ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
IN AUGUST 2007, President George W. Bush signed landmark legislation supporting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research and education. Called the America Competes Act (ACA), this legislation promised a huge boost in support for the scientific community, with the goal of keeping the U.S. competitive in the global marketplace. A year after reaching this milestone, however, the support remains mostly talk.
The failure of the legislation to translate into increased financial support for STEM research and education programs took center stage in Tennessee at the 2008 National Science & Technology Summit at Oak Ridge National Laboratory last month. Convened by the Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) on behalf of the President, the meeting was mandated by ACA as a venue for the scientific community to assess the health and direction of the U.S.'s STEM enterprises.
According to language in ACA, the summit's goal was to provide Congress feedback in the form of recommendations that members would use to help prioritize federal science and technology budgets during the next four years. More than 250 government, industry, and academic leaders attended the meeting.
ACA is a strategic bipartisan legislative act that authorized $43.3 billion over three years to fund a range of STEM research and education programs. Because the legislation calls for doubling the funding over the next 10 years of the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Standards & Technology, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science, basic research programs in physical sciences are specially positioned to benefit. In addition to boosting basic research programs, ACA sets up professional development grant programs for current and future STEM educators and supports young researchers by expanding early-career grant programs.
When ACA was signed into law in 2007, NSF's budget was $5.9 billion, NIST's budget was $677 million, and DOE's Office of Science's budget was $3.8 billion. To get the funding lift started, ACA authorized a funding level of $6.6 billion, $863 million, and $4.6 billion, respectively, for the three agencies in fiscal 2008.
For 2008, however, only a small portion of the authorized funding has been allocated to the targeted agencies. The lack of funding is not indicative of lagging congressional support, which actually is strong. Instead, the shortfall stems from competition with other budgetary items, such as the war in Iraq, which have taken precedence over supporting ACA.
Funding at NSF, NIST, and DOE's Office of Science did grow slightly in 2008. But even considering the fiscal 2008 supplemental appropriations bill, which provided NSF and DOE's Office of Science each with an additional $62.5 million for 2008, funding levels are still significantly off the mark established by ACA (C&EN, June 30, page 11). The 2008 appropriations are nearly 8% below the authorized level for NSF, more than 12% below that for NIST, and 12% below that for DOE's Office of Science.
DURING THE SUMMIT'S opening session at Oak Ridge, Ambassador Richard M. Russell, associate director of OSTP and its deputy director for technology, discouraged the audience from dwelling on the disappointing appropriation status. Instead, he kicked off the two-day meeting by lobbying for a pragmatic approach based on an examination of the health and direction of U.S. STEM enterprises. For example, rather than besieging Congress with numerous suggestions, Russell asked participants to develop only a few key recommendations for actions that would advance science and technology. He suggested that this approach would have a better chance of achieving results in Washington.
Congressional representatives at the summit underscored Russell's plea for a straightforward and unified message from the scientific community. "Make it simple, and work from a consensus," said Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), chairman of the House Science & Technology Committee. He and other members of Congress told summit participants that they understand the benefits of science and technology to the U.S.
Despite Russell's appeal to avoid fixating on subpar funding and develop a targeted set of science and technology needs, the number one recommendation discussed at the summit was the urgency for Congress to fully fund ACA.
IBM Senior Vice President and Director of IBM Research John E. Kelly III told meeting attendees that the scientific community must go back to Congress as one united voice and say it is unacceptable that funds have not been appropriated to support ACA. He expressed frustration that Congress passed the legislation and then did not follow through with funding, adding that "it will take guts to invest."
Kelly was not the only participant who voiced disappointment with the lack of congressional commitment to funding ACA. "Innovation is critical to maintaining U.S. economic and technological leadership and prosperity. Congress must act now to completely fund ACA," said Brian L. Halla, chairman and chief executive officer of National Semiconductor.
Funding for ACA is not simply about the money, but it is also about a commitment from Congress to value science and technology's role in furthering the U.S.'s economic, security, and other interests, Halla and other industry participants argued. Such support is essential for maintaining an environment in which industry can thrive and the U.S. can remain a world science and technology leader.
"In the 21st century, the U.S. will face growing challenges to retain its industrial base due to rapid growth of foreign markets and the increasingly favorable business and innovation climates developing in other parts of the world," said Susan B. Butts, senior director of external science and technology programs at Dow Chemical. She told attendees that Congress is instrumental in creating an environment that is inviting to industry in order to keep companies from moving overseas.
Other countries, among them China, India, and Singapore, are making significant commitments to science and technology and, as a consequence, are becoming more appealing to industry, participants noted. These countries offer additional funding, favorable tax structures, access to highly qualified workforces, and marketplace accessibility, they pointed out.
To make sure the U.S. remains competitive with these emerging markets and at least as attractive to industry, Butts and others said the U.S. needs to enact permanent R&D tax credits for science- and technology-related enterprises, refine intellectual property rights, develop a workforce development plan that improves STEM education and loosens visa constraints, build the science and technology infrastructure, and, of course, increase federal R&D funding. Collectively, these measures would go beyond the specifications of ACA.
ANOTHER IDEA that emerged during the two-day summit was the need for scientists to engage those outside the scientific community by providing them with up-to-date examples of how and why science and technology is important. For example, the use of out-of-date analogies, such as U.S. competition with the Soviet Union during the space race initiated by the U.S.S.R.'s Sputnik program, no longer grabs Congress' attention or the attention of its constituents. Instead, more innovative ways or ideas for approaching Congress are needed, according to some participants. For example, the ideals of national security and advanced health care are reachable only by way of innovation in areas such as materials and chemical processing.
For his part at the summit, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) pointed out that scientists can use the current energy crisis to make the case for continued support of ACA. "One of the key ways we can reduce high gas prices is by providing more support for the basic science and research that will help us innovate our way to clean energy independence," Alexander said. He acknowledged that science supported by ACA will help the U.S. achieve the necessary breakthroughs to develop new technologies but noted that scientists need to do a better job clarifying their role in solving this modern-day crisis.
Although direct communication with Congress could play a significant role in securing federal funding for ACA, National Semiconductor's Halla indicated that another important problem needs to be addressed: apathy toward science and technology.
"I have never seen so much apathy toward our industry," he said, referring to the semiconductor sector. In his presentation Halla provided a number of examples that highlighted how apathy toward science and technology has overtaken everyone—Wall Street, consumers, and Congress. He highlighted the point by telling the summit about a recent meeting with government officials who told him his technology agenda was no longer a top priority for them. The financial world also seems to be taking an apathetic stance toward technology, Halla pointed out, noting that science and technology stocks are no longer as strong as they used to be, with a few exceptions.
Halla encouraged attendees to overcome apathy with education. "I think it is all about education," he said, adding that it is about publicizing breakthroughs especially in those areas that improve quality of life.
Other summit participants concurred, embracing education as a necessary tool for the U.S. to overcome science and technology roadblocks and remain a global leader in these areas. Support for education was one of the clear recommendations to come out of the summit.
In addition to pumping up education, participants articulated recommendations that ranged from creating an environment in the U.S. that supports industry to funding international collaborations. The group remained resolute, however, that the most important action Congress could take would be to fully fund ACA.
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter