NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION: ADVANCING RESEARCH FOR THE FUTURE OF U.S. INNOVATION, PART I
Summary
Serial No. 117-10 prints the hearing National Science Foundation: Advancing Research for the Future of U.S. Innovation, Part I, before the Subcommittee on Research and Technology of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives, on April 28, 2021. Chairwoman Haley Stevens opens the virtual hearing and praises the National Science Foundation's role in the COVID-19 response. Witnesses are Sethuraman Panchanathan, Director, National Science Foundation, and Ellen Ochoa, Chair, National Science Board. Statements are also listed from Ranking Members Michael Waltz and Frank Lucas and from Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson. Appendices contain answers to post-hearing questions and additional material for the record, including letters submitted by Representative Don Beyer.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION: ADVANCING RESEARCH FOR THE FUTURE OF U.S. INNOVATION, PART I.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/national-science-foundation-advancing-research-for-the-future-of-u-s-i-65f5c0b9ee/
, SHA-256 7998720de16956cda13ef85da050de3262008b02f33004aa2daeb3c416d8ff46.Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION:
ADVANCING RESEARCH FOR THE FUTURE
OF U.S. INNOVATION, PART I
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-363PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
JERRY McNERNEY, California PETE SESSIONS, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
BILL FOSTER, Illinois MIKE GARCIA, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
DON BEYER, Virginia YOUNG KIM, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina JAY OBERNOLTE, California
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DAN KILDEE, Michigan VACANCY
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, Chairwoman
PAUL TONKO, New York MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida,
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin Ranking Member
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
DON BEYER, Virginia PETE SESSIONS, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina PETER MEIJER, Michigan
C O N T E N T S
April 28, 2021
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Statement by Representative Michael Waltz, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 21
Written Statement............................................ 22
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 23
Witnesses:
Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan, Director, National Science
Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 25
Written Statement............................................ 27
Dr. Ellen Ochoa, Chair, National Science Board
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 40
Discussion....................................................... 49
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan, Director, National Science
Foundation..................................................... 76
Dr. Ellen Ochoa, Chair, National Science Board................... 88
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives
American Society of Civil Engineers.......................... 92
Letters submitted by Representative Don Beyer, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
David J. Verardo, Ph.D., President of Local 3403 at the NSF,
American Federation of Government Employees................ 98
Everett B. Kelley, National President, American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO.............................. 101
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION:
ADVANCING RESEARCH FOR THE FUTURE
OF U.S. INNOVATION, PART I
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m.,
via Zoom, Hon. Haley Stevens [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. This hearing is going to come to
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess at any time.
Pursuant to House Resolution 8, today the Committee is
meeting virtually. I want to announce a couple of reminders to
the Members about the conduct of this remote hearing. First,
Members need to keep their video feed on as long as they are
present in the hearing. Members are responsible also for their
own microphone. Please also keep your microphones muted unless
you are speaking. If Members have documents they wish to submit
for the record, please email them to the Committee Clerk, whose
email address was circulated prior to the hearing.
Good morning, and thank you all for joining our virtual
hearing on examining the advancement of scientific research for
the future of U.S. innovation through the National Science
Foundation (NSF). I am speaking to you today from the Oakland
County Commission Chambers, a few short miles from Oakland
University, home of the School of Engineering and Computer
Science and a proud recipient of over 9 million NSF dollars
that they are using for active projects for stem cell biology,
cybersecurity capacity, and STEM (science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics) education. It is just one
snapshot here at Oakland University of the incredible impact
that the NSF makes through their $8.5 billion budget.
I want to thank Dr. Panchanathan and Dr. Ochoa for
testifying today and bringing your passion, your expertise,
your dedication to the leading scientific research agency for
the United States of America. And welcome virtually to all of
today's participants, Committee Members, to Oakland County,
Michigan, where we proudly boast the largest robot just, again,
a couple miles down the road at Fanuc from the destination I'm
sitting right now. I'm also in the hub of innovators and makers
that have been long connected to the National Science
Foundation.
I also want to take a minute to welcome my colleague Mr.
Mike Waltz, the Ranking Member of the Research and Technology
Subcommittee. This is his first hearing as the Ranking Member,
and we welcome him to this new role and certainly recognizing
the linkages that my State Michigan shares starting with I-75,
which is just a pinch outside of his district in eastern
Florida, which includes Daytona Beach.
We have an enormous topic before us here today, and we are
preparing as a Subcommittee a rigorous effort to determine the
course of how we will exercise the full weight of the U.S.
scientific research agenda and continue to lead the world in
terms of emerging technologies and economies of scale. We are
here today to examine, but also determine, a course of action
and a vision for a rapidly advancing future of the United
States and our innovation agenda. We are also here to ensure
that NSF and to evaluate the funding, the adequate funding
needed for the National Science Foundation.
While we await the President's full budget, his priorities
are more than clear. The proposed 20 percent increase to the
National Science Foundation budget has the potential to unleash
more scientific research, scientists working with their
students to study the changing climate, advancing our Nation's
efforts in artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, and
so much more, including our continued response to the COVID-19
pandemic and our efforts to usher in an equity agenda for all
scientists and potential scientists around the country.
Our hearing is also going to be a part of how we will
utilize the National Science Foundation to overall assist the
U.S. scientific enterprise and further R&D (research and
development) efforts, along with technology transfer.
I am proud to cosponsor with Chairwoman Eddie Bernice
Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, Ranking Member Mike Waltz, and
several other of my Committee colleagues the NSF for the Future
Act. This bill was developed over a period of time with our
stakeholders, policy leaders, additional experts, obviously
with a lot of weigh-in from the NSF to create a piece of
legislation that is comprehensive in reauthorizing the
priorities of leveraging NSF's strengths and protecting its
core mission that has been in place since the 1950's. The
legislation, the NSF for the Future Act, seeks to advance and
scale up innovations in Pre-K through 12 STEM education, ensure
STEM students are prepared to enter the workforce, our
workforce agenda, and our connection to the NSF couldn't be
more of an imperative here. And we are also focused on training
the next generation of researchers and innovators and certainly
with an overall accountability of the National Science
Foundation to the public. The transparency couldn't be more
important.
New requirements in this bill would address threats to
research security and ensure researchers are thinking through
the societal impacts of their work, while continuing to
dominate on open-source platforms and meeting supply chain
needs, our supply chain recovery.
The NSF for the Future Act proposes a new Directorate for
Science and Engineering Solutions. While technology plays a key
role in the directorate, it is certainly not its singular
focus. Instead, the NSF for the Future Act charges NSF with
engaging broadly with both traditional and nontraditional
partners in academia, industry, civic organizations, and local
communities and governments to identify a myriad of societal
challenges that are ripe for research-driven solutions and
partnerships to pursue that research.
Scientists, take note. We want to hear from you.
The reason we are pursuing this direction is that we have
the need and the opportunity to increase funding for basic and
fundamental research in the United States of America. Our
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell recently held a
hearing talking about just this point, how we are at some of
our lowest levels in research funding while the rest of the
world is moving forward and advancing very aggressively on
scientific research.
Seventy years of investments have enabled the United
States to lead the world in science and innovation, compete in
the global economy, and protect also the health and security of
its citizens.
We could not applaud the NSF more for your critical role
in the COVID-19 response, and there is a long list of
investments and research spend that you have conducted once
this pandemic began, and we cannot, again, thank you enough for
your efforts in that regard.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Stevens follows:]
Good Morning. The hearing will come to order. Thank you all
for joining our virtual hearing on examining the advancement of
scientific research for the Future of U.S. Innovation through
the National Science Foundation. I am speaking to you today
from the Oakland County Commission Chambers, a few short miles
from Oakland University home of the School of Engineering and
Computer Science and a proud recipient of over $9 million NSF
dollars that they are using for active projects for stem cell
biology, cybersecurity capacity, and STEM education. It's just
one snapshot of the incredible impact of the NSF through their
$8.5 billion budget.
Thank you Dr. Panchanathan and Dr. Ochoa for testifying
today and for bringing your passion, expertise and dedication
to the leading scientific research agency for the United States
of America. And welcome virtually to all of today's
participants to Oakland County, where we also proudly boast the
world's largest robot at Fanuc a few short miles from my
destination, where I sit in the hub of innovators and makers
many that have benefitted or been connected to the work of NSF
at one time or another.
I also welcome my colleagues--particularly Mike Waltz as
the new Ranking Member of the Research and Technology
Subcommittee. Mr. Waltz represents a corner of Florida and
while most Michiganders are indeed familiar with Florida and
the offerings of Daytona Beach, I'll still bet Mr. Waltz that
we'll out innovate him nearly any day of the week.
Now--we have an enormous topic before us today and are
preparing a rigorous effort to determine the course of how we
will exercise the full weight of our scientific research agenda
and continue to lead the world in terms of emerging
technologies and economies of scale. We are here to examine,
but also determine a course and a vision for a rapidly
advancing future of the United States in the 21st century. We
are of course awaiting the President's full budget, but his
priorities are apparent: the proposed 20% increase to NSF's
budget has the potential to unleash scientists and their
students to study the changing climate and advance our nation's
efforts in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and so
much more. Our hearing kicks off a series of endeavors as we
advocate and explore additional resources for the National
Science Foundation and the U.S. scientific enterprise.
We are also here to evaluate and move forward the NSF for
the Future Act, which I am proud to cosponsor with Chairwoman
Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, Ranking Member Waltz, and
several more of my Committee colleagues. This bill was
developed over more than a year with close bipartisan
collaboration and input from dozens of stakeholders, policy
experts, and thought leaders. The NSF for the Future Act is a
comprehensive reauthorization that prioritizes leveraging NSF's
strengths and protecting its core mission. The legislation
seeks to advance and scale up innovations in PreK-12 STEM
education, ensure STEM students are prepared to enter the
workforce, and train the next generation of researchers and
innovators. A major focus of this bill is also accountability
to the public. New requirements in the bill would address
threats to research security and ensure researchers are
thinking through the societal impacts of their work, while
continuing to dominate on open source platforms and meet supply
chain needs.
The NSF for the Future Act proposes a new Directorate for
Science and Engineering Solutions. While technology plays a key
role in the directorate, it is not the singular focus. Instead,
the NSF for the Future Act charges NSF with engaging broadly
with both traditional and nontraditional partners in academia,
industry, civic organizations, and local communities and
governments to identify myriad societal challenges that are
ripe for research-driven solutions and form partnerships to
pursue that research.
The reason we are pursuing this is that we have a need and
opportunity to increase funding for basic and fundamental
research. NSF is the only Federal science agency that supports
fundamental research across all fields of science and
engineering. Seventy years of investments in NSF have enabled
the United States to lead the world in science and innovation,
compete in the global economy, and protect the health and
security of its citizens.
Our foreign competitors are on our mind, but they do not
motivate and certainly they do not dictate our work. Our
ingenuity, risk-adverse, freedom-touting market economy with
checks for equal opportunity and buy-in for all has and will
continue to lead a compelling and desirable economic prowess.
Chairwoman Stevens. So with that and in conclusion, we are
going to be engaging in a robust dialog today, and I would also
at this time like to recognize Mr. Waltz for his opening
statement.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, and
it's great to join you from the other end of I-75. It's sunny
and beautiful. I'm joining you from the headquarters of NASCAR,
but just down the street from Embry-Riddle University, which
has also benefited greatly from NSF grants and really look
forward to having the president of Embry-Riddle join us for our
next hearing, Dr. Butler.
So I want to thank Dr. Panchanathan and Dr. Ochoa as well
for your participation today, looking forward to hearing your
testimony and thoughts on where the future of the National
Science Foundation is headed.
As we all know, but I think it's always worth restating,
since its creation in 1950, the National Science Foundation
really has served a unique role among Federal agencies, given
its broad mission--I think it's worth quoting--of, quote,
``promoting the progress of science, to advance the national
health, prosperity, and welfare, and to secure the national
defense.''
So in bringing this mission to life, the NSF supports
basic research, fuels major technological innovations,
including smartphones, GPS (Global Positioning System),
internet, new research disciplines, supports and trains
generations of scientists and engineers that are critical for
our future economy and for our national defense.
The investments in science and technology (S&T) truly are
drivers of economic growth. Numerous studies have concluded as
much as 85 percent of the long-term growth in America's economy
is attributed to advancements in science and technology. And
for decades, America has led the world in science and
technology innovation, but as the pace of innovation is
accelerating, global competition, we all know, has increased,
and the United States, to be completely candid, is losing its
edge. The Chinese Communist Party poses an especially
formidable and growing strategic challenge to our way of life
and to American leadership around the world.
