U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–535 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–641 

AMERICA COMPETES: 

SCIENCE AND THE U.S. ECONOMY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 6, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

DAN COATS, Indiana 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

JOHN WILLIAMS, General Counsel 

DAVID SCHWIETERT, Republican Staff Director 

NICK ROSSI, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on November 6, 2013 ........................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Rockefeller ........................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 33 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 67 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 69 

Statement of Senator Johnson ................................................................................ 71 

Statement of Senator Scott ..................................................................................... 73 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 75 

Statement of Senator Schatz .................................................................................. 77 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 79 

WITNESSES

Hon. Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senator from Tennessee ......................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Open letter dated October 9, 2013 to Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV and 

Hon. John Thune .......................................................................................... 6 

Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Vice President for Research, Regents’ Professor 

of Meteorology and Weathernews Chair Emeritus, University of Oklahoma, 

and Vice Chairman, National Science Board ..................................................... 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Dr. Saul Perlmutter, Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley; 

Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ............................... 42 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Dr. Maria M. Klawe, President, Harvey Mudd College ........................................ 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Stephen S. Tang, Ph.D., MBA, President and CEO, University City Science 

Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ................................................................... 57 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier by: 

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 85 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 89 

Hon. Roger F. Wicker ....................................................................................... 94 

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 95 

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Saul Perlmutter by: 

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 98 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 98 

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 100 

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Maria M. Klawe by: 

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 100 

Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................................................................................ 101 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 102 

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 103 

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Stephen S. Tang by: 

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 104 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 105 

Hon. Deb Fischer .............................................................................................. 107 

(1) 

AMERICA COMPETES: 

SCIENCE AND THE U.S. ECONOMY 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D. Rockefeller 

IV, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

The CHAIRMAN. Ladies and gentlemen, this hearing will come to 

order. And the vast attendance, let it fool you not, people will be 

coming in. That I’m on time is something of a miracle. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Much less other members. 

I have no way of expressing how happy I am to welcome Senator 

Lamar Alexander. 

I’m making, I just made the point to the Honorable Senator 

Thune that you and my son’s wife’s father were roommates at law 

school; is that correct? 

Senator ALEXANDER. That’s correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Was that Georgetown? 

Senator ALEXANDER. NYU. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s what I said. 

And you, sir, have been a champion of this program from the 

very, very beginning. And I know that you have to leave right after 

your presentation, but we very much look forward to it. And so 

you’re on. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Give us history. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I thought I’d have the privilege of listening 

to you and Senator Thune before, but I’ll be glad to go ahead. 

The CHAIRMAN. We’ll go right after you. 

Senator ALEXANDER. All right. Thanks very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Ranking Member Thune, distinguished Senators. Thanks for letting me 

come by. 

2 

I’ll try to keep my remarks to five minutes. I think that’s what 

has been suggested to me. But let me start with exactly what I’m 

asking you to consider doing, and that is to authorize the appropriations committees to finish the job that the Congress started in 

an overwhelming remarkable bipartisan way in 2007 to double the 

research budgets of our—to double the budgets of our major research institutions in the Federal Government. That’s what I am 

here to support. 

And at the same time as you reauthorize America COMPETES, 

look for duplicate programs, look for waste; this is a time when we 

don’t have any money to waste; and reauthorize the necessary programs that were authorized in 2007 and 2010. But the main goal 

is to finish the job stated in 2007 by legislation that was sponsored 

by the majority leader and by the minority leader and at one time, 

based on my memory, had 35 Republican sponsors and 35 Democratic sponsors. We’d never seen anything quite like it. 

And then when the Senate changed hands and we went from a 

Republican to a Democratic Senate, the principle sponsors just 

switched positions and sponsors became Senator Reed and Senator 

McConnell. So that’s the history of the American COMPETES legislation. Now. 

Let me see if I can be persuasive here by posing a question. Why 

do you suppose that the United States is able to produce 22 percent 

of all the money in the world and distribute it among just below 

5 percent of all the people in the world? How did we get that fortunate? 

Well, there are many reasons, but basically our brains are the 

same as people around the world. We work hard, but we don’t work 

that much harder than people in other countries. So how did this 

happen? 

Most people believe that, while there are many factors, that the 

overwhelming factor since World War II is our technological advantage. In other words, we have a high standard of living because of 

our technological advantage since World War II. 

It’s because of stories like this, a small government agency called 

DARPA in the Defense Department, which was founded in 1958 at 

about the time of the Sputnik trouble and in which the U.S. Government invests small amounts of money in startup companies and 

then sends them out in the marketplace to see if they survive and 

often buys what they produce. 

DARPA has invented such things as the Internet, stealth, 

speech-recognition software, and GPS, just a few things over that 

long period of time. Or a cousin to DARPA, which was created in 

2007, by the legislation we’re talking about today, which is called 

ARPA–E, it’s in the energy department, already it has given a few 

million dollars, 4 million dollars, to a startup company that has 

doubled the energy density of rechargeable Lithium batteries. In 

other words, that could make, that could cut in half the cost of a 

battery or cause an electric car to go twice as far. 

Or there’s another invention, innovation going on in ARPA–E, in 

which Senator, the Chairman will be especially interested; it will 

use electricity and CO2 to make liquid fuel. If that works, and it 

hasn’t worked yet in a commercially viable way, but if you can actually combine electricity and CO2 in some way to produce liquid 

3 

fuel that could be sold, why then you could burn all the coal we 

have in the United States because we already have a way to deal 

with pollution from sulphur, nitrogen, and mercury. We don’t have 

a very good way to capture carbon, but if this works, we would in 

a commercially viable way. 

Then in the Office of Science, there has recently been an innovation that creates an artificial retinae and literally allows blind people to begin to see. It doesn’t work for everybody. It’s just beginning, but it’s a remarkable beginning. 

And perhaps the most extensive story is the role of the Federal 

Government in unconventional gas. Our prosperity today depends 

a lot on cheap natural gas. And of course much of that came from 

our big market, from entrepreneurs, from capital, from private 

landownership, all those things; but also from support from the 

Federal Government in a hydraulic fracturing demonstration 

project and inventing three-dimensional mapping. 

So it’s literally true what the scientists at Sandia Laboratory told 

me, that it’s hard to think of a major development in the physical 

and biological sciences since World War II that didn’t have some 

government-sponsored research behind it. 

Now the rest of the world has noticed that we produce 22 percent 

of all the money in the world and just have a little less than 5 percent of the people. In 2006 while we were first starting America 

COMPETES, I was part of a Senators delegation to China. I was 

lucky to go because it was led by Senator Stevens, who flew the 

first cargo plane in 1944 into China and Senator Inouye, who is a 

congressional Medal of Honor winner, so they were well treated 

over there. 

And President Hu and Vice President Wu spent a lot of time 

with us. And what was interesting to me was instead of talking 

about Iraq, Iran, North Korea, all those subjects; they wanted to 

talk about American competitiveness and Chinese competitiveness. 

And President Hu walked down the Great Hall of China not long 

after that and announced that they would spend 4 percent of their 

GDP for 15 years in order to try to catch up with the United States 

and with other countries in terms of standard of living. So they 

wanted to use, they wanted to create a brain-power advantage for 

their standard of living. The same brain-power advantage we already have. 

Now that’s not how we have to do it in the United States. President Obama can’t just summon all of us to the Great Hall of America and tell us what to do. We can’t even tell ourselves what to do. 

We have a messy democratic process we have to follow, but we did 

that. And in 2005, I remember sitting in a budget hearing, the end 

of a long day, I was getting very discouraged because it reminded 

me of my days as Governor when I would sit there and watch all 

the Medicaid costs go up and it was taking money away from higher education and I knew that if I wanted to a pro-growth state, I 

had to improve the schools and the research and the higher education system. 

I’ve seen the same thing happen here in the Federal budget. All 

the money for entitlement is going up. We’re squeezing out the investments in the research that has given us our high standard of 

living. So I walked down to the National Academy of Sciences that 

4 

day, they were completing a meeting, and I said, ‘‘I believe if you 

all would tell us the ten things in priority order that we could do 

as a Congress that would make America more competitive, I believe we’d do it.’’ Because what we usually lack around here is the 

lack of a specific idea. 

They assembled a distinguished group of 20, Norman Augustine 

headed it, and very quickly they produced something, a report 

called, ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm,’’ which has gotten pretty famous. They recommended 20 things for us to do. We went to 

work through three committees including this one. It was very 

complicated. We had lots of Senators involved. We had many hearings. We got President Bush involved. 

Long and short, after 2 years we were at a point where we almost unanimously passed a plan, whose major feature was to authorize the doubling of research in our scientific enterprises over 

the next 7 years. As I said, it was sponsored by the majority and 

minority leader and it had 70 or 80 members of the Senate as cosponsors of the bill and it had been through three different committees to get it done. 

Well, we haven’t quite lived up to what we said we would do, but 

we’ve done pretty well. About two-thirds of the recommendations 

from here are enacted into law. We are asking you to reauthorize 

those that work. And we’ve made some progress on funding the National Academy of—the National Science Foundation, the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, the Office of Science in the 

Department of Energy, and the new little ARPA–E endeavor that 

I talked about, which is $264 million of funding this year. 

So what there is to do in this committee, I would respectfully 

suggest, is to authorize the appropriations committees to finish the 

job of doubling our funding for research so we can keep our high 

standard of living. 

Where does the money come from? These are tight times. Well, our budget is $3.6 trillion. Our research funding is 4 percent of 

that, so $140 billion, which seems like a lot; but the Chinese level 

of funding for the next 15 years is 4 percent of their gross domestic 

product. If we were to do 4 percent of our gross domestic product, 

we’d have a research budget of $600 billion, 4 times what it actually is. 

And we ought to, you know, governing is about setting priorities, 

there are plenty of things we do that are less important than this, 

if we want to keep our high standard of living. Now I know there 

are some on my side of the aisle who sometimes think that the authorizing committees are supposed to also be the appropriations 

committees. I don’t. You know, if that’s the case, then we ought to 

get rid of one or the other. 

So I think it’s up to you, if I may say so, to authorize what our 

goals should be. And it’s up to those of us on the appropriations 

committee to decide how much to spend each year. 

So I thank you for your time. I wish you well in the progress. 

I would like to rekindle the same enthusiasm that we had when 

we began this in 2006 and 2007. And in case that enthusiasm is 

slow coming, I can read you this one sentence from the group of 

distinguished Americans who revisited our competitive position in 

the world last year and issued this question and this answer. 

5 

So where does America stand relative to its position of 5 years 

ago when the Gathering Storm report was prepared? Answer: The 

unanimous view of the Committee members participating in this 

preparation of this report is that our Nation’s outlook has not improved, but rather has worsened. There are a lot of other people 

in the world who have good brains. There are a lot of other people 

in the world who work hard. They see we’ve got 22, 23 percent of 

all the money in the world each year for just 5 percent of the people, and they want a bigger share. So if we want to keep our standard of living, I suggest that we finish the job. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Alexander follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for inviting me here today 

to speak on this important topic, America’s competitiveness, and the law that helps 

to maintain America’s competitiveness—The America COMPETES Act. 

America COMPETES Act was signed into law under President Bush in 2007. This 

act authorized several important programs to maintain America’s competitiveness. 

To understand America COMPETES, it’s important to recognize that this was a 

major bipartisan effort, so much so, that the America COMPETES legislation was 

introduced by the Senate Majority and Minority leaders and had 30 Republican Senators, 38 Democratic Senators and 1 Independent Senator as cosponsors. 

Few issues over the last decade have garnered this much bipartisan support; so 

let me explain why this does. 

In 2005, a Republican Congress, in response to concerns from the National Academies and business and education leaders ‘‘that a weakening of science and technology in the United States would inevitably degrade its social and economic conditions and in particular erode the ability of its citizens to compete for high-quality 

jobs,’’ sought to strengthen and ensure America’s competitiveness. 

We started this process by asking the National Academies what are the 10 things 

that Congress can do to ensure America’s competitiveness? 

The National Academies organized a committee of business, education, and 

science leaders led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, which then 

responded to Congress with 4 recommendations and 20 action items in the ‘‘Rising 

Above the Gathering Storm’’ report. 

We took this report, recommendations from the Council on Competitiveness, and 

President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative and developed the America 

COMPETES Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush. 

The results have been successful: 

• A 2012 Government Accountability Office review of ARPA–E found that it ‘‘successfully funded projects that would not have been funded solely by private investors, in keeping with its goals’’—These types of projects include better batteries for energy storage and addressing the growing global shortage of rare 

earth materials used in magnets that are used in electronics. 

• Many of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) programs are contributing to their stated goals, such as integrating research with 

education, which has resulted in ‘‘more students deciding to go to graduate 

school or to consider a career in research.’’ 

• Lastly, America COMPETES funds research at our national labs, which are the 

crown jewel in the ‘‘innovation ecosystem.’’ Just in the last decade there are several success stories from our national labs such as: 

» Tools for increased border security like millimeter wave scanners at airports 

» Energy efficiency technology that could save $5 billion in fuel costs for the 

long haul trucking industry 

» Advancing medicine like FDA-approved drugs for cancer and AIDS treatment 

and artificial retina technology—that allowed a blind man to detect motion 

and differentiate simple objects. 

Even with these successes the work is not over, which is why we must reauthorize 

America COMPETES. 

6 

Just this month over 300 organizations, including universities from all 50 states 

along with businesses like Intel, IBM, Proctor & Gamble & Nissan USA, and chambers of commerce from across the country, sent a letter urging Congress to close our 

‘‘innovation deficit’’ by passing a strong America COMPETES Act reauthorization 

bill. 

Updates and changes to the programs need to be made to continue to combat the 

ever-increasing global competition. 

But these changes can be made while also encompassing the principles suggested 

in the aforementioned letter—a bill that ‘‘set[s] funding targets that call for real and 

sustained growth in funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF), National 

Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Energy Office of 

Science, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA–E).’’ 

Even in our current times of fiscal constraints, we must continue to fund research 

and development. 

As Dr. Thom Mason, Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory has said, ‘‘It’s 

hard to think of a major technological breakthrough in the physical or biological 

sciences since World War II that has not been helped by government-sponsored research.’’ 

The CHAIRMAN. Powerful and eloquent. 

Senator ALEXANDER. And may I submit for the record two things, 

Mr. Chairman? One is the abbreviated copy of this original report. 

It’s just a few pages. And that, not this, but a few—a summary of 

it. And the second is a letter from, well, more than—or from 200 

university presidents and many organizations across the country 

who support the importance of this reauthorization of America 

COMPETES. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is Chuck Vest on that list? He should be. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, Chuck Vest was a major—— 

The CHAIRMAN. He was head of MIT. 

Senator ALEXANDER.—force—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER.—in terms of the early efforts along with 

Norm Augustine and a whole group of others. Chuck, he has been 

a very important part of all of this from the beginning. 

The CHAIRMAN. As have you, sir. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

October 9, 2013 

Hon. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. JOHN THUNE, 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Thune: 

As over 200 university presidents have stated in an open letter to President 

Obama and the U.S. Congress ‘‘[t]he combination of eroding Federal investments in 

research and higher education, additional cuts due to sequestration, and the enormous resources other nations are pouring into these areas is creating a new kind 

of deficit for the United States: an innovation deficit.’’ We write now, as leading 

higher education, research, science and business organizations to urge you to send 

a clear signal that the U.S. Congress is serious about closing the innovation deficit 

by introducing and passing a strong America COMPETES Act reauthorization bill 

that authorizes increased funding for key U.S. science agencies. 

In both 2007 and 2010, the U.S. Congress passed COMPETES legislation with bipartisan support. With the passage of these bills, Congress established funding targets aimed at doubling funding for these key Federal research agencies within seven 

years with the goal of ensuring continued U.S. leadership in science and technology 

which provides the foundation for our global and economic competitiveness. These 

bills sent an important message to the world that our Nation and Congress were 

resolute about addressing concerns raised about the future health of the United 

States economy by the 2007 National Academies Report ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering 

7 

Storm.’’ This report came in response to a request from a bipartisan group of Senators and House Members who asked what actions policy makers needed to take 

‘‘. . . to enhance the science and technology enterprise so that the United States can 

successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century’’. 

Despite the difficulty of achieving the doubling goal for research funding in the 

current fiscal environment, we strongly believe a core component of a renewed 

America COMPETES Act—and one that will be essential for our support—must be 

to set funding targets that call for real and sustained growth in funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Standards and Technology 

(NIST), Department of Energy Office of Science, and the Advanced Research 

Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA–E). 

We stand ready to work with you to make the case to the public and other Members of Congress that the Federal government must close the innovation deficit by 

making robust investments in science and education if we are to remain the world’s 

innovation leader and continue to reap the economic and national security benefits 

of such investments. 

Anything short of real and sustained growth in Federal science investments will 

take our country backward as other nations surge forward in their efforts to mimic 

America’s success. 

