved lives 
around the globe. With the challenges in front of us, this partnership 
needs to be even stronger now than in the past. This means stable and 
predictable research funding to build labs, experiment with new ideas 
and complete long-term research projects. It means training the next 
generation of scientists by supporting trainees with individual 
fellowships and institutional grants. It means prioritizing science in 
the Federal budget.
    With this type of investment, the U.S. will maintain its excellence 
in cutting-edge research.
    Thank you.

    Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
    Chairman Wicker, would you like to begin the questioning?
    Senator Wicker. Well, you're very kind to do that and I 
don't mind if I do.
    Thank you all. We appreciate where you've been and where 
we're trying to bring the Nation.
    Let me just start off with my fellow Mississippian, Dr. 
Shaw. You mentioned on Page 3 of your testimony four themes and 
the first of which is ``investment must be broad-based 
geographically. We must support the best and brightest students 
and researchers wherever they are, not just at a few 
locations.''
    I'm told that NSF says that nearly half of all funding in 
the last two decades went to just six states. I guess that's 
what you're talking about in terms of being broadly funded 
geographically.
    So how is this a problem and speak to what we might be able 
to do about that, Dr. Shaw.
    Dr. Shaw. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
    No one would argue that we all have talented and 
intelligent students and researchers in every state in the 
Nation. If we as a nation intentionally set out to fully reach 
our potential, every young person must be given every 
opportunity to reach that potential.
    The established program to stimulate competitive research 
at NSF and EPSCoR Alike Programs at NIH, DoD, USDA, and other 
agencies are specifically designed by name to stimulate 
competitiveness in research across the Nation. These programs 
have and continue to evolve and do just that and are fine 
examples of how to ensure that every student has a place at the 
table.
    As we continue to see industries of the future develop, 
such as quantum computing, 5G technology, artificial 
intelligence, we do not need to see have and have-not 
situations exacerbated. It is only in the best interests of our 
Nation for all to be haves.
    Senator Wicker. Well, tell us about EPSCoR. I understand it 
is an experimental program but it has lasted quite a while. It 
obviously isn't working as well as you hoped it would.
    Dr. Shaw. Well, I think a lot of that depends on how you 
define ``working'' because the states that are receiving EPSCoR 
funding either through the Track 1 or the Track 2 and Track 3 
Programs certainly have used those funds effectively to be able 
to develop graduate assistantships to be able to have 
researchers develop. In a hyper-competitive environment, as 
several of the speakers have referred to, our states are 
continuing to be able to compete because of that.
    Now have they gained ground? No, in many cases, that's not 
the case. But have they lost ground? No, it has stimulated 
competitive research.
    Senator Wicker. Dr. Souvaine, is this a problem, 
geographical inequity, and how is EPSCoR working?
    Dr. Souvaine. I think if you look back to the NSF Act, it 
charges us to strengthen research and education and science and 
engineering throughout the United States and to avoid undue 
concentration of such research and education.
    This needs to be a priority, balanced and aligned with a 
need to fund the best proposals, so every American should 
benefit from the science and engineering economy and the 
science and engineering economy needs the talents of every 
American.
    Now that's something that spans all sorts of different 
levels. We've recently issued a Skilled Technical Workforce 
Report that talks about the need for a STEM-capable workforce 
everywhere in the United States and every job needs more STEM 
than they used to but right now, there are a whole bunch of 
jobs that require not a four-year degree but require maybe one 
or two years post high school, if done in concert with what we 
were talking about earlier in the testimony, of working 
together with industry and partnerships with community colleges 
and partners with higher ed and partners with the local school 
districts and the local government.
    Senator Wicker. So should we be concerned that over 20 
years, more than one-third of all Federal research funding has 
gone to two states?
    Dr. Souvaine. I think I would not look backward but would 
look forward. The texture of science and engineering going 
forward from today requires all of our talent and we need to 
look at it as how we're going to develop it across the entire 
country.
    Senator Wicker. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Gardner. Senator Sullivan.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
just throw this out for all the witnesses. By the way, thanks 
for holding this hearing. I think Chairman Wicker's question on 
where the research dollars are going is also a really important 
one, I think. So maybe we can follow up with more questions on 
that.
    But, you know, with regard to marine ecosystems and the 
importance of Federal research as it relates to making sure we 
understand what's going on in the oceans, which is very 
important not just for my state, Alaska, for the fisheries 
there, but I think for the whole country, whether you're on the 
coast or not.
    How do you think the Federal Government can be enhancing 
that research, particularly with universities and partnerships 
that give us a better understanding of what's happening, either 
the pollution, you know? We've held a number of hearings on the 
issue of ocean debris and ocean plastics, or making sure we 
have sustainable fisheries.
    NOAA's mission, the Federal Government's mission is to make 
sure we have that data, but a lot of times the data resides in 
universities and other scientific organizations that aren't 
necessarily Federal Government organizations.
    I'll throw that out to any and all the witnesses because it 
is a really important issue for my constituents.
    Dr. Blank. I'll start with that. I'm a little more familiar 
with the freshwater coastlines than saltwater coastlines, but 
NOAA and, you know, the Sea Grant Programs have just been a 
wonderful partner with universities in terms of working 
together.
    We sent students back and forth to various projects. We 
work together closely with personnel in those agencies and 
there's a constant sorting out of what are the next set of 
questions that we need to be looking at, such as changes in 
ocean temperatures. That's happening in the lakes in Wisconsin, 
as well, that you see complete changes in fish populations.
    I know you're seeing that in the oceans, also. There's a 
whole new set of pressing questions. Federal funding leverages 
the research that NOAA and other organizations do with the 
research that the universities do, so these efforts become 
synergistic and build on each other. This is very important.
    Senator Sullivan. Great. Anyone else?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Senator Sullivan, thanks for the 
question.
    I think a couple of things stand out. One is how might we 
promote more interagency partnerships around these grand 
challenge problems. This would be one of those problems. How do 
we promote that kind of a partnership? How do we promote 
partnership between the private sector, the universities, and 
the nonprofits who are also participating in these 
investments,----
    Senator Sullivan. Right.
    Dr. Panchanathan.--and so how do we then make data 
available that is then shareable across all of these platforms? 
So that might be something that we might want to think about.
    And you touched upon the issue of sustainability, which is, 
I think, an important element. How do we make sure that we are 
all working toward a sustainable future? This is something that 
the university--I mean, since I come from ASU where we have a 
School of Sustainability,----
    Senator Sullivan. Yes.
    Dr. Panchanathan.--we focus a lot and we work in fact, in 
partnership with universities across the Nation and beyond to 
see how we might find problems that we all can work together on 
and solve them.
    So more such partnerships among universities, among 
agencies, as well as with nonprofits and the private sector, 
are the only way we can solve such grand challenge problems.
    Last, I will leave you with this. I think increasingly 
universities are recognizing that when you really want to solve 
a problem, it is not just a science problem or an engineering 
problem, but a behavioral problem or a social problem or a 
cultural problem or a policy problem. It is all of the above 
and more.
    So universities are starting to see how you can assemble 
teams that bring people across disciplines so they can work 
together to find meaningful solutions rather than just one 
slice of a solution.
    Senator Sullivan. Good. Thank you.
    Anyone else? Dr. Shaw?
    Dr. Shaw. Senator Sullivan, thank you for the question, and 
I certainly agree with my colleagues.
    I would just simply add that there are some mechanisms in 
place that will certainly allow more of what you're talking 
about and I think the word ``partnership'' has been used 
several times. We're a part of a cooperative institute, which 
is a Federal program that NOAA has to be able to specifically 
partner the agency with universities and consortia to address 
specific topics.
    The one that we're a part of is focused on the Gulf of 
Mexico----
    Senator Sullivan. Right.
    Dr. Shaw.--but there are a number of these and they range 
from atmospheric focus to ocean and atmosphere combinations, 
and so I think these types of things need to be supported 
heavily because it does provide the opportunity for that cross-
collaboration across agencies but also with university sector 
to be able to bring the kinds of partnerships that Panch has 
mentioned.
    Senator Sullivan. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
    Senator Blumenthal.

             STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for 
having this hearing. Thank you all for being here today.
    Let me ask the two--well, let me ask all of you. I was 
going to say the two female members of this panel, but I'll ask 
all of you.
    How are we doing on non-discrimination based on gender in 
science? I'm saying this as a layman who is simply reading 
what's out there and hearing perhaps some of the complaints. Is 
this an illusory issue or is it real and, if so, should more be 
done about it?
    I'm willing to start and just go right down the panel.
    Dr. Souvaine. I think there are two different things to 
look at. One is discrimination and the other is encouragement 
and we need to stop the one and enhance the other.
    I think discrimination still exists, but I think that we're 
all coming together to try to work on that and to try to make 
change. I was very pleased with the NSF policies that were set 
earlier this year relative to sexual harassment. I think that's 
really important.
    But I think that we all need to change our definitions of 
what it means to be a scientist or an engineer and to challenge 
any unacknowledged biases we might have as to what a scientist 
or an engineer looks like, how that person speaks or what that 
person does, and as we change that, we'll change that both for 
who are the representatives of science and engineering as 
professionals, but we're going to change everything down to 
which kids in kindergarten are doing things that are scientific 
and mathematics in their free choice period and where things 
are going to go from there.
    There's a lot more work to do. In our demographics, we can 
say that we've made significant progress in the last several 
years in terms of broadening participation. There are a lot 
more women, there are a lot more Hispanics, there are a lot 
more blacks going into science and engineering, but if you look 
at the proportion of the whole, we're not making very much 
advance.
    So the literal numbers are going up but not the proportion. 
So we have a lot more work to do.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well said. Dr. Shaw?
    Dr. Shaw. Thank you, Senator. It is a great question and we 
certainly recognize that it has been a challenge and it still 
is a challenge.
    I guess I would say coming from the other direction, 
though, as we bring in cadre after cadre of our young 
scientists, young faculty, it is very encouraging to see the 
changes that are taking place very rapidly in our universities, 
and I believe that they are bringing in a fresh look, a fresh 
enthusiasm, and a set of values that are quite different than 
what we've seen in the past.
    Do we have room to grow? Absolutely. Have we made a great 
deal of progress in attitudes? Absolutely.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal, for this 
wonderful question.
    I find with any problem as this or any other problem, 
first, we need to identify the problem and recognize it as an 
important problem that we need to solve. Then we need to commit 
to solving them. Lastly, most complex problems, which have not 
had solutions in the past require innovative ways of solving 
them, so as a framework of thinking.
    Now what have we done at Arizona State University to change 
this? More than half of our student population are female, and 
our Engineering School had a very low percentage of female 
students. So we took that as a problem that we need to solve, 
and then you commit to solving them, as I was saying, and then 
we said let's start to address the K through 12 system.
    How can you actually bring students from the K through 12 
system and excite them about STEM disciplines? That's one 
methodology that we used. The other is we asked the question, 
where are the female students going to, and typically it 
happened that most of them were going to social sciences, 
humanities, and the arts.
    So can we then bridge social sciences, humanities, and the 
arts back into engineering and computer science, for example, 
through minors that they can take, so then they get attracted 
into taking a minor and slowly start to make it their major.
    So how do you find other ways in which you can bring more 
awareness to this and solve the problem?
    Last, but not the least, is role models. If we don't have 
enough role models, we will not be able to change this. So what 
we have done at ASU is that we've changed the culture of the 
institution itself by having leadership and the presence of a 
number of role models that inspire students to want to pursue 
science, technology, engineering, or even higher education, for 
that matter. So those are the ways in which you can change.
    Culture change, as you know, is hard, but that's why I talk 
about the commitment to do that, and thank you for the 
question----
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
    Dr. Panchanathan.--and looking at it.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
    Dr. Blank. So we're not where we need to be for women in 
science and women in STEM. There are a few areas, like biology, 
which have heavy representation of women, but there are a lot 
of areas in computer science and in engineering where we just 
have way too few and if we want to increase the numbers there, 
the best thing we can do is get our entire population 
interested in these fields.
    I would note that a lot of women come into college already 
convinced that science is not for them and you've got to work 
on the pipeline issues here in K-12. That's Number 1.
    Number 2, there are often special things you can do to make 
sure that you are supportive of women who are in fields where 
they're a minority. So, for instance, we have a residential 
living community for women in engineering, which does special 
advising and activities and talks about, you know, the ways in 
which engineering impacts social outcomes in the nation. This 
show that engineering is more than just a set of technical 
issues.
    Third, the curriculum does matter especially introductory 
classes in how engineering is taught. Also advising, role 
models, mentoring, and, of course, that's a chicken and egg 
problem because you?ve got to get women ready to teach and to 
be in the profession.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
    Well, these answers are excellent. If any of you have 
other--I know you're limited in terms of the time, but if you 
have other thoughts or ideas about this issue because I think 
it is one that, to the extent we can be helpful, we have an 
obligation to do so.
    Thank you very, very much.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator.
    I should have mentioned at the outset that we were going to 
have votes right in the middle of our opening statements. I 
apologize for not doing that, but I voted. Senator Baldwin is 
now voting and she will be back, and we have another vote 
coming up. So we may be doing this one more time. So I 
apologize for that.
    I'll go ahead and start with my questions. You know, I'm 
struck because so many of you participated in our first effort 
through this committee to reauthorize the American Competes 
legislation and we did for the first time in a decade with the 
American Innovation and Competitiveness Act and so thank you 
for your work on that legislation.
    I remember at the time Dr. Drogemeier saying to this 
committee thank you for making science bipartisan again. Many 
of the issues that we brought up in these and the questions 
I've heard from my colleagues have related to some of the same 
issues that we were trying to address then.
    So I want to get into some of the results of that 
legislation and how we're doing, maybe a progress check on 
that, but also what we can be doing to continue to improve, as 
you've mentioned to Senator Blumenthal and others.
    So I want to start with this question. I was struck by a 
visit I had to the Middle East years ago and we were traveling 
to Amman, Jordan, and it was dusk. As the airplane was nearing 
the airport, I'm looking down thinking about the meetings that 
we were going to have, meetings with policymakers, scientists, 
opportunities in the Middle East, and as I looked out at Amman, 
I saw streets that were crowded with cars, massive traffic jam, 
lit up by street lights on the corners and an airplane, and I'm 
thinking every single one of these innovations has helped make 
the United States such an incredibly strong place.
    Cars that are generations descended from the assembly line 
mass production, lights that were generations descended from 
Thomas Edison and others, on an airplane generations descended 
from American inventors, but those are all here in the supply 
chains and the jobs and the innovation that went with all three 
of those sort of societal-changing events occurred here.
    What happens when that next big idea, that next big 
invention, that next big thing is not here in the United 
States, but it is in China, it is in India, it is in Africa, it 
is in Europe?
    Dr. Blank, from an economic perspective, what happens?
    Dr. Blank. So the science itself moves fast. When people 
get a new idea or hear about it, you know, folks grab on to 
that quickly.
    The biggest effect of having a major invention that isn't 
in the U.S. or inside Western powers is how it spreads in the 
regulation and use of it. So almost all of the major inventions 
of the post-World War II era have been in the West and they 
have been under the regulation of a common set of rules.
    If 5G, AI, other things start emerging faster out of China, 
there will be a different regulatory regime there. Think about 
some of the medical advances that could be happening and that 
will result in very different types of use. It is a real 
interesting question of what happens if something comes out as 
under one regulatory regime and then when it moves into more 
Western societies, they want a different regulatory regime and 
how do those two impact each other.
    It will certainly slow the expansion of these new 
inventions and could lead to some very real political clashes.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you.
    Anybody else on the panel wish to address that? Dr. 
Souvaine?
    Dr. Souvaine. I think one of the things we want to be 
careful to do is to make sure that we are always at the table 
and so that means that we've got to continue to conduct our 
science and engineering enterprise consistent with the 
principled traditions that have yielded us success over the 
last 70 years and the benefits it realizes from nurturing a 
global community of similarly principled partners so that then 
as inventions are developed in one country or another, we have 
a shared culture, a shared understanding of what's fair play 
and how we interact with each other.
    We don't want to ever be away from the table. We don't want 
to be surprised by an innovation that occurs somewhere else. We 
want to be always right there at the frontier of knowledge and 
so that's something that we have to be careful about.
    Senator Gardner. Dr. Souvaine, in your testimony, you 
talked a little bit about the 2018 Science and Engineering 
Indicators Report the National Science Board released, and you 
talked about how China accounts for nearly one-third of the 
entire global increase in research and development spending 
from 2000 through 2015.
    Meanwhile, here in the United States, our research and 
development global spending declined from 37 percent to 26 
percent. Our allies in Europe witnessed a decline in their 
share of global R&D, as well, dropping from 27 percent to 22 
percent, and I think, you know, you've outlined some of the 
concerns when that happens.
    We spend, I think the number is about 2.7 percent of our 
GDP on research and development as a country. China is now 
spending about 2.1 percent of their GDP. I think Japan, Germany 
exceed the United States in terms of GDP.
    So a couple of questions. Are we at the table? We're at the 
table now, but is there a real risk that within the next 5 
years, we are no longer invited like we were, lose that 
understanding of what is being invented?
    The second thing is do you have an idea, and I'm going to 
run out of time here and maybe we can address the second 
question next round, what should the United States target GDP 
investment in research and development be?
    So why don't we go ahead and start with the first one on 
are we at the table now? Do you see that change--we are at the 
table now, but do you see that changing in the next 5 years?
    Dr. Souvaine. I think we are at the table now and we need 
to continue to be at the table. That's going to mean that we 
need to think about what our global partnerships look like.
    Yesterday, I spent the day at a meeting of a task force at 
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences that's looking at 
large-scale science partnerships. We need with new research 
facilities--we don't need multiple ones of them. We need 
international ones that we have good partnerships running and 
that are accessible to scientists across the world.
    That means we need to be able to be a good partner and 
sometimes things that get in our way are not having multi-year 
funding. How do we commit to being a good partner? We need to 
make sure that we are at the table talking about our principles 
and helping contribute to the discussions about the ethical 
compact that all of the partners will follow willingly because 
they've helped develop it together.
    Senator Gardner. Very good point. Thank you.
    And I'm going to interrupt you there because I want to turn 
to Senator Baldwin, but we can continue the conversation in the 
next round.
    Senator Baldwin.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chancellor Blank, as you noted in your testimony, the 
United States is rapidly losing its competitive edge in 
research and STEM education investments.
    I wanted to start by drawing on your experience having both 
been a leader at the Department of Commerce as well as 
Chancellor at the university and in academia.
    Can you speak to the impact of government investment in 
research on U.S. industry?
    Dr. Blank. Research is funded by both industry and by the 
Federal Government. Industry-funded research tends to be much 
more applied and specific. Government-funded research tends to 
be a little bit more basic and the synergies between those two 
that are important, you don't get the specific inventions 
without doing the basic research first. So virtually all of the 
new devices that we have in our homes and in our pockets came 
out of research in the 1960s, 1970s that had no obvious 
application whatsoever at that point in time.
    There is a need for the Federal Government to fund that 
basic research which economically no industry is going to put 
money into. That is what really makes the Federal investment in 
research quite crucial and quite important. The investments we 
make today may not pay off in terms of economic value until 30, 
40, 50 years from now, but if we don't keep that investment 
going, the river will run dry.
    We won't experience it next year, but in 30 years, we will 
definitely be quite a ways behind other countries.
    Senator Baldwin. I want to continue and focus a little bit 
specifically on Wisconsin, our innovation strengths and 
weaknesses, to help me better understand what changes we might 
need to make in Federal research programs to focus on 
Wisconsin.
    As you know, we have something called the Wisconsin Idea. 
We're very proud of that. It is kind of the idea that the 
university and research should help solve problems and improve 
the lives of everyone in our state. Sometimes the Wisconsin 
Idea, we think of it as the whole globe or beyond.
    But while we have a very vibrant innovation and startup 
community in the Madison area, some other parts of the state 
are still lagging behind and so let me just ask a couple of 
questions regarding that.
    What are some of the challenges that you see in our state 
that prevent Federal research programs from furthering the 
Wisconsin Idea and helping fuel innovation all around the 
state?
    Dr. Blank. It is a good question. So Federal research tends 
to go to professional researchers which means it comes into the 
universities of Wisconsin and, you know, we had an earlier 
conversation here about how widely spread the research funds 
were.
    Certainly spreading research funds to younger 
investigators, spreading research funds, particularly more 
applied research funds, to a wider variety of institutions 
could well be helpful. It is also true that what the 
institutions do with those dollars matters, and, you know, the 
Federal dollars rarely pay for projects out there in the 
hinterland, right out of the university. I think universities 
need to be encouraged and incentivized--many have those 
incentives anyway-- to make sure that we are not just doing the 
work inside the labs but we actually get engaged and engage our 
students and our staff and our faculty with thinking about what 
the implications of that work is for something that can 
actually have a long-term useful purpose.
    Senator Baldwin. On this same theme, what do you see as the 
biggest strengths and biggest challenges with our Federal 
research programs that directly lead to innovation and a 
startup economy?
    Do you have specific suggestions for changes to any Federal 
research programs that would help better support economic 
growth in states like Wisconsin?
    Dr. Blank. So if you ask me what are the biggest 
challenges, one is the funding that goes disproportionately to 
more senior researchers, and I think focusing more money on 
younger researchers is a very----
    Senator Baldwin. I have another question on that in a 
moment.
    Dr. Blank. Yes, yes.
    Senator Baldwin. Go ahead.
    Dr. Blank. You know, my second comment is that I think 
there's a real advantage--and I know NSF and NIH have been 
doing this--in picking some big problems in society and 
focusing dollars around them, whether that's brain science or 
quantum computing. The Federal Government, you know, has a 
convening role of bringing together institutions from around 
the country to do this.
    My third comment is I think one of the most effective 
things that the Federal Government has done, and this is not 
standard research funding, it came from elsewhere, were these 
partnerships between manufacturing, industry, universities, and 
state and local governments that were under the Obama 
Administration. They were focused on specific problems. 
Different areas bid for them and brought together a wonderful 
coalition between industries, the universities, and the civic 
society and really created some real paths forward on things 
like 3D printing and a whole set of different issues.
    I would wish that we could continue to follow that model.
    Senator Gardner. We'll go back and forth so you can 
continue the question.
    Dr. Souvaine, I cut you off earlier. Did you want to add a 
little bit to that answer?
    Dr. Souvaine. Yes, a couple of things.
    You asked a question about potential GDP----
    Senator Gardner. Right.
    Dr. Souvaine.--as part of the question we didn't get to at 
all. There was also an earlier question.
    I don't know the answers to that. I wonder whether 3 
percent, which we've been at, I believe, in the past but we are 
not now, would help put us in the right direction.
    I do think that we need to do a right-sizing, if you will, 
of NSF. I think that basic research actually addresses some of 
Senator Baldwin's concerns, as well, that as Dr. Blank said, it 
is a basic research result that then goes the distance and 
leads to something that's commercialized.
    As we saw, a Nobel Prize winner recently, who had basic 
research funding from NSF in chemistry for years and years and 
years, and that led to the lithium ion battery which we're all 
quite familiar with.
    If you look at patents, there's an interesting statement 
about where patents come from and it is interesting because all 
of our agencies help us get to patents and I guess I'm not 
going to find it at the moment, but it is fascinating to me 
that given the smaller funding for NSF that in fact a lot of 
patents come from the NSF basic funding initiatives and in the 
same way venture capitalists have talked to us about their 
concerns.
    They're very concerned that we're maybe not funding enough 
high-risk/high-potential gain basic research and that in 20 
years, they're not going to have things to commercialize in 
this country and that they will be going elsewhere.
    Senator Gardner. There would be nothing in the pipeline to 
bridge that commercial stage?
    Dr. Souvaine. Right. The crazy idea that NSF funds now that 
you don't know that it is going to pay off. Companies are not 
going to fund something that they don't see a line to profit 
and yet the initial research that led to the lithium ion 
battery, they had no sense that it had an application. It was 
just a pie in the sky chemistry study. It led to something that 
was really important.
    If we don't fund enough of those things that are curiosity-
driven, that are inspirational, the ideas of our talented 
researchers now, then in 20 years, we don't have the pay-offs 
that we need to get.
    Senator Gardner. Right. And I think that's what I'm trying 
to get at with the question of whether we need to set a 
national goal.
    You know, Dr. Blank mentioned it in terms of some of the 
science that's taking place at NIH in terms of setting a goal 
on a big issue and so should we as a country have a goal that 
we aspire to and reach for and that we know and that's why I 
asked the GDP question.
    I don't know if anybody else wants to comment on the GDP 
question about what we should target it to so we can build to 
it. I mean, I took a tour of the NIST facility and this 
committee is strongly supportive of increasing funds for NIST 
which we have done, but one of the labs had a barrel with a 
plastic trash sack in it to collect water because the roof was 
leaking where Nobel science research is taking place and now we 
are replacing those facilities, but that never should have 
gotten in that condition in the first place.
    I want to ask another question, too, about just how we 
continue working on getting more people to the United States.
    Dr. Panch, I think you talked about this. Dr. Souvaine, you 
talked about this. If somebody is a budding scientist somewhere 
around the globe, are they still looking to the United States?
    Dr. Panchanathan. I think they still are, because if you 
look at the kind of research that happened at our research 
institutions, I would say that there is nothing equal to what 
we have in the United States, but we need to be more welcoming 
of such talent and aggregate the talent here.
    In fact, I often say, you know, when we talk about the 
Thousands Talents Program in China, why not have the 10 
Thousands Talents Program in the United States?
    Senator Gardner. Right.
    Dr. Panchanathan. Let's play offense rather than defense. I 
mean, this was something that was talked about earlier. You 
know, instead of trying to be, you know, protecting, which is 
important, but it is also important that we show that we are 
the place that people need to be here because we are the place 
that shapes talent.
    I mean, I'm an immigrant and this country gave me this 
wonderful opportunity to exercise my talent, and I'm ever so 
grateful for the opportunity. because here I am.
    So I think there is a lot of such talent that is not only 
domestically available that we need to nurture and bring out, 
which is what universities like ASU are doing. The socio-
demographic of talent that is out there, aggregate all the 
talent and make sure that you provide them the highest-quality 
education, but also welcome talent from across the globe so 
that we might be the place that they see that they can do 
something really creative and innovative.
    I just want to--if I may, the previous question that you 
asked about what happens if things get invented outside of the 
United States. I say, well, fine, let's take that and see how 
we can bring it out of the marketplace faster than anybody else 
can. We have the experience here. We not only have the basic 
science, which I think--you talked about the GDP.
    I would second what Dr. Souvaine said, that we should be 
probably at 3 percent of GDP, maybe more, who knows, but I 
think we are in a global race right now, which means that we 
need to double down and invest more on basic research. That's 
absolutely paramount for us to bring the talent and not have 
the cutting on the sharp in terms of the 1.5 billion that is 
less for not being able to fund fantastic ideas.
    So we need to do that, and then we need to take those ideas 
then to see how we can translate them through partnerships. It 
is suggested 73 percent of our 542 billion of R&D is in 
businesses. How do we take the partnership to take that as well 
as the interagency partnership, other agencies, which have a 
mandate, mission agencies, to take ideas and then translate 
them into, you know, products and services?
    So that's what we need to focus on. How do we get more of a 
pipeline of ideas from the basic science to the end product, 
partnership with industry, aggregation of talent from across 
the globe? We have to look at all of the above and more in 
order for us to be in the vanguard.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Dr. Panch.
    And then I'll turn it over to Senator Baldwin. One last 
question on the young investigators. How do we get more of the 
dollars, grants, programs to these younger scientists, 
researchers that you're talking about? Is it a matter of saying 
we're going to have X percent of dollars are going to, you 
know, the first 10 years of work? Is it something else? I mean, 
how would we do that?
    Dr. Blank. I think you have to have some very explicit 
guidelines about what percentage of dollars, or what types of 
projects are targeted on younger investigators. That will mean 
probably limiting some of the multiple RO1 grants to more 
senior investigators, but we've got to be keeping our feed corn 
growing, right?
    Senator Gardner. Because I think in the previous panels, we 
heard that a person may only get one grant or one shot at 
dollars from NSF or others throughout their entire career and 
maybe it happens 40 years into the career, maybe it happens 3 
years into the career, but we should be doing better than that, 
I think.
    Senator Baldwin.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My questions really dovetail with your question. In 2016, 
President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act which 
included my Next Generation Researchers Act. This law was 
focused on NIH.
    It was focused on NIH promoting opportunities for young 
researchers, and it was a real interest of mine as I truly 
encountered folks who were attending the University of 
Wisconsin--Madison with the dream of curing something or 
solving some mystery and yet recognizing in their academic 
training that the average NIH major first grant is given to 
somebody who's around 43 years old and after all that training 
and postdoc training, et cetera, they've got to have a lot of 
faith in those opportunities.
    So what it directed NIH to do was really promote 
opportunities, very targeted opportunities for young 
researchers, both intramurally and extramurally, to coordinate 
the programs in a single office that was focused on this issue, 
and, also included mentorship and other opportunities along 
that thinking.
    What I want to ask, and I guess I want to start with you, 
Dr. Panchanathan, close?
    Dr. Panchanathan. Yes, very close, very good.
    Senator Baldwin. We have other Federal agencies that fund 
research. What sort of approach would lend itself to developing 
that next generation of researchers in other Federal agencies? 
Would that same model work for NSF or others, or would you 
promote a novel approach in other agencies? What are best 
practices in this regard?
    Dr. Panchanathan. I think fundamentally, talent, idea 
generations and talent is something that we should focus on. 
Whichever agency that it is, it doesn?t matter. It is about 
ideas and it is about talent.
    Then the next question is, what do we focus on in each 
agency? Mission agencies are specific missions in terms of what 
they need to accomplish. So they need to not only focus on 
ideas and talent, but how do you take that into what the 
mission is to be supported for, in the case of NASA or 
Department of Energy, having both Office of Science as well as 
the EER and others.
    NSF clearly is about ideas and talent. We need to build 
that at scale. Our future is guaranteed in terms of 
competitiveness only if we have the ability to be able to 
invest sufficiently to have these ideas and talent at scale. We 
will lose otherwise.
    So I think this is very important, and the point was made 
very clearly. So I don't want to over-emphasize it, but it is 
to be emphasized that that is an exceedingly important 
imperative.
    So each agency has to determine how that concept of ideas 
and talent can be scaled, and then shape it to what the 
specific mission is. So if it is DARPA, then take a grand 
challenge problem, ideas and talent again, but then solving the 
particular problem. That's why I'm bullish about this fact and 
why I started this with my comments in my statement. These big 
ideas that we are working on are the ways in which you get to 
be highly competitive by picking those areas, like industries 
of the future. These areas are being picked because we can be 
globally competitive in that area and we cannot lose ground.
    So you pick those areas and make that your mission and that 
mission is shared mission. Sometimes the missions are specific 
to agencies but some are shared missions. AI, to me, is a 
shared mission. Every agency has to make sure, and that's why 
I'm again very delighted to see the White House efforts in 
terms of bringing the interagency efforts around AI.
    We need to do more of that in my view, and then bring in 
industry partners and other nonprofit agencies and foundations 
who are also investing a lot of resources, all to the table so 
that we can solve them together.
    I hope I answered your question.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
    Dr. Blank, do you have anything to add on this idea of 
supporting the next generation? Should we depart from the model 
we used at NIH, or is that the best practice for all of the 
agencies that fund basic science at academic institutions?
    Dr. Blank. So I think many of the agencies, including the 
NSF, as well as NIH and others, fund graduate students, fund 
postdocs, and that's really important for building the pipeline 
and gives us larger numbers of graduates in a lot of the 
science areas than we would have without that funding.
    So I don't want to say that we're not providing funding to 
some of the younger researchers, and then I think there just 
has to be a share of grants that are directed to people early 
in their careers. You know, we're losing lots of good 
researchers because they simply don't want to wait, you know, 
so far into their career that it is actually age 43 or later 
before they start setting up their own lab. They're excited 
about the science. They want to do it sooner.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Baldwin, and I think 
they just called the second vote. So we'll go through maybe one 
more round, if you want, then probably have to adjourn for 
votes.
    But just we passed the American Innovation and 
Competitiveness Act, signed into law in January 2017, right at 
the end of that Congress.
    One of the big focuses in the bill was to make sure that we 
were sort of reforming, rethinking the way the Federal 
Government approaches STEM programs to make sure that we were 
attracting underrepresented communities, minorities, women, 
into the field.
    Has the Act succeeded? I know we've got more years to go 
and more work to do. Is it a good start? Have we seen positive 
traction from that legislation with more to do, Dr. Souvaine? 
If you don't feel like you can comment on it, then that's fine.
    Dr. Souvaine. I think definitely there's positive traction, 
but I think that in light of the last question, as well, I 
think if one were to look at the $1.6 billion of highly ranked 
proposals that were not funded at the last year, I suspect, and 
I would have to go back and check, that that's 
disproportionately younger people and so you have people who 
are submitting really, really strong proposals and they don't 
really know what else to do to get funded and there's just not 
quite enough to fund at the level that we funded in the past.
    So I think, yes, the Act is doing a tremendous amount of 
good and, yes, every bit of funding that Congress has awarded 
to NSF is being put to good use. I'm incredibly impressed by 
the leadership of NSF and how they're doing all the balancing, 
and I wouldn't want to skew the way they're making decisions 
with the funding that's there, but as we go forward, if we can 
right-size, if we can have an out-of-cycle adjustment, if you 
will, to get to a point and then sustain from there, but we may 
have a gap right now in where we ought to be and where we are.
    Senator Gardner. Does anybody else wish to answer that 
question?
    [No response.]
    Senator Gardner. OK. Dr. Shaw, in your testimony, you 
mentioned partnerships with the private sector.
    Is there anything we can be doing right now to facilitate 
that? Perhaps there's a regulation that's getting in the way. 
Is there something more we could be doing from an incentive 
standpoint on the collaboration and partnership front?
    Dr. Shaw. I don't know that there's a lot of regulation 
that needs to be removed as much as there needs to be an overt 
and very conscious effort to really put more focus on that.
    One of the programs that I mentioned in my testimony was 
the FAA Center of Excellence that we have with unmanned 
aircraft systems. That program actually requires a one-to-one 
cost share from the private sector or from non-governmental 
sources.
    We questioned this when the award was made, but at the same 
time that's been a huge blessing for the research programs 
because at the front end, it brings industry in to help sharpen 
and define what the real issues are that need to be addressed 
with these funds. On the back end, we have a ready recipient to 
be able to receive the results and put it into implementation.
    And so I think we need to be thinking more about the 
requirements that we have or the opportunities that we're 
creating. It was earlier mentioned the opportunities that have 
been created with some other Federal programs that required 
public/private partnerships and I think we need to expand and 
explore other opportunities.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you.
    Senator Baldwin.
    Senator Baldwin. We're finding just an enormous demand for 
workers with STEM skills, including some individuals who might 
not require a 4-year degree. I know in Wisconsin, manufacturers 
are struggling to find fairly high-skilled workers and finding 
a skills gap.
    I'm also a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions Committee, and I'm keenly interested in how we 
coordinate Federal support for developing a strong STEM 
workforce in K through 12 and postsecondary education as well 
as workforce development programs that exist.
    Dr. Souvaine, I know that the National Science Board has 
just completed an examination of the skill technical workforce 
and I applaud that effort.
    I'm wondering what role that examination suggests the 
National Science Foundation play in developing that technical 
skilled workforce.
    Dr. Souvaine. I think our sense is that this is larger than 
any one agency or foundation but certainly, we're guiding the 
NSF to do a portfolio analysis to try to understand where all 
of the parts of programs that they're funding now are impacting 
this, hopefully positively.
    We also talked about the fact that the data just are not 
integrated enough across agencies across the country to really 
understand exactly where we are in this domain. So we have 
NCSES is working together with other statistical agencies and 
other colleagues at various different agencies to try to look 
together. I think they have a conference coming up in the next 
month, a workshop where they're working together to pull data 
together to look at what kinds of things need to happen next.
    So I think there's going to be a lot of work to do. Where 
can we interface with higher ed, with community colleges, with 
industry, with other Federal agencies? I know one example, and 
I'm sorry that Senator Peters had to leave already, but we were 
doing site visits and listening sessions around the country and 
we were in Michigan and saw there an example that really seemed 
to be working very well where Macomb Community College was 
partnering with Wayne State University, partnering with the 
Detroit automakers and had students who were doing their post 
high school training on the same equipment that they would be 
using if they went to work for one of the Detroit automakers, 
and they were having terrific teaching at the community college 
and empowerment of a broad constituency of students and moving 
forward.
    So they are a good example and it is a collaboration funded 
by NSF on the ATE Program.
    There were other examples in other states that we saw and 
they need to be generalized and how can we go forward? How can 
we take the best knowledge from the successful ATE Programs and 
see how within each individual state we can get partnerships 
with the state government, the state industry, the state 
universities, and the state community colleges to drive things 
forward?
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
    Dr. Panchanathan. I think here is a partnership that we 
have not talked about in this hearing, which I think is 
important--the states, cities, counties. They all play a role 
in terms of building robust STEM workforce activities. So 
that's something that we should take advantage of.
    And I leave you with one more thought, which ASU has 
pioneered recently with Starbucks. We developed this training 
program with Starbucks for the employees who are in the 
workforce right now. They call them partners. We have 13,000 of 
them enrolled in ASU programs. This gives them a chance while 
working in Starbucks to be able to get their four-year degrees, 
and they'll be productive members of society, whether they 
continue to be at Starbucks or not, that they are productive 
members of society.
    We need more of these kinds of programs that are available 
to people already in the workforce that need to re-skill, up-
skill themselves because the future of work, as you know, is 
rapidly changing and so people have to adapt and change. So we 
need to have that segment also taken care of in addition to 
developing a robust K to 12 pipeline, as well as giving them 
community college and higher education opportunities. So all of 
that is required. It takes a village.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Baldwin, very much for 
your work on this hearing, and I look forward to continuing to 
do great things in this committee's progress as it relates to 
science, R&D, and the STEM fields that we have talked about 
today.
    So thanks to all of you for your time and testimony today.
    So this is the homework assignment right now. The record 
for the hearing will remain open. This is a very gracious two 
weeks apparently for the Commerce Committee. That's a long time 
for these guys to come up with things. So two weeks, I 
apologize for the length of that.
    Upon receipt of the questions for the record, I would ask 
that you submit your responses as quickly as possible and no 
later than November 19, I would appreciate that. The responses 
and the questions will be made a part of the official record of 
this hearing.
    So thank you to all of you for your time and testimony 
today. We look forward to working with you as we find new ways 
to promote science and retain and grow U.S. leadership.
    And with that, this committee hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                         Diane Souvaine, Ph.D.
    Question 1. According to data in the National Science Board's 2020 
Indicators report, American Indians and Alaska Natives are earning 
proportionally fewer science and engineering degrees than they were in 
2000. How is the National Science Foundation engaging tribal colleges 
to address this decline?
    Answer. There have been modest gains in the absolute numbers of 
bachelor's degrees awarded to American Indians or Alaskan Natives, 
which increased from 2607 to 2844 \1\ between 2000 and 2017. I am 
concerned, however, that enrollment of these groups at 2- and 4-year 
institutions is declining despite increases in population growth, 
exacerbating a discrepancy in Native American degree attainment that 
significantly lags white students. It is important to understand the 
factors driving these trends at the state level, where culturally 
appropriate actions can be taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20197/demographic-attributes-of-
s-e-degree-recipients, Figure S2-7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For its part, the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Tribal 
Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP) provides awards to Tribal 
Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native-serving institutions, and 
Native Hawaiian-serving institutions to increase Native individuals' 
participation in STEM careers and improve the quality of STEM programs 
at TCUP-eligible institutions. Support is available to TCUP-eligible 
institutions for transformative capacity-building projects such as 
Instructional Capacity Excellence in TCUP Institutions (ICE-TI) and 
Targeted STEM Infusion Projects (TSIP).
    NSF provided $15 million for TCUP in FY 2019 and $15 million in the 
FY 2020 budget request to Congress. With NSF support, about one-third 
of the TCUs now offer Bachelor of Science degrees in STEM and STEM 
education. In 2018, a TCU received Accreditation Board for Engineering 
and Technology (ABET) accreditation for its Bachelor of Science degree 
in engineering. The accreditation was retroactive back to the TCU's 
first engineering graduate, thereby ensuring that all the college's 
engineering graduates hold ABET-accredited degrees, vastly increasing 
their employment opportunities. Additionally, with NSF support, TCUs 
have begun developing accredited Master of Science degrees in STEM 
fields, significantly increasing opportunities for their students to 
pursue advanced study and employment.
    Broadening Participation Programs. In order to unleash our full 
economic potential, all Americans should be welcome in the innovation 
economy, regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity. Recognizing this, 
the National Science Foundation has invested billions of dollars in 
programs and research to improve diversity in STEM fields. Despite this 
investment, the proportion of women earning science and engineering 
degrees has been relatively stagnant over the past decade.