Today, the U.S. is really at an inflection point, and it's
crucial for us to make strategic investments to buildup our R&D
enterprise. I think there is absolutely bipartisan agreement to
that point. There is momentum on both sides of the aisle to
make these investments, but it must be done in a realistic and
sustained way.
I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the NSF for the
Future Act with Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas,
Chairwoman Stevens. This bill increases funding for fundamental
research and improves STEM education and research training. It
creates a new directorate, as Chairwoman Stevens mentioned,
creates a new directorate in S&T within the agency. But most
importantly, it does not detract from the agency's core mission
of advancing basic scientific knowledge.
So we agree we must make these investments, but I just
can't emphasize enough we must also secure taxpayer-funded
research and technologies from adversaries, especially from the
Chinese Communist Party (CCP). And while the NSF for the Future
Act includes some provisions to increase research security, I
look forward to working with Chairwoman Stevens. I appreciate
her collaboration on this, and Chairwoman Johnson, to build
upon these provisions and to improve best practices to provide
tougher safeguards to prevent research theft and foreign
influence. Our Federal agencies, like the NSF, also need the
tools and authority to reject grant applications from known
participants in malign foreign talent recruitment programs.
Those authorities are absolutely critical, and I look forward
to working with you on that.
In addition to my work in this Committee, I also serve on
the Armed Services Committee and regularly receive intelligence
on the Chinese Communist Party and how they are leapfrogging
the U.S. technologically and militarily through intellectual
property (IP) theft. We cannot allow the CCP to advance its
authoritarianism on the backs of American taxpayer-funded
research. I'm encouraged the Democrats on both Committees share
these concerns, and they have an interest in addressing undue
foreign influence, as illustrated by the April 9 letter, which
I thought was fantastic, from Chairs Johnson, Smith, Stevens,
and Langevin to President Biden.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses how the
Foundation is addressing the challenges of research security,
how we can build upon Congress's previous efforts to safeguard
America's IP, and confront the CCP's wholesale theft of our
research institutions.
As we make these investments, we must continue and should
also ensure we avoid duplicating the R&D activities in other
Federal agencies. As part of the President's recent $2.3
trillion infrastructure proposal, more than $200 billion is
tagged for research and development-focused activities, but
there really isn't a clear directive for how these funds will
be used or coordinated.
The President is messaging this $200 billion as a way to
compete with China, but I would argue that we will not beat
China by copying its strategy. So strategic investments in
technologies are important, but the potential of creating a
one-time slush fund could end up doing more harm than good.
I think, instead, we should look at proposals like the
Securing American Leadership in Science and Technology Act, the
SALSTA Act, which creates a national S&T strategy, doubles
funding for basic research across Federal science agencies over
10 years, or the NSF for the Future Act, which I mentioned
previously, while not a whole-of-government approach, this bill
has been thoughtfully developed to protect NSF's core mission
and more than doubles the amount of research it will support
over 5 years. Both proposals include long-term planning to make
investments in STEM workforce, facilities, and research needed
to develop state-of-the-art technologies. Through these
investments, American research, American innovations, and
American workforce will continue to lead the world.
I look forward to working with both Chairwomen Johnson and
Stevens, Ranking Member Lucas, to move the NSF for the Future
Act through the Committee in a bipartisan basis and to the
House floor in consideration. I also look forward to working
with the leadership of the NSF and the National Science Board
(NSB). Again, I want to thank you both for being here, for your
leadership and for participating in this hearing. Chairwoman
Stevens, I yield the balance of my time. Thanks so much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waltz follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, for holding today's hearing,
our first for this subcommittee in the 117th Congress. I'd also
like to thank Dr. Panchanathan and Dr. Ochoa for taking the
time to participate. I'm looking forward to hearing your
testimony and thoughts on where the future of the National
Science Foundation is headed.
Since its creation in 1950, the National Science Foundation
(NSF) has served a unique role among Federal agencies, given
its broad mission of ``promoting the progress of science, to
advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare, and to
secure the national defense.'' In bringing this mission to
life, the NSF supports the basic research that fuels major
technological innovations, including smartphones, GPS, and the
internet, creates new research disciplines, and supports and
trains generations of scientists and engineers.
Investments in science and technology drive economic
growth--numerous studies have concluded that as much as 85
percent of the long-term growth in America's economy is
attributed to advancements in science and technology. For
decades, America has led the world in science and technology
innovation, but as the pace of innovation is accelerating,
global competition has also increased, and the United States is
losing its edge. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) poses an
especially formidable and growing strategic challenge.
Today, the United States is at an inflection point and it
is critical for the U.S. to make strategic investments to build
up our R&D enterprise. There is momentum on both sides of the
aisle to make these investments, but it must be done in a
realistic and sustained way.
I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the ``NSF for
the Future Act,'' with Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas
and Chairwoman Stevens. This bill increases funding for
fundamental research and improves STEM education and research
training. It creates a new directorate to move the Foundation
forward, enabling the NSF to explore new approaches to
accelerating science and technology into solutions to major
challenges. Most importantly, it does not detract from the
agency's core mission of advancing basic scientific knowledge.
While making these investments, we must also secure
taxpayer funded research and technologies from adversaries like
the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). While the ``NSF for the
Future Act,'' includes some provisions to increase research
security, I look forward to working with Chairwoman Stevens and
Johnson to build upon these provisions to improve best
practices and provide tougher safeguards to prevent research
theft and foreign influence . Our federal agencies, like the
NSF, also need the tools and authority to reject grant
applications with known participants in malign foreign talent
recruitment programs.
In addition to my work on this distinguished committee, I
serve on the Armed Services Committee and regularly receive
intelligence on the Chinese Communist Party and how they are
leapfrogging the United States technologically and militarily
by intellectual property theft. We cannot allow the CCP to
advance its authoritarianism with American taxpayer funded
research. I am encouraged that Democrats on both committees
share these concerns and an interest in addressing undue
foreign influence, as illustrated in the April 9 letter from
Chairs Johnson, Smith, Stevens and Langevin to President Biden.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how the
Foundation is addressing the challenges of research security
and how we can build upon Congress's previous efforts to
safeguard America's intellectual property and confront the
CCP's wholesale theft from our research institutions.
As we make these investments, we should also ensure we
avoid duplicating the R&D activities of other Federal agencies.
As part of the President's recent $2.3 trillion infrastructure
proposal, more than $200 billion is tagged for research and
development-focused activities, without any clear directive for
how these funds will be used or coordinated.
The President is messaging this as the way compete with
China, but I would argue that we will not beat China by copying
its strategy. Strategic investments in technologies are
important but creating a one-time slush fund may do more harm
than good. Instead, we should look at proposals like the
``Securing American Leadership in Science and Technology Act,''
which creates a national S&T strategy and doubles funding for
basic research across federal science agencies over ten years.
Or, the ``NSF For the Future Act.'' While not a whole-of-
government approach, this bill has been thoughtfully developed
to protect NSF's core mission and more than doubles the amount
of research it will support over 5 years. Both proposals
include long-term planning that make investments in STEM
workforce, world-class facilities, and the research needed to
develop state-of-the-art technologies. Through these
investments, American research, American innovations, and the
American workforce will continue to lead the world.
I look forward to working with Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking
Member Lucas, and Chairwoman Stevens in moving the ``NSF for
the Future Act'' through the Committee in a bipartisan process
and to the House floor for consideration.
In addition, I look forward to working with the leadership
of the National Science Foundation and the National Science
Board to meet these challenges. Thank you again to Dr.
Panchanathan and Dr. Ochoa for your leadership and for
participating in this hearing today. I yield back the balance
of my time.
Chairwoman Stevens. Excellent. Thank you so much.
And we know our Full Committee Chairwoman Johnson is in
full support of today's hearing and has also been obviously a
true leader in terms of where we're going to take the effort
with the National Science Foundation. So as we might have
remarks from her for the record, we will plan to submit that,
but for now, I would like to recognize Ranking Member Mr. Lucas
for an opening statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking
Member Waltz, for holding today's hearing on the future of the
National Science Foundation and its role in advanced American
innovation.
The National Science Foundation was created in 1950 at the
start of the cold war, when America's global leadership and
prosperity was under threat from Soviet Russia and the rise of
communism. Congress established the NSF with a mission of
funding basic research and STEM education to promote the
progress of science; advance the national health, prosperity,
welfare; and secure the national defense.
NSF was just one part of a strategy to invest in America's
scientific capacities. That period also saw the creation of
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), the
Department of Energy and the national laboratories, and the
Department of Defense laboratories. It's a research ecosystem
that has been the envy of the world and given our Nation great
prosperity and technological achievements.
But 70 years later, we face a new generational threat in
the rise of China. Communist Chinese leadership is investing
more in research than the United States and aggressively
pursuing technological supremacy through foreign acquisitions,
forced technology transfers, and, frequently, cyber espionage.
We also face enormous national and societal changes like
cybersecurity threats, the growth of AI and automation, the
need for exceptional computing capacity, and a climate that is
changing.
At the same time, science is becoming multi-disciplinary,
which we need to address and leverage. And we need to improve
the diversity of our scientific workforce and ensure all
Americans have opportunities to participate and excel in STEM
education and employment. And yet, our research enterprise
remains one of the best in the world. We must maintain and
strengthen the foundations that have made it so successful.
The question before us today is how do we grow and evolve
NSF to meet the challenges of the 21st century while preserving
what makes NSF great? It was with these challenges and
opportunities in mind that I was proud to join Chairwoman
Johnson in introducing the NSF for the Future Act. Our
legislation doubles down on basic research funding at NSF over
the next 5 years. It focuses on building our domestic STEM
workforce, while also creating a new directorate of NSF focused
on science and engineering solutions. Importantly, we're
working to improve how we apply discoveries in the lab to solve
national and societal challenges. The NSF for the Future Act is
the result of months of stakeholder engagement, hearings, and
bipartisan discussions.
Today's hearing, with the leadership of NSF and the
National Science Board, as well as next week's hearing with the
NSF stakeholders, continues that open, transparent, and
inclusive process of reauthorizing the Foundation. This is how
the legislative process should work.
But the NSF alone can't meet the scientific challenges
ahead. Earlier this month I introduced the Security American
Leadership in Science and Technology Act, which comprehensively
invests in research across many Federal agencies driving
scientific progress. My legislation creates a national science
and technology strategy, doubles basic research funding over
the next 10 years, invests in our scientific infrastructure,
improves technological transfer from lab to market, and
protects American research from theft by foreign adversaries.
We have a unique window of opportunity before us. There is
momentum on both sides of the aisle in the House and the Senate
for legislation to secure our global science and technology
leadership. But it should be a comprehensive strategy and
sustainable. A $100 billion slush fund for a top-down approach
to developing technologies, as some have proposed, does not
meet that criteria.
Instead, America's continued scientific leadership
requires a comprehensive and strategic approach to research and
development, one that is responsible and sustainable. It
requires a national collaboration and public-private
partnerships and a focus on evolving technologies that are
crucial to our national and economic security, like
semiconductors and quantum sciences.
I also agree with many of my colleagues that we need to do
more to ensure STEM opportunities reach more Americans. We need
to make sure investment doesn't just go to places like--no
offense to my friends--San Francisco and Boston, or the top 10
universities, but also in places like Stillwater, Oklahoma, and
land-grant institutions like Oklahoma State and historically
Black colleges and universities (HBCU) like Langston
University. I look forward to hearing ideas about how we can
better achieve that goal.
I am committed to working with my colleagues on the
Science Committee, the Senate Committees of jurisdiction, and
stakeholders to move legislation that is as bold and as
ambitious as the greatest scientific minds in our country. But
we also have the responsibility to ensure our solutions offer a
sustainable path forward for the U.S. research enterprise.
Innovation thrives on stable and predictable funding, and our
Nation's students, scientists, and research institutions depend
on it.
I thank our witnesses for being here today. I very much
look forward to their testimony. And with that, Madam Chair, I
yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Thank you Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking Member Waltz for
holding today's hearing on the future of the National Science
Foundation and its role in advancing American innovation.
The National Science Foundation was created in 1950 at the
start of the Cold War, when America's global leadership and
prosperity was under threat by Soviet Russia and the rise of
communism. Congress established the NSF with a mission of
funding basic research and STEM education to promote the
progress of science; advance the national health, prosperity,
and welfare; and secure the national defense.