Sincerely, 

The Following Endorsing Organizations (as of October 9, 2013): 

Aerospace Industries Association 

Alaska SeaLife Center 

Albany Area Chamber of Commerce 

American Association for the Advancement of Science 

American Astronomical Society 

American Chemical Society 

American Educational Research Association 

American Geophysical Union 

American Geosciences Institute 

American Institute of Biological Sciences 

American Institute of Physics 

American Mathematical Society 

American Physical Society 

American Physiological Society 

American Political Science Association 

American Psychological Association 

American Society for Engineering Education 

American Society for Microbiology 

American Society of Agronomy 

American Society of Civil Engineers 

American Society of Plant Biologists 

American Sociological Association 

American Statistical Association 

Annis Water Resources Institute, Grand Valley State University 

Arizona State University 

Arizona Technology Council 

ASME 

Association for Psychological Science 

Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography 

Association for Women Geoscientists 

Association for Women in Science 

Association of American Geographers 

Association of American Universities 

Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists 

Association of Independent Research Institutes 

Association of Population Centers 

Association of Public and Land-grant Universities 

Association of Research Libraries 

ASTRA, the Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America 

Auburn University 

Battelle 

Bay Area Science and Innovation Consortium—BASIC 

Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences 

Binghamton University, the State University of New York 

Boise State 

8 

Boston University 

Brown University 

Business-Higher Education Forum 

California State University, Fullerton 

Carnegie Mellon University 

Case Western Reserve University 

Center for Coastal Marine Sciences, California Polytechnic State University, San 

Luis Obispo 

Center for Marine Science, University of North Carolina, Wilmington 

Center for Policy on Emerging Technologies (C–PET) 

Champaign County Economic Development Corporation 

Chesapeake Biological Laboratory—University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science 

CleanTECH San Diego 

Clemson University 

Coalition for National Science Funding 

Cognitive Science Society 

Columbia University 

Columbus Chamber of Commerce 

CompTIA 

Computing Research Association 

Consortium for Ocean Leadership 

Consortium of Social Science Associations 

Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Sciences, Inc. 

Council for Energy Research and Education Leaders 

Council of Environmental Deans and Directors 

Council of Graduate Schools 

Council on Competitiveness 

Council on Undergraduate Research 

Cray, Inc. 

Crop Science Society of America 

Dauphin Island Sea Lab 

Duke University 

Ecological Society of America 

Electrical Geodesics, Inc. (EGI) 

The Electrochemical Society 

Emory University 

Energy Sciences Coalition 

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 

Federation of Associations in Behavioral & Brain Sciences 

Federation of Materials Societies 

Florida Gulf Coast University Vester Marine Field Station 

Florida Institute of Oceanography 

Florida State University 

Fox/Atkins Development LLC 

Franz Theodore Stone Laboratory, The Ohio State University 

Friday Harbor Laboratories, University of Washington 

Fusion Power Associates 

Geological Society of America 

Georgia Institute of Technology 

Georgia Research Alliance, Inc. 

Georgia State University 

Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce 

Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce 

Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce 

Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce 

Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce 

Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce 

Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce 

Grice Marine Lab, College of Charleston 

Harvard University 

Hatfield Marine Science Center, Oregon State University 

Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii 

Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute 

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 

Humboldt State University Marine Laboratory 

IEEE–USA 

Indiana University 

9 

Information Technology Industry Council 

Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University 

Institute of Marine Sciences, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Intel Corporation 

International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) 

International Society for Developmental Psychology 

Iowa State University 

Johns Hopkins University 

Kachemak Bay Marine Lab, University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Kent State University 

Kewalo Marine Laboratory, University of Hawaii at Manoa 

Krell Institute 

Large Lakes Observatory, University of Minnesota Duluth 

Linguistic Society of America 

Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 

Marine Sciences Center at the University of New England 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Materials Research Society 

Mathematical Association of America 

Michigan State University 

Michigan Technological University 

Microsoft 

Mississippi State University 

Missouri University of Science and Technology 

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 

Mote Marine Laboratory 

Mount Desert Island Biological Laboratory 

National Association of Colleges and Employers 

National Association of Geoscience Teachers 

National Association of Marine Laboratories 

National Cave and Karst Research Institute 

National Communication Association 

National Council for Science and the Environment 

National Ecological Observatory Network, Inc. 

National Science Teachers Association 

Natural Science Collections Alliance 

New Mexico State University 

NextEd 

North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature (NACSN) 

North Carolina State University 

North Carolina State University, Center for Marine Sciences and Technology 

North Dakota State University 

Northeastern University 

Northern Illinois University 

The Ohio State University 

The Optical Society 

Orange County Business Council 

ORAU (Oak Ridge Associated Universities) 

Oregon Entrepreneurs Network 

Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI) 

Oregon State University 

Pace University 

Paleontological Society 

PARC, a Xerox Company 

The Pennsylvania State University 

Population Association of America 

Portland Business Alliance 

Portland State University 

Prince William Sound Science Center 

Princeton University 

Procter & Gamble Company 

Psychonomic Society 

Purdue University 

QB3 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

Rice University 

Rochester Institute of Technology 

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 

10 

Rutgers University Marine Field Station 

Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce 

San Francisco State University, Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies 

Savannah State University 

The Science Coalition 

Seahorse Key Marine Laboratory, University of Florida 

Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce 

Seismological Society of America 

Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) 

Semiconductor Research Corporation 

Shoals Marine Laboratory 

Silicon Valley Leadership Group 

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography 

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 

Society for Neuroscience 

Society for Personality and Social Psychology 

Society of Economic Geologists 

Society of Experimental Social Psychology 

Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists 

Soil Science Society of America 

South Dakota School of Mines & Technology 

South Dakota State University 

Southeastern Universities Research Association 

Southern Arizona Leadership Council 

SPIE, the international society for optics and photonics 

Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce 

SRI International 

SSTI (State Science and Technology Institute) 

Stanford University 

The State University of New York 

Stony Brook University 

SupraSensor Technologies 

Task Force on American Innovation 

Technology Councils of North America (TECNA) 

TechVoice 

TechX 

Texas A&M University 

Texas Instruments 

TRIDEC 

Tucson Metro Chamber 

Tufts University 

Tulane University 

UNAVCO 

University at Buffalo 

University of Alabama at Birmingham 

University of Alaska Anchorage 

University of Alaska, Fairbanks 

University of Alaska, Southeast 

University at Albany, State University of New York 

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 

University of Arizona 

University of Arkansas 

University of California, Berkeley 

University of California, Davis 

University of California, Davis Bodega Marine Laboratory 

University of California, Irvine 

University of California, Los Angeles 

University of California, Merced 

University of California, Riverside 

University of California, San Diego 

University of California San Francisco 

University of California, Santa Barbara 

University of California, Santa Cruz 

University of California System 

University of Central Florida 

University of Cincinnati 

University of Colorado, Boulder 

11 

University of Connecticut 

University of Delaware 

University of Florida 

University of Hawaii 

University of Idaho 

University of Illinois 

University of Illinois at Chicago 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

University of Iowa 

University of Kansas 

University of Kentucky 

University of Maine 

University of Maryland 

University of Massachusetts Boston 

University of Michigan 

University of Minnesota 

University of Missouri 

University of Montana 

University of Nebraska 

University of Nevada, Las Vegas 

University of Nevada, Reno 

University of New Hampshire 

University of New Hampshire Jackson Estuarine Laboratory 

University of New Mexico 

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

University of North Carolina Wilmington 

University of Notre Dame 

University of Oklahoma 

University of Oregon 

University of Pennsylvania 

University of Pittsburgh 

University of Rochester 

University of South Carolina 

University of South Dakota 

University of South Florida 

University of Southern California 

University of Tennessee 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville 

The University of Texas System 

The University of Toledo 

University of Vermont 

University of Virginia 

University of Washington 

University of Wisconsin-Madison 

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, School of Freshwater Sciences, Great Lakes 

WATER Institute 

University of Wyoming 

Utah State University 

Vaisala, Inc. 

Valley Vision, Sacramento 

Vanderbilt University 

Van Fleet & Associates 

Virginia Commonwealth University 

Washington State University 

Washington University in St. Louis 

Wayne State University 

West Virginia University 

Western Michigan University 

Whitney Lab for Marine Bioscience 

Willamette Innovators Network 

Women in Technology Tennessee 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 

Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Southern California 

Yale University 

cc: Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

12 

Identical letters sent to: 

Members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 


1106RPT1.eps 1106RPT2.eps
13 


1106RPT3.eps
14 


1106RPT4.eps
15 


1106RPT5.eps
16 


1106RPT6.eps
17 


1106RPT7.eps
18 


1106RPT8.eps
19 


1106RPT9.eps
20 


1106RPT10.eps
21 


1106RPT11.eps
22 


1106RPT12.eps
23 


1106RPT13.eps
24 


1106RPT14.eps
25 


1106RPT15.eps
26 


1106RPT16.eps
27 


1106RPT17.eps
28 


1106RPT18.eps
29 


1106RPT19.eps
30 


1106RPT20.eps
31 


1106RPT21.eps
32 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

We were instructed that there will be no questions. And—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, you—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, your presentation was so intimidating, I 

don’t think you would have gotten any. Thank you, Senator Alexander, very much. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’ll go back to the regular order here. We’re here 

today to discuss one of the government’s most visionary functions, 

the funding of basic scientific research. The question is, do we have 

the guts and the political will to so do? Everyone in the room may 

already be aware of this, but it’s worth repeating that the Federal 

Government funds nearly one-third of all research and development in the United States, and that includes 60 percent of all academic research. 

Federal funding of basic research, those studies that give us the 

building blocks for new technologies and industries is part of a 

pipeline that supports the U.S. economy and our global competitiveness. 

Now we know the results of basic research are inherently unpredictable. It’s very hard to determine what investments will create 

the next economic miracle. But while the private sector sometimes 

avoids high-risk research that may only provide a return on investment over a very long period of time, the—or may provide little or 

no return, the government has, therefore, stepped into the breach. 

These Federal investments have allowed the best ideas to develop our knowledge of the world and to create billion-dollar industries. These investments led to GPS, as the Senator indicated; biotechnology; 3-D printing; and the Internet. They have supported 

multibillion-dollar companies that are global household names. 

They also continually support the creation of new businesses across 

the country, which the Science Coalition tracked in their latest report, Sparking Economic Growth, which is this, it’s a little bit 

smaller than what Senator Alexander held up. I encourage you to 

read it. 

These investments continue to help train our science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics workforce. And without these investments, we won’t have the next generation of researchers; we won’t 


1106RPT22.eps
33 

have the next biotechnology industry; we won’t have the next Internet. What we will have is a stagnant economy. 

Looking at the debate that we’re having in Congress about funding the government, well, that’s where we’re headed. The reckless 

shutdown has eroded confidence in the United States as a steadfast 

supporter of science. Researchers at our world’s leading labs were 

told to go home, including several Nobel Laureates and grants were 

delayed when 99 percent of the National Science Foundation was 

furloughed. Stunning. 

The shutdown was sudden, and it was harmful, yes; but the ongoing sequester is slowly but surely wearing away at the foundation of U.S. scientific research. The sequester got a little bit lost in 

the recent debates, et cetera, but the sequester is the long-term 

enemy. It’s inexorable unless it gets eliminated. 

Sequestration’s indiscriminate cuts are costing us very dearly. The National Science Foundation took a $356 million cut in the 

past Fiscal Year. And that number will continue to go down again 

under the continuing resolution. That means fewer grants, less 

support for young researchers, and even scientists moving their 

work abroad. It’s only going to get worse if we don’t fix the sequester and continue to invest in our world-class scientists. It will just 

continue to get worse. 

Our competitors know that basic research is worth the investment. And while we constrain ourselves; they are spending more, 

and they are catching up. That’s why instead of retreating in the 

face of competition, we passed the America COMPETES Act in 

2007, and the reauthorization in 2010, with the direction to double 

the funding of the National Science Foundation, major research accounts at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and 

the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. 

I will again push for the reauthorization of this important piece 

of legislation. It may be the most important question we face in 

this committee. I yield to the distinguished Ranking Member. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing today to evaluate scientific research and development and 

STEM education initiatives under the America COMPETES Act 

authorizations. And I, like you, was pleased to welcome Senator Alexander to today’s hearing. 

It was a good opportunity to discuss the impact that R&D funding has on each of our states and on the U.S. economy overall. I 

believe it’s important to remember our current budget realities and 

the need to set Federal funding priorities in scientific research and 

continue to improve coordination. 

And I know that Senator Alexander has worked closely alongside, you, Mr. Chairman, and former Ranking Member Kay Bailey 

Hutchison on the America COMPETES Act of 2007 and 2010. And 

we appreciate, again, his participation today to provide us with a 

history of those legislative efforts. 

The America COMPETES Acts of 2007 and 2010 have served as 

the authorizing vehicles for the National Science Foundation and 

the National Institute of Standard and Technology under our comVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:57 May 14, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\94535.TXT JACKIE
34 

mittee’s jurisdiction, as well as for the Department of Energy, Office of Science. 

The NSF is the primary source of Federal funds, funding in fields 

such as mathematics and computer science. Researchers in my 

home State of South Dakota, as well as other states represented by 

members of the Committee, benefit from NSF’s Experimental Program to Simulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR, a program that 

is aimed at avoiding undue concentration of research in certain 

States and improving R&D competitiveness and STEM education 

throughout the United States. 

Another agency of committee jurisdiction, NIST, carries out its 

mission of promoting U.S. innovation in industrial competitiveness 

by supporting research in fields such as engineering and information technology at NIST Laboratories in collaboration with private 

sector industry. 

The Committee has looked to NIST this year with particular interest on the issue of cybersecurity, passing a bipartisan bill earlier 

this year that would authorize NIST to facilitate the development 

of a voluntary set of standards and best practices to reduce cyber 

risk to critical infrastructure. 

And, as we will examine more closely next week when Secretary 

Pritzker is before us, NIST is also seeking to bridge the gap between cutting edge research and advanced manufacturing. 

DOE’s Office of Science is the lead Federal agency supporting 

fundamental scientific research for energy and the largest Federal 

supporter of basic research in the physical sciences. DOE, along 

with NSF, has supported cutting-edge physics research at the 

world class Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, South 

Dakota. 

At SURF, as we refer to it, and as Dr. Perlmutter appreciates 

more than most, physics researchers are leading the Large Underground Xenon or LUX experiment a mile underground in the 

former Homestake Gold Mine in an effort to detect the existence 

of dark matter. Just last week researchers announced results from 

the experiment’s first run, indicating that it is the most sensitive 

and capable dark matter detector in the world and making SURF 

scientists more likely to discover dark matter than anyone else. 

The LUX experiments and other experiments at SURF search for 

answers to some of our most fundamental science questions and 

present a significant opportunity for U.S. leadership in the area of 

physical sciences as prioritized by the earlier America COMPETES 

Acts. 

Federal support for basic research reflects a consensus that such 

research is the foundation for many innovations. Many have argued that closer cooperation among industry, government, and academia could further stimulate innovation, lead to new products and 

processes, and expand markets for U.S. businesses. 

Along these lines, while I appreciate the importance of 

foundational science and basic research, I also look forward to 

hearing from our witnesses today about ways to improve technology transfer and commercialization of federally funded research, 

as well as some of the successful discoveries stemming from Federal research dollars. 

35 

Finally, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about their 

ideas on how to improve STEM education, as well as their views 

on the challenges that affect our global competitiveness in the 

STEM professional fields. 

Mr. Chairman, thanks again for this hearing. 

I want to thank those that are going to be on our panels. And 

we look forward to hearing their insights. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

So the second panel will come forward, please. That would be Dr. 

Kelvin Droegemeier. And he is Vice Chair—well, I’ll introduce 

you—no. Have a seat. I’ll introduce you just before you speak, OK? 

Dr. Droegemeier is Vice Chairman of the National Science Board 

and Vice President for Research, and a Regents’ Professor of Meteorology at the University of Oklahoma. 

And if you are ready, sir, we will turn it over to you. 

STATEMENT OF DR. KELVIN K. DROEGEMEIER, 

VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH, REGENTS’ PROFESSOR OF 

METEOROLOGY AND WEATHERNEWS CHAIR EMERITUS, 

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, AND VICE CHAIRMAN, 

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD 

Dr. DROEGEMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon, distinguished members of the Committee. 

Ranking Member Thune, it’s my great privilege to testify before 

you today. 

As you said, I am a member of the faculty at the University of 

Oklahoma and also the Vice Chairman of the National Science 

Board. And I will be testifying in capacity as Vice Chairman today. 

I just want to make three very brief points for you this afternoon. 

The first point is about basic research. And it’s something that we 

perform as humans because of our innate desire to really understand the depths of the world in which we live. And it’s really the 

DNA from which new innovations and technologies are created to 

fuel our economy. 

Basic research has created thousands of discoveries. And very 

much like DNA, it can be assembled, it can be put on hold for a 

while, it can be restructured, and it can be brought back and reworked to create a variety of literally thousands, literally tens of 

thousands of technologies from which we will derive direct benefit. 

Without basic research, we have no foundation upon which to 

build. 

My second point concerns something that Senator Alexander 

mentioned a moment ago, and that is that returns on basic research are often unpredictable and are often times very uncertain, 

and they take sometimes years to materialize. As a consequence, 

the Federal Government has a very important central role in supporting that research because it really is too risky for private companies that are looking to make their next quarter statement or 

the next half-year statement. 

And President Roosevelt’s science advisor, Vannevar Bush, when 

he suggested the creation of the National Science Foundation understood this point, that the Federal Government really has to be 

out there on the bleeding edge of funding very creative endeavors, 

36 

that may, in fact, as the Chairman mentioned a moment ago, really 

have no immediate practical benefits for society. 

The role of the National Science Foundation is quite unique because it is the only Federal agency that funds basic research across 

all disciplines of science and engineering, including the social, behavioral, and economic sciences. It also funds research infrastructure. It funds education and training of the next generation of scientists and engineers. And very importantly it supports activities 

that broaden the participation of traditionally underrepresented 

groups and it promotes partnerships in a variety of ways. 

Continuing that point, I want to point out that the impacts of 

basic research on our economy sometimes may be difficult to pin 

down, but they’re unmistakable. And I tell you, Senator Alexander 

did such a beautiful job of describing that. And there are so many 

situations where we can point to these tremendous things that 

make our lives more efficient and make our Nation more secure. 

