[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
KEEPING AMERICA FIRST: FEDERAL INVESTMENTS
IN RESEARCH, SCIENCE, AND
TECHNOLOGY AT NSF, NIST, OSTP,
AND INTERAGENCY STEM PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 13, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-53
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-891 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana, Chair
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
MO BROOKS, Alabama FEDERICA WILSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas SCOTT PETERS, California
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming AMI BERA, California
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona DEREK KILMER, Washington
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
C O N T E N T S
November 13, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Larry Bucshon, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Witnesses:
Dr. Richard Buckius, Vice President for Research, Purdue
University
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Dr. Daniel Sarewitz, Co-Director, Consortium for Science, Policy
& Outcomes, Professor of Science and Society, Arizona State
University
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 27
Dr. Timothy Killeen, President, The Research Foundation for SUNY,
Vice Chancellor for Research, SUNY System Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 41
Mr. James Brown, Executive Director, STEM Education Coalition
Oral Statement............................................... 49
Written Statement............................................ 51
Discussion....................................................... 65
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Richard Buckius, Vice President for Research, Purdue
University..................................................... 86
Dr. Daniel Sarewitz, Co-Director, Consortium for Science, Policy
& Outcomes, Professor of Science and Society, Arizona State
University..................................................... 94
Dr. Timothy Killeen, President, The Research Foundation for SUNY,
Vice Chancellor for Research, SUNY System Administration....... 97
Mr. James Brown, Executive Director, STEM Education Coalition.... 111
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement of Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.................... 116
Discussion draft................................................. 117
KEEPING AMERICA FIRST: FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN RESEARCH,
SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY AT NSF, NIST, OSTP,
AND INTERAGENCY STEM PROGRAMS
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Larry
Bucshon [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bucshon. The Subcommittee on Research and
Technology will come to order.
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today's hearing titled
``Keeping America First: Federal Investments in Research,
Science and Technology at NSF, NIST, OSTP and Interagency STEM
Programs.'' In front of you are packets containing the written
testimony, biographies, and Truth in Testimony disclosures for
today's witnesses. I will now recognize myself for five minutes
for an opening statement.
I am pleased to call to order this morning's hearing to
examine the fundamental science and research activities at NSF,
the National Institutes for Standards and Technology, known as
NIST, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP. We
have circulated a discussion draft, and I want to emphasize, it
is a discussion draft, of legislation that would reauthorize
basic science research and education programs at NSF, NIST and
OSTP, and strengthen coordination of science, technology,
engineering and mathematics--STEM--education programs across
the Federal Government.
I am pleased the majority and minority staff had an
opportunity to review the discussion draft carefully and
identify areas of agreement. We have asked NSF, NIST and OSTP
as well as other stakeholders in the university and business
communities for their comments about the discussion draft. We
look forward to a thoughtful and productive dialogue.
Scientific research is essential fuel for America's engine
of innovation. Research-driven innovation is critical for
American businesses to remain competitive and world-class in a
global marketplace. Additionally, educating our children in the
STEM fields is crucial to their futures and to the future of
our Nation.
NSF spends nearly $7 billion of taxpayers' money every
year. Congress has a responsibility to work with leaders at the
NSF and the National Science Board to ensure that these
taxpayer dollars focus on high-priority research.
The FIRST Act discussion draft affirms our commitment to
high-integrity science and transparency of research results.
The proposed legislation improves transparency of taxpayer-
funded research by making more information available to the
public about awarded grants and how they promote the national
interest. Furthermore, it is consistent with steps the NSF is
already considering to improve accountability, which have been
approved by the National Science Board.
As it relates to STEM education, if leading the world in
the high-tech sector and achieving the innovations of tomorrow
are an imperative goal of the United States, American students
and America's education system must excel in the STEM fields.
Unfortunately, America lags behind many other nations when
it comes to STEM education. American students rank 23rd in
science and 31st in math. We must improve these numbers
substantially if we expect to remain a world leader. We must
engage our Nation's youth to study science and engineering so
they will want to pursue these careers. Private and nonprofit
stakeholders are also working to engage students in STEM
subjects. Understanding and leveraging these resources is an
important aspect of strengthening Federal support for STEM
education. The FIRST Act discussion draft improves coordination
for Federal STEM programs and recognizes the importance of
industry investment in outcome-oriented STEM education efforts.
Another key part of this discussion draft is the
``Technology and Research Accelerating National Security and
Future Economic Resiliency Act''--I did get that out--or
TRANSFER Act, of which I am a cosponsor, and which has been
endorsed by a long list of business and nonprofit
organizations. The research and development conducted at our
nation's universities, research institutes and national
laboratories have served as the basis for many technology
breakthroughs that have driven American innovation and our
economic growth. In order to bolster American economic
competitiveness, the TRANSFER Act will improve technology
transfer and accelerate commercialization of federally funded
research and development at our Nation's research universities
and laboratories, in part, by encouraging stronger R&D
partnerships among universities, national laboratories and
businesses.
Basic research funded through our Nation's science agencies
has provided the basis for many of the technology breakthroughs
that have kept America and our universities at the scientific
forefront. They have also helped create new industries,
innovations and jobs that have boosted our economy and
strengthened our economic competitiveness.
As our country continues to face a fiscal crisis, part of
our challenge is how to achieve the most benefit from our
limited resources both now and in the years ahead. We recognize
that returns on these long-term investments, including
expanding STEM education, may take many years to be realized
fully.
As we all anxiously await the results of the work done by
our colleagues who are taking part in the budget conference
negotiations, we also recognize that in a time of tight budgets
in Washington, it is even more important to preserve as much
stability in Federal funding as possible.
I want to reiterate what we are reviewing is a discussion
draft, not final legislation, and on both sides of the aisle,
the staff and the Members are working together to come up with
a final piece of legislation that will benefit our country.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses
and having a productive discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bucshon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Research and Technology Chairman
Larry Bucshon
I am pleased to call to order this morning's hearing to examine the
fundamental science and research activities at the National Science
Foundation, known as the NSF, National Institutes for Standards and
Technology, known as NIST, and the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, OSTP.
We have circulated a discussion draft of legislation that would
reauthorize basic research and education programs at NSF, NIST, and
OSTP, and strengthen coordination of Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) education programs across the federal
government.
I am pleased the majority and minority staff had an opportunity to
review the discussion draft carefully and identify areas of agreement.
We have asked NSF, NIST, and OSTP, as well as other stakeholders in the
university and business communities for their comments about the
discussion draft. We look forward to a thoughtful and productive
dialogue.
Scientific research is essential fuel for America's engine of
innovation. Research-driven innovation is critical for American
businesses to remain competitive and world-class in a global
marketplace. Additionally, educating our children in the STEM fields is
crucial to their futures and our nation's.
NSF spends nearly $7 billion of taxpayers' money every year.
Congress has a responsibility to work with leaders at the NSF and the
National Science Board to ensure that these taxpayer dollars focus on
high priority research.
The FIRST Act discussion draft affirms our commitment to high-
integrity science and transparency of research results. The proposed
legislation improves transparency of taxpayer-funded research by making
more information available to the public about awarded grants and how
they promote the national interest. Furthermore, it is consistent with
steps the NSF is already considering to improve accountability, which
have been approved by the National Science Board.
As it relates to STEM education, if leading the world in the high-
tech sector and achieving the innovations of tomorrow are an imperative
goal of the US, American students and America's education system must
excel in the STEM fields.
Unfortunately, America lags behind many other nations when it comes
to STEM education. American students rank 23rd in science and 31st in
math. We must improve these numbers substantially if we expect to
remain a world leader. We must engage our nation's youth to study
science and engineering so they will want to pursue these careers.
Private and nonprofit stakeholders are also working to engage
students in STEM subjects. Understanding and leveraging those resources
is an important aspect of strengthening federal support for STEM
education. The FIRST Act discussion draft improves coordination for
federal STEM programs and recognizes the importance of industry
investment in outcome-oriented STEM education efforts.
Another key part of this discussion draft is the ``Technology and
Research Accelerating National Security and Future Economic Resiliency
Act,'' or TRANSFER Act, of which I am a cosponsor, and which has been
endorsed by a long list of business and non-profit organizations.
The research and development conducted at our nation's
universities, research institutes, and national laboratories have
served as the basis for many technology breakthroughs that have driven
American innovation and our economic growth.
In order to bolster American economic competitiveness, the TRANSFER
Act will improve technology transfer and accelerate commercialization
of federally funded research and development at our nation's research
universities and laboratories--in part, by encouraging stronger R&D
partnerships among universities, national laboratories, and businesses.
Basic research funded through our nation's science agencies has
provided the basis for many of the technology breakthroughs that have
kept America and our universities at the scientific forefront.
They have also helped create new industries, innovations, and jobs
that have boosted our economy and strengthened our economic
competitiveness.
As our country continues to face a fiscal crisis, part of our
challenge is how to achieve the most benefit from our limited
resources--both now and in the years ahead.
We recognize that returns on these long-term investments, including
expanding STEM education, may take many years to be realized fully.
Also, as we all anxiously await the results of the work done by our
colleagues who are taking part in the budget conference negotiations,
we also recognize that in a time of tight budgets in Washington, it's
even more important to preserve as much stability in federal funding as
possible.
I want to reiterate what we are reviewing is a discussion draft,
not final legislation. I look forward to hearing from out distinguished
witnesses and having a productive discussion.
Chairman Bucshon. At this point I now recognize the Ranking
Member, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, for holding
today's hearing on the discussion draft of the FIRST Act, and I
want to welcome our witnesses here today.
We have all seen the headlines about how our competitors
are pouring resources into research and development. They may
not be ahead of us now in total investment, but China and
others are already far outpacing us in R&D growth. As we all
know, these are long-term investments, and failing to
adequately invest now will catch up with us when we see slower
job growth from less innovation.
In my district last week, Argonne National Lab announced
that due to sequestration and future budget uncertainty, they
would be forced to let go 120 of their staff. Although Argonne
is funded primarily by the Department of Energy rather than NSF
or NIST, this serves as a reminder of what will happen if we
continue to let science funding stagnate across the Federal
Government. If this trend continues, the long term effects on
our scientific competitiveness will be catastrophic. Agencies
and universities won't be able to plan, some of the best and
brightest will give up and leave their labs, and the younger
generation will see what their mentors are up against and
decide against a career as a researcher altogether. A witness
before this Committee recently said that if he were a young
scientist in a foreign country he doesn't think he would decide
to come to America to study and stay to do research, as he had
done early in his career, and this is something that we have to
be concerned about.
I understand very well that America faces a serious debt
threat and that we need to make some tough decisions, but
almost all of these are well outside the purview of this
Committee or the scope of today's hearing. The Chairman's
intent is to hold off on including authorization levels until
we have a budget deal. I hope that we can use the time before
the budget deadline to more fully discuss some of the policy
proposals contained in the draft, and I also hope this does not
mean that we intend to let budget negotiators dictate to this
committee what the appropriate levels of funding are for
Federal science agencies. We are an authorizing committee, and
as an authorizing committee, I always hate to see the
appropriators be able to call all the shots, and I think it is
important for us here to have a discussion on authorization
levels that reflect a smart and balanced approach to making
sure we remain strong and competitive in science, technology
and innovation. I look forward to working with the Chairman and
all of my colleagues to do that.