NSF was just one part of a strategy to invest in America's
scientific capabilities. That period also saw the creation of
NASA, the Department of Energy and the national laboratories,
and Department of Defense laboratories. It is a research
ecosystem that has been the envy of the world and given our
nation great prosperity and technological achievements.
But 70 years later we face a new generational threat in the
rise of China. Communist Chinese leadership is investing more
in research than the U.S. and aggressively pursuing
technological supremacy through foreign acquisitions, forced
technology transfers, and, frequently, cyber espionage. We also
face enormous national and societal challenges, like
cybersecurity threats, the growth of AI and automation, the
need for exceptional computing capacity, and a climate that is
changing.
At the same time, science is becoming more multi-
disciplinary, which we need to address and leverage. And we
need to improve the diversity of our scientific workforce and
ensure all Americans have opportunities to participate and
excel in STEM education and employment. And yet, our research
enterprise remains one of the best in the world, and we must
maintain and strengthen the foundations that have made it so
successful.
The question before us today is how do we grow and evolve
NSF to meet the challenges of the 21st Century, while
preserving what makes NSF great? It was with these challenges
and opportunities in mind that I was proud to join Chairwoman
Johnson in introducing the NSF for the Future Act.
Our legislation doubles down on basic research funding at
NSF over the next 5 years. It focuses on building our domestic
STEM workforce, while also creating a new directorate of NSF
focused on science and engineering solutions. Importantly,
we're working to improve how we apply discoveries in the lab to
solving national and societal challenges. The NSF for the
Future Act is the result of months of stakeholder engagement,
hearings, and bipartisan discussions.
Today's hearing with the leadership of NSF and the National
Science Board, as well as next week's hearing with NSF
stakeholders, continues that open, transparent, and inclusive
process of reauthorizing the Foundation. This is how the
legislative process should work.
But the NSF alone can't meet the scientific challenges
ahead. Earlier this month I reintroduced the Security American
Leadership in Science and Technology Act, which comprehensively
invests in research across the many federal agencies driving
scientific progress. My legislation creates a national science
and technology strategy, doubles basic research funding over
the next 10 years, invests in our scientific infrastructure,
improves technology transfer from lab to market, and protects
American research from theft by foreign adversaries.
We have a unique window of opportunity before us. There is
momentum on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate for
legislation to secure our global science and technology
leadership. But it should be comprehensive, strategic, and
sustainable. A $100 billion slush fund for a top-down approach
to developing technologies, as some have proposed, does not
meet that criteria.
Instead, America's continued scientific leadership requires
a comprehensive and strategic approach to research and
development-one that is responsible and sustainable. It
requires national collaboration and public-private partnerships
and a focus on evolving technologies that are crucial to our
national and economic security, like semiconductors and quantum
sciences.
I also agree with many of my colleagues that we need to do
more to ensure STEM opportunities reach more Americans. We need
to make sure investment doesn't just happen in places like San
Francisco and Boston, or at the top 10 universities, but also
in places like Stillwater, Oklahoma and land-grant institutions
like Oklahoma State or Historically Black Colleges and
Universities like Langston University. I look forward to
hearing ideas about how we can better achieve that goal.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. And if there are
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking Member Waltz, for
holding this important hearing. And good morning to our
esteemed witnesses.
Last month, I was joined by my colleague Ranking Member
Lucas, and Representatives Stevens and Waltz, in introducing
the ``National Science Foundation for the Future Act.''
When I started planning for this legislation, I was open to
big ideas. It would be the first comprehensive reauthorization
of NSF in a decade. It was an opportunity for Congress, working
with the stakeholder community, to take a step back and
consider what NSF has achieved in the last 70 years, and what
we want it to achieve in the coming decades.
It was also an opportunity for us to think differently
about who counts as a stakeholder. I am quite confident that
the bill we introduced reflects input from the most diverse
group of institutions, organizations, and individuals to ever
have a seat at the table for an NSF reauthorization bill. And I
am very proud of that fact. If we are to be more inclusive in
our research enterprise, as we must be to remain competitive,
we must also be more inclusive in our policy-making for science
and technology.
As we were beginning to develop our own legislation, Leader
Schumer announced his proposal to create a new technology
directorate at NSF focused on a discrete list of critical
technologies. Even though the details would not emerge for
months, his announcement further inspired us to think big. We
started from first principles, by asking what problem are we
trying to solve and what is the best policy for making
meaningful progress.
After going through a months-long bipartisan process of
engagement with the stakeholder community, we decided on a
somewhat different approach to the creation of a new
directorate. Specifically, we have proposed a ``Science and
Engineering Solutions Directorate.'' I believe the competitive
and security threat from China is real. I also believe the
solutions-driven approach we take in the NSF for the Future Act
offers the nation a win-win science and innovation strategy.
History teaches us that problem-solving can itself drive the
innovation that in turn spawns new industries and achieves
competitive advantage.
An introduced bill is still early in the process to
enactment. We are holding this hearing and another next week in
addition to our ongoing informal dialogue with stakeholders.
Further, my intent is to proceed through both subcommittee and
full committee markup to maximize Member participation.
In the meantime, I invite all my colleagues to cosponsor
the NSF for the Future Act. And let me say this to any of my
colleagues who might feel conflicted about cosponsoring both
this Committee's bill and the Endless Frontier Act. Don't feel
that way. The two bills have very different scopes, overlapping
only in the creation of a new directorate at NSF. I look
forward to continuing the discussion about the future of NSF in
the context of a comprehensive NSF authorization.
Dr. Panchanathan and Dr. Ochoa, I am very happy with
President Biden's commitment to science as reflected in the
fiscal year 2022 budget request. I look forward to your
testimony today, including the details of NSF's request and
your thoughts on the future of the Foundation.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. At this time I'd also like to
introduce our incredible witnesses. Our first witness is Dr.
Sethuraman Panchanathan. Dr. Panchanathan is a computer
scientist and engineer currently serving as the 15th Director
of the National Science Foundation, a position he has held
since June of 2020. Prior to his service as Director, he was
Executive Vice President of the Arizona State University
Knowledge Enterprise where he was also Chief Research and
Innovation Officer. Prior to joining the National Science
Foundation, Dr. Panchanathan served on the National Science
Board as Chair of the Committee on Strategy and as a member of
the External Engagement and National Science and Engineering
Policy Committees. Additionally, he served on the National
Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship and was
Chair of the Council on Research of the Association of Public
Land-Grant Universities.
Our second witness is Dr. Ellen Ochoa. Dr. Ochoa is
currently the Chair of the National Science Board, a position
to which she was elected in 2020, having previously served as
Vice Chair from 2018 to 2020. Dr. Ochoa retired from Federal
service in 2018 as Director of NASA's Johnson Space Center,
which leads the human space flight enterprise for the Nation.
Dr. Ochoa is the first Hispanic female astronaut and served as
a crew member on four space shuttle missions in a variety of
roles, including leading onboard scientific activities and
serving as flight engineer during the launch, rendezvous, and
entry phases of the mission. She began her career as a research
engineer at Sandia National Laboratories and NASA's Ames
Research Center.
As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes
of testimony. Your written testimony, which both of your
written testimonies were incredible, will be included into the
record for the hearing. When you've completed your spoken
testimony, we'll begin questions, and each Member will have 5
minutes to question the panel.
We will start with Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF DR. SETHURAMAN PANCHANATHAN,
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you so much, and good afternoon
and good morning, wherever you are. Chairwoman Johnson,
Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member Lucas, Ranking Member Waltz,
and Members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to appear
before you today to discuss how NSF can accelerate innovation
at speed and scale for the benefit of all Americans.
I would like to start by thanking this Committee for the
strong support for NSF, which has enabled remarkable benefits
for our Nation. I would also like to thank Congress for the
funding provided in the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan.
The pandemic has had a profound impact on the research
community. NSF will invest these funds wisely, helping the most
severely impacted and most vulnerable.
For over 7 decades, NSF has played a leading role in
building U.S. leadership in science, engineering, and
technology, and has an incredibly strong record of investing in
the brightest minds and outstanding ideas. The internet, 3-D
printing, the economic theory underpinning spectrum auctioning
and kidney exchanges, companies like QUALCOMM and even PCR
(polymerase chain reaction) testing, which has been critical to
the fight against COVID-19, are just a few examples of the
outcomes and benefits of NSF investments.
For the first time in decades, the United States'
leadership in science and engineering is facing intense global
competition. Other nations, especially China, are investing
vast resources in basic research and industries of the future
like artificial intelligence. Advances in technologies like AI,
quantum information science, and even the technologies we
cannot yet conceive of will influence the global balance of
power for generations. The United States needs to take a
comprehensive approach to R&D investment that brings science,
engineering, and technology innovations to market much more
rapidly. We must commit ourselves to this challenge so that we
are leaping forward and ensuring that the race for global
leadership is not even close. Doing so requires IT integrating
curiosity-driven research and use-inspired outcomes.
That is why we have crafted a bold mission for the agency.
First, we must advance the frontiers of science and engineering
research into the future. Second, we must ensure accessibility
and inclusivity in STEM. There is tremendous untapped potential
throughout our Nation. Every demographic and socioeconomic
group in every geographic region is full of talent and must be
inspired and given the opportunity to participate in STEM.
Finally, America must lead by our actions and our values. We
will work with like-minded partners and we will take the
necessary steps to safeguard taxpayer investments.
The foundation for this vision is partnerships. They are
powerful tools to leverage resources and deliver more impactful
research. NSF has a history of cultivating and fostering
environments where partnerships thrive. The American Jobs Plan
and the fiscal year 2022 discretionary request propose strong
investments in research and development. This includes a $50
billion investment in NSF, creating a new technology
directorate and a 20 percent increase to NSF's budget in fiscal
year 2022. This increase would strengthen NSF's ability to
champion the basic research that is critical to our future.
In addition, we know that our opportunities for
translational impact in all science and engineering fields that
hold enormous potential benefits. The proposed directorate will
be a crosscutting platform that leverages, energizes, and
rapidly brings these innovations to market. NSF will not
abandon our current mission or be redundant with other mission
agencies. We all know we have a large gap in bringing fantastic
innovative ideas to market in society. This is our opportunity
to rapidly change that.
The budget request also invests in increasing the
participation of underrepresented groups in science and
engineering, which is exceedingly important for our Nation. NSF
greatly appreciates the strong support for the agency's current
mission that is evident throughout the NSF for the Future Act.
The focus on STEM education, broadening participation,
strengthening fundamental research, and intensifies--
intensifying our focus on innovation to address urgent needs
aligns well with the agency's vision for the future. We look
forward to working with the Committee as it progresses.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
With the continued support of this Committee and Congress, NSF
will bolster fundamental research across all fields of science
and engineering and unleash rapid innovations, securing our
future for generations to come. Thank you so much for this
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Panchanathan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. And with that, we'll
recognize Dr. Ochoa.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ELLEN OCHOA,
CHAIR, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
Dr. Ochoa. Thank you so much. Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking
Member Waltz, Members of the Subcommittee, and Full Committee
Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas, I appreciate the
opportunity to speak with you as Chair of the National Science
Board.
U.S. leadership in science and engineering has shaped our
way of life, economic prosperity, and national security for 7
decades. When my predecessor testified before you last year,
she said, ``The past has shown that investment in basic
research now will give us the keys to meeting the security,
health, and economic challenges of the future, challenges we
know will arise but whose nature we cannot predict.'' How
prescient those words proved to be. Thanks in no small part to
the Federal investment, we're beginning to emerge from a
devastating pandemic.
Urgent trends led the Board to develop a vision for what
the United States needs to do to remain preeminent. Our Vision
2030 report provides a roadmap for reinventing our science and
engineering enterprise and ways to build on NSF's strengths and
success. The time is right to invest in science, technology,
and talent at the scale of our Nation's challenges, and NSF is
the right agency for the job.
I'll focus on two priorities that we all share: delivering
benefits from research and developing domestic STEM talent.
First, we must speed the path from discovery to innovation and
impact. In Vision 2030, NSB highlighted the need for a new
structure to magnify the translation of discoveries. The Board
is gratified by the confidence placed in NSF by Congress and
the Administration to expand the agency's role in delivering
benefits through technology and translation, along with
increased investment in fundamental research.
As there are now multiple proposals, the Board offers
these principles for your consideration. We believe any new
directorate should work synergistically with the existing ones,
strengthen NSF's basic research mission, and create robust
feedback loops to couple its work to the current discipline-
oriented directorates. A structure that's clear and consistent
with existing practices, including maintaining the Board's
governance role, will help ensure its crosscutting nature.
Continued programmatic agility will be crucial.
And finally, funding for any new directorate will need to
include support for people and operations. In that vein, the
Board appreciates that theNSF for the Future Act includes
provisions that would help connect the curiosity-driven and
use-inspired research across the agency, creating opportunities
to address societal problems. We appreciate the flexibility for
the agency to experiment with new models, spending mechanisms,
and nimble processes. And we applaud the bill's focus on talent
development, especially diverse domestic talent.
And this leads to our second shared priority. Talent is
the treasure on which the Nation's prosperity, health, and
security depend. For the United States to be a STEM powerhouse,
we must capitalize on talent in every State and recruit the
missing millions from across the many dimensions of diversity.
That's why the NSB applauds the legislation's support for
networks and partnerships that scale up effective practices in
broadening participation. The Board also appreciates financial
support directly to students such as through NSF graduate
research fellowships, which is critical to retention.
NSF is only one piece. Much more needs to be done across
the entire ecosystem to provide more onramps into the workforce
and improve the attractiveness, equity, and inclusivity of STEM
careers. And we must improve our Nation's K through 12 STEM
education. The Board believes there's an opportunity to support
broad adoption and use of NSF-funded STEM education research
where it's needed most, in classrooms.
To conclude, NSB is excited to partner with the NSF
Director, with Congress, and the Administration to realize our
vision for the future, one where NSF continues to drive U.S.
innovation and delivers benefits to all Americans. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ochoa follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you both. And at this point we
will begin our first round of questions, and the Chair will
recognize herself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Panchanathan, if you don't mind, could you just give
us your best definition of basic scientific research and to the
ability you are able to, could you give us the percentage of
NSF grant funding that goes toward basic scientific research if
you happen to have that figure available?
Dr. Panchanathan. So what is basic research is not
necessarily anything that has an objective that we keep in mind
as we are investigating the fundamental theories and
fundamental approaches of any branch of science or engineering.
And that we're able to do because it is a curiosity-driven
approach, it's a discovery-based approach and that is purely
explorative in nature. That's what we would term as basic
research.
If you look at NSF--and I often define it as the DNA of
NSF being these twin strands of curiosity-driven, discovery-
based exploratory research, highly synergistic with use-
inspired solutions focused translations or innovations. These
are highly synergistic and symbiotic. Sometimes it's even hard
to peel them apart. In some cases it's obvious. In some cases
they are so intertwined that it's even hard to peel them apart.
So I would say a majority of the focus of NSF is on
fundamental research. And some of that do end up becoming
outcome-oriented results through programs and projects surely,
but some see them over decades, some see them even over a few
years. And I'm happy to give you examples. In the interest of
time----
Chairwoman Stevens. Well, yes, let me----
Dr. Panchanathan. [continuing]. I'm happy to----
Chairwoman Stevens. Yes, and I'll jump back in here
because I--as a former NSF applicant myself, right, you know,
we get into this how do we get the best proposals? How do we
get to the pathway of getting funded? I was an applicant but I
didn't get funded, right? That's not my question. But what
leads to the pathway of getting an NSF grant? What goes into
that? And also evaluating--and I'm going to throw in two more--
and Dr. Ochoa, if you want to jump in--is what leads to the
pathway of getting funded, and looking at if we're only funding
a certain percentage, what are we not funding and why and
should we? And then, three, we can't ignore the reality that
this pandemic has really impeded our research endeavors in
terms of being in the lab and accessing equipment. The NIH
(National Institutes of Health) has talked about billions of
dollars of lost scientific--or lost research funding from their
side of it, and I don't know if we've experienced that with the
NSF. So if we could address those components here, that would
be really helpful as well. Thank you.
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much. I will try to
quickly address this. When you asked for a presentation of the
previous question, I just want to make sure that I laid it out
clearly. Sixty-four percent is basic research, 10 percent is
applied research, and so I just want to make sure that you had
those numbers with you.
Chairwoman Stevens. Yes.
Dr. Panchanathan. So, you know, you brought up the issue
of, you know, how might we take the COVID situation, and there
are multiple questions in your main question, so I don't know
whether we'll have time to deal with all of that, but I'm happy
to come back and talk about this----
Chairwoman Stevens. Sure.
Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. And to make sure that we
are comprehensive in our response.
Chairwoman Stevens. Yes.
Dr. Panchanathan. So on the COVID response, we have put a
lot of effort--and I will elaborate that in terms of specific
details, but I will tell you that this has been a huge priority
for us in terms of ensuring that our scientists, researchers,
research, innovations, and innovators are fully supported in
two categories: those who have been disproportionately
affected, those institutions that have also been
disproportionately affected, individuals and institutions, and
we are putting a heavy emphasis on that to ensure that we are
taking care of them.
I'm happy to provide more details in response to your
question----
Chairwoman Stevens. Sure. And so--and certainly the
scientific research went forward.
And Dr. Jim Baird, a Committee Member, and I were really
pleased to get signed into law at the end of 2019 in the 116th
session of Congress the Building Blocks of STEM Act, which
places an emphasis on early childhood education, a requirement
of the National Science Foundation to begin funding, you know,
STEM grants with a particular emphasis on young girls. I know
you've already been doing a few of those grants, but certainly
would like to continue to achieve that equity and inclusion
measure with STEM. And your awareness and understanding of that
is highly recognized.
So I know I've got about 20 seconds left, but, Dr. Ochoa,
did you want to chime in on anything that we just briefly
mentioned before I cede back my time?
Dr. Ochoa. Thank you. Talking about the pathways to
funding, you know, the Board has a role in the oversight of the
merit review process that the National Science Foundation does.
And of course all those proposals need to address intellectual
merit, as well as broader impacts, which are how this research
or the activity that the principal investigator (PI) does, you
know, impacts society. And it can be through the research
itself, what it's actually working on. That may contribute to a
societal problem. It can be through activities that are
directly related like including students or early career
scientists in the project.
Chairwoman Stevens. Yes.
Dr. Ochoa. And it can even be through ones that are
complementary, so you might have an educational workshop for
high school students. So those are some of the things that go
along with--that people can propose as part of their overall
pathway to funding that is something that the Board looks at
how well the Foundation has been able to do that in their
process.
Chairwoman Stevens. Great, thank you so much. And with
that, I'm going to recognize Mr. Waltz for 5 minutes of
questioning if he is here. Yes, there you are. All right.
Mr. Waltz. I am. We're on the move, but thank you.
Dr. Panchanathan, the NSF for the Future Act codifies your
Office for Research Security. I had the opportunity to speak
with her. Unfortunately, she is an army of two and with an
overwhelming problem. The IG (Inspector General) office is
indicating they've had 1,000 percent increase in referrals from
the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) on research fraud and
theft, particularly as I mentioned in my own opening statement,
from Chinese government-backed researchers. In fact, I'm on my
way to University of Florida. They just had an indictment there
where a researcher had access for years to the world's largest
supercomputer. As soon as they launched the investigation, it
crashed their computer systems and he fled to Beijing. The
problem truly is pervasive.
Thank you for working with us, Chairwoman Stevens and the
Committee staff. The NSF for the Future Act increases from 2 to
5, and those FTEs (full-time equivalents), I still think that
is just really scratching the--really is the tip of the iceberg
of the problem. My concern is you're looking at either doubling
or in President Biden's infrastructure plan looking at a
tenfold increase in the amount of funding that will flow to the
NSF.
What's your vision and if you could give me specifics,
please, I'd appreciate it, your visions for securing this
research? And I fully appreciate and fully support the
additional resources. I want to be clear there. But if we're
only scratching the tip of the iceberg with what we have now,
you go to a tenfold increase, how do you obligate it, how long
does it take you to obligate it, and then how do you secure it
going forward?
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you so much for the question. So,
first of all, you know, the security issue, you know, there's--
this is an evolving issue, and we need to make sure that we are
balancing our approach and so we are making sure that we are
putting the right balance in place.
So NSF--I want to assure you that NSF is taking this very
seriously and devoting resources to it. You pointed out the--
and I'm so grateful to the NSF for the Future Act, providing
additional resources. And this is something that we really
appreciate that Congress has identified. Identifying the
problem and assigning resources to this is exceedingly
important for that.
And you also rightly pointed out that we appointed a Chief
Research Officer for Research Security, Strategy, and Policy,
CRSSP. She's working hard but not alone with a small group but
in partnership with inside the agency as you know in all the
directorates working in partnership with other people who are
also lending support and a hand to make sure that we are doing
this in a comprehensive way, not just centralized in one
location in that office alone because we want to make sure that
this works in its fullest form.
We are also working in partnership with the IG, and you
also pointed that out, and that's another thing that we want to
make sure that happens.
I want to say that i this process, being an AI researcher
myself, the analytic tools have become exceedingly powerful in
ensuring that----
Mr. Waltz. Right.
Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. We're able to bring this.
And however much you provide human element to this, technology
can provide us a lot of insights and early warnings and
indications that can be had.
Mr. Waltz. If I could just dive in there, I appreciate
that and I think that is fantastic and the way they're able to
overlay grant applications where they're reporting zero foreign
income or zero participation in talents but yet those same
researchers are appearing in Chinese or Iranian scientific
papers and able to overlay that, but they're also reporting
that they just can't possibly follow up on the vast amount of
leads that that technology is generating. So I appreciate that
emphasis and we'll continue to emphasize that, giving them
tools, for example, to be able to request on demand and see the
actual contracts that these researchers are entering. But with
40,000 researchers and 12,000 institutions, I think we need
continue to have a lot of emphasis.
In my time remaining, Dr. Ochoa, you stated that the
Vision 2030 report is a guide to where U.S. science and
engineering enterprise must be in 10 years. And given your
experience in developing the roadmap, if you could just submit
for the record since I'm about out of time your opinion on a
proposal that we've included in the Securing American
Leadership in Science and Technology Act, the SALSTA Act, to
develop a national S&T strategy and quadrennial review like
what DOD (Department of Defense) undertakes, if you could
comment for the record on that. And I may have a follow-up with
you on that to see a process for a whole-of-government strategy
for S&T that might benefit U.S. competitiveness. I think we can
do more on the strategy side of this across the government, and
I would appreciate your input.
Thank you so much, Chairwoman. I yield my time.
Dr. Ochoa. Thank you. And we talked in our report about
supporting, again, both sort of the individual creativity,
curiosity-driven research, along with an increased emphasis on
delivering benefits. And on that side, a lot of it does have to
do with there are particular topics, industries, areas of
research that are important to the economy and for which the
government as a whole is interested in.
And NSF and the Board is very interested in making sure
that it's a partnership, a partnership across Federal agencies,
and of bringing in many other partners as well, obviously,
academia, which is where NSF has so many deep relationships,
and private industry, and even other partners like foundations.
So NSF wants to work with mission-driven Federal agencies.
Obviously, one role that the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) have is to really look across those agencies and
help ensure that there is an overlap and that there are ties
and hooks between what NSF is doing in the basic research area
and how that may play into the missions of the--of other
Federal agencies.
Mr. Waltz. Dr. Ochoa, I know I'm out of time, I've
exceeded, but, Dr. Ochoa, if you could submit for the record
specifically your opinion on that proposal in the SALSTA Act
for a quadrennial review, which is similar to DOD's process,
I'd love to have a follow-up with you on that.
Dr. Ochoa. OK, absolutely. It's not something specifically
we've talked about with the Board, but we can share our
thoughts.
Mr. Waltz. That would be great. Thank you so much,
Chairwoman.
Dr. Ochoa. Yes.
Chairwoman Stevens. Great, thank you. And with that, the
Chair would like to recognize Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Tonko. Hey, thank you, Madam Chair, for holding
today's critically important hearing. I'm looking forward to
working with you and the rest of the Members of the Research
and Technology Subcommittee this Congress to advance
legislation that will help harness the power of our Nation's
research enterprise to propel innovation and make certain that
we have a skilled workforce ready to meet our lofty goals for
addressing climate change and fostering an innovation economy.
In New York's capital region, which I represent, it's
known for being a hub of STEM innovation thanks to the
incredible work of instructors, researchers, and its scientists
at our world-class colleges and universities. Researchers in my
district have made remarkable strides advancing work across the
STEM fields in recent years, not only breaking new ground in
our scientific understanding but also inspiring and teaching
the next generation of great scientists, engineers, and
visionaries.
I appreciate both of our witnesses today for joining us
this morning and to discuss the role of NSF in these efforts
and how Congress can best support the Foundation moving
forward.
So one of the major discussions before this Committee is
how to best support the idea of expanding the mission of the
National Science Foundation to take on a strategic effort to
translate the results of basic research into solutions to some
of our most pressing societal and existential challenges.
So, Dr. Panchanathan, in the creation of any new
directorate at NSF, how will you ensure that researchers from
all disciplines will be able to apply for and receive funding
to help define and pursue a wide variety of research agendas
and aims?
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative Tonko, for
your question. So, when you're thinking about this directorate,
we know we have strong directorates in various scientific
disciplines. We all know that at NSF. This directorate that we
are proposing is actually a crosscut. It is not an independent
directorate but a crosscut, a crosscut that leverages what is
happening currently in the science directorates but also
energizes what is happening in the science directorates and is
able to take out what is happening in the science directorate
at speed and at scale so that it might benefit society and the
economy at a very rapid rate.
This is what we need today when you look at our
competition like China, that tight integration. Again, I go
back to the DNA example. The tight integration of the
technology outcomes and societal outcomes and the scientific
inspirations that are--that it is drawing from and contributing
to. That is how we visualize this.
So to your point, absolutely this is going to be from
every discipline. You're going to look at every possible avenue
of innovation being translated for the benefit of society and
the economy.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And, Dr. Ochoa, how do you think a
new NSF directorate would impact NSF's mission with regard to a
full range of research, including curiosity-driven research and
use-inspired and translational research?
Dr. Ochoa. Well, we talked, as I mentioned, the features
that we felt was important. I'll probably just be copying what
Dr. Panchanathan said, which is we wanted to make sure it
wasn't siloed, you know, where you create a stovepipe where,
you know, over here is a separate directorate that's really
looking at delivering benefits. This is something that has
happened across the discipline directorates that already exist,
and so any new structure that really focuses on delivering
benefits should be crosscutting. And that's also why we
emphasize so not only the integration across the directorate
but the governance model, again, making sure that you don't
have a separate governance model because that would only
potentially enhance the stovepipe area.
And then flexibility, I think one of the things that has
always been a highlight of NSF is they have the ability to
invest all across the disciplines but particularly as new and
interesting, promising topics come up. And I think that's one
of the highlights of the new directorate and the whole agency
as well.
Mr. Tonko. Well, with my time left I'd like to ask both of
you if you could share your thoughts on NSF's role in advancing
research to solve some of the biggest societal challenges,
including climate change, the opioid crisis, and other large-
scale multifaceted challenges if you would, please.
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you again for the question. So,
you know, NSF has got these multiple directorates, and usually,
these challenges, the opioid epidemic challenge, the climate
challenge actually draws from all areas of what we're investing
in contrary to people--people may think that it is in one
discipline. It's in fact the best solutions are found at the
confluence of disciplines.
Let's take climate challenge for example. It is an
engineering problem, it's a computing problem in the modeling
sense. It is a geo problem, it is a bio problem, it is a
mathematical physical senses problem, and most importantly, it
is a social behavioral science and--problem, too, because
without that, we cannot have comprehensive and complete
solutions to this challenge.
So what we're trying to do at NSF--and that's where NSF is
very unique as an agency because we can bring all of the assets
across disciplines in order to find real solutions for the
problem at hand.
And so for the rest of the time I would like to yield to
Dr. Ochoa.
Dr. Ochoa. In addition to what Dr. Panchanathan just said,
obviously, there are other Federal agencies that invest in
science and are trying to understand some of these issues in
particular when you think about climate research and climate
science. So Dr. Panchanathan has put so much effort in the last
several months where he's been Director to reaching out to the
leads of Federal agencies and talking about where can they
partner even closer. Obviously, NSF has always partnered with
other agencies, but really bringing it to a very strategic
level, maybe above the level of, you know, just certain
research topics. And I think that's a big part of going forward
and how NSF can be successful in addressing society challenges,
marrying up their basic research mission and their deep reach
into the higher education institutions, close to 2,000 of them
across the country, and bringing that to solving these
problems.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield back.
I'm sorry I went well over time----
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. Well, we're--you know,
we're packing in the questions. I think we're each doing 5
minutes, sometimes we do a second round, but this is heavy
stuff.
And with that, we're going to recognize Ranking Member
Lucas for his 5 minutes. Thank you. Thanks for being here.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman. Absolutely.
And to both our panelists, as you know, the United States
and China approach funding research and development very
differently. The U.S. Government has traditionally focused on
making investments in basic research, which leads to unexpected
outcomes that have been adopted and developed by U.S. industry.
We also have diverse mission agencies that focus on more than
transitional or applied research in energy, transportation, and
national security, for example.
Would you both agree that the U.S. model has been
successful, and, with that answer, I'd ask you to follow up
with, and as we consider updates for the research enterprise,
what's been successful? What should be protected?
Dr. Panchanathan. So thank you for the----
Mr. Lucas. Either one first.
Dr. Panchanathan. Dr. Ochoa, would you like to take this
one first?
Dr. Ochoa. Please go ahead, Dr. Panchanathan.
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you.
So, Representative Lucas, you are absolutely correct that
there is a lot of applied research that happens through the
mission agencies. But at the same time, the innovation that is
happening and emerging out of the work that is in the various
directorates of NSF is also being translated, but not enough is
being translated at speed and scale. There is so--there are so
many innovations that NSF researchers are bringing out. Not all
of them are necessarily aligned with the mission agencies I
know. For example, if you take energy--clean energy
technologies, clearly, there's opportunity for partnership at
the Department of Energy.
If you look at Google as an example, in 1994 we had a
proposal from two graduate students who talked about a digital
library project as a proposal. Three, 4 years later when a
final report was submitted on that project, they said we
founded a company called Google. Now, here is an example of not
even a long-term scientifically based innovation that has
translated into market. And there are many, many examples of
that. But even the near term there are examples like that.
These do not necessarily fall under any specific agency
because NSF promotes science and technology and engineering
talent across all disciplines. And there is so much talent and
ideas that are out there that are not getting the full
attention and investment that is needed so that they can
exercise into these thousands and thousands of new companies
and ventures and industry products.
This is what I think I call strengthening at speed and
scale, and we need to do this urgently because when we talk
about our competitor China, we need to make sure that we are
taking full advantage of all of these ideas that is emerging
out of our research labs so that our competitors don't get hold
of those and then build those translational pipeline so that
they end up in accruing the benefits. This is why it is an all-
of-the-above strategy, what is happening in the other agencies,
absolutely.
But what is missed right now is what I think we should
focus on in addition to empowering what is already happening so
that we get an unbelievable rate of progress and a scale of
progress that is absolutely needed urgently here in our Nation.
Mr. Lucas. That's a good point, and I appreciate exactly
what you said but to note--and you can call this an editorial
comment if you want. I'm a little concerned about some of the
proposals from the Senate and the Administration which call for
massive one-time money dumps for technology research and what
this might do to our research enterprise over the long haul.
Can you both discuss the importance of long-term, sustained,
and stable funding for basic research and the damage that
volatile funding patterns can do, just the general principle
about why is it important to have stable, consistent, long-term
funding streams?
Dr. Ochoa. Well, I'll go ahead and I'll talk a little bit
about the model and then hopefully that will lead a little bit
into funding and then I'll hand it back to you, Dr.
Panchanathan.
Just talking about what has made us successful but perhaps
what we've gotten a little bit complacent on and--which is why
we are trying to really emphasize this on the Board is, No. 1,
our lead in fundamental research is very important, and the way
that we carry it out, with openness, transparency where we use
constructive peer-review. So we're really getting quality
science products out. This has been the foundation of
innovation and will continue to be so in the future.
Second, we have a combination of supporting individual
creativity in terms of research, as well as the ability to have
these government-university-business partnerships, this whole
ecosystem that supports science and engineering. And I think
that's a real strength of the United States.
And then finally, one of our biggest strengths is our
people, our diversity of people, of institutions, and of
perspectives. And this is one area that we think we have become
somewhat complacent. We're not reaching out geographically,
demographically in many ways to bring these people into science
and engineering, and we're not just talking at the research and
development end but also the skilled technical workforce that
is so important to our economy.
So as we look at increased investment in all of this, I
think one big key--and I will let Dr. Panchanathan talk more
about it--is partnerships, partnerships, again, across Federal
agencies, with members of industry, with foundations. And that
is one way that you can sort of monitor this funding, the
change in funding is to have other partners who are also
investing with you.
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you so much. If I could add, I
just wanted to say that, you know, whether it is the American
Jobs Plan or the fiscal year 2022 budget request, the
legislations that you talk about, Representative Lucas, I
cannot agree with you more that sustained, long-term funding is
important, and that is what I see as how it is being talked
about as I see it.
But to add to what Dr. Ochoa said, I think at the end of
the day we want the sustainability of many of these initiatives
through partnerships. And this is something that I'm a huge fan
of and I've been working hard since taking over this role is
talking to many, many industry counterparts, many, many
Foundation counterparts, as well as cities and States having
come from a small state like Arizona and having seen firsthand
what a partnership between a university, the city, the county,
the State, and more can do to build robust economic development
activities and sustaining things over time. This is an all-of-
government approach and all-of-partnership-based approach that
requires to be put together in addition to sustained efforts in
terms of ensuring that the support is there for not only
bolstering our curiosity-driven research but also ensuring that
that research outcome is taken out rapidly at speed and scale
for the benefit of humanity and society.
Mr. Lucas. I would just note, Chairman, as I yield back
the time that's now expired, I don't want to create a situation
where we have a feast of resources that create the
infrastructure, the expectation then that we cannot sustain and
disappoint a generation of researchers. I'm old enough to
remember what we did in the effort to go to the moon and how
all that was almost forgotten by the American public and
Congress in the aftermath, very traumatic for a lot of
brilliant people with careers at stake.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stevens. Yes. Yes. And it's certainly great and
refreshing to be able to talk about investing in our scientific
research agenda and responsibly thinking about the plus-ups
that we want to make to an agency, an independent Federal
agency such as the NSF, unlike, unfortunately, some of what we
got from the previous Administration, which was $500 million
cuts here and there. And we saw this obviously to the NSF and
to NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) coming
out of the previous White House. So it's a great day when we
can talk about funding.
And with that, I would like to turn it over to my
colleague and friend Dr. Bill Foster.
Mr. Foster. So I'm on earlier than I had anticipated, but
I can handle it.
Well, you know, as the only Ph.D. physicist and practicing
research scientist in Congress, I sort of serve as a lightning
rod for the enthusiasms and the concerns of the scientific
community. You know, there is obviously a lot of excitement
about this point in time when we may be approaching a Sputnik-
like moment for a real increase in the budget but also
significant concerns.
You know, even prior to COVID the House Science Committee
was entertaining dueling proposals to double the research and
education budgets in this country. And on the campaign trail
President Biden was sort of alternating between advocating for
doubling or tripling the scientific research budgets.
And in Congress I see our main challenge right now is to
capture this real bipartisan appetite and enthusiasm for a real
increase in research budgets because, you know, as has been
mentioned, for the last decade we have struggled to maintain
even NSF budgets and scientific budgets generally that were
even flat after inflation.
You know, the NSF has a founding document, sort of a
spiritual guide, the Endless Frontier report by Vannevar Bush
and others that has some ageless and wise advice that has
really stood the test of time. And in its discussion on
industrial research, it leads with a paragraph consisting of a
single sentence. And that sentence is, quote, ``The simplest
and most effective way in which government can strengthen
industrial research is to support basic research and to develop
scientific talent.'' OK. That's worth thinking about that
sentence hard and rereading the Endless Frontier report for
those who haven't done it recently.
You know, it did not ask Congress to micromanage areas of
scientific focus. It did not ask Congress or really the NSF to
pick commercial winners and losers. You know, NSF and our
country has benefited tremendously from that clear vision of an
agency dedicated to pure scientific research and scientific
education guided by scientists and engineers on advisory
councils such as the National Science Board and the OSTP.
You know, there's a lot of concern right now about
scientists who worry that a new technology directorate or more
extreme proposals, along with an increased focus on commercial
and applied research, could represent a potentially damaging
distraction from NSF's core mission. You know, I'm frankly
worried about a future in which you and your successors will be
brought before Congress and asked, you know, what products did
you bring to market for us this year when the real answer is
that these products will only appear on the market many decades
from now. In fact, you know, one of the biggest gifts that
Congress could give to China would be to subject the NSF to
congressional micromanagement and short-term commercial
considerations in our consideration of their budget.
There is also the worry among scientists that a new NSF
focus on technology and commercialization will overlap in
inefficient ways with existing applied and commercial research
programs in Department of Energy, NIST, DOD and elsewhere.