But there’s one other point I want to bring out that I think is 

sometimes overlooked, and that is, basic research allows to us to 

prepare for the unexpected. 9/11 is a great example. Basic research 

really takes a very methodical approach to studying things, reproducing experiments to make sure the results are right. But when 

something like 9/11 happens, we don’t have the luxury of time. We 

have to draw from our quiver of capabilities, pull them together 

very quickly, and start saving lives, protecting the war fighter, and 

protecting our country. That is what basic research allows us to do 

is be prepared for the unknown. 

My final point concerns the word competition. We talk about the 

American Competitive Act and the initiative. And what does it 

mean to be competitive? I’m from Oklahoma. We play a lot of football down there. We like to be competitive. And I can tell you in 

sports, if you want to win, you have to be competitive. You can’t 

possibly win if you’re not competitive. 

So in order for this Nation to be globally competitive, we have 

to be effective in our basic research. Many, many studies show, as 

Senator Alexander eloquently said, that we’re losing our global 

competitiveness. And in fact, that was really why the other COMPETES Act was created. 

And I will end by just saying, and Senator Rockefeller, I know 

you understand EPSCoR quite well, and Senator Thune, as well; 

but we know how to be competitive in this Nation. And EPSCoR 

is a great example. It’s called the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. It began about 33 years ago. And its 

sole focus is to help states that are traditionally not competitive, 

for Federal funding and particularly at NSF, to develop their infrastructure, their capabilities so they can be competitive. 

And many of the states that have received EPSCoR funding have 

increased their competitiveness by nearly 50 percent, and that 

means they’re becoming more competitive, they’re contributing 

more to the science enterprise in this Nation. And we have lots of 

examples that I could cite to show you the very tremendous value 

of the EPSCoR program. And so I just want to say that we, as a 

nation, know to compete and there’s perfect proof for that in 

EPSCoR. 

37 

And finally, as Senator Alexander noted, this is a very challenging time for Federal budgets and for basic research, but truly 

if we lose sight of supporting this fundamental foundational activity that truly can trace back to all of the important activities and 

devices and resources that improve our quality of life, make our 

Nation safe, make us effective as a society; if we lose that foundation, then we have nothing truly upon which to build. 

So ultimately basic research allows us to control our destiny. And 

as the greatest nation on Earth, that’s extremely important. On behalf of the National Science Board, I want to thank you for your 

incredibly strong and generous support of basic science, and for the 

National Science Foundation. We all look forward to continuing to 

work with you in this very productive relationship in our service 

to our Nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Droegemeier follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. KELVIN K. DROEGEMEIER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR

RESEARCH, REGENTS’ PROFESSOR OF METEOROLOGY AND WEATHERNEWS CHAIR

EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA; VICE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

I thank Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the 

Committee for the privilege of testifying on the important role played by science and 

engineering research and education in our Nation’s competitiveness. My name is 

Kelvin Droegemeier and I am Vice President for Research, Regents’ Professor of Meteorology, and Weathernews Chair Emeritus at the University of Oklahoma. I also 

am a member of the National Science Board (NSB, Board), which establishes policy 

for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and serves as an independent body of 

advisors to both the President and Congress on matters related to science and engineering research and education. I am testifying today in my role as NSB Vice Chairman. 

On behalf of the Board, I thank the Members of this committee for their longstanding commitment to fostering national prosperity, economic security, quality 

education, and international competitiveness through support for basic research in 

science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). 

An important component of this commitment has been the America COMPETES 

Act. 

Enacted in 2007 and reauthorized in 2010, the Act provided a framework for catalyzing research in areas of national priority and for coordinating Federal STEM education efforts. At NSF, the Act enabled continued investment in our Nation’s scientific infrastructure, innovation in STEM education, and development of a portfolio 

of research investments that respond to current national challenges while laying the 

foundation for a robust scientific and technological enterprise into the mid-21st century. It also promoted excellence in scholarship via training in the responsible conduct of research, and the mentoring of post-doctoral researchers. 

1. NSF and the Importance of Basic Research 

The idea for NSF arose in the wake of the Second World War. President Roosevelt, recognizing that wartime cooperation between the Federal Government and 

scientific community had contributed to the U.S. victory, asked his de facto science 

advisor, engineer Dr. Vannevar Bush, to develop a report describing how the Government could promote scientific progress in the postwar period. That report, 

Science—The Endless Frontier, called for the creation of NSF and stressed the essential role of the Federal Government in cultivating the Nation’s ‘‘scientific talent’’ and 

in funding basic research. 

Basic research, which represents structured inquiry motivated by the innate 

human desire to understand the fundamental behavior of the world in which we 

live, is the DNA from which new innovations and technologies arise to fuel our Nation’s economy. That DNA, representing thousands of discoveries across all disciplines, can be assembled, refined, set aside for a time until other advances call 

upon it, and re-used in an almost infinite number of ways to produce outcomes that 

have profoundly positive benefits for society. Bush argued that investments in basic 

research were essential to American national security and competitiveness, and that 

38 

same wise notion was the foundation of the COMPETES Act and is the principal 

reason NSF is featured prominently within it. 

NSF funds the highest quality projects having the potential to advance, if not 

transform, the frontiers of knowledge and advance societal goals. Two criteria, ‘‘Intellectual Merit’’ and ‘‘Broader Impacts,’’ shape the NSF merit review process, which 

is viewed as the gold standard worldwide. NSB recently re-examined these criteria 

to ensure that NSF maximizes the public’s return on investment. 

2. The U.S. Research and Innovation Ecosystem and NSF’s Role in it 

Basic research, applied research, and development in the U.S. are dominated by 

development activities—78 percent of which are funded by the private sector. Private industry also is the largest source of funding for applied research. In this context, the Federal Government, and NSF in particular, play a critical, complementary 

role by supporting basic research, the majority of which is performed at our Nation’s 

colleges and universities. Private industry relies on the new knowledge created by 

basic research to develop new and innovative products and services. 

Because the returns on investments in basic research are unpredictable and may 

take years, if not decades, to materialize, the private sector understandably invests 

relatively little money in it. Consequently, as noted by Vannevar Bush, the Federal 

Government has an essential role in supporting basic research. NSF’s role in particular is unique because it is the only agency that funds basic research and education across all STEM disciplines (excluding clinical medical research) and (presently) at all levels of STEM education. 

3. Samples of Economic and Societal Returns on Investment in Basic 

Research 

For over 60 years, with the support of Congress, NSF has been funding basic research, enabling our Nation to become the undisputed world leader in science and 

technology. As noted previously, linking basic research outcomes to innovated products and services can be difficult because the path from the former to the latter is 

often indistinct, sometimes evolving over long periods of time and integrating elements from multiple disciplines and technologies. However, examples large and 

small abound and are important for demonstrating the value of basic research to, 

and the thoughtful investment of tax dollars toward achieving, national competitiveness. A few are provided below. 

• NSF-funded mathematicians have re-applied algorithms that predict earthquake aftershocks and created a crime prediction model. After police implemented the crime prediction model in Los Angeles’ Foothill precinct (300,000 

residents), crime decreased 12 percent relative to surrounding areas. 

• Almost 20,000 kidney transplants are conducted each year in the U.S. Based 

on their knowledge of game theory and market dynamics, NSF-funded economists developed an algorithm that facilitates kidney matching for patients who 

have willing but biologically incompatible donors. The number of transplants 

performed through paired exchanges has risen dramatically: from 2 in 2000 to 

443 in 2012. 

• Coronary artery disease, the major cause of heart attacks, annually afflicts 

more than 700,000 Americans and costs the Nation nearly $110 billion to treat 

annually. NSF-funded researchers developed mathematical tools to better understand and control interactions between arterial walls and blood flow. Subsequently, scientists improved stents to help open narrowed arteries and later 

formed a biotechnology company that is publicly traded on NASDAQ and currently has a value of nearly $950 million. 

• As part of its start-up funding, Qualcomm received a Small Business Innovation 

Research award from NSF. Over 21,000 employees and 170 locations later, this 

company has forever changed the face of digital wireless telecommunications 

products and services. Qualcomm is now worth more than $100 billion. 

One often overlooked aspect of basic research is that it helps our Nation be prepared for the unexpected. When confronted with entirely new challenges, time often 

does not exist to conduct the thoughtful, intensive studies associated with basic research. Consequently, having research outcomes in hand is essential. Nowhere is 

this more evident than in current and rapidly evolving national security challenges, 

where results from previous basic research in image processing, electro-chemical 

sensing, and data mining have led to the rapid creation of field-deployed technologies for enhancing security in airports, better ensuring the safety of the war 

fighter, and fighting new generation cyber attacks. 

These and thousands of other examples—which show how basic research in 

science and engineering leads to practical benefits via innovation—directly impact 

39 

i U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012: The Competitiveness and Innovation Capacity of the 

United States. Available at http://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2012/january/competesl010511l0.pdf 

the ability of the U.S. to be competitive in a global society: competitive economically, 

competitive in education, competitive technologically, and also secure. Consequently, 

by virtue of its unique mission, NSF funding of basic research continues to be central to U.S. competitiveness. 

Another important and easily overlooked aspect of basic research is the talent 

pool needed to perform it in our Nation’s colleges and universities, and to innovate 

with its outcomes in the private sector. STEM education is the sine qua non for this 

workforce and is a foundational component of NSF’s portfolio. Without it, and without efforts to ensure a diverse workforce that draws upon and reflects the increasingly diverse structure of our Nation, the competitiveness of the U.S. will suffer immeasurably. 

4. Toward a Globally Competitive Nation 

What does it mean to be competitive? In sports, business, and the military, one 

cannot win unless one is competitive. The U.S. must be globally competitive in order 

to be a world leader—in research, technology, advanced manufacturing, educational 

attainment, private sector innovation, public-private partnerships, economic prosperity, and quality of life. Unfortunately, numerous metrics and studies show that 

the U.S. is rapidly losing its competitiveness. 

According to a 2012 reporti by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the strengthening economies of several countries around the world are posing a competitive challenge for the U.S. The ability of the U.S. to create jobs has slipped, and it has made 

little progress in competitiveness during the past 2 decades, now ranking fourth in 

the world in innovation-based competitiveness. The preparation of U.S. students in 

math and science is notably problematic, with 17 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries ranked above the U.S. Numerous equally sobering statistics exist and are readily available. NSF is vitally important in restoring U.S. competitiveness by building competitive capacity in many ways. 

First, as noted previously and via a wide array of programs across all disciplines, 

NSF funds basic research at the frontiers of discovery and thus creates new knowledge—the DNA of innovation. Many of NSF’s activities focus on areas of national 

priority and thus lie at the heart of national competitiveness. These include, at the 

present time, advanced manufacturing, robotics and cyber-physical systems, interdisciplinary research to enrich our understanding of the brain’s neural networks, 

nanotechnology, STEM education, global change research, and cybersecurity research and development. 

Second, NSF funds the construction of modern research infrastructure that is critical to maintaining U.S. technological competitiveness. Through its Major Research 

Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account, NSF provides our Nation’s scientists and engineers with the powerful, large, complex tools necessary to 

perform world-class research. This includes—but is not limited to—telescopes, 

supercomputing facilities, ships, airplanes, and large arrays of observing systems for 

long-term sampling of the planet below ground, at the surface and in the atmosphere. Other programs, such as Major Research Instrumentation (MRI), provide 

funding to colleges and universities to both develop and acquire large pieces of 

equipment for research and education, with the responsibility for long-term sustainability borne by the receiving institution. 

Third, NSF facilitates the education and training of the next generation of scientists and engineers (graduate and undergraduate students as well as post-doctoral 

researchers) by funding grants to support their research and training. Flagship programs such as the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, which has produced several 

Nobel Laureates over the past 6 decades, are seminal to U.S. competitiveness and 

STEM workforce development. The longstanding NSF CAREER program, which 

funds early-career faculty, is critical for ensuring that the most outstanding new 

academic researchers get off to a strong start and begin making seminal contributions as soon as possible. 

Fourth, NSF supports numerous programs to broaden the participation of traditionally underrepresented populations in STEM fields. This is an extremely important challenge for U.S. competitiveness in light of rapidly shifting national demographics, as well as the substantial intellectual talent that goes untapped when 

underrepresented individuals either leave STEM fields or fail to select them to 

begin with. Although progress is being made, it is far slower than needed for the 

U.S. to amass a STEM talent pool to ensure future competitiveness. 

40 

Fifth, NSF has undertaken efforts recently in partnership with the private sector, 

via its Innovation Corps (I-Corps) program, to play a direct role in the innovation 

process. Specifically, I-Corps is a set of activities and programs that prepare scientists and engineers to extend their focus beyond the laboratory and broadens the 

impact of select, NSF-funded, basic-research projects. Although knowledge gained 

from NSF-supported basic research frequently advances a particular field of science 

or engineering, some results also show immediate potential for broader applicability 

and impact in the commercial world. Such results may be translated through ICorps into technologies with near-term benefits for the economy and society. Combining experience and guidance from established entrepreneurs with a targeted curriculum, I-Corps teaches grantees to identify valuable product opportunities that 

can emerge from academic research, and offers entrepreneurship training to student 

participants. 

And finally, NSF’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, as another example, provides seed money for high risk, high reward private sector ventures. NSF recently conferred an SBIR award that has the potential to lead to widespread recycling of the wastewater produced in the process of natural gas extraction 

known as ‘‘fracking.’’ 

5. The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 

(EPSCoR): A National Role Model for Capacity-Building and Enhancing 

Competitiveness 

NSF is mandated by statute to ensure that all geographic regions in the U.S. contribute to science and engineering research and education via NSF support, and as 

a consequence play a meaningful role in U.S. competitiveness. A program 

foundational to achieving this goal is the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), which provides research capacity-building funding, 

based upon competitively-reviewed proposals, to states (formally known as jurisdictions) which historically have received comparatively small percentages of NSF support. At the present time, 31 jurisdictions are eligible for NSF support, and other 

agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and 

Department of Energy (DOE), have EPSCoR programs. 

The current NSF budget for EPSCoR is approximately $160 million per year and 

is directed to a variety of programs designed specifically to build research capacity. 

The flagship program, known as Research Infrastructure Improvement (RII, Track1), provides up to $20 million for 5 years to support areas of strategic research importance for jurisdictions based upon their state science and technology plans, most 

commonly in alignment with national research priorities. Multi-jurisdictional activities are becoming more common as a means for leveraging capability for addressing 

larger, more complex challenges. Additional leveraging occurs via mandated cost 

sharing from the jurisdictions themselves. 

Since the program’s inception in 1980, competitiveness of EPSCoR jurisdictions 

(which entered the program in four cohorts) has increased by as much as 41 percent. 

Topics addressed range from bioinformatics and climate adaptation to nanotechnology and STEM education. EPSCoR funding also builds capacity in cyberinfrastructure in ways strategically aligned with national research and education priorities. 

In addition to building capacity for basic research, EPSCoR plays an important 

role in economic development. As one of many examples, in my own state of Oklahoma, EPSCoR funding helped support one of the first NSF Science and Technology 

Centers in 1989, which I directed at the University of Oklahoma. This center pioneered a new science of computer-based prediction of thunderstorms, leading to the 

founding of a private weather technology company that now employs more than 80 

people. Outcomes from this research are being transitioned into operations within 

the U.S. National Weather Service and hold promise for increasing the lead time 

for tornado warnings from 15 minutes to over an hour. 

Additionally in Oklahoma, nanotechnology research funded by NSF EPSCoR 

played a role in the creation of a private engineering company that established the 

national standard (National Institute for Standards and Technology—NIST) for purity of single-walled carbon nanotubes—an essential element in hundreds of products. More than 20 nanotechnology companies are now located in Oklahoma, catalyzed in part by the EPSCoR investment. Additionally, more than 12,000 K–12 students, 1,800 teachers, 7,000 university students, 2,000 university faculty, and 59 

businesses in Oklahoma have been served directly by EPSCoR education and outreach programs during the past five years. 

Similar examples can be found for other EPSCoR jurisdictions. In Montana, substantial growth in academic research programs is credited with increasing the number of high technology companies from 17 to 175. In Idaho, it is estimated that every 

41 

Federal dollar invested in EPSCoR programs has yielded $18 to the local economy. 

In Louisiana, nearly 22 percent of students supported by EPSCoR have come from 

underrepresented groups. And in Wyoming, research investments by EPSCoR 

helped position the state to host a major supercomputing center for the National 

Center for Atmospheric Research, which is catalyzing new research, education and 

technology development activities across the entire region. 

6. Summary and Closing Thoughts 

More than 60 years after its establishment, NSF remains a crucial component in 

the engine of U.S. innovation, competitiveness, and security. The agency’s work is 

more vital than ever because science now has bearing on almost every aspect of our 

lives, from national security and global economic competitiveness to our health, 

quality of life and future workforce needs. NSF-sponsored research continues to 

open new frontiers by balancing NSF’s longstanding ‘‘grass roots’’ vision of science 

with an agency-wide commitment to fund research addressing national priorities. 

NSF’s work in STEM education remains vital to ensuring that America’s students, 

workers, and scientists remain competitive in the globally connected world. Although the context in which NSF operates today differs markedly from the postWorld War II and Cold War worlds out of which it arose, the necessity of Government support for basic scientific research, for research infrastructure, and for educating the next generation of researchers remains as true today as in 1950. Then 

as now, basic research catalyzes the scientific and technological ecosystem. Then, as 

now, neither industry nor academia alone could make sufficient investments in basic 

science to sustain national competitiveness and security. 