Before we hear from the witnesses, let me just comment on a
few of the priorities I have for this legislation. First,
manufacturing plays a significant role in our economic and
national security. We must reinvigorate and expand America's
manufacturing base, and we cannot do that with the technologies
and processes of yesterday. The small and medium-sized
industries that comprise a significant portion of our
manufacturing capacity don't have the resources or capacity to
invest in the most far-reaching R&D with potential application
to the manufacturing technologies and processes of the future.
NIST and NSF play a critical role in funding such research, and
we should take the opportunity of moving legislation to
reinforce and expand our efforts to revitalize American
manufacturing.
Next, NSF is responsible for supporting research across all
scientific disciplines, from the physical and life sciences, to
engineering, to the social, economic and behavioral sciences. I
know that some of my colleagues question the value of research
in the social and behavioral sciences, but there is ample
evidence that this research is just as important as any NSF
conducts, and the budget for the entire social, behavioral, and
economic science directorate amounts to just over three percent
of all of NSF's budget. Social and behavioral sciences have
played a critical role in strengthening our response to
disasters, improving public health, strengthening our legal
system, and optimizing the use of Federal resources. I believe
any reauthorization of NSF should provide sustainable funding
to all scientific disciplines and not impose any unique
restrictions or conditions on any specific type of research.
I would also like to see inclusion of language to formally
establish NSF's I-Corps program. Results from the first couple
of years of this program support my belief that I-Corps will
yield exponential benefits, helping turn NSF's research
investments into new companies and jobs across the country. In
fact, it is important that we work together across the Federal
research portfolio to lower the barriers for the
commercialization of federally funded research. Supporting the
creation of public-private partnerships, reducing the risk for
capital investment, and eliminating obstacles to technology
transfer will help us get a larger return on our investment in
science not only in economic terms, but in benefits for all
Americans.
I am going to close with just a couple of thoughts about
the draft bill. I have concerns with language in the bill that
would make changes to the way that NSF conducts merit review of
research proposals. While some of my colleagues may believe
that these provisions merely increase accountability and
transparency in the use of Federal resources, which certainly
we all agree we want to do, I fear that the criteria used in
the bill are vague and the process is unnecessarily burdensome.
At best, this language may add a good deal of uncertainty as to
how research grants would be awarded; at worst I fear it could
fundamentally alter how merit review is done at an agency that
is viewed as a gold standard by the rest of the world. As I
said, I am certainly not opposed to increasing accountability
and transparency, and I welcome rigorous oversight of NSF
programs, and we have an obligation to do that, but I believe
we need to think through these concerns and possible solutions
more carefully, and I hope we will have the opportunity to do
so not just today, but in additional hearings on this bill. I
think we are going to have some questions on that for the
witnesses. I look forward to hearing from them on this and
other issues. I want to thank the Chairman, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Research and Technology
Ranking Minority Member Daniel Lipinski
Thank you, Chairman Bucshon for holding today's hearing on the
discussion draft of the FIRST Act, and welcome to our witnesses.
We have all seen the headlines about how our competitors are
pouring resources into R&D. They may not be ahead of us now in total
investment, but China and others are already far outpacing us in R&D
growth. As we all know, these are long-term investments, and failing to
adequately invest now will catch up with us when we see slower job
growth.
In my district last week, Argonne National Laboratory announced
that due to sequestration and future budget uncertainty they would be
forced to let 120 of their staff go. Although Argonne is funded
primarily by the Department of Energy rather than NSF or NIST, this
serves as a reminder of what will happen if we continue to let science
funding stagnate across the Federal Government. If this trend
continues, the long term effects on our scientific competitiveness will
be catastrophic. Agencies and universities won't be able to plan, some
of the best and brightest will give up and leave their labs, and the
younger generation will see what their mentors are up against and
decide against a career as a researcher altogether. A witness before
this committee recently said that if he were a young scientist today in
a foreign country he doesn't think he'd decide to come to America to
study and stay to do research, as he had done early in his career.
I understand very well that America faces a serious debt threat and
that we need to make some tough decisions; but almost all of these are
well outside the purview of this Committee or the scope of today's
hearing. The Chairman's intent is to hold off on including
authorization levels until we have a budget deal. I hope that we can
use the time before the budget deadline to more fully discuss some of
the policy proposals contained in the draft, and I also hope this does
not mean that we intend to let budget negotiators dictate to this
committee what the appropriate levels of funding are for federal
science agencies. Since we are an authorizing committee, we should be
leading the discussion about authorization levels that reflect a smart
and balanced approach to making sure we remain strong and competitive
in science, technology, and innovation. I look forward to working with
the Chairman and all of my colleagues to that end.
Before we hear from the witnesses, let me just comment on a few of
the priorities I have for this legislation. First, manufacturing plays
a significant role in our economic and national security. We must
reinvigorate and expand America's manufacturing base, and we cannot do
that with the technologies and processes of yesterday. The small and
medium-sized industries that comprise a significant portion of our
manufacturing capacity don't have the resources or capacity to invest
in the most far-reaching R&D with potential application to the
manufacturing technologies and processes of the future. NIST and NSF
play a critical role in funding such research and we should take the
opportunity of moving legislation to reinforce and expand our efforts
to revitalize American manufacturing.
Next, NSF is responsible for supporting research across all
scientific disciplines, from the physical and life sciences, to
engineering, to the social, economic, and behavioral sciences. I know
that some of my colleagues question the value of research in the social
and behavioral sciences, but there is ample evidence that this research
is just as important as any NSF conducts, and the budget for the entire
social, behavioral, and economic science directorate amounts to just
over three percent of all of NSF's budget. Social and behavioral
sciences have played a critical role in strengthening our response to
disasters, improving public health, strengthening our legal system, and
optimizing the use of federal resources. I believe any reauthorization
of NSF should provide sustainable funding to all scientific disciplines
and not impose any unique restrictions or conditions on any specific
type of research.
I would also like to see inclusion of language to formally
establish NSF's I-Corps program. Results from the first couple of years
of this program support my belief that I-Corps will yield exponential
benefits, helping turn NSF's research investments into new companies
and jobs across the country. In fact, it is important that we work
together across the federal research portfolio to lower the barriers
for the commercialization of federally funded research. Supporting the
creation of public-private partnerships, reducing the risk for capital
investment, and eliminating obstacles to technology transfer will help
us get a larger return on our investment in science not only in
economic terms, but for the benefit of all Americans.
I will close with just a couple of thoughts about the draft bill
under consideration today. I have concerns with language in the bill
that would make changes to the way that NSF conducts merit review of
research proposals. While some of my colleagues may believe that these
provisions merely increase accountability and transparency in the use
of federal resources, I fear that the criteria used in the bill are
vague and that the process is unnecessarily burdensome. At best this
language may add a good deal of uncertainty as to how research grants
would be awarded, at worst I fear it could fundamentally alter how
merit review is done at an agency that is viewed as a gold standard by
the rest of the world. I am not opposed to increasing accountability
and transparency. I welcome rigorous oversight of NSF programs. But I
believe we need to think through these concerns and possible solutions
more carefully and I hope we will have the opportunity to do so not
just today, but in additional hearings on this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and with that I yield back the balance of
my time.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you.
At this time I am going to recognize the Ranking Member of
the full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for her statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
say thank you to our witnesses for being here this morning.
The Science Committee, perhaps more than any other
committee, is where we lay the groundwork for long-term
economic growth and prosperity. It is here where we make the
decision to continue or to cede the U.S. leadership in science
and technology. It is here where we make the decision to plant
the seeds for the fruits of U.S. science to grow into new
companies and jobs, improved health, strengthened national
security, and improved quality of life for all Americans.
The 2005 Rising Above the Gathering Storm report was a call
to action that brought us all together in this common cause,
Democrat and Republican, Congress and the Administration. In
2007, Congress enacted the America COMPETES Act with an
overwhelmingly bipartisan majority. That bill set three of our
agencies, NSF, NIST and DOE's Office of Science, on a doubling
path and it created the very successful ARPA-E. Unfortunately,
as we all know, the vision of COMPETES was not fully realized.
Across-the-board cuts magnified by all of the budget
uncertainty over the last few years are causing deep and in
some cases irreparable harm to our leadership in S&T.
Last week, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, one of the
champions of the original COMPETES Act, testified before his
colleagues during a hearing on reauthorization of the Competes
Act. He said there are plenty of things that we do that are
less important than this, if we want to keep a high standard of
living. Senator Alexander went on to urge his colleagues to
authorize what our goals should be. I can't agree more.
This is not the time to be timid. This is the time to send
a clear message to the appropriators of our priorities as
authorizers.
While all of the feuding about the budget goes on around
us, the Science Committee is one place where we should be able
to agree more than we disagree. We did so successfully for many
years, even during divided government, and it is my hope that
we can do so again. I have been troubled by occasions over the
past year where that spirit of bipartisanship has broken down,
and where science has at times seemed to be under siege. We
need to get back to the approach to legislating that has served
this Committee well for many years, and certainly the 21 years
that I have been on it.
Unfortunately, the draft legislation before us today leaves
me puzzled. For one thing, it appears to cede our
responsibility as authorizers to the appropriations committee
by leaving out the funding levels that we think are necessary
to carry out the provisions of the bill. Perhaps more
concerning are the policy directions in this bill. There are
some provisions on which we can agree. However, it troubles me
that this draft seems to be dominated in both tone and volume
by everything that some of my colleagues believe that NSF and
scientists are doing wrong, and contains very little in the way
of a vision for the future. I am also confused why the draft
strikes two sections of existing law establishing broadening
participation as an important part of NSF's mission when the
changing demographics of this country should make efforts to
broaden participation in STEM. That is really a no-brainer. I
worry that this discussion draft reflects a lack of imagination
that will not help this Nation meet the competitive challenge
we face.
A few weeks ago I circulated a comprehensive COMPETES
reauthorization draft bill that I hope captures the COMPETES
principles laid out earlier this year by the scientific
community. I am in the process of gathering feedback and more
ideas from stakeholders and Democratic Members, and I welcome
the witnesses' thoughts on my discussion draft. As we move
forward, I would be very happy to work with the Chairman and
with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as I have
always done to craft a bipartisan bill that truly sets a vision
for continued U.S. leadership in science and technology.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all the
witnesses for being here. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to our witnesses for being
here this morning.
The Science Committee, perhaps more than any other Committee, is
where we lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth and
prosperity. It is here where we make the decision to continue, or to
cede U.S. leadership in science and technology. It is here where we
make the decision to plant the seeds for the fruits of U.S. science to
grow into new companies and jobs, improved health, strengthened
national security, and improved quality of life for all Americans.
The 2005 Rising Above the Gathering Storm report was a call to
action that brought us all together in this common cause, Democrat and
Republican, Congress and the Administration. In 2007 Congress enacted
the America Competes Act with an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority.
That bill set three of our agencies, NSF, NIST, and DOE's Office of
Science, on a doubling path and it created the very successful ARPA-E.
Unfortunately, as we all know, the vision of Competes was not fully
realized. Across the board cuts magnified by all of the budget
uncertainty over the last few years are causing deep and in some cases
irreparable harm to our leadership in S&T.
Last week, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, one of the champions
of the original Competes Act, testified before his colleagues during a
hearing on reauthorization of the Competes Act. He said ``there are
plenty of things that we do that are less important than this, if we
want to keep a high standard of living.'' Senator Alexander went on to
urge his colleagues ``to authorize what our goals should be.'' I
couldn't agree more. This is not the time to be timid. This is the time
to send a clear message to the appropriators of our priorities as
authorizers.
