1

Written Testimony of Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier
Regents’ Professor of Meteorology and Weathernews Chair Emeritus
Roger and Sherry Teigen Presidential Professor
University of Oklahoma
Submitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
United States Senate
for theLegislative Hearing on the Endless Frontier Act
Wednesday, April 14, 2021, 10:00am EDT
Room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building

I extend my deep appreciation to Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of theCommittee for the privilege of testifying on the Endless Frontier Act. My name is Kelvin K.
Droegemeier, and I am Regents’ Professor of Meteorology at the University of Oklahoma. I also
am a former member of the National Science Board (2004-2016), serving the last four years asVice Chairman. I served as Secretary of Science and Technology in the Cabinet of former
Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin (2017-2019), and most recently served for two years as
Director of The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Science
Advisor to the President (2019-2021). During the latter appointment, I also served for two and ahalf months as Acting Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Before going to The
White House in early 2019, I served for nine years as Vice President for Research at the
University of Oklahoma (2009-2018), where I have been for nearly 36 years. I am testifying
today in my roles as an academic researcher, administrator, teacher, and advisor on matters ofscience and technology policy.
I also wish to thank the Members of this Committee for their longstanding commitment tofostering national prosperity, economic security, quality education, and international
competitiveness through support for fundamental/discovery research and related activities. Not
to be overlooked are staff for both the majority and minority, all of whom work exceptionallyhard and in a collaborative manner on behalf of our Nation. I am especially grateful forassistance provided to me in this hearing by Gabrielle Slais, Richard-Duane Chambers, and Mary
Guenther of Chair Cantwell’s office, and by Cherilyn Pascoe, James Mazol, and MaryAsa
England of Ranking Member Wicker’s office.
The topic of this hearing is especially important in light of increasing challenges faced by theUnited States, both from within and externally, as well as extraordinary opportunities now before
us to build upon – in bold and transformative ways – the exceptional foundation of American
leadership in science and technology developed since World War II. That foundation was laid,
in large part, in response to Dr. Vannevar Bush’s visionary treatise, Science: The Endless
Frontier.1 The bold vision put forth by Dr. Bush led to the creation, in 1950, of the National
Science Foundation (NSF), which is unique among Federal agencies in two important ways.

1

https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm

2First, NSF funds the bulk of non-medical/clinical foundational/discovery/curiosity-based2
research in the United States.3 Second, its governing body, the National Science Board (NSB),4also serves as an independent source of advice to the President and Congress on matters ofscience and technology research and education. It therefore is especially appropriate the Endless
Frontier Act (EFA) seeks to continue Dr. Bush’s bold, transformative thinking by providing
substantial increases in funding for NSF, along with creating a new directorate and taking otheractions to accelerate the movement of research outcomes to products and services that benefit
society.
Such a transformation will come about not only by virtue of additional funding, but also by
thoughtfully implementing structural changes that are essential if the additional funding isto achieve its intended purpose. Specifically, success will require creating more effective
linkages and partnerships among all sectors of our innovation ecosystem; co-investing andleveraging funding, facilities and talent across academia, industry, Federal agencies, and nonprofit organizations; eliminating regulations that unnecessarily tie our hands, impede ourprogress, and arguably provide little or no practical benefit; and securing our research assets in amanner balanced with an appropriately open system of sharing and collaboration.
Despite the terrible consequences of the global COVID-19 pandemic, it offered us a powerful
glimpse of what is possible in America when the aforementioned issues are addressed, albeit
temporarily. Although we do not wish to continue operating within a pandemic, we should
desire to continue operating with the urgency it brought forth. We should not wish to go back towhere we were in our science and technology research and education enterprise, but rather use
the lessons learned from the pandemic to go to a much better place. A place of greater
efficiency, better coordination, stronger leveraging and partnering, and emphasis on whole-ofNation goals. The EFA provides one mechanism to do so and will help ensure that science
continues to inspire, unite, and guide America.
I offer with this testimony several comments and suggestions regarding the EFA. We should not
be comfortable as a Nation to simply compete, but rather our goal should be global collaborative
leadership in science and technology research, education and innovation. Underpinned by our
national values, which comport with values of the research process itself, America can remain abeacon to the world of freedom, integrity, mutual respect, progress, and principled collaboration.