This is a difficult time for Federal budgets and for individuals in the academic, 

nonprofit and public sectors who rely on Federal support. Investments in science 

and technology compete with a host of other legitimate funding priorities. As other 

countries emulate our success by building their innovation infrastructures, we must 

be vigilant in sustaining our own innovative capacity. NSF remains committed to 

making the hard decisions needed to ensure that its portfolio obtains the greatest 

return on investment and maximizes the benefits of taxpayer support. 

On behalf of the National Science Board, I thank you for your support of the National Science Foundation. We look forward to continuing our productive working 

relationship with you in service to the Nation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Might I just suggest to staff that are present that it would be 

really kind of nice if we had more members here. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And therefore, please go to work on that. I can’t 

command one side, but I can command the other side. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator COATS. And I was just getting ready to leave. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know. I caught you, Dan. 

Senator COATS. I—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I caught you. 

Senator COATS.—feel very guilty, but—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Senator COATS.—I do have a—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you’re a special person, so—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. But I did embarrass him, didn’t I? Just a bit. 

All right. Now Dr. Saul Perlmutter, who is a Professor of Physics 

at the University of California at Berkeley, a Senior Scientist at 

the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and a 2011 Nobel 

Laureate in physics. 

Welcome, sir, we’re honored by your presence. 

42 

STATEMENT OF DR. SAUL PERLMUTTER, PROFESSOR OF 

PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY; SENIOR 

SCIENTIST, LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Dr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you. 

All right, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and 

distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for inviting 

me today. 

I thought it might be helpful to begin with a few words about the 

science I’ve been involved in since it provides a good example for 

many of the issues that this committee is addressing. Initially we 

set out to measure how much gravity was slowing the expansion 

of the universe. And after 10 years of hard work, we made a surprising discovery, the expansion of the university isn’t slowing 

down at all, it’s actually speeding up, the universe is expanding 

faster and faster and we have no idea why. 

This mystery has grabbed the attention of scientists around the 

world, attracted new students to science, and triggered a tidal 

wave of scientific creativity with new theories, new technological 

inventions, and new computing methods, and of course it also 

ended up winning a Nobel Prize. 

Is the accelerating expansion of the universe due to some previously unknown energy, we call it dark energy, that dominates the 

stuff of the universe; or alternatively, maybe we need to revise Einstein’s theory of general relativity, his theory of gravity? This is 

clearly exciting science, but why should the government support 

such basic research? What’s in it for the taxpayer? 

First, it’s exactly these sorts of exciting questions that attract the 

next generation to study science, engineering, and mathematics 

and then to go on to careers that use these skills in business and 

government and in academia. 

Second, the challenges of basic science, which appeal to the—to 

a universal human curiosity, end up somehow almost magically 

being the source of our remarkable technological capabilities and 

then our economic strength. 

For example, I mentioned the close connection between our surprising discovery and Einstein’s theory of general relativity. What 

could be more arcane, less practical sounding than Einstein’s theory? It deals with behavior of clocks traveling near the speed of 

light. And yet if you’ve ever tried to find your location with the 

iPhone in your pocket, you’ve relied on Einstein’s theory. Without 

this basic science, the GPS locator on your flight into Reagan National Airport would miss the runway. 

So I have no idea today what an understanding of the accelerating universe and dark energy will allow us to do, but Einstein 

could never have guessed that his theory would power this technology or the million-dollar GPS industry. 

Third, the dividends from fundamental science benefit society at 

large and cannot be directed in advance to fulfill a particular commercial need. So, as was just mentioned, this is not a job for private investors. These investments are exactly the kind that the 

government is needed for. 

Finally, my own work would never have happened without past 

investments by the U.S. Government. My early research was 

kicked off with NSF support. It never could have lasted those 10 

43 

years without the unique capabilities of a national laboratory and 

the patient support of the Department of Energy, which funds that 

lab. And in the end it depended on the space-based capabilities of 

NASA and its Hubble Space Telescope. 

Our project then succeeded because there was a stable and robust network of agencies supporting fundamental research, an ecosystem of innovation. This is why the U.S. has dominated the 

Nobel Prizes and built a flourishing technologically-advanced economy. 

How do we ensure the health of this fundamental science ecosystem so that it will drive the economic success for the next generation? How do we make it possible for a young scientist starting 

out today with a project like mine to make her Nobel Prize-winning 

discovery? 

I’m concerned that if I were that scientist starting my project 

today, it wouldn’t have happened. The trend lines in the U.S. for 

all fields of sciences are disturbing. Already our lack of investment 

in particle physics has moved its center of gravity to Europe. It’s 

beginning to happen in my field of dark energy, as well, a field in 

which the Nation currently leads the world. 

For the first time I have seen post-doctoral students choose positions abroad rather than the U.S. because they saw the future 

there. We live in times of breathtaking scientific opportunities, but 

America must stay in the game. We must invest again in the 

sciences and the basic sciences with the enthusiasm that we did before if we are going to stay competitive with Europe, China and 

Japan and the rest of the world, who are now redoubling their effort to build the scientific infrastructure they saw make us so successful. 

Such basic science is the root to another prosperous century and 

a community of science and scientists that are ready to handle the 

challenges of that century. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Perlmutter follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. SAUL PERLMUTTER, PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY; SENIOR SCIENTIST, LAWRENCE BERKELEY

NATIONAL LABORATORY

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today about the importance of science to our Nation and to the world. I am honored by the invitation 

and hope that my testimony may be helpful to you and your staff as you draft important legislation and make critical funding decisions that help to ensure the 

United States of America’s scientific leadership. I believe that without scientific 

leadership, we will lose our leadership in technology and innovation. Without technological leadership, our economic and national security will be fundamentally 

weakened. 

My name is Saul Perlmutter and I am a senior scientist at the Department of 

Energy Office of Science’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a Professor 

of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley. I am testifying today as a private citizen and not on behalf of Berkeley Lab or the University. My testimony 

today will explore these important issues: 

1. Why curiosity-driven science is important and why we should care. 

2. Why the whole of the United States’ science enterprise—consisting of an interdependent ecosystem of agencies, universities, national laboratories and industry—is greater than the sum of its parts. 

44 

3. Why waning Federal support for curiosity-driven science is stagnating our 

science enterprise and weakening the Nation’s innovation foundation—immediately threatening our international economic competitiveness and the prospects of a more peaceful and productive world. 

Why curiosity-driven science is important 

In 2011, I was awarded, along with two other scientists, the Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. This discovery came as a huge surprise to me, to my team and to the entire physics world. 

We had anticipated one of two outcomes: either the expansion would be slowing 

down, but still expanding forever; or that the universe was slowing so much that 

someday it would come to a halt, and then, collapse in on itself—both options due 

to the force of gravity. 

Since our discovery in 1998, thousands of theories have been published that attempt to explain this extraordinary phenomenon. The most widely discussed idea is 

that an unknown energy fills all empty space and counteracts gravity’s pull enough 

to fuel the universe’s accelerating expansion. Scientists and the scientific media 

have dubbed this unknown entity ‘‘dark energy’’—‘‘dark’’ only to signify that we 

don’t know what it is—and estimate that it makes up almost three quarters of the 

‘‘stuff’’ of the universe. This is a remarkable prospect that begs further exploration— 

what is this stuff that makes up the majority of our universe. 

Although the concept of ‘‘dark energy’’ is mindboggling, it would be even more 

earthshattering if the accelerating expansion is caused instead by a flaw in the laws 

of gravity, which were originally set down by Newton, and perfected by Einstein in 

his Theory of General Relativity. Gravity and its properties are considered well understood—down to many digits of certainty. Scientific and engineering understanding of gravity made the industrial revolution possible and ushered in the modern era. What if our current understanding is simply the first step in a much bigger 

and more complex theory? 

Either way, scientists are energized to explore this cosmic mystery. These are 

questions that we must tackle. Curiosity drove our initial research and experiments—today, curiosity drives us to ask new questions and design new experiments 

to explore this cosmic riddle. 

Why should the Federal Government fund this type of curiosity-driven research? 

It’s not just because it is exciting, although it is. It’s not just because this is exactly 

the type of science that attracts young people to science and engineering careers, 

although it is that too. It is primarily because, by broadening our base of knowledge 

and deepening our understanding of the world, we will provide our children with 

brighter, more peaceful futures, with more rewarding jobs, and longer lives. In a 

nutshell, scientific knowledge gives us the power to secure a better future. 

I have no idea what the discovery of an accelerating universe will mean to the 

health of our economy and our ability to build a better and more peaceful world. 

Certainly, building experiments and tools, as we did, to measure our universe with 

greater and greater fidelity and efficiency has led to new and productive technologies, such as more sensitive CCD detectors that are now being used in health 

care. These spin-off technologies produce jobs and create economic activity. But, 

even more importantly, no one can credibly claim to know what wide-ranging benefits the discovery will ultimately have on society. 

Pursuit of curiosity-driven science is not a luxury—it is the foundation of how real 

progress and societal advancement is made. Grand challenges that face our Nation 

and world require more than incremental, marginal solutions. Short-term, near-horizon research and development, also referred to as applied research, will not by 

itself lead to transformational advances. Applied research is certainly critical for 

moving solutions forward, but transformational leaps in technologies and in answers 

to tough problems don’t happen without new discoveries that come from curiositydriven science. 

So although I don’t know how my team’s scientific accomplishments will affect society broadly, I do know that big discoveries make us stronger and more capable. 

I do know that the laser would not have been invented if your goal were to build 

a laser printer or perform laser surgery. The need for global positioning systems 

would not have spawned Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity—a theory so apparently esoteric that it addresses questions such as ‘‘what happens to clocks traveling 

through space at speeds approaching the speed of light.’’ I do know that quantum 

mechanics, the theory of how matter and energy behave at the atomic and subatomic levels, would not have been developed if you were building a medical imaging device or the iPhone. But, without the curiosity-driven science that led to the 

theory of quantum physics, we would not have MRIs, electron microscopes or the 

45 

transistor, an invention underpinning the information technology world in which we 

now live. 

I am certain that the discovery in 1998 of the accelerating expansion of the universe has and will make us a stronger nation and help to build a better and more 

peaceful world. But a discovery like this was not an easy task. 

Our research began as a three-year project. Our energy level was high and our 

expectations were even higher. Ten long years later we finally presented the results 

that showed our universe was expanding at an accelerating rate. Our results and 

those of another research team sent the worldwide physics community reeling. We 

knew that it was a tough problem. We knew we had to invent brand new technologies that would help find the standard candles, a certain type of exploding star, 

a supernova, needed to make our measurements and plot our points. We knew this 

sort of experiment and analysis had never been done before. We didn’t know it 

would take us as long as it did. 

Fortunately we did not have the pressures placed on companies by vigilant investors eager for short-term returns. My team and I were researchers at a Department 

of Energy Office of Science national laboratory. There we were given the time, space 

and resources required to accomplish our mission and were supported by a commitment to world-class, leading-edge science. 

Although it is a surprise to most people, DOE’s Office of Science is the Nation’s 

largest funder of the physical sciences—including the field of physics. The national 

laboratory provided me a supportive and uniquely well-suited place to conduct my 

research. The Office of Science, supported by the Federal Government, with a strong 

and unwavering commitment to world-leading science, has the patience, resources 

and institutions needed to consistently deliver groundbreaking scientific and technological advances—the type of advances that win Nobel Prizes and create new knowledge that leapfrogs current understanding. 

Why the whole of the United States scientific enterprise is greater than the 

sum of its parts 

My research is primarily supported by the DOE Office of Science, but from the 

beginnings of my graduate and postdoctoral education and training through today, 

I am most certainly a product of the Federal Government’s investment in a wide 

range of agencies, research programs, universities and facilities. As an early career 

scientist, I received funding from the National Science Foundation for research at 

the Center for Particle Astrophysics at Berkeley. This early funding helped to hone 

my skills as a researcher, prepared me for a successful science career, and initiated 

my research. Likewise, funding from NASA has supported work throughout my tenure as a scientist by providing valuable time on the Hubble Space Telescope and 

NASA grants for research. Collaborations with universities, industry, and other national laboratories have been a constant and critical part of my research career. In 

other words, it may not take a village, but it does take an ecosystem to advance 

scientific and innovation progress. 

As illustrated by my career, the Nation’s science and innovation enterprise is 

underpinned by this complex ecosystem of people, ideas and tools. This scientific infrastructure, until recently, has been unmatched and has been the envy of the 

world. It grew out of a post-World War II commitment made by the Federal Government to support basic scientific research conducted at U.S. universities and national 

laboratories. 

Our nation has never had a comprehensive science strategy. From time to time 

we marshal our scientific resources and talents to focus intently on certain large 

problems and opportunities, such as the Manhattan Project, the Race to Space and 

the Human Genome Project. But by and large, the development of our innovation 

enterprise has been an organic one, fueled by an entrepreneurial American spirit 

that embraces progress and always seeks to improve society by new knowledge and 

understanding. 

People like Ernest Orlando Lawrence, the inventor of the cyclotron and the founder of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, begged, borrowed, and otherwise obtained the resources needed to move science forward. In Lawrence’s case he established a laboratory in 1931 on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, 

that today is an international leader in basic science and energy technology development. Individuals like Lawrence, Fermi, Oppenheimer, and others, pushed the 

boundaries of knowledge and physics to aid in the Allied effort to defeat Nazism— 

in the process building the infrastructure and intellectual capacity that would lead 

to the national laboratory system. Other scientific, policy and political leaders 

worked tirelessly to establish the National Science Foundation and set its course as 

one of the greatest scientific grant-making organizations in the world. Miraculously, 

or serendipitously, these scientific initiatives, now agencies, and others, such as 

46 

NASA, DARPA, NIST and NIH, have developed collectively into a powerhouse ecosystem of innovation. The results have been spectacular. A basic, but telling, metric 

is that of all the Nobel Prizes awarded in the sciences, medicine and economics, 48 

percent of the winners have been from the United States. 

As in a natural ecosystem, each component of our research and development enterprise has a role to play—contributing to its vitality and sustainability. For example, it is widely accepted that health research conducted by the NIH is very important. Each of us has a personal story about how advances in medicine and health 

care have touched our lives, our families and our friends. However, without discoveries in the physical sciences—such as in physics and chemistry—many of the 

breakthroughs and leapfrog advances in health care will not take place. Better understanding of materials and organisms at the most fundamental atomic and molecular levels leads to new discoveries that find their way into new medicines and 

treatments. Unfortunately, this linkage and the symbiotic nature of our scientific 

enterprise is not obvious and certainly not mainstream knowledge. So, please indulge me as I take a moment to describe the roles of various participants in the 

Nation’s innovation ecosystem. This description is not all-inclusive, but hopefully 

will provide a better sense of its nature and structure. 

Universities 

From the very beginning of our national history, universities have been centers 

of scientific inquiry and technology advancement. Referring to the 1862 founding of 

West Virginia University, a local paper wrote, ‘‘a place more eligible for the quiet 

and successful pursuit of science . . . is nowhere to be found.’’ E.O. Lawrence, inventor of the cyclotron and founder of Berkeley Lab, graduated from the University 

of South Dakota in 1922—his grounding in the sciences there laid the foundation 

for remarkable contributions to science and society. Universities educate and train 

future scientists and engineers, like Lawrence, and host research in an open and 

encouraging environment. 

Universities are the great scientific hot houses that provide fertile ground for scientific collaboration and exploration. Science is typically an intimate endeavor at 

universities with principal investigators working side by side with their team of students and postdoctoral colleagues, conducting cutting edge research with new ideas 

and great enthusiasm. It is an environment of opportunity and passion that is very 

hard to replicate and generally unique to the university setting. The NSF, NIH, 

DOE’s Office of Science and other grant making agencies fund the best and brightest at our universities to conduct the most compelling research—research that neither industry, nor any other institution would have the means or will to fund. 

National Laboratories 

DOE’s national laboratories, spawned from the Manhattan project and subsequently home to large teams of scientists and scientific resources, build and maintain unique, large-scale and world-leading research tools that are utilized broadly 

by university and industrial researchers. These tools, such as the Advanced Light 

Source at Berkeley Lab, the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge, and the Center for Nanoscale Materials at Argonne—over 30 facilities in total throughout the 

DOE complex—provide tens of thousands of American researchers access to critical 

scientific capabilities that help them to maintain the Nation’s scientific leadership. 

These researchers come from both academia and industry; are funded by a host of 

Federal agencies, philanthropic organizations and companies; and come from every 

state in the union. 

National laboratories, from their inception, have assembled and nurtured multidisciplinary teams of scientific experts to meet Federal needs and address national 

R&D priorities and challenges of scale. With a more focused and flexible organizational system than universities, national laboratories can more easily adjust to concentrate intellectual and capital resources on Federal mission needs and scientific 

advancement. 

As mentioned previously, my research requires a broad team of astrophysicists, 

engineers, students, postdocs and others to accomplish its goals. These collaborations often include researchers from dozens of universities, other national laboratories and industry partners. Our accomplishments would not have been possible 

without this team approach and a national laboratory as the organizing and supporting institution. 

Industry 

Unfortunately, the days of the big industrial basic science laboratory are over. As 

the Department of Commerce’s January 2012 report on ‘‘The Competitiveness and 

Innovative Capacity of the United States’’ expounded upon, investments in basic, curiosity-driven science don’t pay out directly for commercial investors, whereas the 

47 

returns for society are eventually large. Even so, industry still plays a different but 

important role in the innovation ecosystem. 

Industry delivers technological advances to the marketplace and to society by 

making strategic, early investments in new technology. Businesses rely on scientific 

and engineering talent produced by universities and trained at national laboratories 

to meet their workforce needs and remain globally competitive. Through in-house 

applied research and by harnessing scientific advances and technology developed at 

universities and national laboratories, industry drives commerce and innovation. 