And, you know, I'm sure you both spend a lot of your time
trying to deconflict parallel efforts in all the different
agencies, and an additional big, you know--the--we have another
entity at the table if we stand up a new directorate or more
extreme example of that is being proposed.
So, you know, I'd urge my colleagues to set as their first
priority simply delivering on the enthusiasm of an increased
budget and trying to repair the damage that's been done by a
decade of flat budgets. And then when you've delivered with
properly funding the programs that you very thoughtfully stood
up in the last decades, fully fund those, have a look at what
has to be changed before deciding that we have to go redesign
the whole system. It's performed pretty impressively for the
amount of money it's been given.
And so the question I'd like to ask is how in Congress can
we find out what the practical limits are, how quickly NSF,
DOE, NIST, all of the agencies that do scientific research can
really absorb a budget increase? You know, I know you are asked
every year secretly from Congress, you know, what an
unconstrained budget looks like. And, by design, we're not
allowed to see that. But I was wondering what mechanisms you
can--you know, if you're allowed to throw deep and dream big,
what are the mechanisms we could see what the real
opportunities are with an unconstrained budget?
Dr. Panchanathan. Dr. Foster, this is a good question. I
think that, you know, we have pondered about this quite a bit
at NSF and even in the Board, and they have a lot of
conversations about this, too. So if you look at--let's take
the current moment that we have at hand. If you take the
50,000-plus proposals that we receive every year, we fund about
20 percent on average over the years, average 20 percent.
When I came to the agency, I asked a question. Like you, a
scientist, I asked the question. What are the proposals that
are deemed worthy of funding that we are not funding today?
That is these have been ranked by the--in a panel, and these
are deemed worthy of funding but they are yet not funding them?
It turns out 1/3 of the proposals on average are worthy and
thought of as highly competitive or competitively funded, but
we yet fund only 20 percent, not 30 percent. So right there on
the chopping room floor we are leaving unbelievable ideas and
therefore what talent that could have generated all of that on
the table. So that's one number.
Mr. Foster. Right.
Dr. Panchanathan. The other number, as you might know, as
all of you would know--and the Chairwoman talked about her own
proposal that she submitted, like me, and being unsuccessful
at--I've been unsuccessful with NSF proposals, too, so I know
the pain. So basically, when you look at the size of the
proposal, is this the right size? Are we funding it at the
right size? It turns out that while we marginally increase the
size of the proposals, it has not kept up with either the
inflation or the rate of increase of graduate student stipends.
So right there, you know, you could think that a 50 percent
increase in the size, the grant size would be more appropriate
for what we need to be funding today at least.
Then I asked the next question. Are we funding the right
duration of these grants? Is it a magical number of X number of
years? Now it is, like I say, 2 or 3 or 3 to 4 years. Is that
the right duration? It turns out that graduate students have a
certain time duration for graduation for their Ph.D.'s. And so
rather than 3 to 4, 4 to 5 may be more appropriate, so, again a
30 percent decrease in duration.
If you take today's proposals, today's ideas that are
right submitted today, and if you were to put these factors
into consideration, right there there's a doubling of the
budget that is required, right there, today. So--but not
funding NSF at only--not 100 percent of what we need to fund
but only at 50 percent of what is being funded, we are losing
out on great ideas. And guess what? Those ideas are being
picked up by our competitors. That is not an acceptable thing,
and therefore, we have to change these facts right at NSF, OK?
Now let's go on and talk about what else we are missing.
You know, we founded this fantastic program called I-Corps. I
was an I-Corps PI. I tell you, I went to the boot camp. It
transformed me. It transformed me in terms of how I think about
my research. So now how many projects do we fund at I-Corps? It
turns out 1,500. And how many do we have trained through that?
Forty-five hundred. We have hundreds of thousands, not just
thousands we are talking about we are leaving on the table.
This is missed opportunity for turning the entrepreneur talent
into something that benefits our Nation. We are leaving it on
the chopping room floor. And I'm not talking about anything
new. I'm talking about existing ideas, OK? SBIR (Small Business
Innovation Research) and STTR (Small Business Technology
Transfer), we are not funding them at the level we should be
funding.
So I would say both curiosity-driven research and use-
inspired research needs to be funded at a much higher level.
And to give you a thumbnail, we are at least a tripling or a
quadrupling of the NSF budget, which can be accommodated to
make that happen today.
Mr. Foster. Yes. Well, thank you for that. And my
apologies to my colleagues for extending my time.
Madam Chair, if there is an opportunity for a second round
of questioning if that fits in, I think it would be, you know,
very productive if possible.
Chairwoman Stevens. Yes, we'll see. We'll see if we'll do
the second round. It's--yes, I hear you loud and clear. And
it's very important, I think, to get what Dr. Panchanathan is
putting on the record for us into that congressional record.
You know, we're not in the Committee room, but this is still a
part of the House record, this hearing. And part of this
testifying and the process that we're undertaking here is
exactly how we're going to shape this. I think our dialog is
just going very nicely.
So with that, it's a real honor to recognize my colleague,
Congressman Peter Meijer, from the western part of Michigan for
5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and then thank you to
our distinguished panelists here today. I'm Peter Meijer
representing Michigan's Third District, so as the Chairwoman
alluded to, in Michigan we are defined by our natural
boundaries. We're defined by our Great Lakes. And not only does
that make us much more in touch with an understanding on some
of the environmental pressures and constraints but also
appreciative of all of the scientific research that has gone in
to helping us protect and preserve and grow our understanding
of that ecosystem.
So I guess, you know, Dr. Panchanathan, I really
appreciate your enthusiasm and energy, and I think there is a
wide share among this Committee and the Subcommittee in a
bipartisan way on that need, which is indeed why we're here
today. But I just want to drill in a little bit on the Great
Lakes if I could more specifically.
So obviously, the NSF is just one part of the overall
research ecosystem. We also have the Department of Energy, the
national labs, NIST, NASA to name a few other civilian research
agencies. I'm going to get into the Great Lakes in a second,
but could you talk a little bit more about the NSF's
relationships with these other agencies and then how you kind
of see and value your interagency partnerships?
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much for the question. I
often say that if we open up my body and look at my DNA or even
you don't have to open my body, take a blood sample, look in my
DNA, it would scream partnerships, partnerships, partnerships,
collaboration, collaboration, collaboration. And I'm not just
saying it for words. My actions speak louder than words. My
past life in Arizona you will have seen that partnerships is
something that I fostered of every form and every type.
So what did I do when I got out of the agency in July? The
first couple of weeks I picked up the phone and talked to every
agency leader and I said I want us to partner stronger, better,
in larger initiatives, as well as continue to, you know, fuel
these smaller initiatives that we are partnering in, every one
of them. Just 2 weeks ago, I picked up the phone and I asked
for a call with Secretary Granholm from the Department of
Energy as one example, another example and said how might,
Secretary, we might partner more between Department of Energy
and NSF? Because there's a lot of things that we partner on,
facilities, projects, a whole host of things, AI, quantum. We
partner in many, many things, and how might we leverage this
and build even more sustained partnerships and broader
partnerships for the future?
So this is something that I deeply value. You said I
deeply, deeply value because, as a government--all-of-
government approach, we need to make sure that we need to not
have any duplication of efforts but synergization and scaling
up of efforts because of partnership. But I didn't stop even
there. I went beyond agencies, industry, foundations, et
cetera.
So I cannot agree with you more that partnerships as the
way that you achieve rapid progress the speed and scale.
So I yield the time to Dr. Ochoa.
Mr. Meijer. Well, and thank you, Director. I wanted to
dive in a little bit more there and specifically, I didn't
mention these prior but other scientific agencies, you have
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the
USGS (United States Geological Survey). Could you speak to your
experience in working with them and specifically any research
that NSF has supported on the Great Lakes more broadly?
Dr. Panchanathan. Absolutely. I mean, I may not have
specific to the Great Lakes. I can give you examples and we
will be happy to respond to your specific question there. But
the broader context of NOAA and USGS partnerships absolutely.
In fact, when I picked up the phone and talked to the previous
NOAA leader when I came in, as well as USGS leader, I told them
why not work on AI institute focused on the areas that NOAA is
interested in and USGS is interested in? USGS, the leader said
to me that, you know, we have lots of data. We collect a lot of
data, and it'll be great to have the NSF partnership because
you guys know what to do with data. In other words, your
researchers know what to do with data and glean useful
information from that. So I said bring it on. Let's build a
strong partnership so that your data and our researchers--
because our researcher--as a data researcher myself I--you
know, we all salivate for data at large scale. Therefore, there
are researchers out there salivating for the data. Wouldn't
this be great if we bring the two together? And so you can be
rest assured that we are developing the partnerships.
With respect to the Great Lakes, I will make sure that we
get that information and data to you in concrete form.
Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Director. You mentioned also the
industry partnerships. I just wanted to say in fiscal year 2020
NSF invested over $4.5 million in Michigan startups through the
small business program, so I'm hopeful that that will be
continued and expanded because, again, I'm glad to hear that
you very much feel partnerships is in your DNA and appreciate
that we don't want to have duplication of effort but want to
make sure that we're all rolling in the same path. So I really
appreciate your time today. And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. Excellent. And with that, we're going
to recognize Congresswoman Moore for 5 minutes of questions,
from the other Great Lakes State of Wisconsin.
Ms. Moore. Well, thank you so much, Madam Chair. I--you
know, I'm, you know--Zoom--these Zoom days, you Zoom from
meeting to meeting, but I did have a chance to listen to our
outstanding guests today. And really--like I said, I'm going to
have a Ph.D. in science before I leave this Committee.
But that being said, the NSF is such a valuable resource
to us, and I know that there's discussion around reaching out
to more minority students by going to HBCUs, Hispanic-serving
institutions (HSIs), and making those recruits.
But I do have a question about other interventions. You
know, you do have cities like Milwaukee, Chicago, or Detroit
and big cities that have a lot of urban African Americans who
don't necessarily have access to HBCUs in their region. And
their needs--we need to make sure we don't leave them out as
well.
Also, there are STEM programs in some of our community
colleges that we need to make sure that we don't limit our
reach so that we miss out on where the greatest number of these
students might exist instead of working sort of around the
edges of the problem.
We all know that the lack of equity in STEM interests,
whether it be based on race or gender, starts much earlier than
arguing whether you need to go to an HBCU to find these kids or
whether you need to go to the University of Michigan to find
them.
And so I'm just wondering, to our witnesses, what the NSF
is doing specifically to make those interventions to very low-
income students and women K through 12? The younger the better.
Dr. Panchanathan. So--and this time I'm going to make it
short so that I have my colleague to have a chance to also
weigh in. So an excellent question. Thank you so much for
asking that. You know, you're absolutely correct. Talent and
ideas are everywhere across our Nation. It is our
responsibility to ensure that they are inspiring, motivating,
and bringing the talent to light. NSF is involved in a range of
programs, and I can go through all the details and I can even
respond to you more concretely on this offline, but I will tell
you that our K to 12, you are absolutely correct. Our K to 12
kids need to be inspired to not only take STEM as what they
might do in their careers or, you know, in what they do but
also the STEM spirit and the STEM spark being lit even if they
didn't pursue STEM, that they are going to somehow have this,
you know, association with STEM or be impacted by STEM and have
an appreciation for STEM.
So at NSF we are working on various projects and programs
to do this, and one of the major ways in which we do this is
how might we inspire them by having science teachers who
inspire the kids and therefore having the teachers at scale who
are scientifically inspired by themselves, therefore inspiring
the children in turn is something that we are focused on, and
we are working with--in partnership with--seeking partnership
with foundations to do that at scale so that they might have it
everywhere across our Nation. We have many programs with HBCUs
and other MSIs (minority-serving institutions), private
colleges, universities, as well as HSIs.
And I want to, you know, pass the baton off to Dr. Ochoa
because the Board has been doing some deep thinking about this,
so I would like Dr. Ochoa to highlight that, too.
Dr. Ochoa. Well, thank you. It's absolutely a question
that the Board is very interested in and concerned about, and
just in general we focused on a variety of these issues just in
the last year at our meetings where we had external panels on
the Black experience in STEM, on barriers to student retention
in STEM, and next month in May we're going to have a panel on
lessons learned from minority-serving institutions on retaining
students in STEM. And I would invite you to tune into that.