    Question 2. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of the 
National Science Foundation's broadening participation programs?
    Answer. NSF has a long history of investment in broadening 
participation and, over the past two decades, an increasing number of 
women and underrepresented minorities have been awarded science and 
engineering (S&E) degrees and entered the S&E workforce.\2\ However, 
more work needs to be done to ensure that everyone, regardless of zip 
code or demographics, may participate in the S&E enterprise. To tackle 
the most persistent challenge in broadening participation--finding 
approaches that scale effectively and emphasize institutional 
transformation and system change--NSF launched its INCLUDES initiative 
(Inclusion across the Nation of Communities of Learners of 
Underrepresented Discoverers in Engineering and Science). As part of 
NSF's Big Ideas, INCLUDES is a cross-agency initiative that will build 
on prior successes and run from FY 2016 to FY 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/digest/introduction
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NSF INCLUDES Design and Development Launch Pilots (funded in FY 
2016 and FY 2017), NSF INCLUDES Alliances (funded in FY 2018 and FY 
2019), and an NSF INCLUDES Coordination Hub (funding commenced in FY 
2018) formed the foundation for the NSF INCLUDES National Network. 
Opportunities to join the NSF INCLUDES National Network have been 
extended to other NSF-funded projects through on-ramps and language in 
more than ten Education and Human Resources and Research and Related 
Activities program solicitations inviting projects that align with the 
principles of NSF INCLUDES. Other organizations (e.g., K-12 school 
districts, colleges and universities, professional organizations, 
government agencies, foundations, businesses and industries) will also 
be able to join the NSF INCLUDES National Network and support its 
goals. NSF INCLUDES Alliances will serve as test beds for designing, 
implementing, studying, and refining change models that are based on 
collective impact-style approaches. Thus, the NSF INCLUDES investment 
will provide valuable evaluation knowledge that will strengthen this 
initiative and contribute to NSF's understanding of strategies for 
addressing the Nation's most challenging diversity and inclusion 
issues.
    The agency is developing evaluation metrics to gauge the success of 
its broadening participation programs and is incorporating Learning 
Agendas into its programs. For example, by building learning questions, 
activities, and products into INCLUDES, Learning Agendas help NSF bring 
together dedicated partners, find and scale approaches that work, and 
enhance STEM opportunities for all Americans.