While all of the feuding about the budget goes on around us, the
Science Committee is one place where we should be able to agree more
than we disagree. We did so successfully for many years, even during
divided government, and it is my hope that we can do so again. I have
been troubled by occasions over the past year where that spirit of
bipartisanship has broken down, and where science has at times seemed
to be under siege. We need to get back to the approach to legislating
that has served this Committee well for many years.
Unfortunately, the draft legislation before us today leaves me
puzzled. For one thing, it appears to cede our responsibility as
authorizers to the appropriations committee by leaving out the funding
levels that we think are necessary to carry out the provisions of the
bill. Perhaps more concerning are the policy directions in this bill.
There are some provisions on which we can agree. However, it troubles
me that this draft seems to be dominated in both tone and volume by
everything that some of my colleagues believe NSF and scientists are
doing wrong, and contains very little in the way of a vision for the
future. I am also confused why the draft strikes two sections of
existing law establishing broadening participation as an important part
of NSF's mission when the changing demographics of this country should
make efforts to broaden participation in STEM a no-brainer. I worry
that this discussion draft reflects a lack of imagination that will not
help this nation meet the competitive challenge we face.
A few weeks ago I circulated a comprehensive Competes
Reauthorization draft bill that I hope captures the Competes principles
laid out earlier this year by the scientific community. I am in the
process of gathering feedback and more ideas from stakeholders and
Democratic Members and I welcome the witnesses' thoughts on my
discussion draft. As we move forward, I would be very happy to work
with the Chairman and with all of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to craft a bipartisan bill that truly sets a vision for continued
U.S. leadership in science and technology.
Thank you again to the witnesses for being here this morning and I
look forward to your testimony.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, and thank you for
your comments, and I will remind everyone again, it is a
discussion draft, and obviously we want to work with everyone
on amendments and changes that will make it a true bipartisan
approach.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time I am going to introduce our witnesses.
Our first witness today is Professor Richard Buckius of
Purdue University. Dr. Buckius is currently the Vice President
for Research and Professor of Mechanical Engineering.
Previously, he was a faculty member at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, my alma mater, and Dr. Buckius
also served as the National Science Foundation's Assistant
Director for Engineering. Dr. Buckius received his bachelor's
and master's degrees and Ph.D. in mechanical engineering at the
University of California at Berkeley.
Our second witness is Professor Daniel Sarewitz of Arizona
State University. He currently is a Professor of Science and
Society, and the Co-Director and Co-Founder of the Consortium
for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University.
Dr. Sarewitz is the editor of the magazine Issues in Science
and Technology, and is also a regular columnist for the journal
Nature. He received his Ph.D. in geological sciences from
Cornell.
Our third witness is Professor Tim Killeen. In June 2012,
Dr. Killeen was appointed President of the Research Foundation
for the state of New York, and State University of New York
Vice Chancellor for Research. Dr. Killeen previously served as
the National Science Foundation's Assistant Director for
Geosciences. He also served as the Director of the National
Center for Atmospheric Research. Dr. Killeen completed his
undergraduate and graduate education at the University College-
London, earning his Ph.D. in atomic and molecular physics.
And our final witness today is Mr. James Brown. Mr. Brown
is the Executive Director of the STEM Education Coalition, an
alliance of more than 500 businesses, professional and
education organizations that works to raise awareness about the
critical role of STEM education. Prior to joining the
coalition, he was Assistant Director for Advocacy at the
American Chemical Society. Mr. Brown received his B.S. from the
University of New Mexico and an M.S. from Penn State, both in
nuclear engineering. He also holds an MBA from George
Washington University.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here
this morning, and as our witnesses should know, spoken
testimony is limited to five minutes, after which the Members
of the Committee will have five minutes each to ask questions.
I now recognize Dr. Buckius for five minutes to present his
testimony. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF DR. RICHARD BUCKIUS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH,
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Buckius. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member
Lipinski and the honorable Members of the Committee. I am here
to discuss the discussion draft of FIRST. Thank you for the
introduction. You saved me some time. I don't have to go
through my background.
I just want to add, though, that I was 30 years at UIUC,
Illinois, and served as a Department Head, and Associate Vice
Chancellor for Research. During that time, I was fortunate
enough to serve at NSF in almost all the capacities. I was a
Division Program Director initially, then later came back and
served as a Division Director, and then as the AD, the
Assistant Director for Engineering. Now at Purdue, we overlook
almost all of the research activities that go on at Purdue
University.
Two comments that might be important. The service that I
provided to NSF was granted on an Intergovernmental Personnel
Act leave from Illinois, which is the subject of some of the
discussion in this particular discussion draft, and at NSF, in
engineering, engineering at NSF oversees the SBIR/STTR program,
and so that might be important.
I would really only want to share a few comments, and then
I am looking forward to questions. First thing was regarding
fiscal reality and basic research. As noted in the original Act
in 1950, fundamental basic research continues to provide
tremendous impact, and we need to make sure that that occurs in
the future. Some outcomes of basic research can be anticipated,
some might be obvious to others, yet many of the discoveries
and innovations are entirely unexpected. NSF takes a very long
view for supporting efforts that expand knowledge, enhance
understanding and provide an engine for new technologies. As
important, Federal research supports and enables the education
and training of the next generation of innovators.
It is clear that we are in a period of great financial
stress in many areas of the Federal Government, and it is
stressing all of us in our homes around the Nation. The
projections of the national future debt paint a picture of an
extremely heavy burden on future generations. With this Act,
the opportunity exists to meet a great challenge that can both
fund future discoveries and innovations and prepare our young
people to participate in the innovation future. Placing
discretionary research spending in opposition to mandatory
spending could jeopardize the future discoveries that will
yield tomorrow's innovations. It could also jeopardize the
undiscovered talent in our youth who will make those future
research generations. It is my hope that we can finance future
innovative research and thereby cultivating this future
generation of innovators together with balancing and handling
our looming fiscal debt.
On the STEM priority, Purdue strongly urges Congress to
provide a reliable, sustained funding for STEM research and
education in the context of a responsible budget. We applaud
the current draft's language to consider the coordination in
Federal STEM funding yet ensuring each agency's approach. A
coordinated multidisciplinary approach is that which is taken
at Purdue. We believe in our STEM students, and all of our
students need a broad-based education to make a difference in
the world. A diverse, interdisciplinary approach can only work
if we remove barriers. We don't duplicate activities but rather
collaborate across disciplines to enhance the total impact.
This is very similar to the current approach in this country as
well as NSF in support of STEM research and education.
And finally, comments on transparency and impact. We fully
support the open public access for results of federally funded
research. It is central to the mission of higher education. For
decades, Purdue together with others in higher education
community have promoted open access. The publication delay of
open public access is a key point, and various sound arguments
have been provided, yet I think it is important to proceed with
the implementation of this as soon as possible and with a
shorter publication delay time. We applaud the open access
directive and are eager to see it succeed.
Finally, comments on NSF, and you have heard this from our
Chair and Ranking Chair. The National Science Foundation relies
on thousands of experts every day in their expert fields to
provide knowledgeable evaluations of the proposals. Reviewers
deliver these detailed evaluations confidentially and without
compensation. This is a valuable service to the Nation, and it
needs to be preserved. Consistent with the wording in Section
104 of this discussion draft related to the awarding of the
proposals, an affirmation of award quality by the Foundation in
general should be possible with a slight increase in
administrative load. Yet the prior publication of awards and
associated information will severely compromise the process and
add tremendous burden, administrative burden, to the process.
In summary, I would like you to consider the intellectual
discovery debt incurred by foregoing investments in basic
research together with the looming financial debt. Hopefully we
can enable a coordinated and distributed approach currently
proposed for STEM education research, and finally, ensure open
public access to federally funded research findings while
protecting the confidential merit review process.
Thank you very much for letting me provide you some
insight, and for your leadership on this Act.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Buckius follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you, Dr. Buckius, for that
testimony.
I now recognize Dr. Sarewitz for five minutes to present
his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DANIEL SAREWITZ DR. DANIEL SAREWITZ,
CO-DIRECTOR, CONSORTIUM FOR SCIENCE,
POLICY & OUTCOMES, PROFESSOR OF SCIENCE AND SOCIETY,
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Sarewitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee.
I want to begin by bringing to your attention the cover
story of the October 19th issue of The Economist, which was
titled ``How Science Goes Wrong.'' The article investigates the
question, can the scientific community by itself assure the
quality of its research results, and we have all been taught to
believe that it can through peer review, the scientific method
and a culture of skeptical inquiry, and of course, these
accountability mechanisms are crucial to the integrity and
value of science, but the article--as the article details, they
are not always enough. So The Economist provides a timely
reminder of one reason why today's hearing is important and
appropriate, and I will limit my comments right now to the
issues raised in Title I of the discussion draft of the FIRST
Act, which represents a positive step in considering how do we
improve the performance of the publicly funded science
enterprise, and I am pleased to be testifying as a part of this
effort.
It is apparent that we all agree that NSF is a remarkably
effective Federal agency, institutionally quite innovative and
with a complex, increasingly complex and important mission. In
this context, Title I makes clear the Committee's desire to
ensure that NSF is accountable for spending research dollars
effectively, that research results are valid and that
alternative research funding models are explored. These goals
are laudable, yet as detailed in the discussion draft, are
somewhat scattershot. The draft could benefit from a more
strategic focus and greater clarity about how and where to
intervene to incentivize better performance. For example,
talking also about Section 104 that Dr. Buckius mentioned, I
would say that it doesn't seem like it would create the new
level of accountability at NSF that the Committee seeks. I
don't see this interfering with peer review as articulated but
the list of eight criteria that would be used to determine if a
grant is worthy of support seems so general that it could
actually act against the Committee's aims by adding a
meaningless rubber stamp to the grant approval process.
The key strategic goal here has to be to maintain and
improve the integrity, capacity and productivity of NSF despite
the fact that Federal support for science is not likely to
increase significantly over the next several years or more and
despite the fact that competition for limited resources is
likely to grow ever more fierce.
The Committee could work with NSF and other R&D funders to
explore a range of approaches to improving accountability,
public value and sustainability of the enterprise. Let me
mention just five possibilities that I think are not typically
considered.
NSF could ensure that peer review panels give full
consideration as required in NSF's proposal guidelines to both
of NSF's review criteria, intellectual merit and broader
impacts. This approach to accountability recognizes that
excellence arises both from the quality of the science and its
potential to contribute to larger programmatic goals, and I say
this fully aware of the question of patience and
unpredictability that Dr. Buckius mentioned. In this regard,
NSF would need to expand its definition of peer expertise to
allow for competent assessment of broader impact.
NSF could implement a process to identify and reduce hype
in proposals. The super-competitive environment for getting
Federal grants encourages hyping the potential for projects to
yield results that are important, groundbreaking,
transformational and so on. Hype serves to inflate expectations
about what a project might accomplish and may contribute to
bias as well by committing researchers to look for positive
results even when the evidence is weak or absent as detailed
again in this Economist article that I mentioned. Hype
assessment should be done by evaluating the plausibility of
specific claims and promises of scientific advance and broader
impacts that are made in proposals, and overhyped research
could be denied funding.
NSF could competitively fund red team projects aimed at
replicating research results from high-priority or high-profile
lines of research. NSF could similarly fund groups that would
assess the scientific robustness of computer models used in a
variety of fields with potential application for policymaking.