A couple things that I can think of, first, NSF does
support research on STEM and how your best teach it and reach
out to it. And we would like to see broader use of that. And
second, they do get involved in outreach to a wide variety of
ages. And there's one program I actually--I became familiar
with when I was at NASA, although it was NSF-funded, a program
called SciGirls, which is hosted by middle school girls of a
variety of demographics, as shown on public education stations,
and they actually act as hosts and introduce students of their
age through STEM topics. They came to Johnson Space Center when
I was Director there, one of our younger Latina engineers took
them on a tour and I got to make a guest appearance. So
absolutely NSF also looks at how can we reach out at a younger
age and get students interested in STEM.
Ms. Moore. Thank you so much. And, you know, like I said,
equity is really important for African Americans, Latinos,
Asians, and women as well, and so, you know, if we're going to
be really intentional about this, you know, we have to go
everywhere. And so, you know, like I said, I applaud going to
HBCUs. You know, I didn't go to an HBCU and, you know, whether
I have regrets about that don't even matter. I'm an alumna of
Marquette University, grateful for my education.
But know that that--you know, my constituency needs some
love as well.
So with that, thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence,
my Zoom jumping, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. You couldn't be more spot
on.
And with that, we're going to recognize Dr. Jim Baird for
5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for
mentioning our early work in the 116th Congress. And I want to
thank Ranking Member Waltz and everyone for holding this
hearing. And I really always learn something in the Science
Committee and appreciate the witnesses and their sharing their
perspectives on the importance of research and innovation and
the National Science Foundation.
And I just want to mention, as the other Ph.D. scientist
in Congress, I'm very supportive of research and development,
Dr. Foster.
Anyway, and I really recognize the significance of basic
research and how a long-term commitment that is because what
you're doing in basic research today may not materialize until
somewhere down the road because of other basic research when
they all come together.
But I would mention that in addition to what NSF does with
other agencies, there's also a great deal of work that's done
with academia. Purdue University is in my district, and they
utilize NSF grants to fund basic student research. Just last
week, I spoke to several materials engineering students whose
work has been funded through the NSF.
So my question is how do we really measure the success and
value of these academic grants? And then how successful are we
at retaining these students to remain as STEM leaders? But I'm
particularly interested in keeping them in the U.S.
So I guess, Dr. Panchanathan, you might start with this
question, and then we'll go to Dr. Ochoa.
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much, Representative
Baird. You know, in terms of assessing the value of these
projects, clearly, you know, every project has at the end of
the term--as you rightly pointed out, we need to ensure that
curiosity-driven research is given the opportunity to exercise
the ideas that people have into, you know, unbelievable
outcomes from a scientific perspective, not necessarily from a
tangible all the time in terms of looking for an outcome which
is, you know, measured by either a company coming out or a
product coming out, definitely not.
So typically all these projects that we fund, they submit
annual reports. And in the annual reports they outline two
things: those things that are manifested in terms of the
intellectual merit with which the proposal was submitted and
funded, and also the other component called broad impacts and
how did that work impact a broader set of objectives that they
laid out in their proposal. So they ensure that these reports
are capturing all the amazing outcomes that are achieved
through the intellectual progress that they make with their
scientific explorations, as well as the broader impacts they
also create because of what they do in their proposal in the
project. So we ensure that that is captured through these
reporting process, and that is something that on an annual
basis and an end-of-the-project report is also typically
gathered. And we make sure that we harvest the information from
that, which is very valuable for us to be able to dice and
slice it to understand all the amazing impact that NSF is
creating across the Nation in various regions and beyond. So
that's something that we do in terms of evaluating the
progress.
Dr. Ochoa. I'll just add a couple of things. First, I'll
draw your attention to a report that the Board puts out in
conjunction with a National Center for Science and Engineering
statistics, which of course is housed within NSF, which
provides the latest data and trends on higher education, STEM
degrees, STEM workforce, as well as the industries that it
supports in the United States. And so that is one way to
understand the trends and what are--what's making a difference.
There's also some programs that NSF has that are really
trying to incorporate impact metrics, so not just the number of
people, for example, that were reached out to, but there's a
program within the tribal colleges and universities that are
looking at what is the actual number of STEM degree programs
that have been developed through this support.
And a few years ago NSF initiated some pilot programs on
metrics, one of which includes, you know, the long-term
outcomes of people who get the graduate research fellowships
through NSF. And they're also looking at a framework for doing
the same thing for participants of their undergraduate research
experience that they fund. So understanding, you know, what is
making a difference for these students and helping that--you
know, evolved programs that NSF supports is certainly something
both of interest to NSF and the Board.
Dr. Panchanathan. The second part of the question that you
asked, Dr. Baird, if I could address that, how do we keep them
here in the United States, you know, again, this crosscut idea
that we have out right now in place will even more train them
to be aligned with what the society and industry is interested
in and turning their ideas and giving them experiential
opportunities that then makes them ready for jobs right here so
that they might then be retained here because they have the
opportunities to express their--continue to express their
talent as they move forward.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. And thank you, Madam Chair, for
letting me run over a little bit, but I'm out of time.
Chairwoman Stevens. Anything for my colleague from
Indiana.
With that, I'd like to recognize Mr. Conor Lamb for 5
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Lamb. Hey, thank you to our guests for joining us
today. I really appreciate all the information.
I really just have one main question, which is that where
I come from in Pittsburgh we have this heritage of being an
important location of R&D and industrial innovation not only
because of our great universities, but we were actually a
powerful center of corporate R&D, particularly Westinghouse
Corporation, but U.S. Steel and PPG and others as well.
And it seems like that is dropping off in America in terms
of overall investment in corporate R&D. We looked at the total
amount of applied R&D spent last year and only around 6 percent
was corporate-funded. So I was just curious, do either of you
think that there is more that we can do to encourage corporate
R&D? How do you think we're doing vis-a-vis our competitor
nations? Or is it that this is the reason that the government
needs to be more directly involved in applied research because,
you know, corporations and the global market just can't afford
it? Just any thoughts that you have on that.
Dr. Panchanathan. Representative Lamb, when I came into
the agency, I outlined a vision. One of the component parts of
the vision when we talk about this technology and translation
and so on is this concept of what--Bell Lab-like entities where
we had public-private partnership, people seamlessly
integrating the academic world as well as the industry world,
all working together. And I call them innovation activators.
You can call them whatever you want, innovation hubs, that
everywhere across the Nation we need to build these innovation
hubs.
So what happens is the building of the ideas, the mutual
influence of the ideas, and further fostering that, and then
the talent that gets exposed to this ecosystem becomes very
sensitized to that way of thinking so--which means that they
are even more ready for the workforce and the entrepreneurial
outcomes that we can achieve through that talent. All of that
can be made possible through the fusion.
So when we talk about this crosscut directorate idea, you
can think of such hubs being in every part of our Nation
because we said talent and ideas are in every part of our
Nation. For example, if you take a rural environment where
agriculture is predominant, you could imagine building a--you
know, a cluster around smart agriculture and how might--what
might be a better living laboratory than a smart agriculture in
a rural area or in a State----
Mr. Lamb. You're saying it has to be that we get multiple
entities basically under the same roof----
Dr. Panchanathan. Right.
Mr. Lamb [continuing]. And not be a model of----
Dr. Panchanathan. Right.
Mr. Lamb [continuing]. You know, the Westinghouse
corporate research development park or something like that?
Dr. Panchanathan. Right.
Mr. Lamb. Yes.
Dr. Panchanathan. It's a consortium, you're absolutely
correct. How might we bring interested parties all together so
that we can have these innovation hubs where these innovations
can rapidly than speed up and scale. And that's required across
our Nation. This is exceedingly important, and that's why I'm
excited with the American Jobs Plan, the fiscal year 2022
budget proposal with the President, and we're excited about all
the legislative efforts, including, you know, the NSF for the
Future Act because all of this are communicating the importance
of us doing this, this effort of translating rapidly so that we
might be the vanguard of innovation and take full advantage of
the unbelievable spirit of curiosity-driven research already
existent but also influencing more of that at scale because
of----
Mr. Lamb. Dr. Ochoa, did you have anything you wanted to
add on that?
Dr. Ochoa. I thought I'd just add an example that was in
fact just announced this week. So this is an NSF-led
multisector partnership on accelerating research on the next
generation of communications networks and systems. So NSF is
leading it and it involves NIST, DOD, but then several large
companies. And this is NSF's largest single effort to date to
engage public and private partners to jointly support a
research program. And I think this is exactly the kind of thing
that Dr. Panchanathan is pushing in a whole variety of areas
where NSF, which is really focusing on the basic research part,
but it's forming these connections with other more mission-
driven agencies and then of course the actual industries who
will go into the more development area while NSF is doing the
basic research part.
Mr. Lamb. Got it. Well, I appreciate both of you helping
shine a light on this for us and letting us know the ways that
we can help improve because this obviously needs to be at the
top of our agenda for innovation and economic development and
jobs going forward. So I really appreciate it. Madam
Chairwoman, I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Lamb.
And with that, I'd like to recognize Mr. Gonzalez for 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking
Member Waltz for holding this timely hearing and to our
distinguished witnesses for joining us.
Dr. Panch, it's great to see you again. According to a
report from the Federation of American Scientists, the U.S.
spent $134 billion on R&D in 2020. As a percentage of GDP
(gross domestic product), that's .6 percent, so roughly a 50
percent decrease from 1976 spending levels. Comparatively,
China's spending on R&D has climbed in recent decades reaching
$378 billion last year, so nearly 2.4 percent of their GDP. So
we're being outspent in that regard. And they're also very
well-focused with respect to how they allocate their dollars.
And so one area I want to start with, Dr. Panch--and, Ms.
Ochoa, it's great to see you as well. I know Dr. Panch a little
better, so don't feel left out. But, in any event, I want to
start specifically on quantum and quantum technologies. Dr.
Panch, as you know, China is aggressively recruiting U.S.
researchers and scientists to grow their knowledge base and
accelerate their timeline for quantum technologies. My concern
is if China were to get their hands on a quantum computer that
can break today's mathematical encryptions, it would put our
country's IP, personal data, and mission-critical systems more
at risk than they already are.
To that end, what steps is the NSF taking to expand
quantum technology and ensure the U.S. maintains the advantage
in converting research into commercial applications?
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you so much, Mr. Gonzalez. Again,
good to see you, too. You know, as you know, NSF is very, very
invested in quantum not today but for several decades and in
multiple disciplines of investments that is shaping the quantum
revolution as we are talking about it today, whether it is, you
know, the physics of quantum or quantum information science,
engineering, all aspects of quantum sensing, all aspects are
being--have been invested in by NSF over the decades. So has
also been the investments by other agencies.
So that--this is again one of those areas where many
different agencies can come together, most importantly
industry, leading industry like, for example, IBM, coming
together in partnership so that we might accelerate the
progress at a speed that is much greater than what we would be
able to do by just outsource working.
But having said that, NSF has got tremendous investments.
Last year, for example, we launched the Quantum Institutes in
partnership with DOE. That's a great platform for ensuring that
we are able to support the researchers coming together from
multiple parties, not only academia, labs and industry and
others working together so that we might build the fastest
computers, quantum computers, the fastest quantum information
science ideas, and the fastest, therefore, fundamental research
that needs to happen in quantum so that we might unleash the
future of what we need to do with quantum. So we are doing all
of that at the same time.
And I can tell you here is where industry partnerships are
exceedingly vital. And again, that plays to this crosscut idea
that we talk about in technology is because that's where we
will bring the science in partnership with industry and
therefore make these rapid translations possible.
Mr. Gonzalez. OK.
Dr. Panchanathan. Lastly, we need an entrepreneur
ecosystem around this to be developed so that we might have
those good ideas to translate.
Mr. Gonzalez. And then specifically to how we compare
relative to China in terms of development, do you feel like
we're ahead of them on quantum, we're neck-and-neck? If it's a
straight horse race, I mean, how do we compare specifically to
them in your eyes?
Dr. Panchanathan. So it's very difficult to go in and say
where we are, you know, in the race----
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. But we are competing. But I
can tell you one part of this which is the good news. In the
last, again, six, 9 months that I've been in the job, I've
pretty much reached out and talked to many of our partners
across the globe. Let's take Canada for example. Canada is
investing heavily in quantum. How might we find like-minded
partners who share in our values, who share in our, you know,
research integrity and trust and reciprocity? That is we are
building a coalition of like-minded partners across the globe
so we can leverage our investments together to make even more
rapid progress. So that's our--not only leapfrogging other--
with our investments but also further leapfrogging with the
ability to be able to channel the other partnership resources
that we can bring to bear.