1. Why Increased Funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is a
National Imperative
Created more than 70 years ago with a powerfully elegant statutory mandate and organizational
structure, NSF has become the envy of the world among government funding agencies. The
research it supports has unlocked the secrets of nature – from sub-atomic particles to the vastnessof the universe – spurring major technological innovations, creating entirely new researchdisciplines, and producing generation upon generation of scientists and engineers who help
ensure America’s global strength in science and technology. Since 1950, over 230 Nobel

2

I prefer these terms to “basic “research because to some, the word basic connotes “simple.”https://www.nsf.gov/about/4
https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/about/index.jsp
3

3

Laureates have received funding from NSF at some point in their career.5 NSF’s merit review
process is the global gold standard, and only a small portion of NSF’s yearly budget goes towardsupporting organizational overhead.
Despite these and numerous other extraordinary attributes, NSF has been woefully underfunded
for many years. The reasons are many, including difficulty by some of conceptually linking
fundamental research outcomes with products and services, even though the latter are all aroundus (e.g., the Internet, search engines, smartphones, medical diagnostic equipment, global
positioning system-based maps, on-demand commercial programming); the long time required
for some fundamental research outcomes to bear fruit; and the view by some that funding
curiosity-based research, without a clear practical outcome, is a waste of money.
The 2007 America COMPETES Act6 sought to double, over a five-year period, the budgets of
NSF, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the U.S. Department ofEnergy Office of Science (SC). Despite best intentions, this doubling did not occur then, or
during the 2010 reauthorization7. In 2016, COMPETES became the American Innovation andCompetitiveness Act (AICA)8, which did not include authorization levels. Yet during this same
overall period, the budgets of other agencies supporting fundamental research did in factincrease, in some cases substantially,9 while that of NSF grew more modestly. Today, NSF isforced to decline several billions of dollars in proposals judged to be as meritorious as those it
does support, simply due to the lack of funding.
I believe the EFA can help redress years of failed attempts to increase the NSF budget. In
light of increasing global competition and threats from nations that do not share ourvalues, an infusion of funds at NSF, along with other actions, truly are national
imperatives. NSF already is moving forward on several organizational innovations, and asa major driver of change in the research enterprise, especially academia, NSF is well suited
to continue its established leadership role by executing the EFA.

2. The Endless Frontier Act (EFA) in Context
Each sector of America’s science and technology research, education and innovation ecosystem– Federal agencies, colleges and universities, for-profit corporations, and non-profit
organizations – has its own reasons for existing, its own structures and operating philosophies,
and its own measures of success. Although differing from one another – in some aspects
dramatically – these sectors are highly interdependent and mutually reinforcing. When brought
together in tight collaboration toward common goals, each contributes what the other cannot orwill not – both culturally and in other ways – yielding a whole that is far greater than the sum of
the parts.

5

https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100683
https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ69/PLAW-110publ69.pdf
7https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ358/PLAW-111publ358.pdf
8https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ329/PLAW-114publ329.pdf
9The NIH budget increased by $12.5 billion between FY 2007 and FY 2020, an increase of 43%. The Department ofEnergy Office of Science budget increased by 3.2 billion between FY 2007 and FY 2020, an increase of 84% and thus
nearly doubling. The NSF budget increased by $2.4 billion between FY2007 and FY2020, an increase of 41%.
6