NSF could give preference to researchers whose previous work
has been replicated by independent research groups, to
researchers whose academic units assess quality rather than
quantity of research as the main criteria for tenure promotion,
and to researchers who demonstrate that their projects have
been developed collaboratively with potential knowledge users
or that results from previous projects have been taken up by
organizations outside of the academic setting.
NSF could broaden the range of its programs to require
partnerships between universities and industrial firms,
nonprofit organizations, museums, state and local governments
and so on as they do in a number of programs. The goal of such
partnerships would be in part cost sharing but equally
important would be creating meaningful linkages between
knowledge creation and knowledge use.
While these suggestions are made tentatively, I want to
emphasize that cumulatively, a portfolio of appropriate
policies strategically conceived, carefully tested, and
implemented with adequate staffing might have the effect of
helping to catalyze a shift in the incentive structure and
culture of university science in ways that could better allow
the Federal Government to ensure sustainable, long-term support
and improved accountability and value for our public
investment.
The discussion draft of the FIRST Act in today's hearing
offers valuable opportunity for consideration of such options.
I am pleased to discuss these ideas and other points raised in
my written testimony, and thank you for your time and
attention.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sarewitz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you, Dr. Sarewitz.
I recognize Dr. Killeen for five minutes for his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. TIMOTHY KILLEEN, PRESIDENT,
THE RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR SUNY,
VICE CHANCELLOR FOR RESEARCH,
SUNY SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Killeen. Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify today on this important draft legislation and for your
important work, critically important work.
My name is Tim Killeen. I am President of the Research
Foundation for the State University of New York and Vice
Chancellor for the 64-campus system. I would like to thank the
Committee for releasing two different legislative proposals
that focus on innovation through scientific research and
development as keys to improving our economic competitiveness.
I believe that this legislation should send an unmistakable
message to our international competitors that we will take the
actions and make the investments necessary that will keep the
United States at the cutting edge of the 21st century's global
knowledge economy.
Just over one year ago, Superstorm Sandy slammed into our
coast. As recovery efforts still continue, we should ask what
would be the impact if the storm had hit 50 years earlier
without the subsequent research and development over those
decades. Frankly, it could have killed thousands of people
living in the storm's path. Hurricane advisories back then
existed only two days into the future. Computer models and
weather satellites were in their infancy, and forecasters would
probably not have predicted Sandy's right hook into the Jersey
Shore. While not perfect, the modern forecasts save lives and
property.
So how did we acquire that ability to offset those costs
and make such a forecast? The Nation did make continuous
investments over decades in its research and education
enterprise. Key to this work was basic research in mathematics,
computer science, the development of satellites and instrument
packages that make the vital observations. It included
interdisciplinary environmental research as well as research
into the social and behavioral sciences to examine how people
use storm-related information to respond to warnings. And
through commitments to STEM education, we had the talented
human capital to put these tools into use that enable local
officials to prepare citizens in ways that save many lives.
Sandy is just one example that demonstrates the linkage of
research and education to the economy. My longer list would
include Internet, lifesaving vaccines, medical devices such as
the heart, lung and MRI technologies developed initially at
SUNY, the laser, GPS, touch screens, and the ability to access
natural gas from shale deposits.
So the Nation owes a debt of gratitude to Congress and this
Committee for its steadfast support for excellence in research
and education that has led us to our position as first in the
world. The new legislation offers a chance to build on and
strengthen that enterprise. If done well, the return on future
investment will be incalculable, just as it has been in the
past.
As we meet today, however, it must also be said that our
Nation's role as the world's innovation leader is imperiled.
The combination of eroding buying power here and the enormous
resources that other Nations are pouring into these areas is
creating a new kind of deficit for the United States, one that
has been called an innovation deficit. It is troubling, for
example, as the Chair has pointed out, that we have fallen to
12th among developed countries in the proportion of young
adults who hold college degrees and our lead in patent
applications is eroding. So ensuring the health and vitality of
the research enterprise therefore is and should be a national
imperative. If we fail to act boldly and in a determined and
united fashion of the past, we could face a less prepared, less
highly skilled U.S. workforce, fewer U.S.-based game-changing
breakthroughs, fewer patents, startups, products and jobs.
These impacts may not be immediately obvious but the
consequences are inevitable if we do not respond.
In my written testimony, I tried to list a set of
principles that I believe should be considered for the
legislation. First, even with the major budget challenges we
face, the bill should make clear the priority that scientific
and engineering research has as a top national priority and
provide support for responsible and sustainable growth and
across all scientific and engineering disciplines.
Second, the bill should provide robust support for STEM
education tools, to enhance public scientific literacy, and to
prepare our young people for the jobs of tomorrow while
continuing to work to open doors for underrepresented groups.
Third, we must insist upon both public accountability and
vibrancy in our research enterprise. Both are needed to retain
support of the taxpaying public. Our research system has been
successful because it has relied on highly competitive merit
review processes to make decisions about funding. This gold
standard of peer review cannot be allowed to degrade because of
complacency, lax oversight or overly onerous new bureaucratic
burdens.
This international competition we face is real, and we
simply cannot coast and stay first. We also need to tune up,
indeed, I would say turbo charge, the innovation ecosystem,
accelerating the purposeful commercialization of federally
funded research and technologies. In New York, for example, led
by Governor Cuomo, we are working on a full innovation agenda
tied to research and education and leveraging higher education
and industry and businesses as never before.
Throughout our history, this Nation has kept the promise of
a better tomorrow for each new generation. This has been
possible because our economic prosperity has relied on our role
as the global innovation leader, so the message should be sent:
the United States will remain at the absolute cutting edge of
the 21st century global knowledge economy.
Thank you so much for inviting me. I will be glad to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Killeen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you, Dr. Killeen.
I now recognize Mr. Brown for five minutes for his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. JAMES BROWN,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
STEM EDUCATION COALITION
Mr. Brown. Well, first, thank you to the Committee for the
opportunity to be here today and offer our coalition's views on
the draft legislation that is before us and on issues related
to Federal STEM education policies.
As you mentioned in your introduction, we are a very broad
coalition but what unites us is the belief that we need to
elevate STEM education as a national priority. At the end of
our testimony, our written testimony, there is a list of the 35
members of our coalition's leadership council which inform our
policy positions and which guide our activities.
I am fond of mentioning a couple of statistics whenever I
talk about this topic that I think really clearly illustrate
the challenge that we have both for our coalition and for the
country. A 2011 poll showed that 93 percent of parents think
that STEM education should be a top priority for the United
States. The poll also showed that little less than half believe
it is actually a priority for the United States, and something
I think is at least a little bit related, and that is, another
poll I saw showed that 68 percent of parents think their kids
are in the top third of their class, which I think those are at
least ironically linked, right?
So suffice it to say, one of the things this Committee has
done over the years is with a long line of witnesses
established the connections between STEM education and the STEM
workforce and the future of the country. They are inextricably
linked. They underpin our capacity for innovation and our
American leadership. I also think the parents are on to
something else, and that is that they get a very clear sense
that STEM education, the STEM fields are where the best jobs of
the future are going to be, and if you look at the statistics
as an aggregate, the STEM fields have higher salaries, lower
unemployment, and I think just parents get that sense from
looking at the world around them, that is where the future is
going. But it is one of the easiest things in the world to talk
in broad terms about the importance of STEM education. It is
much harder--the Committee has a much harder job in formulating
policies that are practical, that are real to deal with these
challenges, and in that spirit, we tried to answer your
questions in as much detail as we possibly can in our written
testimony, and we have also attached a letter to that testimony
that in a five-page letter that addresses our views on the
Administration's most recent budget proposal which was signed
by more than 50 leading national organizations. So we hope that
is helpful to you.
I wanted to touch on three topics that I thought were the
most important points of our message to you, and that is--the
first is on the subject of fiscal sustainability. The other
witnesses have acknowledged this, and I think it is absolutely
clear when you look at the budget environment of today and you
look at the challenges that we face, that the Federal portfolio
of more than 200 different STEM education programs across
multiple agencies is in need of a very serious overhaul, but
that overhaul, if we are to do the service that our kids and
our future innovators deserve, has to be based on evidence and
it has to be based on stakeholder input and it has to be
capable. We have to make decisions as a country that will scale
up the programs that we think work and that will improve or
will eliminate the programs that are not working over time, and
you emphasized this in your opening statement: this has to be a
long-term process.
The other thing I would just say is, we also have to
recognize that every Federal education program can be improved
and that if we are going to use taxpayer dollars to support
them, we need to have constructive oversight mechanisms. That
is simply a fact of life.
Another point to make is that we have offered some views in
our testimony around what we think the properties of a good
coordination and management mechanism would look like, and some
of those relate to the fact that it has to have a good conduit
for stakeholder input, there has to be a mechanism for that
input informing policy decisions, the coordinating mechanism
has to have a voice in budget deliberations at the various
high--very highest levels of government, and we have to do what
we can to expand the evidence base around what is working, and
that is a very complicated problem. It is not simple.
And finally, why does stakeholder input matter? At the end
of the day, the challenges we face in this space are so
complicated that no one entity in government, no one person, no
one education group is going to be able offer a master plan
that will solve these challenges. It is simply not going to
happen. So we have to work together across party lines, across
disciplinary lines, and across the boundaries of Federal
agencies to make it happen, and we have to do it over time.
And the last thing I would just echo, and it is something
you mentioned in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, and that
is, we have to be persistent. This is a long-term challenge,
and I hope what we can do with this draft legislation is set in
place a process that will get at this challenge over time.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.
I would like to thank all the witnesses for their
testimony. At this point I remind Members that the Committee
rules limit questioning to five minutes, and at this point the
Chair will open the round of questions. I recognize myself for
five minutes.
Dr. Buckius, in your opinion, yes or no, does the proposed
FIRST bill have any what you would call Congressional
interference in the peer review mechanism for evaluating grants
at NSF?
Dr. Buckius. Can I do yes and no? So the two points that I
would like to make on this regard is regarding who would
actually affirm the awards that go out of the Foundation. The
way the language of the discussion draft says it, the Director
should. I don't believe anyone is all knowing enough to be able
to affirm all the 11,000-plus awards that go out of the
Foundation, so that is one item I would like to change if I had
my choice.
The other one is in Section C where it talks about prior
announcements of awards before they are awarded. You could only
imagine in some of the engineering directorates, we only fund a
few out of 100, so single digits. So that means that there is
going to be 90-plus folks who prior to the award can energize
the system, can create what I would call chaos. So the system
would become extremely bogged down. So those are the two points
on the wording that I would recommend you consider.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you.
Dr. Sarewitz, do you have any comments on that question?
Dr. Sarewitz. Just to reiterate what I said. It seemed to
me that to a certain extent it depends on what you actually
expect. As I said, it seems to me the language kind of endorses
the possibility of a rubber stamp that any program manager or
up through the directorship could engage in without much risk
to their conscience or integrity. So it doesn't seem to me that
it offers a direct threat to the integrity of the peer review
process, but on the other hand, it doesn't seem to me that it
offers much in the way of actual assurance.