And, finally, researchers from industry utilize the unique scientific tools of the national laboratories to move technologies to the marketplace. 

Why economic and national security are threatened by waning support for 

science 

As a Nobel Laureate, I am constantly invited to events to launch new scientific 

initiatives and inaugurate or review new research programs. Unfortunately, the majority of these invitations are coming from other countries—China, South Korea, 

Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, etc.—not from the U.S. Although my 

experience is certainly anecdotal, the implications are backed up by real data. The 

data clearly shows how other nations are increasing their investments in basic 

science, unlike in the U.S. where support for and forward movement on basic 

science appears to be stagnating. Data supporting this may be found at http:// 

www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c0/c0i.htm and attached to this testimony. 

My field of physics and astrophysics offers a cautionary tale about the effects of 

scientific stagnation on innovation leadership. With the demise of U.S. plans to 

build the Superconducting Super Collider in the 1993, and the corresponding rise 

of European leadership to build the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, the center of 

gravity for particle physics at the energy frontier moved from America to Europe. 

Now, instead of doing their research on American soil, U.S. science students, 

postdocs and early career scientists who study the Higgs boson and other high-energy particles are cutting their teeth in Europe. 

Fortunately, in some physics fields, such as my field of study, astrophysics and 

cosmology—the study of the cosmos—the United States still maintains scientific 

leadership. But, that leadership, too, is threatened. Since shortly after the discovery 

of dark energy, my colleagues and I, and other research teams around the country, 

have proposed follow-up experiments, both large and small, in space and groundbased, to study dark energy with greater precision. Even with high rankings from 

agencies and the scientific community for each of these proposed experiments, interagency gridlock and now ‘‘no new starts’’ have left them in a state of almost suspended animation. Meanwhile the European Space Agency is moving ahead with 

plans to launch their own dark energy space mission, called Euclid, as early as 

2020—seizing leadership in dark energy research. Research thrives on competition; 

we need to compete, not forfeit. 

Some will argue that during periods of constrained budgets all Federal investments must be curtailed, cut back and reduced. Admittedly, there are always opportunities to find efficiencies and reduce costs. But, scrimping on science and holding 

up scientific progress, for whatever reason, is penny wise and pound foolish. Even 

in tough economic times and tight budgets it is possible to spend money wisely and 

make the investments necessary to reap a brighter future. The economic argument, 

though perhaps not immediately obvious to some, is singularly compelling. Yet, 

there is a broader and perhaps more important argument to be examined. Scientific 

advancement has made the world a better place—living standards are rising across 

the planet, fewer people are hungry and life spans are increasing. Science paves the 

way for a more peaceful and productive existence. 

Yet, when trouble arises somewhere around the world or at home, whether natural or manmade, we must be prepared. Our response to natural and manmade disasters of the future will require sophisticated technologies yet invented. Threats 

may include comets or asteroids crashing to earth, volcanoes darkening the planet’s 

skies and, of course, the scourge of war. Today our Nation has a strong base of innovation and technological leadership because we have funded and nurtured the best 

curiosity-driven science portfolio the world has ever known. If we don’t continue to 

nurture curiosity-driven science, will we have the capacity to meet the threats of 

the future—say in twenty or thirty years? If we lose our scientific leadership, we 

weaken our true national security. It is that simple. 

Even if faced with tough budgets, science cannot stand still. By its very nature 

it is new and ever changing, and requires consistent and continuous forward movement. ‘‘No new starts’’ means not doing science. It means losing the U.S.’s role as 

a light and leader for the world. It means not attracting and educating the next genVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:57 May 14, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\94535.TXT JACKIE
48 

eration of scientists. It means not being ready for future challenges. Science is the 

act of discovery. It is not science if it sits still. 

Conclusion 

With the current fixation on short time lines and near horizons, I doubt that my 

team’s Nobel Prize winning research would be funded today. How many young scientists with Nobel Prize quality ideas and ambitions are not being funded today in 

the United States? How many are now doing or will do their research in other countries, winning for them the gold of the Prize, but also the economic potential of their 

discoveries? America set the bar high in its support of science and technology development. Other countries, admirably, are ramping up their innovation engines and 

in many ways are attempting to emulate our successes. Although we should applaud 

these efforts, we cannot afford to be complacent and let other countries pass us by. 

We must stay in the race and compete. Regardless of when and where the mystery 

of ‘‘dark energy’’ is uncovered it will be a tremendous accomplishment for the world. 

Yet, from my perspective, as a United States scientist and teacher, I hope that we 

make these advances here, at home and thereby contribute to humanity’s progress. 

In closing, the U.S. innovation ecosystem is one of our most precious assets—indeed, one of the world’s most precious assets. The Federal Government has a fundamental responsibility to keep this ecosystem healthy because it gives the Nation a 

powerful competitive edge, providing solutions to major national challenges and 

fueling economic growth, and because it continues to make the world a better place. 

Universities and laboratories have a responsibility to conduct first-rate research on 

key scientific and technological problems with intellectual rigor and efficient use of 

resources. Working together, we strive to transfer the results of this research to 

markets and people around the world for the benefit of society as a whole. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing. I am happy 

to answer any questions that you may have. 


1106PERL1.eps
49 


1106PERL2.eps 1106PERL3.eps
50 

The latest OECD estimates on Gross Expenditures on R&D (GERD) confirm that 

the modest recovery initiated in 2010 continued into 2011. 

For the whole OECD area, total R&D expenditures grew in real terms by 1.3 percent in 2010, mainly driven by the higher education and government sectors, while 

business R&D only increased by 0.6 percent. 

OECD estimates indicate an overall real growth rate for GERD of 2.1 percent in 

2011 driven by a gradual recovery in business R&D (2.8 percent) and sustained 

growth in research in the higher education sector (2.5 percent), despite a reduction 

in government R&D (–1.2 percent). 

In the EU area, total GERD grew by 3.2 percent in 2011, driven by the business 

sector (4.2 percent), mainly Germany’s (6.4 percent). In contrast, U.S. R&D fell by 

0.5 percent in real terms, with growth in higher education offset by lower government and business R&D. After a 2.5 percent drop in 2010, U.S. business R&D 

(BERD) declined by a further 0.4 percent in 2011. 

GERD in China continued to growth at a rapid pace (14.1 percent), mainly driven 

by business R&D which in 2011 reached more than half the level of U.S. BERD, 

and 81 percent of EU BERD. 

Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI) 2013/1 

Last update: 16 July 2013 

Direct link to the MSTI dataset in OECD.stat 

Short address for this page: www.oecd.org/sti/msti 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir, very, very much. 

Dr. Maria Klawe. 

Dr. KLAWE. Klawe. Well done. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I had a little phonetic help here. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. KLAWE. Thank you, gentlemen. 

The CHAIRMAN. You know what, I have to say who you are. 

Dr. KLAWE. Oh. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Not only are you the President of Harvey Mudd 

College, in fact, you are the first woman to lead the college in its 

almost 60 years of history. 

So we welcome you. 

[Laughter.] 


1106PERL4.eps
51 

STATEMENT OF DR. MARIA M. KLAWE, PRESIDENT, 

HARVEY MUDD COLLEGE 

Dr. KLAWE. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Senator Thune—— 

How about now? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Dr. KLAWE. All right. I’m off to a great start. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. KLAWE. Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Senator 

Thune, distinguished members of the Committee, it’s really a pleasure to be here. 

I’ll just mention that in addition to being the President of Harvey 

Mudd College, I’m also on the boards of a couple of technology companies, Microsoft and Broadcom. I’m a computer scientist, and so 

I’m going to bring a slightly different perspective than our first two 

witnesses. 

I’m the designated hitter for talking about STEM education, and 

in particular for talking about my particular passion, which is 

making all STEM disciplines nurturing and supportive to everyone 

independent of gender or race or whether they’re football players 

or poets or lesbian, gay, or anything else. 

And one of the things that Harvey Mudd College does, as a tiny 

undergraduate institution, is try to be a lab for innovation in 

STEM education. Not just at the undergraduate level, which is 

what we are, but also in terms of innovating in partnership with 

middle school and high schools. 

I’m going to focus on talking about computer science because I 

think it’s a particularly important discipline for a number of reasons. The first reason is that in terms of the economic demand, the 

U.S. economy needs more computer science grads than anything 

else. The second reason is that computer science is the only discipline in science and engineering where participation by women 

has declined over the last three decades instead of increased. 

Right now about 13 percent of the graduates receiving bachelor’s 

degrees in computer science are female; 4.5 percent are AfricanAmerican; and 6.3 percent are Hispanic. So computer science has 

one of the worst diversity records. 

It’s also important because computer science affects every possible part of our society. It affects health care. It affects education, 

entertainment, and every area of industry. And so if we don’t figure 

out how to get a larger part of our population to actually participate in this field, we will not be in great shape. But the other reason I want to talk about it is, this is actually not rocket science. 

It’s not even physics. The death of computer science majors is easy 

to fix. 

I’m going to use the rest of my time to tell you how Harvey Mudd 

College changed our percentage of students majoring in computer 

science from 10 percent female to 40 percent in 4 years, and how 

we’ve kept it there. We have between 35 and 45 percent any given 

year. And we also have great participation from our African-American and our Hispanic students as well. 

I will also talk about how NSF funding helped make that happen 

and not only helped make it happen at Mudd, but is helping us disseminate our approaches not only to other colleges and univerVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:57 May 14, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\94535.TXT JACKIE
52 

sities, which is happening, but also to high schools and middle 

schools. 

So why don’t women and African-Americans and Hispanic students want to major in computer science? Number one, they think 

it’s boring. Number two, they think that the kinds of people who 

do it aren’t cool. That computer scientists are guys with no social 

skills that they wouldn’t want to hang out with. And number three, 

they think they wouldn’t be good at computer science. 

Harvey Mudd College fixed the gender imbalance by fixing those 

three things. First of all, we changed our intro CS class to make 

it the most fun and least intimidating course ever while keeping 

the rigor. The class has been so successful that now more than half 

of the students in it are from the other Claremont colleges. And if 

you don’t know about the Claremont colleges I will tell you that 

Harvey Mudd College is known to have the toughest courses among 

all the colleges, so usually Pomona and Claremont McKenna and 

Scripps students and Pitzer students don’t take our courses. They 

love this intro course so much that they take it. 

We provided our female CS students with undergraduate research experiences, funded largely by NSF. We know that for both 

female students and underrepresented minority students, early access to research experiences helps keep students in the system. Finally, we took students to the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women 

in Computing. NSF funds a certain number of scholarships for undergraduates and graduate students to attend that conference 

every year. The conference is an amazing experience. Imagine 

4,800 participants, of which perhaps a hundred are male, celebrating computer science and careers in computing. It’s inspirational to young people. 

NSF is supporting our dissemination of these approaches to colleges, to middle school teachers, to high school teachers who are developing curriculum. We thank NSF and we thank you for the support of this committee in making this possible. We are changing 

the world. And with you, we can change it even faster. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Klawe follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. MARIA M. KLAWE, PRESIDENT, 

HARVEY MUDD COLLEGE

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune and members of the Committee, 

my name is Maria Klawe, and I am the President of Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, California. Harvey Mudd is a small, undergraduate-only college of 800 high 

achieving students. It is a premier science, engineering and mathematics college 

that prepares the Nation’s brightest students to become ethical problem solvers who 

develop a clear understanding of the impact their work has on society. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on the subject of Federal 

support of basic scientific research and the societal benefits of such research. I will 

describe some of the challenges in STEM education today and solutions currently 

underway to address these challenges. Additionally, I will address the role that government funding and private funding play in supporting these solutions. 

Challenges 

America’s first challenge is K–12 math and science education. We do not have the 

level of math and science teaching that we need in grades K–12 to ensure there are 

enough students who are interested in STEM and capable of doing well in these 

subjects once they get to college. We need more engaging and rigorous curricula, 

teachers who have a strong background in their respective subject areas and more 

resources for STEM teachers on effective practices. 

53 

The second challenge is that the few students who do go on to study STEM in 

college often choose to major in fields that are not well aligned with where job opportunities exist. Higher education in the U.S. produces more graduates in the life 

sciences (biology and chemistry) than the economy can employ. These two disciplines, and particularly biology—the most popular science major—tend to include 

limited study of mathematics, computer science and physics. 

So when we think about issues in STEM and where we need additional investment, we should focus on the disciplines where the number of graduates is much 

smaller than the job opportunities; where the economy needs more people—not just 

on which academic disciplines students today are interested in studying. 

The demand from industry today, in terms of the need for STEM graduates, is 

for software engineers. Even hardware companies like Intel, Broadcom and 

Qualcomm that have relied primarily on hardware engineers are shifting to hiring 

more software engineers. Until recently, they have hired one-third software engineers and two-thirds hardware engineers. They predict that these ratios will be reversed within five years. 

Here we have a clear disparity between the needs of industry and the number 

of computer science graduates we produce. We simply do not have enough students 

graduating high school with an interest in pursuing computer science. This is in 

large part due to the striking lack of women and students of color who choose to 

go into computer science. Nationwide, only 13 percent of computer science majors 

are female; 6.3 percent are Hispanic and 4.5 percent are black or African American 

(Computing Research Association, 2012 Taulbee Survey, www.cra.org/resources/ 

taulbee). We cannot meet the needs of industry if we are drawing from less than 

half the population. We also cannot develop the best, most creative solutions when 

teams are homogenous. Diverse teams with different perspectives create the best solutions. 

Research shows that young women especially are reluctant to study computer 

science for three reasons: (1) Young women think computer science is boring; (2) 

Young women think that computer scientists are nerdy people with poor social 

skills; and (3) Young women think they won’t be good at computer science. There 

are also a large number of white and Asian males who don’t pursue computer 

science because of our Nation’s negative stereotype of computer scientists. 

Solutions 

There are many bright, dedicated people working on STEM reform in both K–12 

and higher education, and I’d like to briefly describe some of the more successful 

efforts that are supported with both government and private funding and that deserve to be shared widely. 

Redesigned Introductory Computer Science Class Attracts Diverse Students 

Harvey Mudd College and other leading institutions have intentionally addressed 

the lack of interest in computer science by redesigning the introductory computer 

science course to make it much more compelling and enjoyable for a broad swath 

of people, including students of color and women, in particular. 

To spark interest, Harvey Mudd’s computer science faculty changed its CS 5 

course from a Java programming class into one that introduces students to a broader range of topics in computer science. We made the class all about finding creative 

solutions to fun problems in science and engineering using computational approaches. The course uses the Python language, which is easier to apply to Web development and problem solving. CS 5 is now our most popular first-semester course. 

To increase women’s confidence, we separated the course into two sections, Gold 

and Black (our school colors), where Gold is for students with no prior computer 

science experience. This grouping has resulted in a confidence-boosting atmosphere, 

especially for beginners, who are disproportionately women and students of color. 

Students who are experienced programmers don’t discourage less-experienced, but 

equally talented, classmates. 

This effort began in 2006, and within four years the percentage of female computer science majors at Harvey Mudd jumped from 10 percent to 40 percent, the 

highest of any co-ed college we know. We now average between 40 to 45 percent. 

A National Science Foundation grant (CPATH–2) for $800,000 allowed us to disseminate our highly successful CS 5 curriculum and share our approaches with 

other institutions, many of which are now teaching the course in its entirety or 

adapting it with great results. 

To increase our female students’ sense of belonging in the technology field, we 

also take a large cohort of first-year female students to the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing. Students are able to see the variety of jobs available 

within the discipline and meet successful role models at all career stages, as well 

54 

as experience an effervescent and welcoming culture. The conference has proved to 

be a powerful tool in encouraging young women to take more computer science 

classes and ultimately major in computer science. 

Undergraduate Research Opportunities 

Several studies have shown that early research experiences for undergraduate 

women and other underrepresented students increase retention in STEM fields and 

the likelihood they will attend graduate school. NSF funding has helped Harvey 

Mudd to increase the number of undergraduate research opportunities available to 

students, beginning in the summer after their first year. These research projects 

allow first-years to apply their knowledge, boost their confidence and deepen their 

interest in the discipline. Female students in particular embrace the opportunity to 

engage in 10 weeks of intensive, challenging summer research on projects such as 

artificial intelligence, robotics and educational video games. The experience has 

helped them discover they are not only able to do the work of a computer scientist 

but also enjoy it. 

Innovative Engineering Education 

In engineering education, NSF funding has supported the development of more 

experiential, project-based learning, proven to be effective in improving learning outcomes. At Harvey Mudd, we have found that project-based learning, especially early on, 

also supports retention and diversity in the engineering program. We incorporate 

design instruction and experiential learning into our students’ very first engineering 

courses. Our engineering design problems require students to work in small teams 

in order to apply techniques for solving design problems. The team setting builds 

confidence and allows for a diversity of talent to emerge. Once we get students into 

the upper courses—the traditional, theoretically based courses—they handle the 

theory better. We have found that the earlier we expose students to project-based 

learning, the clearer their learning experience is. Now they see complicated theoretical topics in a way our students, now alumni, couldn’t see them even 10 years 

ago. There is a real slingshot effect; students come out of their first three to four 

semesters quite advanced. They are not afraid of the technology. They are not afraid 

of building and testing—having it break and doing it again. 

This approach to engineering education has raised retention rates and increased 

the number of women in the major. In the past 10 years, we’ve gone from 30 percent 

female engineering majors in the Class of 2003 to 42 percent female majors in the 

Class of 2013. We are on track this year to have our first female majority of engineering majors in a graduating class; of engineering majors in the Class of 2014, 

56 percent are female. 

NSF funding has supported the sharing of our educational models through its 

support of the Mudd Design Workshops, a biennial program that brings together engineering educators, practitioners and researchers to discuss issues of innovation in 

design and engineering education. Engineering faculty share effective educational 

practices about the inclusion of design courses and elements into other institutions’ 

engineering curricula. 