4

Within this framework, it is well understood that fundamental research is funded primarily by theFederal Government10 owing to the lack of certainty in producing outcomes having practicalvalue, though value indisputably exists in the creation of knowledge itself. The national appetite
for increased Government investment in such research generally has been limited, apart fromhealth-related topics as evidenced by substantial increases to the National Institutes of Health(NIH) budget over the past several years. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has illuminatedbrightly the numerous other areas of science and technology that have proved essential to our
Nation’s response.11 These include but are not limited to molecular and structural biology, insitu and remote sensing, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, microelectronics,
atmospheric science, and social and behavioral science. Each of these areas and more are corecomponents of NSF, and indeed, NSF’s “fingerprints” can be found in virtually every area ofcapability used to fight the pandemic. And each of these areas yielded basic research outcomesfrom which innovation led to practical, implementable solutions.
The EFA seeks not only to provide an unprecedented increase in funds to NSF to support useinspired fundamental research, but also establish a new directorate for technology andinnovation,12 create new research test beds, centers, technology hubs, and fabrication facilities;
expand engagement in research of various types of institutions; and substantially increase
postdoctoral awards, graduate fellowships and traineeships, and undergraduate scholarships.
Understandable fear exists among some in the community about the potential for changing
NSF’s foundational mission from one of curiosity-based research to one that is driven mainly bypractical needs, and these concerns are not without merit.
However, if implemented thoughtfully, the EFA can in fact enhance the capabilities of NSF,
strengthening its core purpose while greatly improving the efficiency by which researchoutcomes are innovated for the benefit of society. Indeed, America needs to supplement thecurrent “handoff and hope” model of research-to-products and services transition with one that
more effectively integrates all four sectors of our research enterprise without forsaking thefeatures of any, and without placing itself on the slippery slope of use-inspired technology
research becoming the tail that wags the curiosity-based research dog. The EFA can, in myview, serve as one mechanism for achieving those ends.

3. Comments on the Endless Frontier Act Specific to NSF
Point #1. The Potential Risk of Displacing Fundamental Research. As noted previously,
virtually all technology innovation owes its existence to fundamental research. That America
now has trillion-dollar technology companies, and numerous other high-wealth companies that
depend upon technology, is a testament to the virtue of Government investment in fundamental
10

The private sector, and non-profit organizations, also fund discovery research, with the former funding nearly
three-quarters of total research and development in the United States.
11
Droegemeier, K., 2020. Harnessing the power of science to fight the coronavirus. Op-ed, Washington Times,
August 19. Available at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/harnessing-the-power-of-scienceto-fight-the-coronavirus
12
NSF is structured around seven directorates: Biology (BIO), Computer Information Science and Engineering(CISE), Engineering (ENG), Geosciences (GEO), Education and Human Resources (EHR), Mathematics and PhysicalSciences (MPS), and Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE). Three other programs support cross-cutting
activities: Office of Integrative Activities (OIA), Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE), andEnvironmental Research and Education (ERE).

5

research and our ability as a Nation to transition research outcomes into products and services forthe benefit of society. However, the very size and reach of our technology enterprisesuggests care needs to be taken in creating a technology directorate at NSF (see below), lest
technology become the focal point for new resources and ironically end up harming thevery thing upon which it depends for continued success – fundamental research.
A good example of this risk is illustrated in the field of meteorology. Both research andoperations are critical for protecting life and property, and operational forecasting and warning
capabilities depend upon advances in research. However, at the end of the day when money isappropriated, operations always take priority for obvious reasons. This approach led, in part,13 to
the United States being overtaken by Europe in computer weather prediction capabilities, thoughfortunately, recent investments are reversing that trend. Fundamental or curiosity-based
research therefore must remain the strong philosophical and practical foundation uponwhich NSF continues to be funded and operate, augmented by, but not replaced with, newmechanisms for engaging use-inspired research in technology domains that enhance
America’s competitiveness.
Point #2. Creating a New Directorate. Although NSF indeed was founded to support
fundamental or discovery research, a portion of its portfolio appropriately consists of useinspired research. This is especially true in the Engineering, Computer Information Science andEngineering, Geosciences, and Social/Behavioral/Economic Sciences directorates, and likewise
is true in research university departments. Consequently, such work is not foreign to NSF’s
operating framework or culture, and in fact creating a technology-focused directorate canenhance support for curiosity-based research, as noted below.
The EFA speaks to the importance of bringing DARPA-like capabilities to the new directorate,and I interpret that in at least two ways. The first includes funding more use-inspired research,issuing solicitations that seek to address specific problems, applying DARPA hiring authorities,
and engaging industry directly as programs are being structured. The second emphasizes
autonomy of program officers to make funding decisions that run counter to prevailing wisdomor reviewer input.
To the first point above, NSF already issues solicitations to address specific challenges and ischanging the way it engages industry (see below). To the second point, although NSF program
officers do have considerable latitude in making decisions, panel review, community pressure,and budget realities often lead to understandable aversion to intellectual risk-taking. Thisbehavior is not unique to NSF but is prevalent in many if not most funding agencies. America
needs to be willing to make big bets on big ideas that could fail.
Consequently, if the EFA seeks to bring more of a DARPA-like culture to NSF, it should
not confine those attributes to the new directorate, but rather use that directorate to help
infuse positive change throughout the Foundation. In so doing, NSF program officers would
become more empowered to go against the flow and make big bets on big ideas, with some
failure not only an expectation, but rather a desired outcome. The absence of failure indicates
an absence of boldness, and America will not become more competitive by being timid.