Chairman Bucshon. Okay. Thank you. And Dr. Sarewitz, do
individual scientists behave based on incentives? I mean, how
can we change the current incentive system so that we can
change the culture of scientific funding? And some of you in
your comments--I mean, I was a medical doctor and I did some
basic science research when I was in medical school, and I
think one of you commented on that the incentives can be
aligned with volume of work, less focus on quality of work. I
mean, how can we try to revise that culture, so to speak, so
that people are rewarded for the--more along the lines of the
quality of the work, and I would say the accountability is
brought more forward rather than there is this pressure
amongst--I mean, I understand because my professors told me,
the pressure to produce work, and that seems like we could
maybe--we could change the incentives around some. Is that a--
can you answer that?
Dr. Sarewitz. Let me make a couple of comments, and I think
that my colleagues to my right and left would have more higher
view, ability to answer this question as well. But it is
certainly true that the level of time that many faculty members
spend chasing after research dollars and pumping data into
papers so that they can build their publication lists makes
it--often makes it difficult to actually focus with the level
of depth and concentration that one would like on one's work. I
think this is a common experience across academia. I think
there are ways to deal with that. I think much of this has to
do with the culture of academia itself, and I think many
universities are experimenting with different ways to try to
address it. I have suggested a few things that I thought could
be done on the NSF end.
At my university, Arizona State, and I think, as I say,
many universities are addressing this issue, one of the types
of things we are doing is trying to organize in a more
transdisciplinary way, which means around problems. That allows
people from different disciplines to be attracted to research
groups with a more problem-solving focus that I think kind of
changes the perspective from one of just productivity and
turning the crank to getting the papers done and getting the
grants in to actually thinking about what is the role of one's
intellectual endeavor vis-a-vis a problem that the university
or the community or stakeholders have come together to identify
as worth resolving. So I think there are lots of organizational
things that can be done. I do think it is a problem. It can't
be addressed with a simple quick fix.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you. I yield back now and recognize
Mr. Lipinski for his line of questioning.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The last NSF reauthorization I had authored, so of course,
nothing is going to be nearly as good as what I authored, but I
really want to focus on what are some of the things going on
with NSF here, and I hope that we can make changes because we--
from this draft, because we certainly have heard some issues. I
just want to follow up on what the Chairman was asking with Dr.
Buckius and also get Dr. Killeen to add it here if he has
anything.
We were talking about--you were talking about Section 104.
The new review requires the Director to make an affirmative
determination that awards are in the national interest, worthy
of Federal funding and meets one or more lists of potential
outcomes, and Dr. Sarewitz had pointed out that--he pointed to
the eight areas that had--that one of those had to be met, but
this is an ``and,'' so it has to be all three of these. One
issue is what is a--what is the national interest and how do
you define that. I don't know if anyone wants--that gets to
be--I am not sure if that is very broad or very narrow, and
that is something I think we really need to work out. But
leaving that aside for the moment, Dr. Buckius had said that
one person could not affirm--be able to affirm the 11,000-plus
awards. Is there any way to--that such an evaluation could be
carried out? Do you see this as a need for this? I mean, what--
besides the fact that one person couldn't do it, the Director
of the NSF doesn't have the expertise, the ability to go
through 11,000-plus, is this--you know, what other comments do
you have on instituting such another review?
Dr. Buckius. So the current process is one where you have
multiple peers assessing the merit. That goes to the program
director. The program director has to then justify why the
award will be made or not, and then the division director has
to sign off, and so as a division director, I would read all of
the evaluations of all the awards we are going to go through
and all of the ones that were on the border. It is a very
detailed process already, and so I think that two-level review,
I think it works really well. That is why my point is, I think
the wording, as you have noted, they are all ``and'' but I
think that those could be justified. So I really don't think
that we need to make a major change. I mean, I think your point
here is, you want an affirmation, and I think that is a very
reasonable thing in general, but I just think putting it onto
one person is the hard part.
Mr. Lipinski. And Dr. Killeen, do you have any thoughts on
that?
Dr. Killeen. I have a few----
Mr. Lipinski. Microphone.
Dr. Killeen. --comments about the prior notification and
also his comment about single person affirmation. The program
includes all of those peer review commentary and the program
director review and write-up and the division director's sign-
off, and then the portfolios of grants are then further looked
at by committees of visitors that come in periodically to look
and see whether the balance is right. So I do worry a little
bit about every proposal conforming to a specified set of
criteria because we are talking about--and that is why I use
the word ``vibrant'' in my testimony. We are talking about
scientific inquiry that includes following leads that may not
take you anywhere. That includes setting hypotheses. So
scientific inquiry is not necessarily always reliably,
predictably serving a particular element of the national
interest. But I think the portfolio has to do that. The basic
organic mission statement for NSF really speaks to the national
interest, and all of those ``and'' statements are all directly
relevant and are addressed often in these reviews.
There is another comment I would like to make about Section
104 in that if the Director of NSF were to affirm, then it
would take that person, he or her, out of the appeal process,
which is also another part of the current mechanisms that are
in place. As the division director signs off on every grant,
the AD looks at the balance--enough young investigators,
geographic, disciplinary, collaborative. The committees of
visitors come in. Then if an investigator gets declined and
wants to appeal that decision, there is a very formal and
rigorous process at NSF for that appeal and it goes up through
two courts: the assistant director, and I managed several of
those appeals during my stay, and all the way to the Director
of NSF. So I think that would also be influence. There would
have to be some other mechanism to ensure right of appeal for a
declined proposal. So I have those comments about that Section
104.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Chairman Bucshon. Mr. Collins is recognized for five
minutes for your questioning.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all
the witnesses for coming today. It is an important hearing. As
a mechanical engineer, I have spent my entire business career
in engineering-related and science-related companies, and I
think certainly we are here today with budget deficits and
related debt out of control. It is important that we help
Americans understand the importance of funding for the programs
this hearing is referring to and the impact that funding has on
future economic growth in the United States. Basic R&D and
government help in commercializing that R&D is certainly a
proper and a vital role of government.
So Dr. Killeen, a fellow New Yorker, a question for you,
and I will start with a point of interest. I have had a
longstanding relationship with the State University of New York
at Buffalo as both a mentor to the Center for Entrepreneurial
Leadership and also the annual Panasci Science Competition, so
I know the great work that the university does.
SUNY and the State of New York have embarked on a series of
efforts designed to take advantage of the role research can and
should play in the innovation and economic growth, and we often
hear in Washington that the states are the laboratories or the
incubators of innovative public-private partnerships, and I
think it would be helpful if you described some of the efforts
in New York--I know I am familiar with many of them--that are
using this government funding so that we can, you know,
understand the importance of it and particularly some of those
which you think could have follow-up national implications,
touching on the so-called innovation deficit.
Dr. Killeen. Thank you very much, Mr. Collins, and I noted
in my testimony that research and development has accounted for
roughly 40 percent of the total economic growth of the country
since World War II, so we are talking about major return on
these kinds of investments. In New York, as you pointed out, I
think there are some very interesting experiments underway in
really closing the gap between what I would call the knowledge
creation and dissemination community, which is researchers and
educators, and the jobs creation community, which is the
private sector and commercial firms, and there is a win-win
situation there with job prospects for students and so forth;
so making those technologies coming to fruition from bench
research funded by Federal dollars, making that transfer into
commercializable products and services, what we call the
innovation ecosystem, making that work really well I think is
something we are really trying to focus on in New York with
things like Governor Cuomo's Start Up New York program, which
is turning each one of our 64 campuses into a tax-free zone for
up to ten years for qualified companies to work in close
combination with academic researchers to make sure that the
technologies as they get developed and the new knowledge that
gets created can have applicability. We also have entrepreneurs
in residence so that professors and investigators who may not
have any affinity or experience with writing a business plan or
forming a new startup company can get help along the way.
So I would say that the innovation ecosystem is a system
that is actually as weak as its weakest components, and we need
to tune those components up going from the discovery-class
research all the way through to full-blown commercialization
and make sure that we don't lose traction along the way so that
the fruition of the federal investments are seen in the
economic development. I personally believe that there is much
more than we can do in that, and I believe that New York is
going to set the path, blaze the path to do this extremely
well.
Mr. Collins. Well, I agree, and again, I think, you know,
when we have these budget deficits and the country is saying
why do you spend money here and not here, you know, everyone
has a good case to make for the money they spend but I think it
is important that we connect those dots, what you are talking
about, between basic research and then ultimately getting it
out and creating jobs with it. It is not enough to just do the
research, put it on the shelf as an academic exercise, and I
have noticed in New York, at least, you know, we are
emphasizing that in an important way. So I appreciate that
input.
Dr. Killeen. If I could make a last sentence, I really
applaud your work and that of Mr. Kilmer in the TRANSFER Act,
because I think that really is homing in on a particular piece
of the innovation ecosystem that really needs that kind of bold
support. Thank you.
Mr. Collins. Well, that is what we refer to as the Valley
of Death where the ideas come forward, just hasn't quite
attracted a business partner. So currently, there just isn't
that funding available, and the TRANSFER Act will allow
universities to help attract a level of funding to help bridge
the gap in that Valley of Death and has bipartisan support and
hopefully that is something we can move forward on very
quickly. Thank you all again for your time.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Kilmer for
five minutes.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
coming to address us today.
I think this is a big deal. This is part of my excitement
about being on this Committee. We had a--I used to work in
economic development in Tacoma, and we had a sign on the wall
that said ``We're competing with everyone, everywhere, every
day forever,'' which I always found terribly intimidating. But,
you know, I think, you know, if you look at the genesis of
COMPETES and Rising Above the Gathering Storm, I think it is a
shot across our bow in terms of what it takes to increase our
global competitiveness and prepare tomorrow's workforce, and it
was done initially in a bipartisan way, and I think that is the
hope here as well.
Several of us on this Committee as part of the new
Democratic Coalition have worked on developing a set of
principles to guide the reauthorization of COMPETES
legislation, and in reviewing this draft, there is some overlap
including in the legislation that was just discussed about
dealing with the valley of death and improving proof-of-concept
ideas or seed money for projects that can lead to
commercialization. At the same time, I think as drafted, this
neglects some I think very core issues around the lack of
funding for basic research and lack of an innovation title, and
I want to ask initially at least about the lack of an
innovation title. As drafted, the FIRST Act doesn't include any
directed authorizations for programs such as the Regional
Innovation program, the reauthorization of a program authorized
in the 2010 COMPETES legislation to help spur the development
of regional innovation clusters or in general any pilot that
continues to examine ways to push innovation on a regional
level.
I would like to address the first question to all of the
witnesses. Do you feel it is important to include an innovation
title in the FIRST Act, and specifically if you can speak to
ideas around regional innovation clusters?
Dr. Killeen. I am happy to go first. I think regional
innovation is very much a sweet spot. Communities have built up
with past capacities, say, for example, in manufacturing that
now need to reach beyond the past into the new economy, and the
new economy is different from the old one. It is a knowledge
economy. So I think these regional clusters where you have the
combination of intellectual capacity and human capacity,
students coming forward with competencies, that is why the
connection to higher education is so important. You have the
flow of talent, you have the intellectual setting of the--and
the interdisciplinary kind of collaboration that is needed, and
you put that in a regional setting where there may be specific
things. So in New York, the regional economic development
councils have been very successful in forging that. So I would
personally strongly support an innovation title.