    Question 3. Why are we seeing so little change in participation by 
women in STEM fields?
    Answer. The numbers of women and minorities who hold S&E degrees 
and are in the S&E workforce have increased but these groups remain 
underrepresented relative to their proportion in the U.S. population, 
given the rapid increase in the number of S&E jobs overall. Over the 
past two decades, the number of women with S&E degrees increased from 
2.4 million to 58 million.\3\ In 2017, women constituted 29 percent of 
workers in S&E occupations--up from 23 percent in 1993. Among S&E 
degree holders, women represented 40 percent of employed individuals--
up from 34 percent in 1993. These numbers mask an important 
distinction: participation by women varies among STEM fields. In social 
sciences, psychology, and biological sciences, women are 
overrepresented at most degree levels. However, in fields such as 
computer sciences and mathematics, engineering, and physical sciences, 
women represent only 27 percent, 16 percent, and 29 percent of the 
workforce \4\. Our work is cut out for us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20198/demographic-trends-of-the-
s-e-workforce#women-in-the-s-e-workforce
    \4\ https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20198/demographic-trends-of-the-
s-e-workforce
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One factor that affects a woman's education or career choice is the 
environment; it must be safe, welcoming, and inclusive for all, whether 
they are in a classroom, laboratory, office, or field station. In 2018, 
NSF published new conditions on awards designed to help foster research 
and educational environments that are free from harassment. Together 
with programs to familiarize and engage women in STEM fields at an 
earlier age, we expect to accelerate progress.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to 
                         Diane Souvaine, Ph.D.
    Question. In a budget priority memo released on August 30, 2019, 
Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier 
listed ``protecting American research assets'' as a cross-cutting 
priority action, widely considered to be a direct reference to cracking 
down on Federal scientists in the United States with foreign ties. 
Sixty scientific societies released a letter speaking out against the 
exclusion of foreign-born scientists and expressing the need to 
maintain national security without compromising an open, collaborative 
scientific environment. If enacted, what effect would these 
exclusionary priorities and approaches have on U.S. research and 
development leadership?
    Answer. In his budget priority memo of August 30, 2019, Dr. 
Droegemeier stated that continuing our Nation's success in American 
leadership in S&T will depend on ``striking a balance between the 
openness of our research ecosystem and the protection of our ideas and 
research outcomes.'' The November 19, 2019 Senate Homeland Security & 
Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Oversight Committee 
hearing on ``Securing the U.S. Research Enterprise from China's Talent 
Recruitment Plans'' sounded similar themes. Among the bipartisan 
observations were:

   The essential role of foreign talent in the U.S. S&E 
        ecosystem

   The need to avoid profiling individuals based on their 
        country of origin

   The need for U.S. S&T to play a key role in the 
        international system of science

   The need to thoughtfully respond to the weaknesses in our 
        system that the Chinese talent programs have exposed to ensure 
        that we protect the American taxpayers' investments in S&E 
        research.

    The National Science Board's 2018 statement on Security and Science 
has also taken a similarly nuanced approach. Our statement reinforced 
that the pursuit of knowledge is a universal global enterprise, best 
undertaken through an open exchange of ideas and sharing of outcomes. 
At the same time, it also observed that there are sensitive areas of 
research in which national security considerations must prevail and 
called for dialog about any proposed changes to National Security 
Decision Directive-189. NSB has also stressed that U.S. universities 
and colleges must help promote scientific openness and integrity and 
safeguard information that impacts national security and economic 
competitiveness, including rigorously adhering to conflict of interest 
and conflict of commitment policies.
    The Board's position is that if the U.S. continues to conduct its 
S&E enterprise consistent with the principled traditions that have 
yielded the success of the past 75 years, the benefits it realizes from 
nurturing a global community of similarly principled partners will far 
outweigh the losses it may suffer as a result of the openness it 
champions.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to 
                         Diane Souvaine, Ph.D.
    Question 1. I was pleased that you mentioned during the hearing the 
National Science Board's visit to Michigan to see the collaboration 
between Macomb Community College, Wayne State University, and Detroit 
automakers, a collaboration funded by the NSF's Advanced Technological 
Education (ATE) Program. Training our young people in skilled jobs is 
vital to ensuring a strong workforce moving forward. However, according 
to the World Economic Forum, 65 percent of children today will work in 
jobs that currently don't exist. I have introduced legislation on this 
topic to ensure we are tracking these trends related to new 
technologies--like automation and AI--at the Department of Labor to 
inform our workforce development strategies. Can you share your 
thoughts on what tools we need to prepare students for the jobs of 
tomorrow?
    Answer. Understanding the U.S. STEM workforce, and what is needed 
to ensure that this workforce is inclusive and leverages the ability 
and curiosity of all our people, has been an NSB priority for several 
years. Any successful strategy to prepare our students for the jobs of 
tomorrow must include a strong commitment to STEM education for all 
demographic groups and in all geographic regions, beginning in primary 
school and continuing across all levels of education. To prepare the 
Nation for the jobs of the future, we also need to address the 
misperceptions that STEM is just for scientists. We must improve STEM 
education here in the U.S., for example by giving everyone the 
opportunity for hands-on learning starting at an early age. We must 
provide all citizens with the skills necessary for the new economy, 
including critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, 
communication, collaboration, and persistence. We must change the mind-
set that learning occurs just in school or just for certain age groups; 
everyone must become a lifelong learner to adapt and thrive in a 
rapidly changing job market. Ensuring that all Americans are ready for 
the jobs of tomorrow is an ambitious goal, and one which requires the 
effort of many partners across government at all levels, working 
together with the private and non-profit sectors. Collectively, we must 
proceed with urgency and purpose to ensure that all our people are 
ready prepared.