13

Another major contributor was insufficient investment in computing resources.

6

Another important way in which NSF differs from DARPA is the breadth of disciplines andtopic areas represented in the NSF portfolio. The new NSF technology directorate can do what
other directorates already do, namely, create substantial horizontal connective tissue acrossdirectorates and thus a wide array of disciplines. However, the new technology directorate canplay an additional and unique role, by virtue of its special partnerships with industry andother collaborators, in linking curiosity-based research with use-inspired research andsubsequent applied development and scale-up (see Point #3).
The following specific suggestions are offered regarding a new technology directorate to addresssome of the issues raised above.
a. A new directorate should not duplicate activities being undertaken by other Federal
agencies (though in some cases competition is warranted), nor should it fund activities
likely to be supported by private industry or non-profit organizations. Instead, thedirectorate should partner with other components of the research enterprise,
including regional, state and municipal entities, to fill gaps and leverage all available
resources to achieve a force multiplier effect that accelerates innovation and greatly
enhances competitiveness.
b. Although a new technology directorate should receive sufficient funding to pursue certain
activities of its own design, such as issuing solicitations for use-inspired research,developing partnerships with industry, and managing grant and contract programs in a
DARPA-like manner, the structure and level of funding should be designed such thatthe directorate cannot succeed in achieving its goals in the absence of working inclose partnership with other NSF directorates and other sectors of the researchenterprise, including other Federal agencies. In other words, the directorate should
inherently be designed to fail if it works only in isolation.
c. Changes of the nature and magnitude proposed in the EFA require a time of transition toaccommodate institutional cultural adjustment (both within NSF and the external researchcommunity), the creation of required or the modification of existing administrative
frameworks, and the development of implementation strategies. Yet the length of thisadjustment period needs to be balanced with some urgency in light of aforementioned
competition and threats. NSF should be provided the flexibility, working closely with
Congress and other stakeholders, to determine the appropriate rate at which
programs are ramped up in time and funding, particularly a new technology
directorate. NSF has extensive experience doing so by virtue of the numerous newcenters, institutes, and major research facilities it creates on a regular basis.
Point #3. Engaging Private Industry and Non-Profit Organizations. Although, as discussed
earlier, the Federal Government funds the majority of non-medical/clinical fundamental researchin the U.S., the vast majority of funding for applied research and development, and the transitionof research outcomes to products and services, is principally the domain of the private sector(note that some private sector organizations also fund a considerable amount of use-inspired
fundamental research on topics related to their business priorities). Yet the intertwined andcircuitous pathway from fundamental research, say as performed in academia, to scaled
prototype product or service, within industry, is fraught with inefficiency owing to factors suchas numerous cultural differences among the sectors involved, the many handoff points present
within the overall process, and complex legal issues, particularly those involving intellectual
property, that often vary among organizations.