Dr. Sarewitz. Let me reinforce that and add a little
something to it. Dr. Killeen has mentioned a couple of times
the notion of innovation ecosystem, and I think those who have
been doing research on innovation systems have come
increasingly to appreciate the importance of regional
connections, and if you go back and look at the origins of
Silicon Valley and the Route 128 corridor around Boston, what
you see is the role of DOD in catalyzing all the different
elements of the ecosystems so they were aggressively funding
basic research at universities in the context of the defense
and military mission but also in the context of trying to
increase the flow of experts who they could then hire into the
defense system, but they were also providing funding for
startup firms, they were negotiating intellectual property
agreements, helping negotiate intellectual property agreements
between faculty and small startup firms, and from these--from
this ecosystem approach that DOD took in the late 1940s and the
early 1950s grew of course these innovation powerhouses around
Boston and Palo Alto. So I think it is really important to take
both a regional approach and an ecosystem approach in trying to
understand how to intervene in these systems.
Dr. Buckius. Well, the only thing I can really add to that
is, and it goes back to the previous testimony in July on the
TRANSFER Act, the recommendations that are in Section 421 here
I think will have an impact. At Purdue, we have evidence that
we have done very similar things with an endowment and we can
show for Federal support that when you provide some proof of
concept or development funding, we can show a 40 percent
increase in licensing rate over a 35-year history when you
invest this way. So we are very supportive of the TRANSFER Act
and what it can do in general.
Mr. Brown. I just note that our time has expired and I
don't think I have anything to add. Thanks.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bucshon. You are welcome. I recognize Mr.
Schweikert for five minutes.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I don't want to get too off track here, there was a
couple basic questions I wanted to sort of get my head around,
and Dr. Sarewitz, just as a bit of background, you have
actually staffed this Committee.
Dr. Sarewitz. The gentleman in the red vest was my esteemed
boss.
Mr. Schweikert. Okay. We will talk about whether he was a
good boss or a bad boss later.
Dr. Sarewitz. He was a wonderful boss.
Mr. Schweikert. Okay. I hand you a clean slate and say we
are not going to model the peer review mechanics, the way we
distribute funding. The methodology we do today isn't going to
be the model we built back in the 1950s but literally I am
going to ask you to design a modern system based on, you know,
the speed of distributed information, you know, the way the
world works today. How different would it look?
Dr. Sarewitz. Can I get back to you next year on that, Mr.
Schweikert? No, it's a great question because--and I can't
answer it directly but I can say that many of the issues that
the Committee in the draft bill are dealing with are the legacy
issues of the system that was created largely in the 1950s and
that created the initial conditions that now we see in the
system that we have, and I think that much of what is being
discussed today is about how to move away from a really over-
simple view of innovation that started with ramming some
resources into the basic research end of things and having
those diffuse out into the private sector--we all know that is
not how the system works.
Mr. Schweikert. Well, particularly today, and that is the
nature of my question is, you know, let us face it is, it is a
turbulent--you know, you never know what the next discovery is
going to be. Sometimes it is in someone's garage, sometimes it
is in a lab, sometimes it is on the Internet, and I have this
great fear we are still operating in this sort of silo
mechanic, and besides my other great concern, which I would
love others on the panel who are willing to go there in sort of
a peer review process where only a small number are getting
funded. Having read some of these, they almost sometimes read
more like marketing pieces, and my fear--and you all know,
there is literally, you know, grant-writing consultants out
there that actually have marketing backgrounds helping
academics write grants. So, I mean, there is something horribly
wrong in the way the silo works, so what would you change today
when we are working on it legislatively?
Dr. Sarewitz. So I will just talk for a second so I can let
my colleagues contribute here as well, but I actually think
that the obsession with the individual investigator is a bit of
a relic that we need to escape from. We are gradually escaping
from it. I think NSF's move towards focus on centers, for
example, is a productive way to think about it.
Mr. Schweikert. We should disclose to the group, we are
both from Arizona State University, and that has actually been
one of the fixations of now the largest university in the
country is bringing in, you know, discipline, you know,
multidiscipline----
Dr. Sarewitz. And organizing around problems. And I think I
would want to reemphasize the importance of a focus on the
relationship across all sectors and between institutions rather
than particular specific institutions.
I think it is the ecosystem function that matters, and it
is certainly true that the weakest link in an ecosystem can
compromise its function but we focus much less on the
interactions than we do on the individual components, and I
think that that is the key to addressing the sort of rethinking
that you are getting at, Mr. Schweikert, but I would be
interested in----
Mr. Schweikert. And it is always great when you give
everyone 60 seconds to answer one of the great questions of
life. Doctor?
Dr. Buckius. Can I just give you two principles that I
would put as foundational? You have to invest in the genius of
our scholars and our people. You don't want a top-down system.
You want the best ideas come from the genius ideas of the
people.
Mr. Schweikert. But isn't that one of the design problems
we have today? We have very much sort of an ivory tower system
that we are sort of trying to break apart.
Dr. Buckius. But the people have the ideas and so if we
start to tell them what the ideas are, we won't get the best
ideas. The other principle I think is certainty. There is so
much uncertainty now. We are losing a cadre of innovators that
will never come back. So we need some certainty in the system.
Mr. Schweikert. Okay, in 15 seconds.
Dr. Killeen. Fifteen seconds? It is a great question, and I
think there are many factors to it. The peer review system, it
is like a garden. It needs to be tended. There are bushes and
flowers and so forth. I do think there are some new historic
forcing functions that have to be taken into account, and NSF,
in my experience, does a fabulous job of these kind of
discussions and experimentation. One would be that the first
past-the-post model of peer review needs to be opened up to
more collaboration, which is what your question is driving at--
--
Mr. Schweikert. And I know we are over time, but I have
always had this curiosity of why isn't there a level of almost
crowdsourcing in the reviewer process----
Dr. Killeen. Absolutely.
Mr. Schweikert. --on a very large scale has a purifying
effect, and that is for a future round, so thank you for your
tolerance, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you. I will now recognize Ms. Esty
for five minutes.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brown, you haven't had a chance to speak for a while,
so I think it is time for a question for you. In your
testimony, you spoke about the poll finding that only one in
five college students found that they were adequately prepared,
well prepared in high school through the STEM disciplines, so I
would like to follow up on that.
We have been researching this pretty extensively in
Connecticut, and we have seen the difficulty schools are having
in supporting STEM education and making it accessible to
students, particularly, frankly, in the lower grades, and I
have introduced something called the STEM Jobs Act, which is
focused on enhancing professional development, again,
especially in these lower grades where frequently our educators
are not--this is not their field, this is not what they are
comfortable with. And I would like from your point of view as
Executive Director of a STEM ed coalition what you think the
best way the Federal Government can be successful in
encouraging STEM support for the teachers, particularly in
these lower grades.
Mr. Brown. Thank you for the question. The National Science
Foundation has a number of programs in this area, and if you
look across the rest of the Federal agencies, the largest
program in the Federal Government that deals with STEM
education as a sole purpose is something called the Math and
Science Partnership program at the Department of Education, and
one of the challenges we face when you talk about teacher
professional development is that the teaching environment is
changing really fast now, technologies in the classroom we are
dealing with new standards in many states and teachers are
challenged to keep up with the state-of-the-art fields that
didn't exist 15 years ago are now the focus of major education
reform efforts. And so that landscape is changing very quickly,
and one of the things that research shows that the quality of
the teacher in the classroom is a really important indicator of
the success of students. The corollary to that statistic of
kids not feeling they are prepared in college is the statistic
that only about 40 percent of the people who enter college in a
STEM degree finish the degree in six years.
So I think one of the principal goals of any coordination
function across the agencies or any Federal strategic plan
needs to place at its center the notion that we have to recruit
the best possible teachers into these jobs and we also have to
make sure that the existing teaching workforce is getting all
those supports that they need, and the Federal Government is
not the primary provider of resources to teachers, that is the
states, so we have to make sure that the Federal Government is
aligning its needs to the on-the-ground truth that educational
stakeholders can bring to that equation.
Ms. Esty. Thank you. And then I would like to turn again to
this innovation and ecosystem idea, which I think is
tremendously important.
I was struck as you were all speaking about the fact that
DOD was central to the development in Palo Alto as well as the
Boston-Cambridge area, but let us look at what DOD has:
virtually unlimited R&D money, long-term, no question that
money is going to be there, as well as specific goals in
breaking down silos to get people to focus on how to achieve
specific goals. So if you could think about in this constrained
budget situation we find ourselves in what lessons do we take
from this as we apply it towards public-private partnerships,
things like the semiconductor research corporation? How can we
think about leveraging of U.S. dollars, ensuring a constant
stream of dollars for basic R&D that will only come out of the
Federal Government, and nevertheless recognizing that we will
need help from the private sector to leverage that money,
ensure that stream keeps going? So whoever wants to weigh in on
that?
Dr. Sarewitz. Just briefly, first of all, I think you have
captured exactly the essence of the problem. Let me add two
other things about DOD. I mean, you mentioned the mission. That
is very important. Another is that it is both--it is and was
both the entity that commissioned the R&D and was the user of
the product so it could hold the feet of those who were doing
the R&D to the fire to produce what was necessary, and then
here is another key point. They had a pretty high price point.
It is not that just they spent a lot of money on R&D, which
they did; they spent a lot of money on procuring things and
they could do things like spend $30,000 for a 40-pound GPS
receiver that was the first one that was going to be used as a
prototype that then created some confidence in the producers
that they could then spin this out, particularly in civilian
applications. It is very difficult to reproduce that in the
civilian sector. But I do think one of the keys is close
understanding between the users, potential users of the
information and those who are producing it, and often this gets
people who are applicants for basic research a little edgy
because they think it is about controlling the agenda of basic
research. That is not the case. Much basic research is done in
the service of particular goals. It is not controlled. It is an
exploration of the fundamental science, but it is within a
context, and I think it is very important to understand that
much productive basic research is carried out within a context
that requires communication between those doing the research or
their entities and the ultimate user of the knowledge.
Dr. Killeen. I would just like to add if I could, it is
another perceptive question. I think it is all about partnering
and partnerships, and partnerships have to be authentic and
they have to be conducted with integrity and all the
accountability layers and transparencies that are needed. But I
think there is an opportunity here to open up the throttle on
our R&D enterprise largely writ in this country to close those
gaps, to develop policies that allow those intellectual
properties to flow and ebb and ebb and flow. This is not to
take anything away from basic research. It is an ``and.'' Basic
research is absolutely essential and needed in order to enable
these kinds of larger-scale public-private partnerships that
can drive regional economies, and we have seen that and we have
examples of that happening in our state.
Dr. Buckius. Do you want more? So, just one quick comment.
Partnerships other than the Federal Government are going to be
important to every one of us. We have approval from the board
of trustees Purdue to fundamentally change our intellectual
property so that we can be what I would call true partners now
with industry rather than a remote partner, and so we hope that
we are going to become, well, the preferential partners in
cases but our goal is to be much better partners with folks
than we have been in the past.
Ms. Esty. Thank you all very much.
Chairman Bucshon. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Hultgren
for five minutes.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here to discuss this very important subject and important
legislation that is going to be before us here. Scientific
research funded through NSF, NIST, OSTP are such an important
piece of America's innovative ecosystem as we have all been
talking about this morning, and it is crucial, especially at a
time like this fiscally challenging time, for us to ensure that
our money is spent in the smartest possible ways.
I am also greatly concerned by the Administration's
proposed STEM reorganization, which many of the scientific
community were equally caught off guard with. I am glad this
Committee will continue working with the stakeholder
communities, the people actually on the ground and in the
classrooms, to ensure our STEM education proposals are in the
best interest of our children and the disciplines we hope to
make more accessible to them.
Mr. Brown, I wonder if I can focus this to you at first.
