[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]