7

Bringing all four sectors of the ecosystem together for specific activities, with each playing
its unique role, creates an extraordinarily powerful framework that will truly transform
American competitiveness without forsaking the value or place of fundamental research.
Indeed, industry, academia, and non-profits must be at the table with the Federal
Government, from the very beginning as programs are being contemplated, so they all cantruly be active participants in the entire process from fundamental research to scaled
prototype.
This point was underscored during several meetings and a national summit14 coordinated by
OSTP and collaborators during the past two years on multi-sector partnerships. One recurring
message, delivered by private industry, was its dismay at typically being brought into discussionsof partnering only as programs were being executed, and only at the tactical rather than thestrategic level.
The NSF Director already has begun meeting with counterpart institutional leaders in the private
for-profit and non-profit sectors to frame partnerships and programs at a strategic level, which
will set the stage for, and greatly accelerate progress in, tactical execution. Such efforts should
continue in order that these sectors may co-invest with the Government as active,
participatory research and development partners in executing the EFA – including in hubs,
fabrication facilities, and centers.
This co-investment should involve not only funding at the strategic institutional level, but also
corporate-sponsored facilities, industry researchers, internships, apprenticeships, enhancements
to I-CORPS, fellowships, test beds, and joint activities to engage traditionally underserved andmarginalized populations. Indeed, the EFA seeks to create 1000 new post-doctoral awards, atleast 2000 graduate fellowships and traineeships, and at least 1000 undergraduate fellowships.
Industry partners could co-fund such activities and perhaps triple the number of recipients bycreating prestigious NSF industry scholars and fellows, also thereby contributing substantially toincreased participation by underserved populations.
A new directorate can serve as the organizing framework by which to achieve theaforementioned multi-sector collaboration in technology and thus provide a means formore effectively moving research outcomes across the “valley of death” to become derisked and tested at scale – the next step being a final prototype for production. In thisapproach, NSF would not be responsible for funding all de-risking and testing at scale, butrather, by virtue of its partnerships with industry, would principally provide the organizing
framework by which such activities would take place in a seamless and efficient manner – all thewhile preserving the cultural elements of NSF so critical to its past and future success.
Such a concept was proposed in a January, 2021 report15 issued by the previous President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and may be useful here. Specifically,
PCAST recommended creating a new type of organizational framework that brings together
multiple technology areas (e.g., artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, and14

https://uidp.org/new-report-from-ostp-uidp-symposium-broadening-university-and-industry-engagement/
https://science.osti.gov/-/media/_/pdf/about/pcast/202012/PCAST---IOTFI-FINALReport.pdf?la=en&hash=0196EF02F8D3D49E1ACF221DA8E6B41F0D193F1715

8biotechnology) to address compelling practical problems at the intersection of such areas as acomplement to recently created centers and institutes.16 The organizations envisioned by
PCAST would conjoin all four sectors of the research enterprise, as equal partners from theoutset, and span the entire spectrum from fundamental research to prototype de-risking and scale
up – all within the same administrative framework. They also would be structured withstreamlined administrative compliance environments, in some cases via Federal waivers ofcertain requirements that unnecessarily inhibit progress, flexible personnel policies that allow
researchers from all four sectors to move across organizational boundaries with ease, andintellectual property frameworks that accelerate the transfer of technology to industry.
By following a strategic, all-sector true partnership model for certain activities, America
more broadly will reap greater benefits from the EFA, and the momentum and collective
partnership resources thus established will provide a mechanism to help ensure long-termsustainability.
Point #4. More Innovative and Efficient Models for Centers and Hubs. NSF and otheragencies have been funding university-based research centers, institutes and facilities for several
decades. Although this mode of funding has proven successful, the increasingly prescriptive
nature of such efforts, driven in large part by today’s burdensome and complicated complianceenvironment and general aversion to intellectual risk-taking, suggest that modified structures
should be pursued. This issue was addressed in the aforementioned PCAST report, which
identified a number of significant limitations with current research organizational models andsuggested a new multi-sector framework that would stimulate new ideas, simplify collaboration
among types of institutions, and accelerate the movement of fundamental research outcomes to
products and services at scale, all within the same general framework.
The centers and other entities proposed by the EFA, as well as programs such as EPSCoR(Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research), could serve as experimental
proving grounds for new organizational approaches, including accelerated approvals andwaivers of certain compliance requirements and new personnel structures. One need lookno further than the COVID-19 pandemic for a compelling example of such an experiment. In
one week, several organizations joined forces to establish and begin executing a consortium thatmade huge amounts of both public and private computing time available to researchers, free ofcharge and with rapid proposal review, to understand the virus and begin developing vaccines
and therapeutics. Under normal circumstances, this effort would have taken months to establish.
Point #5. Broadening Engagement. A particularly significant component of the EFA involves
programs which seek to engage a larger segment of America’s academic research and educationenterprise, especially emerging research institutions, emerging institutions of higher education,
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs),
and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs). I can well attest that extraordinary researchaccomplishments and talent can be found in all parts of our great Nation, especially in rural andunderserved areas, and in institutions which are not research powerhouses but are becoming
more engaged in research with a great deal to offer. I also am quite aware that a great number ofcapable individuals never have an opportunity to develop their talent or achieve their goals and16