    Question 2. Dr. Souvaine emphasized the bipartisan nature of 
support for science and research. In 2016, thanks to the leadership of 
Sen. Gardner and then-Chairman Thune and Senator Nelson, we were able 
to pass the first major update to Federal research policy in more than 
a decade. One of the things our bill included was an emphasis on the 
need to encourage underrepresented people in the STEM fields. According 
to a study by Michigan State University Professor Lisa Cook, including 
more women and African Americans in the ``initial stage of the process 
of innovation'' could increase GDP by as much as 3.3 percent per 
capita. Can you speak about the importance of diversity in science and 
innovation?
    Answer. The National Science Board believes that America's 
demographic diversity is a distinct competitive advantage. Research 
shows that diverse companies have better strategies, are more 
innovative, and win economically. Diversification of our STEM-capable 
workforce must become a higher priority, as, according to the Census 
Bureau, by 2042 our country will be a majority-minority nation. The 
talents of minority groups in the U.S. may be our greatest untapped S&E 
resource. To be competitive in the 21st century global economy, which 
is increasingly driven by scientific and technological innovation, we 
must utilize the abilities and creativity of all our citizens, in all 
demographics and at all education levels, while continuing to welcome 
talent from across the globe. The 2020 Science and Engineering 
Indicators report on the S&E Labor Force documents that the absolute 
numbers of women and minorities who hold S&E degrees and are in the S&E 
workforce have increased. These groups remain significantly 
underrepresented relative to their proportion in the U.S. population, 
however, given the rapid increase in the number of S&E jobs overall. 
Therefore, while we recognize that we have had demonstratable success 
at welcoming more women and underrepresented minorities into the S&E 
workforce, nonetheless, the country needs these participation rates to 
increase even more rapidly.
    For its part, NSF has embraced this challenge through numerous 
programs, including one of its Big Ideas, Inclusion across the Nation 
of Communities of Learners of Underrepresented Discoverers in 
Engineering and Science (INCLUDES); the Established Program to 
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR); and the Advanced Technological 
Education (ATE) program. These and other programs operate within both 
the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) and the S&E 
research directorates.

    Question 3. We included language in the American Innovation and 
Competitiveness Act to help root out unnecessary paperwork. Can you 
comment on the interactions you have with government funding agencies--
and what, if any, unnecessary red tape still exists?
    Answer. The language in AICA was very helpful in realizing 
recommendations from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, 
and Medicine,\5\ the Government Accountability Office,\6\ and the 
National Science Board.\7\ In response, OSTP has created a dedicated 
subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC's) 
Joint Committee on the Research Environment (JCORE)--the subcommittee 
on Coordinating Administrative Requirements for Research. Having 
participated recently in the JCORE summit, I commend this effort to 
coordinate agency policies related to Federal grant processes, and in 
particular the efforts to engage and hear from the research community. 
I also note that members of NSF senior management co-chair all four of 
the JCORE subcommittees, actively engaging across funding agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ National Academies report Optimizing the Nation's Investment in 
Academic Research (2016).
    \6\ Government Accountability Office report Federal Research 
Grants: Opportunities Remain for Agencies to Streamline Administrative 
Requirements (2016).
    \7\ National Science Board report Reducing Investigators' 
Administrative Workload for Federally Funded Research (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For our part, NSF and the Board are always seeking to balance 
effective grants management and the workload imposed on both 
universities and NSF program officers. Broadly speaking, we are 
pursuing improved use of persistent digital identifiers (such as ORCID) 
and research profiles to reduce the administrative work associated with 
applying for and reporting on Federal grants. NSF is working closely 
with NIH, for example, to use its SciENcv system to simplify reporting 
on qualifications and current and pending support.
    Despite these efforts and those of Congress, however, preliminary 
reports from the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) indicate that 
the time faculty spend on administrative activities rather than 
research is not decreasing. While frustrating, I believe this reflects 
two factors. First, some of the activities cited here, such as JCORE, 
have not yet had enough time to impact FDP's surveys. Second, it is 
important to recognize that red tape is not something that is cut once. 
While it would be tempting to point to the mythical Hydra, doing so 
trivializes an important consideration: many of the regulations deemed 
``red tape'' are important for protecting public health, safety, and 
financial integrity. Nowhere is this more apparent right now than in 
efforts to assure research is free from improper foreign influence. 
Full disclosure of conflict of commitment, for example, is important 
for national security.
    Regulations have and will continue to evolve as agencies improve. 
As this happens it is vital for all involved, including NSB, 
continuously to seek opportunities to minimize the burdens associated 
with administrative regulations. I believe that the level of awareness 
of the costs imposed on researchers and research institutions and the 
processes now in place for coordinating burden reduction activities are 
the best I've seen in over a decade on the Board.

    Question 4. Michigan's University Research Corridor is #1 in the 
country for producing medicine and biological science graduates--this 
is a boon to our state on a number of fronts including research, 
employment, and quality of the work we produce in this field. Can you 
share any insights you have on research clusters and how they foster 
innovation and economic growth?
    Answer. There has been a persistent link between research 
investment and economic growth. The National Center for Science and 
Engineering Statistics (NCSES) housed at NSF found a strong, positive 
correlation between business R&D spending in an area and the area's 
gross domestic product (GDP)\8\: areas with greater amounts of business 
R&D spending tend to have larger GDPs. The same situation applies to 
federally-supported research. An example of research clusters related 
to NSF is the Engineering Research Center Program (ERC). ERCs were 
initiated in 1985 as government-university-industry partnerships with 
an objective to advance U.S. industrial competitiveness. Since then, 
NSF has funded 67 ERCs across the United States. NSF funds each ERC at 
$3 million to $5 million per year for up to 10 years, during which time 
the centers build robust partnerships with industry, universities, and 
other government entities that can ideally sustain them upon graduation 
from NSF support. ERCs are credited with producing hundreds of millions 
of dollars of regional and national economic benefits.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19322/nsf19322.pdf
    \9\ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24767/a-new-vision-for-center-
based-engineering-research
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We call your attention to the testimony of Dr. David Shaw, Provost 
and Executive Vice President of Mississippi State University (MSU), who 
also spoke at this hearing. As Dr. Shaw stated, ``Federal research 
investment has made a tremendous difference in our state. MSU won a 
National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center in 1990 focused 
on computational field simulation. We have many success stories that 
came from that ERC but none more important than how it was used to 
attract Nissan to the state of Mississippi. We leveraged the ERC to 
create a new Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems (CAVS) with a 
combination of basic research and industrial outreach to support the 
automotive industry in the state. In the past 10 years, CAVS has an 
impact of over $2.9 billion in the state through jobs saved or created. 
Without that NSF investment, none of this would have been possible.''

    Question 5. Michigan blueberry growers produce about 100 million 
pounds of blueberries--in part because three of the most widely planted 
blueberry varieties were developed through agriculture research in our 
state--lengthening the harvesting season and increasing blueberry 
production. There was not much discussion in the testimony about 
agriculture research, but given how important is to our Nation's 
economy and to every American, can you comment on the importance of 
agriculture research to our food supply and public health?
    Answer. Agricultural research is essential to our food supply and 
provides research-based information in nutrition that contributes to 
public health. The National Science Foundation (NSF) contributes to 
agricultural research by funding foundational research that can 
eventually lead to new crop varieties, more flavorful berries, more 
effective pollination and crop protection, and more efficient 
harvesting. NSF-supported, agriculture-relevant research spans the 
gamut from the fundamentals of plant and animal genomics, plant 
physiology, and biochemistry to machine learning and robotics.
    NSF-supported research, in turns, lays a foundation for the basic 
and applied research programs supported by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA). 
NIFA's competitive grant programs directly support agricultural 
research at land grant universities like Michigan State University and 
other experimental stations. These programs support other types of 
foundational research but are also focused on research that translates 
research findings to the specific needs of producers and industry.

    Question 6. Michigan is home to 15 research universities and is 
among the top 10 states in the country for R&D. One of the challenges 
that academia has had is the divide between town & gown and in 
communicating how the work that's done in the ivory tower makes a 
difference in people's everyday lives. Can you talk about what 
opportunities you see in improving this divide?
    Answer. NSF funding provides opportunities to bridge this divide by 
helping researchers connect with their local communities and convey how 
science and engineering research improves people's lives, contributes 
to the economy, and supports national security. For example, Montcalm 
Community College in Sidney, MI has received NSF funds to host hands-on 
activities involving robots at high school and adult education schools 
to illustrate the rewards of a career in automation and 
manufacturing.\10\ In another project, researchers at Central Michigan 
University will engage undergraduates from underrepresented groups in 
discussions on opportunities in biological sciences through a series of 
workshops and other activities that include shadowing museum 
professionals.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Educating Robot Maintenance and Repair Technicians to Address 
Workforce Gaps in Automation and Skilled Trades. Award Number: 1902516.
    \11\ Engaging Underrepresented Populations in Biodiversity 
Sciences: A Series of Workshops for Undergraduate Students. Award 
Number: 1746715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, NSF publishes one-page factsheets for each state that 
describe how NSF funding supports discovery research that benefits 
people's lives, supports students, and develops the STEM workforce.\12\ 
The National Science Board also publishes one-pagers for each state 
that provide a broad perspective on the S&E landscape, such as levels 
of R&D investment and the number of people employed in STEM fields.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://nsf.gov/news/factsheets/michigan_factsheet.pdf
    \13\ https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/sei/one-pagers/Michigan-2018.pdf

    Question 7. The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act 
included the Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science Act [authored by Sen. 
Coons] to encourage broader input from the public. We've seen agencies 
start to use crowdsourcing as a way to harness increasingly prevalent 
data that can inform science and research endeavors. Can you speak to 
how your institution is leveraging or encouraging crowdsourcing to 
improve research?
    Answer. NSF primarily supports crowdsourcing and citizen science 
via grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other funding 
mechanisms to non-Federal entities. NSF leverages and encourages 
crowdsourcing to improve research in three overlapping ways: (1) 
funding innovative research that includes crowdsourcing approaches, (2) 
funding research activities that increase our collective knowledge of 
how to apply crowdsourcing effectively to advance research--the science 
and practice of crowdsourcing, and (3) leveraging crowdsourcing as a 
mechanism to increase public participation in scientific research and 
learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). 
NSF-funded crowdsourcing and citizen science programs even before the 
enactment of the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act and sees 
these programs as integral to broadening the participation of all 
Americans in our innovation ecosystem. Below are three examples of NSF-
funded awards that use crowdsourcing.
    Eyes on the future: optimizing science output for the next 
generation surveys with joint crowdsourced and automated classification 
techniques. Award Number: 1716602; Principal Investigator: Claudia 
Scarlata; Co-Principal Investigator: Lucy Fortson; Organization: 
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities; Start Date: 09/01/2017; Award 
Amount: $654,657.00.
    SCH: INT: Collaborative Research: Crowd in Action: Human-Centric 
Privacy-Preserving Data Analytics for Environmental Public Health Award 
Number: 1722791; Principal Investigator: Yuguang Fang; Organization: 
University of Florida; Start Date: 09/01/2017; Award Amount: 
$413,000.00.
    Collaborative Research: Improving Student Learning in Hydrology & 
Water Resources Engineering by Enabling the Development, Sharing and 
Interoperability of Active Learning Resources Award Number:1726667; 
Principal Investigator: Daniel Ames; Co-Principal Investigator: James 
Nelson; Organization: Brigham Young University; Start Date: 09/01/2017; 
Award Amount: $250,118.00.
    In addition, with its 2026 Idea Machine, NSF asked researchers, the 
public, and other interested stakeholders to propose ideas that could 
help set the agenda in research and engineering. The competition is 
still ongoing, and a collection of video pitches can be found at 
https://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/good-bye?https://nsf2026imgal
lery.skild.com/