What has been your reaction to the proposed STEM reorganization
and how does this draft legislation address potential concerns
in the STEM education stakeholder communities?
Mr. Brown. Well, first I would like to thank you for
stepping up this Congress and becoming one of the co-chairs of
the STEM Education Caucus. It is nice that you and Mr. Lipinski
are co-chairs and on this Committee. One of the things I
mentioned, in our written testimony we cite a lengthy letter
with views on many different aspects of the Administration's
budget proposal. I think you characterized it correctly in
terms of the reaction from the community. In fact, the nature
of that proposal and the sort of sweeping changes that were
proposed with very little stakeholder input and with very
little clarity on how the missions of programs proposed for
elimination would either be kept or integrated into other
efforts and across agencies, across appropriations bills. I
think the budget proposal itself has raised this issue of
needing to create a more formal mechanism for stakeholder input
into STEM education programs, which it may be somewhat of a
blessing in disguise considering that despite all these
concerns, if you look at how it is reflected in the
appropriations process we have, it hasn't really gone very far.
So if the result of that process is to create a better
stakeholder mechanism, I think we made some progress there. But
I would like to give the Administration credit for giving us a
good example of how things can work the right way, and that
is--last summer in July, the President announced, I believe in
the Rose Garden, a $1 billion STEM master teacher coordination,
and frankly, it is kind of hard not to default into my Austin
Powers voice when I talk about something like that, but it was
a really large investment and it was news to a lot of the
people in this room, and, you know, that is a great challenge,
but I am not sure that, you know, everybody looked at that as
being vetted with the community and having the right kinds of
input, and to the Administration's infinite credit, they got a
large group of stakeholders together and worked on this problem
for about six months and produced something in the budget
proposal that was a $35 million very focused pilot program that
recognizes the challenges in creating a national STEM master
teacher core. That is the kind of process we like to see on a
much larger scale.
Mr. Hultgren. Thanks. I would open this up to all of you if
you have some thoughts. We certainly have already discussed
much about the post-secondary education STEM efforts within a
formal setting, but I would like to get your perspective on the
importance of utilizing informal science education institutions
such as museums as an avenue for STEM engagement that cannot
always be made in the classroom, especially to earlier grades.
We are so spoiled, those of us who spend time here in
Washington, D.C., just the incredible museums we have. I feel
the same way in Chicago of just amazing museums. I was down at
the Museum of Science and Industry, just this week I was back
visiting with them and seeing some of their latest exhibits, so
inspiring, able to walk around and just see the faces of young
people excited about science through that. I wonder if you
could talk a little bit--I only have a minute left but would
love to hear your thoughts if any of you have thoughts of some
of those informal settings that can inspire and be a key
component of the ecosystem of STEM education.
Dr. Buckius. So at NSF under broader impacts, many of the
proposals do talk about informal education, and so when we are
funding activities in even basic research, the broader impact
side can address informal education through museums, and I
don't have the data but I was absolutely amazed when those
folks come forward with the impact that museums and informal
education can have on this country.
Dr. Sarewitz. Very quickly, yeah. We have had fabulous
interactions with museums, also with the informal science
education group in education and human resources at NSF.
Museums--our interest is in getting citizens engaged in
discussions about science and technology and their social
implications. Museums are wonderful places because they cycle
through such huge numbers of people who are automatically
engaged but museums are very creative. They really love this
kind of stuff, and it is actually a different model of science
education that I think hasn't nearly been taken seriously
enough but we found to be very, very productive.
Dr. Killeen. I would just add, just generalizing your very
astute comment, I think experiential learning in all settings
at all levels of education has been shown to give better
outcomes in terms of STEM competencies and just public affinity
for science. Museums are great. You know, it can change
people's lives to have an active, hands-on experiential
opportunity post-secondary, pre-secondary, and we need to do
that at an enterprise level in order to really attract the best
capital, human capital to the table.
Dr. Sarewitz. Can I add one quick point to that, which is,
it has curricular implications too. We have discovered that
through museums, getting students interested in the social
aspects of science and technology, then get them interested in
the science and technology itself in ways that they wouldn't
have been beforehand.
Mr. Hultgren. My time is expired, but I do want to just say
thank you. We all agree how important this is. I do have to
tell you, they are nervous again with some of the proposals
that have been coming out, and just we are shocked, so I ask
again, any way we can be working together, linking arms, making
sure everybody understands how important this is and that we
are not pulling the rug out from this key component of museums
that absolutely spark interest, certainly in young people but
even in parents that get to go along with their kids and
things.
So with that, Chairman, thank you for your generosity and
the time, and I appreciate you holding this hearing. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Bucshon. I now recognize Mr. Peters for five minutes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, gentlemen, for being here.
I want to go back to something we talked about, an
observation that there seems to be a little bit of
inconsistency in the draft with respect to streamlining and
with respect to this national interest, and I guess the
observation I have is that the system that we have developed
for science, this peer review system, has proven so effective
because it has been independent of the government, and we don't
do a lot of supervising of what basic scientific research would
be because-- and by its nature, we don't really know where it
is going to lead. So does it strike you as inconsistent with
that to add this overlay of a governmental judgment on whether
it is in the national interest? Does that concern you at all?
Dr. Killeen, maybe?
Dr. Killeen. Well, If I have a concern, it is mostly the
message that this bill will send out to the world. In fact, and
as my testimony indicated, I hope it is vibrant, enthusiastic,
let's take on the 21st century, U.S. can do kind of message
rather that one that seeks to find the constraints and stiffen
the sinews. I think my personal experience with NSF, it is a
magnificent national asset, and we don't want to throttle it
back nor do we want to have the self-policing get to a point
where there are clear infractions of integrity and
accountability. So this is a delicate balance that you have to
face. We need to unleash the high-performance aircraft here and
recognize that a lot of the flaps are going to have to be
moving to keep it stable and flying and not limit the
opportunity space.
Mr. Peters. It is nice that we are the envy of the world in
what we have created. We have done it, and we have respected
that innovation happens outside of this building, to say the
least, and for us to be putting anyone in judgment of what is
in the national interest in that context seems to me to be
shooting ourselves in the foot.
The other thing I will make an observation of is that with
respect to streamlining, we are asking in Section 301 that the
Office of Science and Technology Policy look at regulations to
try to make streamlined, and now we are adding this Section
104, new requirements that would increase the administrative
burden on NSF and on its researchers. So it just seems to me
that we ought to be combing out of this--the interference that
the government would pose on a system of scientific research,
not just with NSF but across the board including things like
NIH that has proven to be so innovative and productive and has
set us up as the leaders in science in the world. So it does
strike me as odd that we would be in this Committee trying to
find ways to constrain what had been so successful.
Which bureaucratic--assuming you accept the notion that we
should be asking the government to decide what the scientific
value or the national interest is in this research, what would
be the kind of bureaucratic setup and findings that wouldn't
interfere in the way that I am expressing concern about? Do you
see any way that you could set it up without interfering in
what has been such a success already? Anyone?
Dr. Sarewitz. Can I step in here? I think it is important
not to--it is certainly important to protect peer review from
political interference and from bureaucratic excess but it is
also important not to treat it as sacrosanct and as if it is
always perfect. I think--I have never administered peer
reviewed programs but I have been a peer reviewer, I have been
on NSF peer review panels, so I am familiar--and I have been
the subject of peer review, both positive and negative. So no
one thinks it is perfect, and I think that is important to
understand how to improve it especially in a time of fierce
competition.
Getting back to the Economist article that I opened my
statement with, I think there is evidence in fact that the peer
review process is not up to some of the tasks of dealing with
the challenges of a highly competitive, highly kind of hype-
driven enterprise. So I think we need to take that seriously,
and I think it is really important to have this discussion. As
I have said, I am not particularly attracted to the specific
provision of Section 104 but I do think the goal of being
smarter about this is appropriate, and I think that NSF's
response this summer in basically refusing to talk about what
its process was did not serve it well because, in fact, they
should be proud of the peer review process and should be
willing to talk about how it works.
Mr. Peters. As I understand it, the issues you have
identified aren't ones that would be dealt with in this
building as well as in the scientific community at large.
Dr. Sarewitz. I am not so sure. I think----
Mr. Peters. Publication of negative information or the way
we don't make data available early in the process, those are
all things that can be done without a determination of whether
a specific scientific research project is in the national
interest. My time is expired.
Dr. Sarewitz. This is true, but Congress is often very good
at providing signals that allow NSF to act.
Mr. Peters. Different issue, but thank you very much for
being here. I appreciate it.
Mr. Collins. [Presiding] Thank you. The Chair now
recognizes the Congresswoman from Wyoming, Mrs. Lummis, for
five minutes.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our
witnesses for being in attendance.
My questions are going to revolve around how to create a
sustainable path to fund research, especially basic research.
Now, we know that under the stimulus bill, there was an
additional $3 billion that was provided to the NSF. Other
research agencies saw a similar injection of funding. So these
were one-time funds. Is it better to have steady funding at a
sustainable level or do these one-time injections help
stimulate an area of research that is really cutting edge? Dr.
Buckius?
Dr. Buckius. Thank you. This is a great question. There is
no question that the stimulus funding energized a tremendous
number of activities in this country, well received, and I
think the research that was performed was just superb. I am
going to go back to my principles though. Certainty will help
our innovators and our young people get into basic research,
and if we don't have some certainty, then I am really fearful
that we are going to lose a whole generation of potential
discoveries. So I would argue if you gave me a yes or no to go
for certainty, but when you plunk down funding and if you have
a national challenge and you put funding out there to solve
that problem, you are going to get great ideas too. So I don't
want to say that it is an either/or but I do really worry about
the future of the country, the debt we are going to have if we
don't have these folks being the true innovators. So certainty,
I think, would take precedence.
Mrs. Lummis. Does anyone else different? Dr. Killeen, I see
you nodding.
Dr. Killeen. I absolutely agree with that. I was at NSF
when the stimulus package came, and I could cite many wonderful
things that transpired from that. But if you are looking at a
steady growth, I think that is the recipe for a real muscular
program going forward. If success rates for proposals drop to
single digits, you can imagine a young 35-year-old who has gone
through all the hard classes and is ready to do things for the
country in the national interesting, bringing all that to bear,
and she has to write 10 proposals for a chance to get an award
to liberate that energy, that is not really enough. So we need
a way to manage the process so that the human capital can
actually be brought to the table and these brilliant young
investigators participate in the future of R&D, which I think
is Dr. Buckius's point.
Mrs. Lummis. Anyone else wish to weigh in on that
particular issue? Okay, then.
I am going to move to the notion of, how then when we have
sort of a pop of money can we maximize its effect? Dr. Buckius,
you mentioned earlier the notion of identifying those truly
brilliant individuals and providing them with the resources
they need to maximize their benefit to society. Can that be
done through particular prizes? Is there a better way to
identify and fund those absolutely magnificently brilliant
scientists?
Dr. Buckius. What I was getting at is grant challenges, so
it might not even be a scientist, but your point is well taken.
Prizes, I think, are an interesting approach, and I think it
goes back to this crowdsourcing idea. I think we are going into
kind of a new era where maybe some of these kinds of ideas
could actually challenge our young people and we might see some
very creative activities. I am back to this point where the
genius is in the individuals, and we have got to get it out,
and the way to get it ought might be some kind of a prize
situation, or a moon shot, you know, another Sputnik, something
that will actually challenge the young folks to actually be
very, very creative and get into this business.