For example, the U.S. Department of Energy Quantum Information Science Research Centers and NSF National
Artificial Intelligence Research Institutes.

9

dreams, whether by virtue of their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or other circumstances.
Taking firm action to address these and other issues is essential, and in doing so, twoimportant factors need to be considered.
The first concerns institutional culture. Many emerging research institutions have wellestablished and highly regarded reputations for instruction, with faculty incentive and reward
systems likewise structured. Enhancing research in substantial ways most likely will require
faculty to reallocate their time, thus reducing their formal teaching activities so they can spend
more time writing grant proposals, managing awards and facilities, and mentoring student andpost-doctoral researchers. All of these are positive activities and foundational to research inacademia. However, because notable increases in such activities can impact both institutional
culture as well as existing personnel policies, these and other impacts need to be fully understoodby the highest level of institutional leadership. Consequently, leaders of emerging and othertypes of research institutions named in the EFA should be engaged as soon as possible tounderstand how their institutional cultures and policies might need to change, if suchchange is desired, for them to accommodate greater research funding.
The second issue concerns the administrative frameworks needed to support research grants
or contracts and associated compliance requirements, such as financial and othermanagement activities, intellectual property management, legal review, space allocation andtracking, reporting to state and Federal organizations, and research security. Many emerging
research institutions have relatively small research offices that are not presently equipped tohandle significantly larger numbers of, or more complex research grants and contracts. Nor dothey likely have the funding to create or enhance them. Consequently, some of the funding
from the EFA should be used to create new or enhance existing institutional researchadministration capabilities. This funding could be provided for a limited period, until suchtime the institution can absorb the costs by virtue of increased research revenues.
Point #6. Discovering Emerging Intellectual Property. Despite the fact that America invests
nearly $600 billion per year in research and development, only limited mechanisms exist, to myknowledge, with which one can identify and then explore emerging research outcomes todetermine whether a particular activity holds sufficient promise for possible corporate
investment. Some funding agencies have powerful databases with which the public can use
keyword searches to obtain plain-language summaries of current and past research projects. Yet,if a small company, for example, is interested in research on a particular topic and wishes todetermine which Federally funded projects on that topic are nearing completion – and explore
their results to date and contact the investigators – existing databases are not designed to readily
provide such information
If the technology goals of the EFA are to be met, America needs a more effective mechanism
for linking progress and outcomes in research to those who wish to innovate with them.
Yet doing so in an open manner creates obvious vulnerabilities at a time when theft of ideas,
proposals, and intellectual property by certain foreign governments is a real and significant threat
to America’s competitiveness. If a new NSF technology directorate is established, it should
coordinate with NSF and other organizations to consider ways for addressing these competingneeds.

10

Point #7. Test Beds and Fabrication Facilities. The EFA suggests test beds and fabrication
facilities would be located at universities or consortia of academic institutions, which indeed
would be valuable for enhancing education and research. However, the private sector alreadyoperates substantial facilities that could function as test beds and be used for fabrication throughcreative partnerships with academia. In particular, use of such facilities could be linked withinternships and apprenticeships as a mutual value proposition, which would be particularly
important for emerging institutions. Additionally, a partnership strategy would enhance thelikelihood of sustainability as some academic institutions, especially emerging institutions, may
not be positioned to absorb out-year costs of facility maintenance, staff support and upgrades.
Point #8. Timing and Allocation of Funds. NSF is a highly sophisticated and effective
Federal agency that operates with great efficiency and transparency, and works closely andsuccessfully with both the Executive and Legislative branches of Government. It also has
extraordinary leadership in its Director and governing board. Consequently, NSF and the NSB
should be provided maximum flexibility and freedom, with obvious continuous oversightfrom Congress, to execute the EFA as it deems most appropriate for achieving the statedgoals.