    Question 8. Dr. Panchanathan referenced the National Science 
Foundation's ``10 Big Ideas''--this is a way to help spark major leaps 
in research and innovation and get big ideas off the ground. Do you 
have thoughts on how we may be able to expand this approach to other 
fields or agencies?
    Answer. The growth of big data and empirical modeling is 
transforming discovery science, much like calculus changed physics and 
computers changed engineering. These tools are letting researchers 
tackle questions that eluded us in a pre-big data world. In the near 
future, we will be able to run simulations and make predictions about 
complex systems, providing immensely powerful tools to policy makers 
and companies, and benefits to all Americans.
    NSF developed its Big Ideas because it recognized the enormous 
potential of these new tools to push scientific advancements into 
heretofore unimaginable new frontiers. As the Nation's only Federal 
agency to fund basic research across all fields of science and STEM 
education, NSF tailored its Big Ideas to its mission. It is worth 
noting that many new tools, such as AI, are ripe for an explosion of 
public and private investment in part because NSF supported early-stage 
research years ago. Our approach does not necessarily translate to 
other research agencies with different missions and structures. 
However, other agencies are likewise championing initiatives in 
critical areas of science and technology to fuel our Nation's S&E 
enterprise, taking approaches that match their particular mission and 
role in the U.S. innovation ecosystem. Nonetheless, from what I have 
seen at NSF, major leaps in science and engineering can be achieved by 
embracing technology, organizational change, and the best ideas from 
the broader science and engineering community.
    Collectively, NSF and other research agencies, including the 
Department of Energy's Office of Science, the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
the National Institutes of Health, and others are striving to seize 
upon the enormous opportunities to advance promising areas of science 
and technology and thus the prosperity, health, and security of 
humanity.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                             Dr. David Shaw
    Academic Espionage. There is growing concern that other nations, 
particularly China, have developed programs to expropriate United 
States research. While it is important to protect United States 
research and intellectual property, it is also important that 
associated policies and procedures do not stymie the free flow of 
scientific information, which is crucial to the research enterprise.

    Question 1. Do you have a sense of how pervasive this problem is in 
on campus?
    Answer. Mississippi State University has regular briefings from 
relevant Federal agencies on this topic, so we are aware of the issue 
and highly sensitive to it. We have implemented a number of safeguards 
at MSU to ensure that sensitive intellectual property is secure, while 
at the same time working to maintain academic freedom to continuously 
advance science and technology.

    Question 2. How can the Federal government help universities and 
researchers protect federally funded research while maintaining the 
integrity of science in this country?
    Answer. First and foremost, an ongoing and regular dialog with 
universities is crucial to maintain scientific leadership and integrity 
while protecting national interests. We at MSU schedule regular 
briefings for senior leadership, and consistently update training 
programs for faculty and students. Second, clear guidelines must 
continue to be developed so that universities are not left guessing 
about what Federal agencies require. We realize this continues to 
evolve, but we are also continually concerned about university 
accountability without clear guidance on this accountability.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to 
                             Dr. David Shaw
    Question 1. Dr. Souvaine emphasized the bipartisan nature of 
support for science and research. In 2016, thanks to the leadership of 
Sen. Gardner and then-Chairman Thune and Senator Nelson, we were able 
to pass the first major update to Federal research policy in more than 
a decade. One of the things our bill included was an emphasis on the 
need to encourage underrepresented people in the STEM fields. According 
to a study by Michigan State University Professor Lisa Cook, including 
more women and African Americans in the ``initial stage of the process 
of innovation'' could increase GDP by as much as 3.3 percent per 
capita. Can you speak about the importance of diversity in science and 
innovation?
    Answer. Expanding diversity in science is critical for our future 
success as a nation. It is imperative if we are to ``lift all boats'' 
that all sectors of our society are engaged in science and technology. 
We must focus on being a nation of haves, not haves and have-nots. That 
is why programs such as the Established Program to Stimulate 
Competitive Research (EPSCoR) at NSF, and similar programs at other 
agencies, are placing focus on both geographic diversity as well as 
ethnic and gender diversity. Other programs important to promoting 
diversity at the early stages of innovation include the NSF I-Corp 
program. I-Corp nurtures and supports innovation and entrepreneurship 
among young scientist and engineers. At MSU we are very proud of our 
Center for Entrepreneurship. With several successful startups, 
including startups led by minority students and women, this program now 
serves 100s of students each year. This program is open to all 
students, no matter their discipline, to help them turn their 
incredible, enthusiastic ideas into startup businesses. With minorities 
and women underrepresented in science and engineering majors, having 
university entrepreneurship programs open to all students, no matter 
their major, expands opportunities to underrepresented groups in 
innovation and entrepreneurship.

    Question 2. We included language in the American Innovation and 
Competitiveness Act to help root out unnecessary paperwork. Can you 
comment on the interactions you have with government funding agencies--
and what, if any, unnecessary red tape still exists?
    Answer. This language has certainly been beneficial to help reduce 
the bureaucracy associated with research grants management. It is 
certainly a laudable goal to allow researchers to spend more time on 
research and innovation, rather than dealing with bureaucratic 
paperwork. However, while some red tape has been reduced or eliminated, 
concerns (some legitimate) in areas such as research ethics and 
compliance have actually increased the overall paperwork that 
researchers face.

    Question 3. Michigan's University Research Corridor is #1 in the 
country for producing medicine and biological science graduates--this 
is a boon to our state on a number of fronts including research, 
employment, and quality of the work we produce in this field. Can you 
share any insights you have on research clusters and how they foster 
innovation and economic growth?
    Answer. Many of the most successful innovation centers in the 
Nation have come about because of the cluster concept you mention. On a 
scale much smaller than your example in Michigan, the Thad Cochran 
Research, Technology and Economic Development Park adjacent to the MSU 
campus is doing just that. We have clustered several of the relevant 
university research centers with our business incubator and corporate 
facilities. The research park is full to overflowing, and we recently 
expanded into a downtown Starkville location because of this growth. 
Many of our land grant universities are located in rural areas. Finding 
ways to foster strong connections between research clusters born of our 
university systems and rural city centers in critical to economic 
development.

    Question 4. Michigan blueberry growers produce about 100 million 
pounds of blueberries--in part because three of the most widely planted 
blueberry varieties were developed through agriculture research in our 
state--lengthening the harvesting season and increasing blueberry 
production. There was not much discussion in the testimony about 
agriculture research, but given how important is to our Nation's 
economy and to every American, can you comment on the importance of 
agriculture research to our food supply and public health?
    Answer. Thank you for this question, as agricultural research is 
highly meaningful to our state, and our university. MSU currently ranks 
ninth in the Nation in agricultural research, and places tremendous 
emphasis on the partnership we have with the USDA Agricultural Research 
Service. Innovations in agricultural research has improved yields, 
enhanced drouth resistance, reduced pesticide usage while improving 
pest management, and provided more nutritious food products to our 
Nation and world. Agriculture research is essential to natural resource 
management and sustainability, including water, forests, soils, and 
energy. Agricultural research is also addressing some of the most 
pressing health issues we have, ranging from healthier food products to 
better understanding of the sociological dimensions of health 
disparities.

    Question 5. Michigan is home to 15 research universities and is 
among the top 10 states in the country for R&D. One of the challenges 
that academia has had is the divide between town & gown and in 
communicating how the work that's done in the ivory tower makes a 
difference in people's everyday lives. Can you talk about what 
opportunities you see in improving this divide?
    Answer. The university community has come to recognize this issue, 
and recently the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities 
published a report entitled Public Impact Research: Engaged 
Universities Making a Difference (see https://www.aplu.org/projects-
and-initiatives/research-science-and-technology/public-impact-
research.html/index.html). At MSU, we continually focus on translation 
of our research into language that is easily understood and interpreted 
by the public. This past year we hosted the Alan Alda Center for 
Communicating Science from Stoneybrook University in a two-day workshop 
for our faculty and administration.

    Question 6. The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act 
included the Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science Act [authored by Sen. 
Coons] to encourage broader input from the public. We've seen agencies 
start to use crowdsourcing as a way to harness increasingly prevalent 
data that can inform science and research endeavors. Can you speak to 
how your institution is leveraging or encouraging crowdsourcing to 
improve research?
    Answer. MSU has encouraged novel crowdsourcing approaches in both 
our research programs and our entrepreneurship center's activities. We 
have seen several startups developed by our students and faculty based 
on the concepts of crowdsourcing. We have also conducted innovative 
research that utilizes social media for both cybersecurity and 
predictive analytics capabilities.

    Question 7. Dr. Panchanathan referenced the National Science 
Foundation's ``10 Big Ideas''--this is a way to help spark major leaps 
in research and innovation and get big ideas off the ground. Do you 
have thoughts on how we may be able to expand this approach to other 
fields or agencies?
    Answer. The concept of Grand Challenges or Big Ideas is 
extraordinarily useful in stimulating trans-disciplinary approaches to 
scientific discovery. The most pressing issues facing our society 
today--e.g. water quantity and availability, health disparity, food 
security--require all of the sciences to work together if we are to 
adequately address these problems. Physical, biological, and social 
sciences are unaccustomed to working together, and barriers to these 
collaborations are as fundamental as different vocabularies associated 
with these disciplines. Big Ideas are an effective means of rallying 
disparate disciplines to come together and overcome the hurdles 
inherent with the institutional and academic barriers that typically 
exist. Society is not short on Grand Challenges, and other agencies 
should be expected to define these challenges and design programs that 
cross their own institutional barriers to develop cross-program 
collaborative efforts. This requires a fundamental rethink for the 
agencies as well, since ownership of specific programs within line 
offices and directorates is threatened when the topic crosses multiple 
lines. It is also difficult for reviewers, since each bring their own 
biases toward their own and other disciplines. Therefore, agencies must 
be required to develop specific plans to overcome these barriers, using 
lessons that have been learned from the NSF experience, to successfully 
identify research projects that can be examples of trans-disciplinary 
approaches to problem-solving.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                 Sethuraman (Panch) Panchanathan, Ph.D.
    Academic Espionage. There is growing concern that other nations, 
particularly China, have developed programs to expropriate United 
States research. While it is important to protect United States 
research and intellectual property, it is also important that 
associated policies and procedures do not stymie the free flow of 
scientific information, which is crucial to the research enterprise.

    Question 1. Do you have a sense of how pervasive this problem is in 
on campus?
    Answer. Despite the fact that academic espionage is of critical 
importance to major research universities--particularly those of us 
with a substantial international student population--our research 
concurs with most national estimates that a very high percentage of 
those collaborating with ASU or studying at ASU are doing so with 
proper intent. That being said, we have numerous safeguards in place to 
protect against academic espionage while still encouraging both 
fundamental and applied research in collaborative fashion. Some of 
ASU's institutional oversight includes:

   Hosting outreach from Homeland Security, Customs, 
        Immigrations and Border Enforcement to provide outreach and 
        guidance related to foreign influence for research operations 
        staff, research administrative staff directly supporting 
        faculty, and International Student Scholars.

   Inquiries from Federal Agencies related to Foreign 
        Influences are routed to the Office for Research and Sponsored 
        Project Administration (ORSPA) for institution investigation, 
        review and response.

   Foreign research gifts are not routed without Sponsor 
        review--the ASU Foundation routes all grants and gifts from 
        foreign sponsors through ORSPA. This assures that we do not 
        provide any sensitive material, including IP, to China or any 
        other country of concern that is not in the public domain.

   Foreign sponsors and subrecipients are vetted for restricted 
        party screening and flags restriction in ERA to ensure 
        compliance, and a risk assessment is performed in advance of 
        any contract execution.

   We monitor foreign travel to China and other countries of 
        concern for investigators who are federally funded, or whose 
        work is defense or export-related.

   We have implemented a systematic audit of foreign travel to 
        countries of concern against disclosed financial interest to 
        monitor for compliance and resolve and correct any 
        discrepancies.