NSF Grant for the Flipped Classroom Study 

Government funding supports research into STEM teaching and learning and the 

development of new, more effective learning technologies. For example, flipped classrooms are being implemented nationwide, much like the concept of massive open online courses (MOOCs). In a flipped or inverted classroom, lectures are delivered outside of class—via online videos or screencasts—and viewed by students during their 

free time. Classroom time is then used for instructor-mediated, hands-on learning. 

Many think that the flipped format has the potential to transform STEM education 

by increasing student time spent on what research has proven to be the most effective teaching techniques without sacrificing material coverage or educational scaffolding. 

Educators are beginning to invert their classrooms, but there is limited data on 

learning gains from controlled studies. Four Harvey Mudd College professors have 

been awarded a three-year, $199,544 NSF grant to rigorously examine the impact 

of inverting three STEM courses—in chemistry, engineering and mathematics—by 

measuring student learning gains. Several STEM fields were included in the study 

so that results could be applicable across fields and institutions. 

K–12 Outreach 

Our nation’s economic future depends upon improving the K–12 pipeline into the 

STEM fields. We must expand the talent pool of interested and qualified students 

capable of pursuing STEM careers, crucial for U.S. economic competitiveness and 

55 

growth, as well as for developing solutions to the pressing challenges–energy, climate, healthcare, security–facing our world. Yet many students never make it into 

the STEM pipeline, because of inadequate preparation in math and science in their 

K–12 systems. 

Federal research and development funding as well as private funding are playing 

a vital role in college outreach programs that seek to strengthen K–12 STEM education. NSF funding allows colleges and universities to share their expertise and develop new learning technologies to improve the quality of STEM teaching and learning in K–12 classrooms across the country. These programs depend on government 

funding to support their efforts to transform K–12 STEM instruction. 

MyCS—Bringing Computer Science to Middle Schools and High Schools 

The NSF funds an innovative computer science outreach program for middle 

schools and high schools that do not have the resources to offer such courses. Computer scientists at Harvey Mudd have developed a model program, funded by a 

$596,501 NSF grant, called ‘‘MyCS: Middle Years Computer Science.’’ The goal is 

to develop positive computational identities among middle-school students: encouraging their self-efficacy, enjoyment and future engagement in computer science. 

MyCS is designed to pique the interest of early adolescent students, especially from 

groups underrepresented in computer science, and build a foundation of computer 

science vocabulary, algorithmic thinking and skills. The MyCS program works with 

several schools with predominately Latino-Latina and Pacific Islander populations. 

The classes expose these students to computer science while they are in the pivotal 

years of identity formation and excite them about computational creativity before 

they have been convinced that CS is something ‘‘people like me’’ don’t do. 

The program includes professional development workshops for teachers—to provide the foundation for teaching MyCS—and academic-year support for MyCS students and teachers, provided by Harvey Mudd students and faculty. It also includes 

assessments to record changes in students’ and teachers’ computational self-efficacy 

and the influence of MyCS on their future computational choices. The benefits: these 

communities will continue to develop computationally confident students even after 

the project concludes. Second, assessments will cull less effective variations and facets of MyCS, providing a ready-to-go curriculum that will succeed in further regional deployment and will be prepared for larger-scale vetting, national trials and 

broader adaptations. 

What 10K Novice Teachers Can Learn from Teachers with 10K Hours of Experience 

High school computer science teachers, especially beginners, face significant challenges in making the subject comprehensible for their young audiences. A broad 

NSF-sponsored computer science initiative seeks to create 10,000 new, well-qualified 

computer science teachers in 10,000 high schools by 2017. As part of that initiative, 

Harvey Mudd CS professor Colleen Lewis recently received a three-year, $598,513 

NSF grant to develop a library of online resources that will help beginning and developing high school computer science instructors teach 90 basic computer science 

concepts. Lewis’ project will allow teachers to go online, find the concept they are 

struggling with and identify five to 10 effective strategies. Her project, ‘‘What 10K 

Novice Teachers Can Learn from Teachers with 10K Hours of Experience,’’ seeks 

to develop better and additional computer science teachers, improve the overall 

quality of computer science instruction and increase access to computer science for 

students of color and those who are economically disadvantaged. 

The Games Network: Games for Students, Games by Students 

An NSF grant has expanded a K–12 outreach program in which Harvey Mudd 

computer science students work with middle-school social studies teachers to develop educational video games. The program’s goal is to shatter stereotypes about 

the computer science field by introducing younger students to the fun, creative side 

of software development. Sixth- and seventh-grade students test the games and provide feedback to the college-level students, who gain the opportunity to create games 

for an audience other than themselves. The grant also funds the creation of a guidebook to help other schools start similar projects. 

Private Funding 

While federally-funded programs play a vital role in improving K–12 STEM education, it will take multiple efforts and partnerships to implement better STEM 

learning opportunities for all of the Nation’s K–12 students. Private funding, both 

in conjunction with Federal funding and on its own, plays an essential role in supporting flexible programs that strengthen K–12 STEM education and increase students’ ability to succeed in STEM careers. 

56 

Math for America 

Math for America, of which I am a board member, is a nonprofit organization that 

seeks to significantly improve math education in public schools by providing professional development and support for outstanding math and science teachers at the 

high school and middle school levels. For example, the Math for America Teaching 

Fellows Program recruits participants with a strong math background, who receive 

funding to complete a master’s degree in education. Fellows commit to teaching 

math in public schools for at least four years and to participating in professional 

development and coaching programs. In exchange they receive an annual stipend of 

up to $20,000. Math for America was founded in New York by mathematician and 

philanthropist James Simons. Its expansion to other cities including Los Angeles, 

Boston, Salt Lake City, San Diego and Washington, D.C. is supported by matching 

funding from the NSF, which has been critical in extending its reach across the Nation. 

Homework Hotline 

James Simons also supports Harvey Mudd College’s Homework Hotline, an overthe-phone, mathematics and science tutoring service for students in grades 4–12. 

Launched in February 2010, the hotline was modeled after the successful Homework 

Hotline created at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in 1991. Harvey Mudd 

partnered with RHIT to bring the program to the College’s local communities. RHIT 

and Harvey Mudd share a common mission to enhance academic performance, reinforce classroom concepts and promote interest in mathematics and science. RHIT 

shared its system with us, provided technical advice for its implementation and continues to be a valued collaborator. Harvey Mudd College Homework Hotline tutors 

helped 2,478 students last fall, a 21 percent increase from the previous year in the 

number of 4th- through 12th-graders successfully coached in STEM subjects through 

the free hotline. 

Physics and Computer Science MOOCs for High Schools 

Many high schools, especially those serving populations underrepresented in 

STEM, are not able to offer AP physics or computer science classes because they 

lack resources or teachers trained in these subjects. With the help of the Bill and 

Melinda Gates Foundation, Harvey Mudd is developing two MOOCs (Massive Open 

Online Courses) for high school teachers who would like to teach AP physics or computer science but who don’t have the expertise. These two MOOCs will provide 

teachers, who already have the pedagogy training, with lectures, hands-on activities, 

and problem sets in computer science or AP physics. The MOOCs will draw on the 

best educational practices and proven strategies for learning these two topics. A 

team of faculty, students and an alumna of Harvey Mudd is creating the MOOCs 

and is set to deploy them this fall, first in local high schools and then regionally 

and nationally. 

Community Outreach Programs: Science Bus, Pathways 

Harvey Mudd recently received a $150,000 grant from the Ralph M. Parsons 

Foundation to support community engagement, including outreach to K–12. The 

funding helps support programs such as Science Bus, a student-run outreach effort 

at Harvey Mudd based on a model developed at Stanford University. Science Bus 

coordinates student volunteers to visit local elementary schools and teach hands-on 

science lessons. Lessons include a science demonstration, an experiment and a discussion, with an overarching focus to build positive associations with science. The 

program’s goal is to inspire more young women and men, especially from groups 

that are currently underrepresented, to pursue higher education and careers in 

science. 

Another such effort is Pathways, a Los Angeles-area mathematics outreach program based in the Department of Mathematics at Harvey Mudd. Professional mathematicians eager to share their love of mathematics with elementary, junior high 

and high school students visit LA-area schools whose populations are often predominantly underrepresented in STEM. The volunteers give 40–50 minute presentations 

designed to expose students to parts of mathematics that are often unseen outside 

of college, but that are nonetheless accessible and often incredibly eye-opening. 

Similar outreach programs exist at many colleges and universities; they can play 

an important role in sparking interest in STEM and deserve greater support. 

Conclusion 

Our primary challenge in STEM education today is to make K–12 science, math 

and technology classes engaging and rigorous so that more students are both interested in and capable of pursuing degrees in STEM. We must also attract more undergraduate students—particularly women and students of color—to major in fields 

57 

that are in demand in industry; thus spurring the economic growth and technological innovation upon which our country’s economic success depends. Federal research and development funding, as well as private funding, are vital to our current 

and future efforts to strengthen the K–12 pipeline, increase the diversity of the 

STEM talent pool, and ultimately improve our Nation’s capacity to tackle the challenges of an increasingly technological world. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. 

I don’t understand why computer science is not cool. I disagree 

with the premise. 

Dr. KLAWE. No, no, no. It’s not that it’s not cool; it’s very cool. 

It’s the coolest field there is. The problem is that our young people, 

and young women in particular, don’t think it’s cool. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know, but I—why? 

Dr. KLAWE. Because of the image of the—— 

The CHAIRMAN. They think they can’t—— 

Dr. KLAWE.—people who do it. 

The CHAIRMAN.—do it. They think they can’t do it. 

Dr. KLAWE. They think they can’t do it, but they also think it’s 

for guys. They think it’s a boy thing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Wow. 

Dr. KLAWE. There is tons of research on it, including done by myself. 

The CHAIRMAN. Maria and Amy, will you—are you willing to 

change that? 

Senator CANTWELL. I’m well aware, and we’ll have questions 

when we get to that. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Being that we’re in computer states alike. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Well, that’s both inspiring and depressing. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. KLAWE. It’s not often that you get a twofer. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. No, but I mean generally speaking, in my office, 

I mean, I think that if women ran the world, we’d be a lot better 

world. 

Dr. KLAWE. Of course. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. So women should be able to understand that 

computer science is OK. 

Dr. KLAWE. And at Harvey Mudd they do. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. There we go. 

And finally, Dr. Stephen Tang, President and CEO of the University City Science Center in Philadelphia. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN S. TANG, PH.D., MBA, PRESIDENT 

AND CEO, UNIVERSITY CITY SCIENCE CENTER, 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Dr. TANG. Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Thune. 

And good afternoon, everyone. 

I am Steve Tang. I’m the President and CEO of the University 

City Science Center in Philadelphia. And I’m honored to join my 

distinguished colleagues on today’s panel. 

I’d like to start by confirming that the Science Center supports 

the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. Since 2007, 

58 

America COMPETES has provided critical investments in science, 

space, energy, STEM education, and innovation, all with the goal 

of increasing our Nation’s global competitiveness. The Science Center also supports the Act’s establishment of a regional innovation 

program to encourage regional innovation strategies for technology 

commercialization and tech-based economic development. 

And toward the end of my remarks, I’d like to share with you a 

few new ideas on how Congress can help encourage still more technology transfer that will ultimately lead to new companies, new 

jobs, and new economic growth. 

With a PhD in Chemical Engineering from Lehigh University, an 

MBA from the Wharton School, and a bachelor’s degree from the 

College of William and Mary, I admit to being one of those socially 

inept males—— 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. TANG. That Dr. Klawe was speaking about. But I also have 

an extensive background in science, business, and entrepreneurship. I have a firsthand understanding of the power and potential 

of technology commercialization, too. I also served as a member of 

the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Innovation Advisory Board, 

which guided the 2012 study of the Nation’s economic competitiveness in innovation capacity pursuant to the last reauthorization of 

America COMPETES. 

This report made several thoughtful recommendations, and the 

President has since issued a number of Executive Orders that have 

drawn attention to this subject; however, I believe that additional 

legislative action is needed to translate these ideas into concrete results. 

At the Science Center we cultivate and expand the possibilities 

that open up when research moves out of the lab and into the marketplace. We are the Nation’s oldest and largest urban research 

park. And I’m proud to report that we are celebrating our 50th anniversary. As an independent nonprofit organization, we are a dynamic hub for innovation and entrepreneurship in Pennsylvania, 

New Jersey, and Delaware. We provide space, services, and support 

to academics and entrepreneurs working in diverse emerging technologies such as materials, information technology, life sciences, 

and clean tech. 

Over the past 50 years graduates from our incubators have created more than 15,000 direct jobs that remain in Greater Philadelphia today and contribute more than $9 billion to the region’s economy annually. 

Our current startups are pursuing technological breakthroughs 

in fields such as food safety and cancer treatment. Many of these 

companies rely on targeted Federal funding from NSF and other 

agencies covered under America COMPETES. For example, one of 

our current residents, Graphene Frontiers, a spinout from the University of Pennsylvania, is developing a large-scale production process for graphene, a nano-material with an unbeatable combination 

of strength, flexibility, and conductivity that promises to revolutionize everything from scientific instruments to consumer electronics. 

Graphene Frontiers has received nearly a million dollars from 

NSF funds. We’re also collaborating with the Children’s Hospital of 

59 

Philadelphia on the commercialization of an online interactive 

health, wellness, and prevention system. This project is funded in 

part by a million dollar grant from NSF’s Accelerating Innovation 

Research program. 

At the Science Center we support technology commercialization 

in the broadest sense by acting as an innovation intermediary, or 

linchpin, if you will, that brings together academia, industry, and 

capital. Our QED Proof of Concept Program provides business support for academics working on life-science technologies with high 

commercial potential. The goal is to retire the business risk in 

these early stage projects so that they can attract follow-on investment. Twenty-two colleges, universities, hospitals, and research institutions throughout the Greater Philadelphia area participate in 

QED. 

Of the 12 research projects that have completed the program, 

five have resulted in new licenses or companies based on those 

technologies. And what’s more, these five projects have also attracted more than $9 billion in follow-on funding from the private 

sector. 

In our new Phase 1 Ventures Program, we’ll help early stage 

companies apply for and obtain SBIR and STTR grants and then 

provide the companies with management support and access to outside expertise, as well as connections to private sector funding in 

order to help them grow. 

The Science Center’s vast network of relationships and connections helps make us a leader in technology-based economic development, or TBED. Yet like other research parks and other nonprofit 

TBED organizations, we are unable to fulfill our potential as catalysts for tech transfer and commercialization simply because we’re 

not eligible to apply for most grants from NSF or other Federal 

agencies. This lack of eligibility is due to the fact that we’re not an 

academic institution. As a rule, access to most grant opportunities 

from NSF and other agencies are limited to degree-granting academic institutions. 

I certainly fully appreciate the current budget situation and understand that in many ways we’re playing a zero-sum game. However, I believe there are more effective ways we can allocate and 

deploy existing research dollars to maximize the Nation’s return on 

investment. 

So I appear before you today to advocate not only for the reauthorization of COMPETES, but for two other proposals. First, the 

Science Center supports an increase in allocation of existing Federal funding for translational research, commercialization, and tech 

transfer by universities and companies alike as a critical and logical compliment to the Nation’s historic emphasis on basic research. 

And second, we support an expansion of the ability of TBED organizations like the Science Center, which are not degree-granting 

academic institutions, to apply for and secure Federal grants from 

NSF and other agencies. 

These moves would enable organizations like ours to ultimately 

help speed the acceleration of cutting-edge technologies from lab to 

the market. In addition, the Science Center supports measures 

such as H.R. 2981, the TRANSFER Act of 2013, which would alloVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:57 May 14, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\94535.TXT JACKIE
60 

cate existing funds to proof-of-concept activities that validate the 

commercial potential of early stage research. 

This legislation would require that agencies such as NIH, NSF, 

DOD, and DOE devote a small portion of the already-scheduled increase in their STTR funding to earlier stage proof-of-concept and 

prototype development research. This reallocation of funding would 

further incentivize the commercialization of new technologies and 

the creation of small businesses. 

I thank you very much for your time, your attention, and your 

interest in this important topic. And I welcome your comments and 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Tang follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN S. TANG, PH.D., MBA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

UNIVERSITY CITY SCIENCE CENTER, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Thune. And good afternoon, everyone. 

I’m Steve Tang, President and CEO of the University City Science Center in 

Philadelphia. It’s an honor to join my distinguished colleagues on today’s panel. 

I’d like to start by confirming that the Science Center supports the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. Since 2007, America COMPETES has provided 

critical investments in science, space, energy, STEM education, and innovation, all 

with the goal of increasing our Nation’s global competitiveness. 

The Science Center also supports the Act’s establishment of a ‘‘Regional Innovation Program’’ to encourage regional innovation strategies for technology commercialization and tech-based economic development. 

And toward the end of my remarks, I’d like to share with you a few new ideas 

on how Congress can help encourage still more technology transfer that will ultimately lead to new companies, new jobs and new economic growth. 

With a PhD in chemical engineering from Lehigh and an MBA from Wharton, and 

with an extensive background in science, business and entrepreneurship, I have a 

first-hand understanding of the power and potential of technology commercialization. 

I also served as a member of the U.S. Commerce Department’s Innovation Advisory Board, which guided the 2012 study of the Nation’s economic competitiveness 

and innovation capacity, pursuant to the last reauthorization of America COMPETES. This report made several thoughtful recommendations, and the President 

has since issued a number of Executive Orders that have drawn attention to this 

subject. However, I believe that additional legislative action is needed to translate 

these ideas into concrete results. 