4. Comments on the Remainder of the Endless Frontier Act
In addition to changes associated with NSF, which include creating a new directorate,establishing several University Technology Centers, creating test beds and fabrication facilities,
directing funds to STEM education, enhancing existing research programs, and broadening
engagement in research and technology commercialization, the EFA seeks to establish several
Regional Technology Hubs. Consideration also is being given in Washington, DC to
substantially expanding the current Manufacturing USA Institutes (MUI) and Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Partnerships (MEP). Collectively, this represents an extraordinarily
large and complex endeavor which underscores the well know adage that it is far easier to create
than coordinate. Thus, several important issues need to be addressed if the proposed infusion ofsignificant funds, and the associated creation of large and complex activities in America’s
research and technology enterprise, are to work as needed.
First, as noted previously, America’s innovation engine suffers from a number of inefficiencies,
including the lack of a seamless national framework by which multiple sectors of the enterprise
can seamlessly transition fundamental research outcomes to scaled prototype products andservices. It is unclear how investments in the Department of Commerce will avoid reinforcing
challenges with existing handoff points and address the “valley of death” problem?
Second, although the EFA speaks to the importance of coordination with the MUI and MEP
programs, it does not address the many ways in which a new NSF directorate, or increased NSF
activities in technology-driven fundamental research more broadly, could contribute toenhancing both the MUI and MEP programs or lead to new, innovative approaches for executing
the MUI and MEP missions. Nor does it address how MUI and MEP might coordinate with andenhance NSF activities, especially corporate engagement, which is foundational to both MUI and
MEP. This interaction is especially important in light of ways in which MUI and MEP canenhance engagement with emerging institutions, which is a significant aspect of NSF’s focus in
the draft bill.

11

Third, the proposed Department of Commerce Regional Technology Hubs appear designed tocreate confederations of stakeholders within multiple sectors of a region with the goal ofenhancing technology development, creating jobs, and transforming local and regional
economies. Although this is an important and valuable idea, such top-down approaches often
fail to align stakeholders with common goals because they lack a “grass roots” push. Onceagain, coordination is one of the many challenges needing to be addressed. If the Hubs are
scaled as described in the bill, at roughly $1B per award, additional clarity is needed regarding
how the confederations would be structured and managed to “create the conditions” foreconomic development and education enhancement. Additionally, how would such large
funding completement new investments made within NSF as well as programs such as MUI and
MEP – all of which are candidate components of a confederation?
Fourth, throughout the EFA, coordination and collaboration among multiple Federal agencies isrightly cited as critical to success of the programs described. Such coordination historically has
proved extremely difficult, particularly for the scale and complexity of programs envisioned in
the EFA and in light of the multiple stakeholder sectors involved. One possible coordination
mechanism would be to create a special, select or joint committee within the National Scienceand Technology Council (NSTC), co-chaired by OSTP and the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) and involving NSF, the Department of Commerce, and other departments andagencies as deemed appropriate. Based upon my experience with major multi-agency
Government programs, front-line OMB involvement is essential for ensuring inter-agency
coordination.
Finally, multiple undertakings as large as those proposed in the EFA will create extraordinary
challenges in accountability, especially with regard to evaluating how the collective of theactivities are achieving more than the sum of their individual parts. To be effective, the various
elements need to work together in ways different from and more effective than previously, which
creates complex interdependencies. This is a feature and not a limitation, but will require careful
thought in how success is defined and measured, and how the various EFA elements contributeto success individually and collectively.

5. Final Thoughts
America today boasts the greatest research, education, and innovation ecosystem in the world.
Although we do not lead in every area, the collective of our four-sector enterprise, underpinnedby our values, is unmatched. Yet we face unprecedented threats and competition. By bolstering
and weaving together all elements of our research enterprise in powerful new ways,
without compromising the identity, culture and value of each, and by appropriately
resourcing NSF, we will help ensure not only that America becomes more competitive andbroadly engaging, but also that it continues as the global leader in scientific andtechnological research, education and innovation.