    Question 2. How can the Federal government help universities and 
researchers protect federally funded research while maintaining the 
integrity of science in this country?
    Answer. Research has many threads; basic, translational and 
mission-focused. In general, academic researchers are mostly engaged in 
curiosity-driven explorations. While some areas of research, such as 
cyber, are sensitive, most basic research explorations should be 
disseminated widely, in order to ensure rapid progress through 
fundamental discoveries. Promoting global collaborations around non-
sensitive and basic areas of research are mutually beneficial and 
important. Research around sensitive themes can be managed carefully by 
strong policies and procedures, which in turn, will ensure 
competitiveness and national security. The diverse nature of research 
topics can also be effectively managed by training researchers in the 
art of ethical behavior and sound judgment.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to 
                 Sethuraman (Panch) Panchanathan, Ph.D.
    Question 1. Dr. Souvaine emphasized the bipartisan nature of 
support for science and research. In 2016, thanks to the leadership of 
Sen. Gardner and then-Chairman Thune and Senator Nelson, we were able 
to pass the first major update to Federal research policy in more than 
a decade. One of the things our bill included was an emphasis on the 
need to encourage underrepresented people in the STEM fields. According 
to a study by Michigan State University Professor Lisa Cook, including 
more women and African Americans in the ``initial stage of the process 
of innovation'' could increase GDP by as much as 3.3 percent per 
capita. Can you speak about the importance of diversity in science and 
innovation?
    Answer. Diversity in STEM is critical to ensuring innovation and 
competitiveness. Innovative mindsets inherently demand ideas that are 
representative of the broad demographic of our society. Jobs of the 
future will require STEM expertise that transcends gender, race and 
culture. An inclusive scientific environment will guarantee positive 
and beneficial outcomes. It is important that we focus on increasing 
women and minority representation in STEM to ensure a robust science & 
engineering workforce. In addition, there are an increasing number of 
jobs that require STEM skills but do not require a bachelor's degree. 
The racial/ethnic demographics of this ``skilled technical workforce'' 
closely mirror that of the U.S. as a whole, offering a pathway into the 
science & engineering workforce for a diverse population as well as 
excellent career opportunities in their own right.

    Question 2. We included language in the American Innovation and 
Competitiveness Act to help root out unnecessary paperwork. Can you 
comment on the interactions you have with government funding agencies--
and what, if any, unnecessary red tape still exists?
    Answer. Researcher burden results when multiple government agencies 
have different submission and compliance requirements; the result is 
that researchers spend a significant amount of time that could be spent 
on scientific discovery weighed down by administrative burdens. 
Creating seamless and uniform requirements and processes, where 
possible, will greatly benefit the conduct of research.

    Question 3. Michigan's University Research Corridor is #1 in the 
country for producing medicine and biological science graduates--this 
is a boon to our state on a number of fronts including research, 
employment, and quality of the work we produce in this field. Can you 
share any insights you have on research clusters and how they foster 
innovation and economic growth?
    Answer. Research clusters facilitate collaboration among different 
disciplines focused on solving grand challenge problems that have 
economic and societal benefits. The transdisciplinary fusion of ideas 
is inherently innovative, and has the potential for significant 
technology transfer outcomes. Research clusters also promote an 
environment of information and resource sharing that is pivotal to 
advance knowledge. When researchers, academics, non-profits and 
corporates work in a team, it facilitates economic growth, and 
encourages an entrepreneurial mindset.

    Question 4. Michigan blueberry growers produce about 100 million 
pounds of blueberries--in part because three of the most widely planted 
blueberry varieties were developed through agriculture research in our 
state--lengthening the harvesting season and increasing blueberry 
production. There was not much discussion in the testimony about 
agriculture research, but given how important is to our Nation's 
economy and to every American, can you comment on the importance of 
agriculture research to our food supply and public health?
    Answer. Agricultural research is critical to ensuring access to 
safe, reliable, sustainable food and water sources for all Americans. 
As the world's population continues to expand, agricultural research 
plays a role in ensuring a safe, available food supply for the U.S., as 
well as bolstering U.S. crop exports, which has a direct correlation to 
our Nation's economic prosperity. Exploration of and research into new 
growing and harvesting techniques, animal husbandry, food storage and 
preservation, mitigation of crop damage due to weather and pests, and 
drought-tolerant farming are all key areas of agricultural research.

    Question 5. Michigan is home to 15 research universities and is 
among the top 10 states in the country for R&D. One of the challenges 
that academia has had is the divide between town & gown and in 
communicating how the work that's done in the ivory tower makes a 
difference in people's everyday lives. Can you talk about what 
opportunities you see in improving this divide?
    Answer. Being embedded in the communities in which universities 
operate is a key element in resolving this divide. It is incumbent upon 
university leadership to ensure students, faulty and staff are good 
citizens of the university towns in which they reside. Like Michigan 
universities, ASU is deeply committed to a strong town & gown 
partnership. We work closely with our cities in the metropolitan 
Phoenix area, the county, and the state to ensure our contribution to 
robust economic development. Part of ASU's charter speaks to this 
effort: ``ASU is a comprehensive public research university, measured 
not by whom it excludes, but by whom it includes and how they succeed; 
advancing research and discovery of public value; and assuming 
fundamental responsibility for the economic, social, cultural, and 
overall health of the communities it serves.''

    Question 6. The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act 
included the Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science Act [authored by Sen. 
Coons] to encourage broader input from the public. We've seen agencies 
start to use crowdsourcing as a way to harness increasingly prevalent 
data that can inform science and research endeavors. Can you speak to 
how your institution is leveraging or encouraging crowdsourcing to 
improve research?
    Answer. We have several groups at Arizona State University that 
harness the power of crowdsourcing, bringing together data sets for 
distribution to the community. It's not restricted to any one 
discipline or audience. Open datasets are accessible to all to allow 
for many different minds to be engaged in solving problems. This 
approach lets us operate at scale--the more minds reviewing projects, 
the greater our research potential. We also utilize a form of 
crowdsourcing internally, called a Spark Session. Sessions bring 
together staff, decision-makers, subject matter experts and students to 
examine a specific issue. The group develops solutions and selects 
viable options, as well as plans for implementation.

    Question 7. Dr. Panchanathan referenced the National Science 
Foundation's ``10 Big Ideas''--this is a way to help spark major leaps 
in research and innovation and get big ideas off the ground. Do you 
have thoughts on how we may be able to expand this approach to other 
fields or agencies?
    Answer. The NSF's 10 Big Ideas is a great platform for bringing 
together researchers from different disciplines focused on solving 
grand challenge problems that have a direct impact on scaling 
discovery, solutions, tech transfer and entrepreneurship. This approach 
needs to be scaled across all agencies and through interagency 
partnerships and corporate collaborations. For example, the problem of 
ensuring potable water across the Nation requires the bringing together 
of multidisciplinary scholars and practitioners from academia, 
industry, government and non-profits toward finding sustainable 
solutions.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                            Rebecca M. Blank
    Academic Espionage. There is growing concern that other nations, 
particularly China, have developed programs to expropriate United 
States research. While it is important to protect United States 
research and intellectual property, it is also important that 
associated policies and procedures do not stymie the free flow of 
scientific information, which is crucial to the research enterprise.

    Question 1. Do you have a sense of how pervasive this problem is on 
campus?
    Answer. We do not have evidence of major security problems related 
to research and intellectual property on our campus. However, we know 
the potential exists for problems--particularly in interactions with 
China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran.
    As you point out, these issues require a balancing act. We need to 
address them in a manner consistent with our culture of openness and 
collaboration.
    UW has taken a number of steps to do this. For example:

    We have a Security Concerns Group with membership from faculty and 
the administration, as well as representatives from key campus offices 
such as legal affairs, research compliance, export control, and 
information technology. The group works to develop policies, 
procedures, and strategies related to our activities that involve 
foreign entities.
    We also have expanded the questions we ask on the report that all 
faculty and academic staff are required to submit annually to disclose 
outside activities. Faculty and staff are now required to report a much 
broader set of interactions with foreign entities. Federal agencies 
including NIH, NSF, DOD, and DOE also now require enhanced reporting--
and part of our work is to ensure that our researchers are up to date 
on these changing requirements.
    Stronger security may protect intellectual property, but we must be 
on guard against an overly aggressive approach that can have a chilling 
effect on important research and discourage top scholars from coming to 
the U.S.

    Question 2. How can the Federal Government help universities and 
researchers protect federally funded research while maintaining the 
integrity of science in this country?
    Answer. Safeguarding against academic espionage requires, first and 
foremost, excellent communication between universities and Federal 
agencies (not just Federal funding agencies, but national security 
agencies such as the FBI).
    It is critical to have processes for policymaking and decision 
making that are as transparent as possible. Universities need access to 
information about cases involving NIH, NSF or other agencies. It is 
helpful for us to know, for example, whether appropriate rules were 
followed, how the misconduct was discovered, and other details that 
could be useful in improving our own systems.
    Universities are also looking for uniformity in the way Federal 
agencies define research misconduct, and consistency in the agencies' 
responses to allegations of misconduct. Another issue in the handling 
of some research misconduct cases relates to delays in reaching the 
inquiry and investigation stages.
    Finally, it is important that Federal agencies maintain a firm 
commitment to supporting the principles of academic freedom and 
understanding the importance of academic collaboration with a global 
pool of talent.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to 
                            Rebecca M. Blank
    Question 1. We appreciated your decade-long tenure at the Ford 
School at the University of Michigan--particularly your creation of the 
National Poverty Center--which does tremendous multidisciplinary work. 
Can you share the history of the National Poverty Center and some of 
your insights on the cross disciplinary approach that they employ?
    Answer. While I was dean, we sought--and received--funding from the 
Federal Government to start the National Poverty Center (NPC) at the 
Ford School at the University of Michigan (UM). While the Federal 
Government no longer provides core funding for the NPC, it has been 
successful at raising funds from multiple foundations for its projects 
and has received support from UM as well.
    One reason this center worked well at the Ford School was the 
interdisciplinary nature of that school. It included faculty trained in 
economics, political science, sociology, and other areas. UM also has a 
strong tradition of interdisciplinary research and collaboration within 
the social sciences. While I was dean, we created an interdisciplinary 
Ph.D. program at the Ford School, which admits students to a joint 
degree program between the School and one of these three social science 
departments. The group that worked on this project, together with the 
collaborative social science tradition at UM, made the National Poverty 
Center almost immediately successful in involving in faculty and 
students in its seminars and research programs.
    Like many areas of scientific inquiry, the study of poverty is 
often more revealing when questions are looked at through multiple 
disciplinary lenses. The employment challenges facing poor families 
interact with government programs and politics, and also interact with 
the family dynamic and demographic dynamics. The National Poverty 
Center continues to thrive because of the important research projects 
it has helped sponsor and the strong group of faculty who are involved.
    I would also note that the University of Wisconsin--Madison is home 
to the first federally funded poverty center in the U.S., the Institute 
for Research on Poverty (IRP). IRP has received core Federal funding 
for over 50 years and is currently the only national poverty research 
center funded by HHS.
    Like UM, UW has a strong collaborative tradition in the social 
sciences. Our IRP has sponsored important research on poverty 
throughout its 50 years, involving faculty from the social sciences, 
and including psychology, public health, and other areas.

    Question 2. In your testimony, you cited a paper titled the 
Economic Evaluation of the War on Cancer--noting that research 
investments also create economic benefits from improved treatments or 
better products and services. Can you expound on the economic point you 
are making here about the sometimes hidden value of basic research?
    Answer. If you look at the sources of economic growth over the past 
40 years, about one-third is due to growth in the number of people or 
in the skills of the workforce. The other two-thirds is driven by 
innovation. This includes new products as well as new processes that 
allow companies to operate more efficiently.
    Innovation comes out of the discovery process academics call 
research. While applied research focuses on solving a specific problem, 
basic research aims to expand knowledge in a given field. Basic 
research is often underappreciated since its contribution is less easy 
to understand in the short run. Typically, it's highly theoretical 
without any immediate or obvious application. But today's basic 
research is the basis for tomorrow's innovation in industry.
    Basic research done in the 1950s and 1960s in engineering, 
electronics, early computers, and materials science led to the 
explosion of new technologies that have transformed our world, 
including personal computers, mobile phones, and GPS.
    Basic biological research from past decades is now leading to a 
revolution in medicine, with individually targeted treatments based on 
personal genomic information.
    The majority of basic research is conducted at universities--and 
the Federal Government funds a large share of it. Public support for 
this research is necessary, as very few private companies are investing 
in basic and more theoretical research.