At the Science Center, we cultivate and expand the possibilities that open up 

when research moves out of the lab and into the marketplace. We are the Nation’s 

oldest and largest urban research park, and I am proud to report that we are celebrating our 50th anniversary. 

As an independent nonprofit organization, we are a dynamic hub for innovation 

and entrepreneurship in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. We provide 

space, services and support to academics and entrepreneurs working in diverse 

emerging technologies, such as materials, IT, life sciences and clean tech. 

Over the past 50 years, graduates of our incubators have created more than 

15,000 direct jobs that remain in Greater Philadelphia today and contribute more 

than $9 billion to the regional economy annually. 

Our current start-ups are pursuing technological breakthroughs in fields such as 

food safety and cancer treatment. Many of these companies rely on targeted Federal 

funding from NSF and other agencies covered under America COMPETES. 

For example, one of our current residents, Graphene Frontiers, a spinout from the 

University of Pennsylvania, is developing a large-scale production process for 

graphene, a nanomaterial with an unbeatable combination of strength, flexibility 

and conductivity that promises to revolutionize everything from scientific instruments to consumer electronics. Graphene Frontiers has received nearly $1 million 

in NSF grants. 

We’re also collaborating with the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia on the commercialization of an online interactive health, wellness and prevention system. This 

project is funded in part by a $1 million grant from NSF’s Accelerating Innovation 

Research program. 

61 

At the Science Center, we support technology commercialization in the broadest 

sense, by acting as an innovation intermediary—or linchpin—that brings together 

academia, industry and capital. 

Our QED Proof-of-Concept Program provides business support for academics 

working on life science technologies with high commercial potential. The goal is to 

retire the business risk in these early-stage projects, so that they can attract followon investment. 

Twenty two colleges, universities, hospitals and research institutions throughout 

Greater Philadelphia participate in QED. Of the 12 research projects that have completed the program, five have resulted in new licenses or new companies based on 

their technologies. What’s more, these five projects have so far attracted more than 

$9 million in follow-on funding from the private sector. 

And our new Phase 1 Ventures Program helps early-stage companies apply for 

and obtain SBIR and STTR grants, and then provides the companies with management support and access to outside expertise, as well as connections to private sector funding, in order to help them grow. 

The Science Center’s vast networks of relationships and connections help make 

us a leader in technology-based economic development, or TBED. 

Yet, like other research parks and other non-profit TBED organizations, we are 

unable to fulfill our potential as catalysts for tech transfer and commercialization, 

simply because we are not eligible to apply for most grants from NSF and other 

Federal agencies. This lack of eligibility is due to the fact that we are not an academic institution. As a rule, access to most grant opportunities at NSF and other 

agencies are limited to degree-granting academic institutions. 

I fully appreciate the current budget situation, and understand that we’re playing 

a zero-sum game. However, I believe there are more effective ways we can allocate 

and deploy existing research dollars, to maximize the Nation’s return on investment. 

So I appear before you today to advocate not only for the reauthorization of COMPETES, but also for two other proposals. First, the Science Center supports an increase in the allocation of existing Federal funding for translational research, commercialization, and tech transfer by universities and companies alike, as a critical, 

and logical, complement to the Nation’s historic emphasis on basic research. Second, 

we support an expansion of the ability of TBED organizations like the Science Center, which are not degree-granting academic institutions, to apply for and secure 

Federal grants from NSF and other agencies. 

These moves would enable organizations like ours to ultimately help speed the acceleration of cutting-edge technologies from lab to market. 

In addition, the Science Center supports measures such as HR 2981, the TRANSFER Act of 2013, which would allocate existing funding to proof-of-concept activities 

that validate the commercial potential of early-stage research. This legislation 

would require that agencies such as NIH, NSF, DOD, and DOE devote a small portion of the already scheduled increase in their STTR funding to earlier stage proofof-concept and prototype development research. This re-allocation of funding would 

further incentivize the commercialization of new technologies and creation of small 

businesses. 

Thank you for your time, your attention, and your interest in this important topic! 

I welcome your comments and questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir. 

I’m going to start out, maybe this is a little bit controversial, but 

it isn’t to me, I think we have to face up to it in the Congress and 

as a nation; and that is the whole question of sequestration. Well 

before sequestration, The Science Coalition published this: Sparking Economic Growth, and it highlights companies created from 

federally-funded university research fueling American innovation 

and economic growth. 

We have copies for anybody who wants to have that. It is sort 

of a follow-up to a previous report and includes this quote: ‘‘a 

daunting outlook for America if it were to continue on the perilous 

path it has been following in recent decades with regards to sustained competitiveness.’’ 

Sequestration has just made things worse. It sort of got in by accident. Yes, we voted it in, but it was not meant to stick around. 

I think on both sides of the aisle there’s quite a lot of frustration 

62 

with it particularly as it affects one’s own university research and 

other types of things and in general. I mean, you know, in West 

Virginia food stamps are important and a lot of people will be getting far fewer food stamps. There are so many dimensions to it. It 

affects all aspects of our life. 

The Vice Chancellor for research at the University of Kansas referred to sequestration as a slowly growing cancer that threatens 

young scientists’ careers. 

And I think, Dr. Klawe, that people dream and are inspired toward careers not always by literal things, but sort of by a sense 

of open space, open possibilities. Sequestration is something that 

closes that sense of open possibilities. 

The University of Maryland’s chief research officer said that he’s 

witnessing a brain-drain with top researchers looking to move 

abroad. And it used to be, I believe, that we welcomed budding scientists from overseas, from the Philippines, from Taiwan, from 

India, from various places, China, et cetera; and they would come 

and they would stay at our universities. They’d get their degrees, 

and they would stay. And what they do now is they get their degrees, and then they go home. 

I can’t criticize that. I can’t criticize that because they belong to 

nations that need them in other ways. On the other hand, I mourn 

it simply because of what we are losing, and it’s not incidental. I 

think it’s due to the lack of resources. They don’t see a resourcebased platform which gives them reason to hope. 

So question for all of you, each of you, do each of you agree with 

the concerns raised by these comments? That’s a little bit direct, 

but that’s the way I’m feeling. How would each of you describe the 

situation in this country in terms of our ability to train a scientific 

workforce to innovate and be competitive? 

Dr. Droegemeier, just—— 

Dr. DROEGEMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yes, indeed, I think you’ve hit the point very, very well. At NSF 

and in FY 2013 budget, NSF was able to mitigate some of the damage from sequestration, but that’s not going to be possible going 

forward. And there’s great deep concern about the impacts in terms 

of reducing numbers of grants which will fund our students to become next-generation scientists. It will have a huge impact on facilities, perhaps leading to the nonconstruction of facilities that are 

planned or maybe even in the shuttering of facilities that already 

exist. 

One thing I’m very concerned about is the participation broadening that is so important that we heard in terms of drawing 

women and underrepresented individuals in the workforce. Given 

what the demographics of our Nation will look like 20 or 30 years 

from now, we simply won’t have the people to do the innovation, 

to do the research to keep us competitive. 

And the other thing I think that’s quite concerning is the fact 

that sequestration, then with the government shutdown, as well, 

on top of already very problematic budgets and very, very tough 

success rates, low success rates in agencies, in Federal agencies; 

people are getting discouraged. We’re seeing students say, you 

know, I really don’t think I want science as a career. 

63 

I look at my faculty mentors. I hear what they’re saying. I watch 

their body language. So not only are we potentially losing the generation we already have, but the next generation coming in, they’re 

quite discouraged. 

And as you said earlier, we had a hurdle to overcome when ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm’’ was written. It’s not only gotten 

worse, it’s a problem that is not symmetric in its dimension. It— 

you can reduce the funding very quickly and we can go down the 

hill very quickly, but climbing back up takes a much, much longer 

period of time. So it’s not easily reversible. You can’t just turn it 

around and get back as quickly as you lost ground to begin with. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Perlmutter. 

Dr. PERLMUTTER. And I think I can echo that. And I would say 

that the cumulative effect of having not only sequestration but also 

a series of continuing resolutions and then of course recently the 

shutdown has created a rather extra problem for the sciences that 

you see in the very difficult time that any of the agencies have in 

making any new starts. So beginning any new programs becomes 

very, very difficult in an environment where they can’t predict 

where they’re going to be in an upcoming—you know, during the 

year, let alone over several years. 

And of course for the sciences, not doing new starts is particularly damaging. If you aren’t starting new things in the sciences, 

you really aren’t doing science. 

In the examples where I was describing today this work on dark 

energy, I can see it in both the big and in the small. In—there was 

a large, a very interesting satellite program that we’ve been working on, oh, since the year 2000, which had been approved and was, 

you know, would have gone ahead in any other environment; but 

it’s been kicked down the road over and over again to the point 

that now Europe is moving forward with their own version of a satellite telescope to explore dark energy. 

And in fact, the post doc that I just mentioned was planning to 

be in Europe, so they would get to do their dark energy work there. 

Even smaller projects, projects such as the Dark Energy Spectrographic Instrument (DESI) are being negatively affected. A space 

project is still something that is very, very viable. It’s called Wfirst. And it’s something that we obviously should definitely do before we are beaten at our own project by the Europeans. 

On the small-scale projects like the ground-based project called 

DESI, it’s a few tens of millions of dollars, and projects like that 

can’t get going even though they’re highly ranked, they’re approved, and yet the lack of certainty for the agencies means that 

they can’t actually commit to beginning anything new. And you 

know, these are just two examples—DESI and WFIRST—that I’m 

closely aware of because they’re in my own immediate field, but 

talking to the scientists around me, it’s the same problem everywhere. 

And of course, this just isn’t doing science at the level that the 

United States, you know, is known for. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. KLAWE. So—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor. 

64 

Dr. KLAWE.—one of the things I’m really excited about that the 

NSF has been pushing for several years now is broadening participation in computer science so that we do attract young women, African-Americans, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Hispanics 

and other underrepresented groups to computer science. 

As I watched what happened at NSF several months ago due to 

sequestration, I saw a two-week process unfold. Week one, the person who leads this particular program, in CS did a presentation at 

the White House and was told that wonderful results were coming 

out of the program and how exciting it was and so forth. Week two, 

her entire budget was cut—gone. 

They’ve done some juggling, and they’ve tried to put some of it 

back; but I mean, it’s just so frustrating because I—it’s just like 

doing big science projects, if you’re going to try and change the way 

that we teach computer science, the way that we attract young people to be interested in this field and then all of a sudden all of 

your, everything grinds to a halt, you just slide backward so quickly. 

So I agree with the comments that you read out. Sequestration 

is not just hurting our research, our basic research, it’s hurting innovation, and it’s also hurting our efforts to attract more young 

people into STEM disciplines where they are so deeply needed. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you. 

Dr. Tang. 

Dr. TANG. Mr. Chairman, there’s no question sequestration has 

hurt and will continue to hurt the business of science. And I use 

those words intentionally. All businesses and business decisions always require minimal uncertainty in either revenue or expenses. 

And sequestration has caused many universities to reconsider their 

overall commitment, particularly to younger faculty members. 

We see this through our 31 shareholders, which are all universities and research institutions in Greater Philadelphia. The economy in Greater Philadelphia is largely driven by higher education 

and the hundred institutes of higher education there. And it’s—so 

I would say it’s a very fragile situation. 

And I would refer to Senator Alexander’s opening comments 

about the commitment that as a nation China is making as a percentage of its GDP to the sciences and to innovation. 

We cannot afford fits and starts in the funding for research overall. And I think it ultimately disadvantages us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Thune. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, 

I want you to know that you are living proof that it’s possible to 

be both brainy and cool. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE. It can happen. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m his friend. 

Senator WARNER. Is that for the record? 

Senator THUNE. That’s for the record. 

Dr. Tang, could you elaborate on the potential for federally funded research to be conducted by consortia that consist of multiple research institutions, with or without industry participation, as opposed to single institutions that may compete with each other for 

65 

the same Federal funding? What are the potential benefits of a consortium approach, if you are willing? 

Dr. TANG. Well, the advantages are numerous, Senator. Thank 

you for the question. 

We see in Greater Philadelphia the ability to connect resources 

between universities as one of the differentiating factors that the 

Science Center brings together through its shareholders. 

You mentioned with or without industry. I would strongly submit 

that it has to be with industry. The great inventions that need to 

come into the marketplace need to be validated by industry. This 

is one distinct difference in the way we look at applied research 

and translational research in that it requires market validation, 

not peer review to elevate good ideas. So there’s always better 

strength when you connect the university resources to industry, 

and to each other. 

What we’ve found in our own experience is that often even within universities there’s not great communication or collaboration, 

and so we have to be the catalyst that creates that link between 

them. 

We also think that our role as a nonprofit serving the interest 

of academia in industry is vitally important, as well. So that intermediary role helps catalyze much more innovation than you would 

have in the absence. 

Senator THUNE. How can current research grant programs be 

structured to encourage and better leverage funding from multiple 

public and private sources, including state and local governments, 

corporations and foundations? You talked a little bit about the role 

that you play in that, but what are the current opportunities and 

roadblocks for those types of public-private partnerships? 

Dr. TANG. Well, the science—thank you. 

The Science Center is—was formed 50 years ago as a public-private partnership, and we continue as one today. And we’ve had 

great success in aligning the interests of the City, State, and Federal Government in funding our programs because we’ve been able 

to show the impact both at a local and a national level. So I think 

it’s a very powerful formula for sustainability of programs. And it 

perhaps is an alternative to looking at just line items in a budget 

for single institutions and single—with single causes. 

So we’re very much in favor of that by all—— 

Senator THUNE. And what roadblocks to that? I mean, what do 

you see? What are the things that stand in the way of that happening on a more regular basis? 

Dr. TANG. Well, there’s the normal, I think, red tape at the City 

and the State and the Federal level; but I also think that the cultures between academia and industry are quite different. And so 

you need an organization that can interpret those differences and 

align them. And that’s certainly one of our jobs. 

Senator THUNE. I want to direct this, if I might, to Dr. 

Perlmutter. In this committee we routinely discuss the need for a 

U.S. global competitiveness in leadership and science. With DOE’s 

Office of Science, with the National Science Foundation, and support from the State of South Dakota; the United States has established a world-leading underground research facility that I menVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:57 May 14, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\94535.TXT JACKIE
66 

tioned earlier, we referred to it as SURF in the former Homestake 

Gold Mine. 

And my question is, given the worldwide shortage of similar underground research space, can you describe what scientific frontiers 

could be explored by leveraging the unique opportunity to pull 

ahead of global competitors in the fields of high energy and nuclear 

physics? 

Dr. PERLMUTTER. It was very—actually, that—yes. It was quite 

exciting to see just even last week the announcement of the very 

first of these big steps forward in the SURF underground lab from 

the LUX experiment. This—for those who aren’t following closely, 

along with this mystery of, what is most of the universe made up 

of in its energy content, this dark energy; there’s also a longstanding mystery of what is most of the, you know, ordinary matter 

of the universe made of; and that’s this dark matter question. 

And so now in your state, an experiment at the Sanford Underground Research Facility has pulled ahead of other experiments as 

the leading technique for studying dark matter. The larger issue is 

that SURF is an excellent example of the sort of facility that national resources can build for fundamental research that can be 

used for many, many different experiments and different purposes. 

And it’s very difficult to do it in any other way than with national 

resources. 

Right now my understanding is that it’s near that awkward 

stage of trying to figure out what’s going to happen into the future 

because there isn’t this long-term perspective in the agencies and 

that—and they don’t know what their funding profiles are going to 

be that they can promise that they should be building up the capabilities of SURF. 

In principle you should be able to use it to be at the receiving 

end of the—of an accelerator experiment that starts over at 

Fermilab in Illinois, which would be a fascinating experiment to 

see run. It can also be a site to do other very fundamental physics 

experiments, as well, waiting to see, you know, if protons could 

decay. There’s a whole portfolio of questions that you would have 

assumed that by now we would already be up and running and 

building if we were able to move more, you know, aggressively into 

the future with, you know, with our funding and our understanding 

of what it was that we want to do for fundamental science. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you. And that’s some really cool stuff 

that’s going on out there. 

My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We’ve got a lot of cool stuff going on. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE. It’s very cool. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Thune and I both come from highly 

urban—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN.—states with multiple universities and subsistence, so we compete a little bit sometimes. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cantwell. 

67 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 

for this important hearing and to bringing up these points about 

sequestration, because as a state that heavily depends on research 

with the north, you know, the Pacific Northwest Lab in Richland, 

Washington, and the University of Washington getting so much 

funding from NIH; we are definitely impacted. And just NIH alone, 

those jobs of research are about 8,000 jobs in the Puget Sound 

area, to say nothing about the jobs at the labs. 

So I think a few years ago the Chairman of Microsoft, Bill Gates, 

and the Cummins CEO advocated for a very large increase in 

ARPA–E as a way to say this is what we were missing as far as 

the opportunity to continue research there. And I certainly appreciate everything that’s been said about STEM today. 

And so I guess I have a couple of questions for you, Dr. Klawe, 

about particularly—well, my understanding is that there’s something, and this was a few years ago, a need in the U.S. for something like 300,000 computer scientists, in which we graduate something like 70,000 a year. So we’re constantly falling behind, and 

thereby the immigration issue becomes an active debate. 

And so part of it is making up, as you are saying, with the female population. I once asked an Asian engineer why there were 

so many engineers, women engineers in China. And she said, well, 

because we have a national saying that women hold up half the 

sky. And she said, so we know that it’s part of our responsibility. 

Here I’m not sure we have the same incentives. And certainly now 

today money is part of the issue. 