I want Dr. Ochoa to also have a chance to respond to this.
Dr. Ochoa. The only couple things I would add is in
quantum, as in other areas, I think the two things we really
want to take advantage of are this broad ecosystem where you
have the government and particularly NSF, which has this broad
and deep reach into the higher education institutions across
the country, marrying that up with industry, and then making
sure that we're always thinking about how do we reach out and
get talent? How do we unleash the talent in the country? And
keeping both of those in mind I think is where we are going to
really be able to continue to push our success.
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, thank you. And before I yield back, the
one thing I want to highlight that you just said, we also need
to attract and retain talent, and that's going to require some
immigration reform, which I hope we can finally get to in a
sensible way.
So with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. My mouse on my House computer has
given out, so I'm using the spacebar, but great concluding
statement from my colleague from Ohio. And maybe we can delve
into that at a separate time.
So after we've just heard from many fantastic colleagues
from the Great Lakes area, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio,
we're now going to turn to one of our newest Members of the
Subcommittee, the great Deborah Ross from North Carolina.
Congresswoman, go ahead.
Ms. Ross. Well, thank you for your leadership, Chairwoman,
and Ranking Member. And this is such an important hearing. For
me, I represent the Research Triangle area in North Carolina.
North Carolina State University land-grant university is in my
district, and I have two HBCUs, Representative Moore, Shaw
University and Saint Aug's.
Before I get started, I need to brag a little bit on one
of our professors from North Carolina State, who is currently
on sabbatical at NSF, Dr. Christine Grant. And my question is
going to piggyback on some of the questions that we just got
because Dr. Grant won an NSF Presidential Award for Excellence
in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring both at the
undergraduate level and at the graduate level. And in 2018 the
National Academies released a report calling for a modernized
approach to graduate STEM education that's more student-
centered. And among the recommendations in the report was a
call for a renewed focus on mentoring. This, you know, showing
that student how they could become this outstanding researcher
or connecting them to whatever their next steps would be.
And so my question to both of you--and maybe--you know,
we've talked a lot about this in the minority community and
with women, but I think this is really across the board. People
need to have that human connection. So what steps can NSF take
to advance research on effective practices for mentoring
graduate students to incentivize institutions and researchers
to place a stronger emphasis on this critical role?
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you so much. Dr. Ochoa, do you
want to take this one first?
Dr. Ochoa. Sure. Well, first of all, we absolutely share
your emphasis on mentoring. We've heard about it from some of
our outside panels, particularly ones that address student
retention in STEM and particularly those who are
underrepresented.
One of the things that Dr. Panchanathan mentioned earlier
was hopefully the opportunity to increase award size and
duration of grants, and one of the benefits is principal
investigators can spend less time generating lots of proposals,
more time not only doing their research but mentoring their
students that they have.
And I also recently had the opportunity to participate in
a National Academies podcast on the science of mentoring, which
they put out in conjunction with the report that they've just
done, which is quite interesting on, you know, tactics for
mentoring.
So what we would like to see, for example, when you think
about the broader impacts that are reviewed as part of
proposals, absolutely building up your own student cohort as a
principal investigator is one of those things that can--
qualifies that because you're really, again, reaching out and
trying to develop the talent of the next generation.
And so as a board, we're really talking about mentoring,
and we're talking with NSF about where are those areas where
they can place more emphasis on mentoring as well and certainly
in the broader impacts. That is one area that's a possibility.
Ms. Ross. Thank you.
Dr. Panchanathan. I----
Ms. Ross. Do you want to add--yes, go ahead.
Dr. Panchanathan. If it's OK, I'll just say a few words.
This time I will be the one that adds a little bit. So, you
know, clearly, you know, all of the--you've all received NSF
grants to know that. Mentoring is probably the most important
thing that you do in terms of talent, how you, you know, make
sure that talent is expressed in the best possible form.
And so one of the things we need to build more and
complementing Ochoa's answer is how do we build role models?
Because mentorship is also about who you are. And one of--I'll
give you one example of a program. It includes a program of
NSF, right? We want to make sure, again, advance program of
NSF. We want to make sure that if we want to change the
demographic of the population that we have today, we need role
models like Dr. Ochoa, who is a fantastic role model, you know?
So how do we get more role models like that? And some other
projects they've been working on and programs that we're
working on is to fund people so that they might serve not only
the mentoring part of what the grant requires but who they are
they therefore inspire and get talent much more diversified.
And this is something NSF is increasingly focusing on because
you can't build a broad pool of talent unless you have a broad
pool of mentors also being supported at the same time. So we're
looking at both of them here.
And in general I will say to many of the previous answers
even, there are significant gaps that are there still, and
that's one of the things that we are looking at NSF. What might
we do better, whether it is in the realm of how might we do
better mentoring, how can we be more diversity-and oriented-
focused and enriching that? How might we get more technology
translation? All of these things are all--that we're discussing
today are gaps that are yet to be filled, and that's why we
need a different way of thinking about all of these things. And
that's why this moment that is very important for all of
these--and the proposals that are being made think is very rich
for our Nation. This is what we need in order for us to be able
to compete and out-compete and out-innovate other competitors
like China.
Ms. Ross. Yes, well thank you very much. I see I'm out of
time, but while Dr. Grant's working with NSF, I encourage you
to get to know her. She's an outstanding person and has done so
much at NC State. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. Excellent questions. Thank you so
much, Congresswoman Ross.
And with that, we've got Congressman Beyer here for 5
minutes of questions. I will turn it over to you, sir.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. And thank
you to Dr. Panchanathan, Dr. Ochoa, for being distinguished and
testifying before us today.
I'm a big fan of the National Science Foundation because
it's a couple blocks from my home on--in Duke Street, and I
have thousands of these hardworking scientists and staff living
in the district. And I really value the tremendous benefit the
agency has brought to America and Americans over the past 70
years, so I'm really committed with all of my colleagues on
this Committee to make sure that the National Science
Foundation has the funding we've heard.
In the 7 years I've been on the Science Committee, we
continue to hear about the dwindling percentage of excellent
applications that can be approved because the money just hasn't
kept up. And anything we can do--I know there is--NSF for the
Future Act, there's the Endless Frontier Act. My dear friend
and respected colleague Bill Foster, among others, has made
sure that we are looking deep into the challenges of the
respective acts.
And, Madam Chair, I'd love to include unanimous consent to
enter into the record two letters, one from the national
President of the American Federation of Government Employees,
AFGE, Everett Kelley, and another one from David Verardo, who
is the President of the National Science Foundation AFGE
chapter, expressing concerns about some of the special hiring
authorities that are included in the NSF for the Future Act.
And I'm sure we can work together with the Committee to iron
these out.
Chairwoman Stevens. So moved. So moved.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Dr. Panchanathan, one of our responsibilities on the
Committee is to elevate the role of evidence-based policy
debates and decisionmaking. It wouldn't be going too far to say
that we're talking about evidence-based and truth-based
policies is one of the great national divides right now. And
Federal agencies have this trove of survey and administrative
data that, if made accessible to researchers, would greatly
advance evidence-based policymaking.
So a couple of years ago, the U.S. Commission on Evidence-
Based Policymaking recommended modernizing the Federal data
infrastructure by establishing a National Secure Data Service.
And the data foundation subsequently decided that the best
place to put this thing would be at the National Science
Foundation. What's your view on this approach, and has NSF
taken any steps toward establishing a National Secure Data
Service?
Dr. Panchanathan. Representative Beyer, as you know, you
know, Dr. Ochoa talked about the fact that we have this
fantastic National Center for Statistics that is extremely
valuable in terms of, you know, taking the data and being able
to come out with some--glean some interesting insights from the
data. The specific data resource that you're pointing out, I
have not had a chance and I'm not privy to that yet, but I'm
happy to look into that and get my comments more in an informed
way rather than making, you know, sort of a general statement
of, well, you know, the data resource can be valuable. Instead
of making such a statement, I would rather like to go and look
into it and then get back to you on that if that's OK with you.
Mr. Beyer. That sounds great, Dr. Panchanathan.
And, Dr. Ochoa, you know, there's been a big emphasis in
recent years on supporting public-private partnerships and
making sure that NSF funding is linked to private-sector
commercialization, you know, society and societal problems. But
I confess I'm also just deeply fascinated by how the commitment
to basic research that's not connected to any short-term goal
in our lives ends up changing our lives in major ways. As head
of the National Science Board, can you just talk about the
fundamental importance of basic research?
Dr. Ochoa. Oh, absolutely. And of course the Board shares
that value. That's really why we're all on the National Science
Board.
And as Dr. Panchanathan has mentioned, you know, there's
no sort of hard cutoff between curiosity-driven research and
use-inspired research. It's more of a continuum. You know, I
used to kind of think of it as a feedback loop. He likes to
think of it--and I like this analogy, too--as the strands of
DNA that are really completely intertwined.
And, you know, just one example, going back to COVID is
Dr. Panchanathan mentioned the COVID test that people are
taking now, the PCR, polymerase chain reaction tests. That was
developed based on basic research, looking at bacteria in the
thermal pools at Yellowstone National Park. And it turned out
these bacteria had enzymes that could replicate genetic
material. And it's now led to a process that allows you to
replicate genetic material taken from swabs from people and
allows this kind of testing to go on, which has been so
critical in the last year.
So that research was decades ago. I don't think anybody
thinking about, you know, exploring the thermal pools of
Yellowstone would have predicted the future, but that is
exactly what NSF is in the business of supporting.
We do, however, as a board, believe we can do even more,
take--go from what we like to say from the imagination to
impact. How can we even better impact people's lives and really
carry out the mission of NSF? As it was stated in 1950, promote
the progress of science and advance the Nation's health,
prosperity, and welfare.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. Absolutely wonderful. Well, thank you
so much. We had a request from Dr. Foster to do another round
of questions, but what I would like to do is close out the
hearing because we are doing another hearing with stakeholders
next week.
Bill, what I'll do is we can leave--and the Committee can
oblige this because it's just like if we're in the hearing
room. We'll leave the Zoom link open so we can chitchat. We're
going to--because I think there's some more here for--you know,
what doesn't need to be on the record but some catchup stuff.
The for-the-record stuff, as Dr. Panchanathan eluded and said
several times directly, which is, hey, we'll get back to you at
a deeper level. There was a request from Mr. Waltz to Dr. Ochoa
for additional information particularly on the security agenda.
So we'll utilize the record here.
I mean, our purpose for this hearing--and it's a very
serious endeavor--is to capture this for the House record as a
springboard for what we're going to do going forward. We had
just an incredible and robust discussion. You can tell how
special it is to be on the Science Committee in part because
we've got certainly a lot of vibrancy from the Great Lakes area
and participation and Members from across the Great Lakes
region but also across the entire country.
And we here are meddling on and discussing with you as--
and asking and inquiring the questions of how we move our
scientific research agenda forward for the purposes of jobs, of
economic development, and to what the great Gwen Moore asked,
Congresswoman Moore, our equity agenda and bringing in
populations across the country to industries of scale,
particularly, we see this in the digital space with IOT
(internet of things), a trillion-dollar industry. How do we
make sure that there's jobs for everyone and inclusion for
everyone? How do we make sure that our scientific community is
diverse and inclusive of our African-American population, our
Hispanic population, our Native American populations just as
we're considering this for rural America, suburban America, and
on.
And so I can't thank our witnesses enough. Your careers
are so admirable. You in and of yourself, each of you, are such
inspirations. And we look forward to continuing to work
together very closely as we move forward our legislation and
get this done. And we will be having a markup as well as--after
our next hearing takes place, which is--we're going to hear
from the stakeholders next week as well. And certainly the
dedication of our Members who participated here today.
So, with that, the record is going to remain open for 2
weeks, all right? So we're going to have a 2-week period for
additional statements or--and questions, QFRs, questions for
the record, of our witnesses.
And with that, I'm going to gavel us out. And the
witnesses are technically excused, but I think we can stay on
for a little chitchat if we want to do that, sidebar
conversations just as if we were in the great hearing room that
we have in Rayburn. We can't wait to get back there. We've got
some wonderful quotes from Tennyson and Proverbs on the wall
that guide us. We need a vision for the future. That's what
we're doing here today.
Thank you. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Subcommittee was
adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letters submitted by Representative Don Beyer
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117hhrg44363_chrg-117hhrg44363.htm
- Size
- 138,922 bytes
- SHA-256
- 7998720de16956cda13ef85da050de3262008b02f33004aa2daeb3c416d8ff46
- Original
- No public link identified.