Mrs. Lummis. Anyone else?
If we had flat funding, which in this environment seems to
be more realistic, and then had these little pops of additional
funding, how could that be utilized most effectively,
especially with regard to basic research? Anyone?
Dr. Killeen. Well, what comes to my mind is, the hardest
decisions at NSF are the declination decisions, and if you are
leaving on a cutting-room floor so many wonderful ideas, a pop
sounds great, any pop sounds great if you are representing a
community that is vital, that is integrated, that is moving
out, that has got great ideas. So I wouldn't dismiss anything
that would provide us the scientific and technical and
educational communities with forward momentum. That is what we
need, forward momentum to grasp the challenges that we have
talked about before of economic development, of new knowledge
creation, of retaining our status as first in economic
competitiveness.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. My time is expired. Thank you all,
gentlemen.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
Congresswoman from Florida, Ms. Wilson, for five minutes.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Over the past decade, inflation-adjusted wages for the
bottom 70 percent of income earners have actually fallen. A key
reason for this unacceptable decline is decline of
manufacturing and other sectors that offer high-paying jobs and
offer good wages. There is a responsible and sustainable way to
address this crisis of jobs and wages. We must invest in
innovation.
While it is essential that we authorize America COMPETES, I
have deep, deep concerns about the FIRST Act as it now stands.
We need to maintain our focus on research to boost
competitiveness but I fear that the new stipulations in this
bill are focused more on regulating the efforts of scientists
who do not need burdensome new Federal oversight. Can either of
you speak to why the Innovation Services Initiative was
eliminated under the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP
program, in the current draft? The initiative's purpose has
been to help small and medium-sized manufacturers lower their
energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and environmental
waste. I have always believed that efficiency and cost saving
were bipartisan values, and given the recent events in the
Philippines and the most recent report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, it strikes me as highly irresponsible
to eliminate efforts to deal with the mounting problem of
greenhouse gas emissions.
Can you speak to why you believe the Innovation Services
Initiative was eliminated?
Dr. Buckius. I will be very honest: I did not understand
that section of this particular draft discussion.
Ms. Wilson. You do not understand what?
Dr. Buckius. I didn't--so I think you are referring to 408,
and I did not understand what was actually being withdrawn, so
I really can't comment on that.
Ms. Wilson. So is that a secret?
Dr. Sarewitz. I think I can speak for us and say that
overall we are sympathetic with the position that you are
articulating but can't speak to the specifics of the point as
made in the bill.
Ms. Wilson. Oh, okay. So perhaps we need additional
hearings on that particular initiative.
Okay. I believe Mr. Kilmer did speak about America
COMPETES, but in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of
2010, this Committee authorized the Department of Commerce to
partner with local communities to help spur the development of
regional innovative clusters that leverage regional assets and
resources around a particular niche or industry. This was an
exciting provision with regard to my goal of spurring
innovation that promotes job creation. As currently drafted,
the FIRST Act does not reauthorize this program. This Committee
has heard repeatedly that regional innovation is important for
economic growth and job creation. Are you supportive of Federal
efforts to spur regional clusters? If so, what should this
Committee be doing to foster success in such clusters?
Dr. Killeen. I think I am definitely in support of regional
economic development clusters. I think we have seen in New
York, for example, tremendous advances in nanotechnology which
are leading to new jobs in advanced manufacturing that can
transform communities and that kind of thinking is I think
underpinning your questions and your concerns. We talked
earlier in the hearing about an innovation title to this draft
discussion bill, which I think might well add value to that
along the lines that you are suggesting.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you. Anyone else? No one else is
supportive of the Federal efforts to foster clusters?
Dr. Buckius. No, I think you heard we are supportive.
Ms. Wilson. Good.
Dr. Sarewitz. We had, before you were able to come to the
hearing, a similar colloquy with Congresswoman Esty, and I
think we all indicated that we think that this is where the
action is to a considerable extent.
Ms. Wilson. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Collins. I would like to now ask unanimous consent that
the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, be recognized for
five minutes. Without objection, the Chair does recognize Ms.
Bonamici for five minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing, and thank you to the Ranking Member as
well, and for allowing me to participate even though I am not
on this Subcommittee. It is a very important issue.
In the district I represent in Oregon, innovation is key to
the economy, much of which depends on STEM and high-tech
fields, and even though I missed the testimony--I was in the
Education Committee--I assure you, I read the testimony and the
word ``innovation'' is mentioned multiple times, not only in
your testimony but also in the proposed legislation, and
business leaders often describe innovation and creativity as a
key to economic growth, global competitiveness, and like my
colleagues, I hear from technology companies about the need for
more STEM graduates and from constituents and educators who
know that keeping students interested in STEM requires
interdisciplinary education. But how do we assure that we have
innovators? As this Committee considers legislation to
reauthorize America COMPETES Act and in any STEM education
discussions, I urge my colleagues to consider the potential
that integrating the arts and design broadly defined into STEM
education and the role that that can play in developing
innovative minds.
Research shows that educating and engaging both halves of
the brain can help to foster innovation and do more to keep
students engaged, and this potential is why our colleague,
Representative Aaron Schock, and I have started a bipartisan
STEM to STEAM Caucus where we promote the integration of arts
and design into STEM learning, to engage students, to develop
their creativity and critical-thinking skills, and to encourage
them to pursue and stay in STEM careers.
There was a recent issue of Economic Development Quarterly,
and they talked about a study. Here is just a part of the
abstract. Government, schools and other nonprofit organizations
are engaged in critical budget discussions that may affect our
economic development success. The assumption is that arts and
crafts are dispensable extras. Research suggests, however, that
disposing of arts and crafts may have negative consequences for
the country's ability to produce innovative scientists and
engineers who invent patentable products and found new
companies. And that is one of the reasons why the U.S. Patent
Office was at our kickoff of the caucus, very interested in
this issue of assuring we have an innovative workforce.
So I want to ask Dr. Buckius--I hope I said your name
right--in your testimony, you talk about Federal research and
how it enables the education and training of the next
generation of innovators, and you say that our STEM students
and all students need a broad-based education to make a
difference in the world. So can you talk about that difference
that a well-rounded, broad-based education makes in fostering
innovation?
Dr. Buckius. Thank you for this question. I could not have
asked a better one. So Purdue, when you add up our engineering
graduates and our technology graduates, we graduate the most of
those in the country now. Our president at Purdue has very
clearly made a statement that we believe in a broad-based
education. We believe that if you are going to succeed in this
world today, it cannot only be the STEM disciplines--we have
two A's, by the way, arts and agriculture--and we clearly
support this concept. Interdisciplinary activities which you
referred to are also central. People need to understand that
the problems and the issues that are facing this country and
facing this world aren't going to come from one discipline very
much longer, and so we need to generate graduates who
understand the breadth of problems that we are all going to
see. I am very supportive of all your comments.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
And Dr. Killeen, you mentioned workforce development in
America COMPETES and indicate you would support research into
understanding how students learn STEM and how to best teach
students in STEM fields. So is there room for improvement in
the curriculum? And I would also like Mr. Brown to respond to
that as well.
Dr. Killeen. Yes, I think there is also room to improve the
curriculum and to improve the cognitive gain that students get,
and I love your A perspective on STEM. It is all-hands-on-deck
kind of world we are living in. We need to engage all primary
stakeholders in solutions that are meaningful for society. I
think the biggest thing I would say, though, about STEM
education is, I think we know now the role of experiential
learning, that that really can transform engagement. It leads
to persistence when students enter undergraduate settings. We
have seen that firsthand as research demonstrates that. So it
is not just in the classroom hearing the pedagogy or online
with online but hands-on opportunities that allow for
experiential learning. I think that is definitely part of the
secret sauce.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. This is a fascinating topic about how to
integrate the arts into STEM education or STEAM education, and
thank you for starting your caucus and trying to integrate
those efforts with the larger STEM education conversation. I
think we have a lot of issues with regard to how the term STEM
is defined, and one of the things that we emphasize really
strongly in our testimony, and I hope the Committee moves on
this, is the notion of having a very stakeholder-based
definition of the STEM subjects, and I would certainly think
that the arts community would be a stakeholder in that
conversation because when we talk to employers, they talk about
creativity, design skills, things that fall within the arts
community, and we certainly want to make sure they have a seat
at the table when we talk about what, you know, the skills of
the future really are.
Ms. Bonamici. My time is expired. Thank you again, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Collins. Well, thank you. That will bring our hearing
to a close. I want to thank all the witnesses for your
testimony. It was very appropriate and timely.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
comments and written questions from Members.
So with that, the witnesses are excused. The hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Richard Buckius
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology
Fundamental scientific research is critical to maintain American
innovation and competitiveness. American researchers have developed new
technologies that save lives, increase economic productivity, jump-
start new industries and improve the quality of life for all Americans.
Our challenge today is to ensure America remains first in the
global marketplace of ideas and products.
Today we consider a discussion draft of the Frontiers in
Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology Act or FIRST Act. The
FIRST Act helps ensure that American researchers remain number one in
the global marketplace for innovations that change our communities and
advance our understanding of the world.
The FIRST Act reauthorizes the National Science Foundation (NSF),
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and makes
changes to improve coordination of STEM education programs. This
discussion draft is, in part, a result of discussions with stakeholders
in the R&D community.
Federally-funded R&D is one of the best investments we can make in
our nation's future. We can't have innovation without research and
development. We must continue to support the fundamental R&D that
creates jobs, encourages innovations and establishes scientific bridges
to next generation technologies.
The FIRST Act affirms our commitment to high-integrity science and
prioritizes national R&D to ensure that American tax dollars are used
effectively and efficiently in funding federal research. We must focus
scientific funding on high priority research like developing
technologies to help wounded warriors or creating a high-performance
supercomputer to rival China's.
The FIRST Act ensures that our nation stays on the cutting edge of
new technology and strengthens technology transfer and
commercialization of federally funded R&D. Not only does the FIRST Act
help us remain globally competitive in the present, it ensures
stakeholder input in STEM programs so that we remain the world leader
in innovative research and technology for years to come. Our draft
legislation also increases transparency within federally funded science
and research. Americans want and deserve to know what their money is
paying for.
The FIRST Act requires federally funded research data to be made
available to the public. It also requires that federally-funded
researchers certify that what they publish is based on accurate
representation of research results.
The FIRST Act stresses quality over quantity for publication
citations used in NSF grant applications. This provision will ensure
that only quality science that is vital to American innovation and
competitiveness receives funding.
The bill also directs the NSF to assure that each grant application
is relevant to the national interest. The bill requires that NSF staff
provide clear justifications for why grants are awarded federal funds.
Government employees and their program managers should be
accountable to the American taxpayer for their funding decisions. They
should explain why grants that receive taxpayer funding are important
research that has the potential to benefit the national interest. It's
not the government's money; it's the people's money.
Enhanced transparency and accountability isn't a burden; it will
ultimately make NSF's grant award process more effective.
Eight of the 13 Nobel Prize winners in 2013 received support from
NSF. We want to continue NSF's success of supporting high-quality
research. Making more information available to the American public
about awarded grants and requiring that they promote the national
interest will help NSF to continue to produce first-rate scientific
research.
At a time of budget cuts, Congress has a responsibility to ensure
that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and are focused on national
priorities. The FIRST Act will ensure that federally funded research is
conducted in a transparent and responsible manner in order to ensure
that America remains ``FIRST'' in all areas of science and research.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]