    Question 3. You noted the importance of translational research--
helping bridge fundamental discoveries to a point where they can be 
applied and utilized in products and services. Can you talk about this 
divide--and the importance of investments in translational research?
    Answer. While basic research forms the foundation of all future 
discoveries, it's also vital that we find ways to apply this knowledge 
in practical ways. There needs to be a continuum of investment from 
foundational to applied lines of investigation.
    For example, 20 years ago, UW--Madison researchers isolated human 
embryonic stem cells. Today, the use of stem cells in research is 
central to developing new treatments for a growing number of diseases.
    These applications are possible because of decades of further 
investment and investigation in what began as a basic discovery. 
Bipartisan support for this work was critical. At the same time, 
continued investment in basic research allowed our scientists to 
develop induced pluripotent stem cells, which are derived from skin 
cells and provide new opportunities for personalized medicine.
    Another example of how translational research grows from basic 
research comes from quantum computing. For decades, Federal funding has 
supported university research that advanced our knowledge of quantum 
physics. This research has already led to many new technologies, 
including the MRIs in our hospitals. We are now rapidly progressing 
toward practical quantum computers, which are important to national 
cybersecurity and promise a wealth of other useful applications.
    UW--Madison is a leader in this emerging field, and we are training 
the next generation of quantum computer scientists who will enter a 
rapidly growing job market that didn't exist a decade ago.

    Question 4. Dr. Souvaine emphasized the bipartisan nature of 
support for science and research. In 2016, thanks to the leadership of 
Sen. Gardner and then-Chairman Thune and Senator Nelson, we were able 
to pass the first major update to Federal research policy in more than 
a decade. One of the things our bill included was an emphasis on the 
need to encourage underrepresented people in the STEM fields. According 
to a study by Michigan State University Professor Lisa Cook, including 
more women and African Americans in the ``initial stage of the process 
of innovation'' could increase GDP by as much as 3.3 percent per 
capita. Can you speak about the importance of diversity in science and 
innovation?
    Answer. The research on this is clear. Diversity drives creativity 
and innovation in problem solving and design, and a lack of diversity 
can lead to design oversights that may have serious consequences. The 
classic example is the first generation of automobile airbags, which 
gave optimal protection for a person the size of an average adult male 
but were lethal for smaller drivers. Diverse perspectives are also 
important to identifying research questions and innovative areas for 
future funding and investigation.
    U.S. universities play a critical role in STEM innovation and carry 
the responsibility for educating the next generation of innovators. 
However, faculty and students at U.S. universities currently fall far 
short of reflecting national gender demographics in most STEM fields 
and racial or ethnic demographics in every STEM field. Additionally, 
losses incurred at each level of career progression are 
disproportionately high for underrepresented populations.
    To take full advantage of opportunities for future STEM innovation, 
it is imperative that we take full advantage of our talent pool. That 
means universities must continue efforts to eliminate disparities in 
our student and faculty STEM populations. Accelerating the pace of 
change requires efforts directed at multiple groups: faculty, 
postdoctoral researchers, graduate students, undergraduate students and 
pre-college students.
    At UW--Madison, one of these efforts is the Women in Science and 
Engineering Leadership Institute. The institute leads training for 
faculty search committees, training on unconscious bias, and workshops 
to support department chairs in improving workplace climate.

    Question 5. We included language in the American Innovation and 
Competitiveness Act to help root out unnecessary paperwork. Can you 
comment on the interactions you have with government funding agencies--
and what, if any, unnecessary red tape still exists?
    Answer. The 2018 Federal Demonstration Partnership Faculty Workload 
Survey reveals that, nationally, on average, principal investigators on 
Federal grants and contracts spent 44.3 percent of their time on 
administrative tasks related to these grants in 2017 (UW--Madison was 
comparable at 43.1 percent). The national average reflects a 2 percent 
increase over what was reported in the 2012 survey.
    The most time-consuming responsibilities are report preparation, 
project finances, and activities related to compliance with rules on 
animal subjects, human subjects, laboratory safety, and national 
security.
    It's important to note that Federal regulations help to ensure 
research integrity and increase access to research data and results, 
and also protect human and animal subjects in research. But excessive 
regulation creates unnecessary costs and slows (in some cases stops) 
valuable research.
    Congress has worked to reduce the administrative burden, but more 
action is needed at the Federal level. For example:

   Standardizing requirements across agencies

   Standardizing grant application forms

   Giving universities, in some cases, more flexibility to 
        assess and manage risks for certain requirements

   Addressing ineffective and outdated regulations that do not 
        improve animal welfare

   Developing a standard set of assurances for grant applicants 
        and recipients to eliminate the need to make multiple 
        assurances on a grant-by-grant basis and eliminate the need for 
        funding agencies to review assurances on each grant 
        application. The Federal Government receives over 200,000 grant 
        applications every year that require the completion of 
        assurances.

    We appreciate your continued work in this important area.
    More on the results of the 2018 Federal Demonstration Partnership 
Faculty Workload Survey is available here: http://thefdp.org/default/
assets/File/Presentations/
FDP%20FWS3%20Results%20Plenary%20Jan19%20fnl.pdf

    Question 6. Michigan's University Research Corridor is #1 in the 
country for producing medicine and biological science graduates--this 
is a boon to our state on a number of fronts including research, 
employment, and quality of the work we produce in this field. Can you 
share any insights you have on research clusters and how they foster 
innovation and economic growth?
    Answer. Research clusters typically include 3-4 faculty from a 
variety of academic disciplines who work together on a research project 
but come at it from different angles. Clusters are ideal for addressing 
complex problems that sit at the juncture of multiple disciplines.
    Freshwater sustainability is a great example. Ensuring a 
sufficient, reliable, and safe water supply is one of the top global 
resource challenges of the 21st century. It's a challenge that will 
require not only water scientists but also engineers, agricultural 
economists, public health experts, political scientists, and many 
others.
    Research clusters are focused on addressing specific problems, and 
often result in discoveries that translate into new products.
    For example, a neuroscience cluster created at UW--Madison in 2000 
has moved us closer to better treatments for Parkinson's disease and 
spinal cord injuries, and it's produced 17 new patents, a start-up 
company, and $33 million in grants and donor gifts that keep the cycle 
of discovery going strong.

    Question 7. Michigan blueberry growers produce about 100 million 
pounds of blueberries--in part because three of the most widely planted 
blueberry varieties were developed through agriculture research in our 
state--lengthening the harvesting season and increasing blueberry 
production. There was not much discussion in the testimony about 
agriculture research, but given how important is to our Nation's 
economy and to every American, can you comment on the importance of 
agriculture research to our food supply and public health?
    Answer. Michigan blueberries are a favorite here in Wisconsin. They 
are especially delicious baked into muffins alongside Wisconsin 
cranberries!
    As a public land-grant university, UW--Madison was created with a 
mission to advance agriculture--which means we make deep investments in 
research, education, and outreach related to developing nutritious and 
sustainable foods, improving food safety, and helping farmers and 
producers to thrive.
    University researchers do the important work of developing improved 
breeds of livestock and hardier crops adapted to each state's needs and 
to changes in climate. We also do work that is critical to securing the 
food supply and protecting farmers' investments in their fields.
    One example is the Wisconsin Seed Potato Certification program. 
This program ensures that the seed potatoes from which potato crops are 
grown are free from infection, which protects our Nation's sixth-
largest crop from harvest-ruining diseases. UW--Madison certifies 200 
million pounds of seed potatoes each year, which translates into 90,000 
acres for commercial production in Wisconsin and around the country.
    You also asked how agricultural research can protect public health. 
Many diseases are shared between livestock and their human caretakers, 
and agricultural and animal scientists cooperate to maintain the health 
of both populations. For example, our School of Veterinary Medicine 
works with our School of Medicine and Public Health to test and 
vaccinate farm workers and dairy cows for tuberculosis, which can 
spread easily on farms. Early detection is critical to public health 
and safeguards the livelihood of our dairy farmers.

    Question 8. Michigan is home to 15 research universities and is 
among the top 10 states in the country for R&D. One of the challenges 
that academia has had is the divide between town & gown and in 
communicating how the work that's done in the ivory tower makes a 
difference in people's everyday lives. Can you talk about what 
opportunities you see in improving this divide?
    Answer. Part of our mission as a public university is to share 
knowledge and discoveries outside the borders of the campus to 
strengthen communities and make people's lives better. But as you point 
out, we haven't always been very good at telling this story.
    Like many public universities, UW--Madison has a robust 
communications program that helps to raise awareness of our work and 
its statewide impact, but building the relationships that allow us to 
bridge campus/state divides requires a dedicated local presence. For 
that, our most powerful resource is the Cooperative Extension Service. 
Extension educators live in the communities they serve, so they're not 
just visitors from the university--they're working alongside their 
neighbors to identify local problems and help direct university 
resources toward finding solutions.
    UW--Madison's Division of Extension has educators in every 
Wisconsin county and in three tribal nations.
    Our Extension program recently has been reintegrated into our 
flagship campus after existing for about 50 years as a separate entity. 
This restructuring has opened up new opportunities to connect the 
practical expertise of Extension educators with the academic expertise 
of university researchers. We are intentionally connecting the two 
groups to work on issues that have a major statewide impact, including 
water quality, opioid addiction, and the opportunity gap in education.

    Question 9. The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act 
included the Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science Act [authored by Sen. 
Coons] to encourage broader input from the public. We've seen agencies 
start to use crowdsourcing as a way to harness increasingly prevalent 
data that can inform science and research endeavors. Can you speak to 
how your institution is leveraging or encouraging crowdsourcing to 
improve research?
    Answer. Crowdsourcing is a valuable tool that allows researchers to 
overcome the logistical constraints of gathering data over 
geographically large areas or over long periods of time. It is also a 
valuable tool for building public engagement with, and appreciation 
for, science.
    UW--Madison is involved in many research projects that have a 
crowdsourcing component. They typically involve research in three broad 
areas: the environment, health, and climate.
    Our environmental researchers are crowdsourcing data on urban foxes 
and coyotes, butterflies, bumblebees and honeybees, ticks, birds, 
forest fungi, and several invasive plant and animal species, to name 
just a few. The resulting data will inform decision making in 
conservation, disease prevention, and crop production.
    Our health researchers are participating in a global program called 
Tiny Earth that is collecting soil specimens from around the world and 
testing them for novel microorganisms that could lead to new 
antibiotics. And UW--Madison is a partner in All of Us, an initiative 
of NIH to speed up medical breakthroughs by crowdsourcing health data.
    Our climate scientists are crowdsourcing data on snow depth and 
density, water quality, and crop yields to better predict and respond 
to climate change.
    Of course, crowdsourcing is not only about quantity. We need data 
that is high-quality. As we work to recruit more citizen scientists, we 
are also collecting and sharing best practices on volunteer engagement, 
data management, and program evaluation with our faculty and staff.

    Question 10. Dr. Panchanathan referenced the National Science 
Foundation's ``10 Big Ideas''--this is a way to help spark major leaps 
in research and innovation and get big ideas off the ground. Do you 
have thoughts on how we may be able to expand this approach to other 
fields or agencies?
    Answer. Ten Big Ideas proposes to make a significant financial 
investment ($30 million in each Big Idea) to identify and support 
emerging opportunities for U.S. leadership in areas that are important 
to the Nation's future.
    On a smaller scale, UW--Madison has had success with a program 
called UW2020 that provides seed money for research projects that have 
the potential to fundamentally transform a field of study but need 
further development before they can compete for Federal funding. UW2020 
might be a model for other universities as it seeks to fund research 
projects.
    The NSF 10 Big Ideas model could also be adapted by other Federal 
agencies to focus on their areas of interest. For example, in meeting 
the goals of its strategic plan, NIH could issue 10 Big Ideas to 
support emerging health-related projects in precision medicine to 
improve cancer outcomes, create a universal flu vaccine, promote health 
and prevent illness in populations that are historically underserved, 
or revolutionize drug-screening tests.

                                  [all]