N.B. I am extremely grateful to the National Science Board Office (NSBO), and its dedicated and talented cadre of professional staff, who helped prepare my testimony. These include, but are not limited to, Elizabeth Jeffers, Elise Lipkowitz, Nadine Lymn, Andrea Rambow, Amanda Vernon, and John Veysey.
In my role as chair of the U.S. National Science Board, which oversees the National Science Foundation (NSF), I recently testified to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, along with the NSF Director, Sethuraman Panchanathan. The hearing was entitled “An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2024.”
These hearings typically follow a standard script, with initial statements from the committee chair and the ranking member. You can read Chair Lucas’ statement here, including his important observation:
I strongly believe that the nation that leads in science and technology will shape the world order for the next century. I’d like that nation to be ours, and I’d like for emerging technologies to be developed with our values of transparency and fairness.
Opening statements from the committee chair and ranking member are then followed by oral statements from the witnesses, typically five minutes each, with a subsequent question and answer period. There, each member of the committee is allotted five minutes to ask questions. The fact that the hearing lasted two and a half hours, with thoughtful questions, speaks to the level of interest from both political parties. You can find the hearing details here, including the written statements from NSF Director Panchanathan and me (Download Reed Testimony), as well as a video of the oral statements and the subsequent question and answer period.
I have spent decades talking to U.S. Senators, Representatives, Congressional staffers, and policy groups. (See Working the Hill.) Despite the rancor that often exists in the U.S. Congress, the House Science Committee continues to operate in a bipartisan way, strongly supporting investment in basic research. I am grateful to both Chair Lucas and Ranking Member Lofgren for their strong support for the CHIPS and Science Act, in both the previous Congress and in this one. This hearing was a continuation of that support.
My Written Testimony
My extended written testimony, entitled Upgrading the Future: Realizing Better Dreams, outlines the issues in greater detail, but the gist of my argument is simple. The United States is losing ground in science and engineering. The country needs to increase investment in basic research – both people and leading-edge research infrastructure – expand the numbers and diversity of the STEM workforce, while continuing to be a magnet for global talent, and more aggressively translate research ideas into practice. The latter is the focus of the NSF’s new Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) Directorate.
I also called for a more coherent, strategic plan for U.S. science and engineering, one that engages “all of government” in a collaborative, coherent way. To be clear, I was not calling for a top-down government plan, with all its attendant bureaucratic burdens, but rather one that lays out the key components our system needs and rewards systems thinking. I hope the upcoming Quadrennial Review, called for in the CHIPS and Science Act, moves the nation in this direction. I know the National Science Board is eager to partner with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) on this project.
In my written testimony, I also drew an analogy between operating systems and our science and engineering ecosystem as an operating system. As we have become more complacent in our approach, we have resorted to patching “holes” in the code. As any computing expert knows, it is expedient in the short term, but in the long term, it is a risky strategy. Fixing one piece of code can break another, and a multitude of patches creates a brittle system, making it difficult to add desirable new features or respond to new threats.
Simply put, we are running a patched, 20th century innovation ecosystem in a 21st century world. We need to upgrade our entire operating system: expanding and diversifying the STEM talent pipeline, accelerating the delivery of research benefits, upgrading our research infrastructure, and elevating our commitment to basic research.
With that backdrop, what follows is my opening statement, as delivered, with a few additional annotations for context. Again, you can watch the video here.
My Opening Statement
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Lofgren, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you as Chair of the National Science Board. Thank you as well for the CHIPS & Science Act and its bold blueprint for a brighter future.
One of my favorite science fiction authors, Neal Stephenson, once wrote, “if we want to create a better future, we need to start with better dreams.” The CHIPS & Science Act is the stuff of better dreams, and it arrives at a critical juncture for our nation. (See For Science and Society, The Future Begins with Better Dreams.)
To ensure future breakthroughs and innovations are “Made in America,” we must continue translating the Act’s vison into action – advancing scientific frontiers, developing STEM talent, expanding the geography of innovation, and delivering benefits to society.
Fully funding the Administration’s FY24 budget request will help make the vision a reality. But, we must to do more.
Let me be clear: U.S. leadership in science and technology is in peril. China is charging ahead, and absent further action, it is not a question of if but when the United States loses its STEM leadership, with deep consequences for our country.
Here’s why we must act – now.
FIRST. China’s announcement that it is ramping up government investment in basic research as “the only way to build a world scientific and technological power” both validates our strategy and highlights our challenge.
It’s time for us to “double down” – expand investment in basic research and cutting edge scientific instruments – nationwide – and unleash American innovation.
SECOND. China continues to invest heavily in building its homegrown talent and now produces more STEM PhDs than the United States.
Meanwhile, we face a STEM talent crisis. Students at all levels and all backgrounds are struggling in STEM – and COVID made it much worse. This crippling situation is even more acute for students from lower socioeconomic standing or underrepresented backgrounds. We are simply not producing enough STEM workers – at all levels – to meet the needs of a 21st century economy, and we are leaving millions of talented individuals behind. (See Missing Talent, Missing Opportunities, and Losing Ground.)
For our STEM workforce to be representative of the U.S. population in 2030, the number of women must nearly double, Hispanic or Latinos must triple, Black or African Americans must more than double, and the number of American Indian or Alaska Natives must quadruple.
Forty-eight years ago, I was a poor, first-generation college student from the Arkansas Ozarks, studying computer science. I was fortunate to graduate debt free, thanks to academic scholarships, a Basic Educational Opportunity Grant (now Pell), and my paltry savings. While I am extraordinarily grateful, I am alarmed that my educational path is no longer widely available. (See Transforming Lives via Public Higher Education.)
To grow our STEM talent base, we must do more to make higher education affordable and STEM graduate work more financially viable. Hence, NSF’s FY24 budget request emphasizes broadening participation in STEM education and turning STEM career dreams into realities. (See Public Higher Education: A New Social Compact for Innovation.)
THIRD AND FINALLY. We must deliver research benefits to society.
NSF’s new Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships – TIP – will accelerate innovation by supporting use-inspired research and translation, building institutional and regional innovation capacity, and enhancing academic, government, and industry partnerships.
At the end of World War II, the compelling rationale for federal government research investment was to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense.
Almost eighty years later, it still is.
I dream historians – and our children and grandchildren – will mark now as the time we not only embraced better dreams, but put aside our differences, committed to our common goals, and acted – with compelling vision and unwavering resolution – to create a better future – for our country and for the world.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Concluding Perspectives
While we in the United States continue to debate and dither, the time for concerted action grows ever shorter and the stakes grow ever higher. Having watched and learned, other countries have been investing heavily in their own innovation ecosystems, cultivating human talent, expanding their knowledge workforce, and constructing the advanced infrastructure needed to facilitate discovery, economic growth, and defense capabilities.
It’s time for the United States to relearn and heed Vannevar Bush’s important lesson, delivered in his seminal essay, Science: The Endless Frontier, at the end of World War II:
… since health, well-being, and security are proper concerns of Government, scientific progress is, and must be, of vital interest to Government. Without scientific progress the national health would deteriorate; without scientific progress we could not hope for improvement in our standard of living or for an increased number of jobs for our citizens; and without scientific progress we could not have maintained our liberties against tyranny.
Science – it’s about a better future – for everyone.
Comments