And so I guess two questions I have for you. One, do you think 

taking some of these resources of America COMPETES and directly 

increasing the number of slots at our major engineering facilities 

as a way to catch up to that number that we need on annual basis 

is a good idea? And then the second idea is, I just keep, as I go 

through my State, and we’ve met many people, there’s a former 

NAACP Chairman, Carl Mack, who has an organization that is just 

SEEK, Summer Experience For Engineering For Kids, that’s focused, again, on minority kids. That they’re doing great things, getting younger kids more involved. 

When I went to high school, I ended up taking Latin and typing. 

Typing was the requirement. Latin was part of the language requirement. To me the most important language today is computer 

programming language. 

Should we look at incentives at the Federal level to encourage 

states to make something like C++ or Java as part of a 1-year curriculum requirement for high schools or incent high schools to do 

that so more and more people are exposed? Just as I was forced 

to take typing, get people exposed to what really is going to be the 

language of the 21st century. 

Dr. KLAWE. I had to take Home Ec—— 

Senator CANTWELL. OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. KLAWE.—which I was really bad at. Any time I get near a 

sewing machine, it breaks. 

68 

Computers on the other hand—so let me start by answering your 

first question, then I’ll get to your second question. The answer is 

yes in both cases, but let me explain why. 

Every institution that I know of is overloaded by the number of 

students who want to study computer science right now. I’ll give 

you an example at Harvey Mudd. We’re a tiny place. We have 800 

students in total. We used to graduate roughly 25 to 30 of our 

roughly 200 majors a year in computer science; now we have 80 of 

the 200 majors. And we also have a huge overload from the other 

colleges who all want to take our CS courses. 

So just to give you a sense, the number of faculty in our computer science department is ten. The number of faculty in our engineering department, which used to graduate 80 or 90 majors, is 19. 

I cannot, as President, take an engineer over here and say, hi, 

wouldn’t you like to be a computer science faculty now? 

There’s just no way, other than increasing the size of the college, 

which is politically the most difficult thing—it’s worse than sequestration, it’s worse than anything that you can imagine. Well, we 

have just decided to do that because I’ve got no way to deal with 

it. There is just no way to deal with it at all. 

So could we use help from Federal and State levels to be able to 

fund additional positions? Absolutely. That would be huge. And you 

know, we’re a tiny place, but the issue is the same at UCSD, the 

whole UC system. It’s the same. 

Senator CANTWELL. University of Washington. So—— 

Dr. KLAWE. University of Washington. 

I mean, we’re all seeing it. And we basically can do one of two 

things. We can cut the number of slots so that we don’t kill our faculty, and that’s not meeting the needs of the nation; or we can let 

our course sizes grow to a thousand people in a classroom, which 

is not good either. So I think help from the Federal Government 

would be enormously appreciated. 

Now let me talk about efforts to provide more exposure to young 

people about how cool and, yes, Chairman Rockefeller, you’re absolutely right, computer science is incredibly fun and cool and creative and anyone can do it. 

Right now there’s an organization called Code.org that is working 

really hard to provide opportunities at both elementary school, middle school, and high school for students to learn how to code. And 

I’ll also tell you that my favorite programming language is not C++ 

or Java, it’s Python. Now it’s not because my son met his girlfriend 

at a Python meet-up. It’s because Python brings many things to the 

table that Java and C++ and other programming languages don’t. 

One is, it’s much more forgiving. It’s much easier to learn. It’s 

something that certainly a fifth grader can learn, whereas C++ and 

Java, as you know, are not. 

Senator CANTWELL. Yes. 

Dr. KLAWE. But two, it’s actually used in industry. It’s the favorite prototyping language of most software developers. They’ll develop it first in Python and then they’ll take the parts that need 

to run fast and they’ll recode it in C++ or Java. Once you’ve 

learned Python, you can get a summer job, which is really important to many of our young people, particularly people from low-income backgrounds. 

69 

So there are efforts out there. There are many initiatives. But 

the one thing that’s not there in most places is a requirement to 

take some computer science either in middle school or in high 

school. And we need it. So yes, that would be a wonderful thing to 

have happen at the State level and any help from the Federal Government would be very, very welcome. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s it. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Klobuchar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, I’ll start again here with Dr. Klawe. And I was, when Senator Cantwell and I were talking while you were talking about the 

lack of women in computer science, I was remembering back to my 

days in college in 1982 when I learned a very hard computer program. Because back then it wasn’t easy, and you had to learn all 

the function keys so that I could type my senior essay. And I would 

walk a mile to the computer lab at Yale and type in this senior 

essay. 

And there was a group of guys that ran the computer lab, it was 

the only lab I could use, that ran it; and they would control it centrally, and they would play jokes with me and turn things upside 

down on my screen. So maybe it wasn’t as welcoming for women 

back then in the area. But the best part of the story is I was one 

of the few students who learned it that wasn’t in science, and so 

I typed umpteen senior essays for a dollar a page at the computer 

lab when I got mine done. So it was a marketable skill. 

But just on that topic of women, I know you were recently in 

Minneapolis for a conference on the topic, and I think our state is 

ahead of the curve, as you know we are the home of many major 

Fortune 500 companies including innovative companies like 3M 

and Medtronic and we have a very high number of women in the 

workplace. 

But what more can we do when we see in the American Association of University of Women, between 2000 and 2008 reported 

there was a 79 percent decline in the number of incoming undergraduate women interested in majoring in computer science? 

Dr. KLAWE. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I know you haven’t seen that. And I’m 

comparing this. I’m looking at this not just from some feminist 

standpoint, because I think this is where a lot of the high-paying 

jobs or the future of these skills are going to be necessary for 

women to do well, but I’m also looking at it as job needs. Because 

my state is down to 5.1 percent unemployment. We have job openings. And I have many managers tell me, how do we get more 

women into either manufacturing, science, or into computer 

science? 

So if you could address that. 

Dr. KLAWE. Thank you. 

And yes, the conference was not the only time I’ve been to Minneapolis. I’ve been there many times. I was on the Geometry CenVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:57 May 14, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\94535.TXT JACKIE
70 

ter Advisory Board for 5 years back in the 1980s. So let me talk 

about what it takes to get women into computer science. It’s really 

not particularly difficult, but it does require consistent, coherent, 

persistent work on the part of both the people teaching and the 

people in the workplace who hire women. 

For whatever reason, and I have no idea of whether this is something that’s biological or something that’s just part of the culture 

of our society—I suspect it’s the second though I really don’t 

know—most women who are working in areas where women are 

underrepresented, so that means essentially all technology careers, 

suffer from something called—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And in Congress. 

Dr. KLAWE. And in Congress, yes. 

Suffer from something called the imposter syndrome. You don’t, 

Senator, I’m sure, I hope, but I do. And it means that no matter 

how successful you are, you constantly feel like you’re a failure. 

And one of the problems with this is it means that women—both 

as students majoring in an area like computer science or engineering or as young people or senior women in a tech career—are more 

likely to leave when something goes wrong. 

So we have a retention problem. And one of the things we do at 

Harvey Mudd College, and I do it every single year to the incoming 

classes, is I talk about the imposter syndrome. And I talk about the 

fact that, yes, we have a very rigorous curriculum and well, almost 

every kid who attends the college was the smartest kid in their 

school. But you’re going to feel pretty much within the first week, 

many of you, that you don’t belong here. So we talk about that, and 

we talk about providing support. 

We make sure that in our classrooms we don’t have a couple of 

guys in our intro classes acting like they have been programming 

since they were three. And maybe they were programming since 

they were three. We handle that by having our instructors talk to 

these young men. They say, ‘‘Joe, I love having you in my course, 

you’re one of the best prepared students I’ve ever had, I love talking to you about everything you know; but if we could just do it 

in private because when we do it in public, it intimidates a lot of 

the other students. And we know that you don’t mean to do that, 

all right?’’ The problem goes away. It just goes away. 

We stream our classes. Our school colors are black and gold. We 

have CS5 Gold, which is for the students who have no prior computer science experience—that’s the vast majority of our young 

women, but it’s many of our young men, particularly our young 

men of color in that class as well. Then we have CS5 Black, which 

is for the students who have a lot of prior experience. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. I just have one quick other question—— 

Dr. KLAWE. Yep. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—because I’m running out of time. I’ll ask 

you, Mr. Droegemeier, if you could, Doctor, if you could tell me, 

given that our Federal Government’s spending is a percentage of 

GDP and a percentage of the Federal Government has declined 

over the last few decades and other nations are surpassing us for 

R&D and science; is there some ideal target that you would like to 

see for Federal support of R&D as a percentage of GDP? 

71 

Dr. DROEGEMEIER. That’s a great question, Senator. 

I think overall R&D is about 0.8 percent, 0.8 of 1 percent of GDP, 

and about, if you look at research, it’s about 0.4 percent. I think 

we would like to see that comfort level to be around 1.5 percent to 

2 percent of GDP. I think historically it was, you know way back 

when, it was up around that level. And to get back there would be 

incredibly helpful. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Well, that was specific and 

quick. 

And Senator Pryor and I are interested in the Python meet-up, 

Dr. Klawe, so we will ask you that in some questions that will be 

submitted later about what that is. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

And now Senator Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a pretty interesting discussion. As long as we’re kind of 

going back in history in terms of our experience, I know when I 

chose my career, I chose it based on whether I could get a job and 

what that job would pay. Now I ended up going through accounting, business school, and then—but I fully understood that people 

that did the harder work, but not necessarily the coolest classes or 

the easiest classes, but, you know, went into physics and the 

sciences, were going to make more money. 

So I guess from my standpoint with what should be incentivizing 

our kids to get into college would be to actually be able to have a 

career, make a good living, have a successful life. Somehow we 

have a disconnect on that now. What—why? What’s happened? 

Dr. Perlmutter. 

Dr. PERLMUTTER. Well, I think it’s actually, you know, it’s a combination of effects that we’re—that we have just been talking 

about. You know, the fact that right now it’s much less clear what 

kind of career you would be lucky to have in, for example, in the 

basic sciences than it was when I was starting out. And in fact, 

even worse than it was, you know, 10 years before me. So I think 

we see that that’s going on. 

But what’s interesting is that I think what’s motivating the people who were going through the very basic sciences is also just a 

possibility of a, the fun of exploration, the fact that they’ll be able 

to try to, you know, invent the new things and create the new 

things and discover the new things. And that is also becoming a 

much more discouraging scene as we’ve been all discussing. It’s—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Do we have any problem filling our college of 

engineering with foreign students? 

Dr. PERLMUTTER. You can always find people from abroad today 

for—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, what attracts them? What incentivizes 

them to come over here and fill up our engineering—colleges of engineering? 

Dr. PERLMUTTER. I think we still have the reputation of a very 

strong educational—— 

72 

Senator JOHNSON. Sure, I understand, but—why they want to 

come here, but why do they want to take engineering courses—— 

Dr. PERLMUTTER. Oh. 

Senator JOHNSON.—as opposed to—— 

Dr. PERLMUTTER. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON.—fill-in-the-blank studies courses which so 

many of our students are doing? That, you know—— 

Dr. PERLMUTTER. No, and I think in most of the world I think 

the way to, you know, a great career is still to become technologically capable. And then you could, you know, if you have that 

computer science degree, if you have an engineering degree, and, 

in fact, if you have a physics degree you can find top jobs back 

home if you have your American credential. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

Dr. PERLMUTTER. It’s—now it’s just become much, much harder 

to do that if you stay in America. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. I think the point I’m trying to make, as 

a fiscal conservative, I really believe the Federal Government has 

a role in basic research because there’s no profit motive and we certainly have a history of that really benefiting our economy and 

really benefiting the world. 

But, you know, the Chairman brought up sequestration, he 

called it a slowly growing cancer. Now I would argue the slowly 

growing cancer in America is a growing culture of entitlement and 

dependency that is then resulted in a $17 trillion level of debt. And 

you know, you guys can do math, but let me tell you the ugly math 

that those of us that are highly concerned about this are dealing 

with. 

From 1970 to 1999, the average interest rate the Federal Government paid on its debt was 5.3 percent. A pretty reasonable interest 

rate, right, about what we’d pay for mortgages. The last 4 years because we’ve been printing money, the average interest rate has 

been 1.5 percent. 

Dr. PERLMUTTER. Right. 

Senator JOHNSON. Now let’s do some math. If we revert to that 

5.3 percent interest rate, which the CBO says we’ll do in 10 years, 

but it could spike if we’re no longer the world’s reserve currency, 

if we can no longer print money. You take 3.8 percent differential 

times 17 trillion dollars worth of debt, that equals 650 billion dollars. 

So to a certain extent we are whistling by the graveyard here 

asking for additional funding paid for by what? Additional debt on 

the backs of our kids and grandkids? 

I mean, I’d love to be talking about spending money on basic research and this, that, and the other thing. Until we face that very 

hard truth about what we are really doing to our country, what we 

are really doing to our children’s future when we’re talking about 

educating our kids and giving them an opportunity. We are stealing the opportunity and future prosperity for our kids. 

So listen, I don’t like sequestration. I did not vote for that bill. 

I thought it was a pretty mindless approach. But until we also 

start wrestling with the fact that two-thirds of our budget is off 

budget, is on an automatic pilot, is out of control; until we bring 

that under control, until we actually admit we have a problem and 

73 

start properly defining it; these discussions, pretty interesting academic discussions, but, again, we are truly doing a service to our— 

disservice to our kids. 

And just, oh, by the way, as we entice them into taking on collectively a trillion dollars of student loan debt and offering degrees in 

fill-in-the-blank studies program, that I am sorry, employers are 

not valuing; we’re making it easy for them to not take the hard 

choice and understand the fact that, you know, you are going to 

have to get a job. And you would be better off getting a job in an 

area that actually will reward you properly. 

So those are the incentives that I think we ought to be talking 

about. And I’m all for designing classes so they’re fun and cool, but 

achievement really requires rigor and hard work, and that’s the 

message we need to start really conveying to our young people. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

Senator Scott. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM SCOTT, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator SCOTT. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you to the panelists for being here today and providing us 

with a lot of thoughts to think about. One of the things I’m thinking about immediately is how to pronounce your last names. 

Dr. KLAWE. Klawe. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SCOTT. Because there’s not a single one of them I can 

pronounce without asking that question. I’ve heard 15 different 

ways of pronouncing it and only 14 people have spoken. So that’s 

part of my challenge. 

I will tell you that what Senator Johnson just talked about, I 

find quite relevant, which is the number of applicants that are applying to our universities from outside of the country and inside 

the country. 

And I’ll tell you my nephew just graduated from Georgia Tech 

last year. And I believe the number was 70 percent of the applicants for their, I think it’s their masters degree level courses come 

from outside of the United States; but their new online masters 

program, 78 percent of the applicants come from within the United 

States. 

So Dr. Klawe? Dr. Klawe? 

Dr. KLAWE. Klawe. 

Senator SCOTT. Klawe, yes. So Senator Rockefeller was right indeed then, Dr. Klawe. Can you talk to me about some of the successes that would be necessary to create an online environment 

that would be conducive to seeing our colleges populated with students that come from America if we had more access to it? 

My nephew went to a math and science high school. And so his 

natural inclination led him to look at Georgia Tech as one of the 

destinations he wanted in—for college. 

I would love to hear, I know that Khan Academy seems to be a 

success story. I wonder how do we create that type of accessibility 

through online education. If you’d talk to that a little bit, I’d appreciate it. 

74 

Dr. KLAWE. Thank you. 

The first thing I want to say is that making something cool and 

fun doesn’t mean that you’re taking away the rigor, all right? 

They’re not in opposition. So let me talk a little—— 

Senator SCOTT. Well, my nephew finds it cool and fun to be up 

at 3 a.m. studying for the next day’s exam. So—— 

Dr. KLAWE. I like it. That’s what our students—— 

Senator SCOTT.—I’m going to poke fun at him. 

Dr. KLAWE.—do all the time. 

Senator SCOTT. Thank God he did it. 

Dr. KLAWE. And I also just want to say that we’re number one 

for return on investment according to pay scale, which compares 

lifetime earnings against the debt that you graduate with. 

So let me talk about online learning. Yes, Khan Academy has 

gotten a lot of press and yes, a lot of people use their website; but 

if you actually look at the result of what people are doing, it’s not 

so much of watching the videos, they’re actually doing the online 

exercises and taking the tests. 

And I think that the future that we will see in terms of online 

education is providing activities that combine personalized learning, a lot of interaction, communication amongst small groups, as 

well as watching lectures taught by some of the most inspirational, 

not just Nobel Laureates like this guy, but also some of the most 

inspirational students. 

So one of the things we are doing right now with funding from 

the Gates Foundation is to do a massive open online course, a 

MOOC, for AP Physics C and also for exploring computer science. 

Not so much so that we’ll have gazillions of students taking them 

from high schools, but so that teachers who would like to be able 

to teach that course could use our materials. 

And we’re going make sure that we have African-Americans and 

Hispanic students and females and males and Caucasians and 

Asians actually doing the demos in this course. So that we’re also 

going to be showing off students from Pomona, which is just next 

door to Claremont, who are basically 50 percent African-American, 

50 percent Hispanic, taking these materials and using them. So 

that we can show that yes, it’s fun, but yes, you don’t have to be 

white or Asian to be really doing well at this kind of stuff. 

So it’s the combination of inspiration, interactive activities, and 

getting rapid feedback on what you’re doing that will make these 

kinds of courses attractive to students all over the country. 

Senator SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Tang. 

Dr. TANG. Tang. 

Senator SCOTT. Tang. Hot diggety dog. There seems to be a lot 

of discussion and efforts in the past and present to help bridge the 

gap between scientific research and product development. To make 

a real impact on our economy, I’d love to hear your thoughts on 

perhaps the weakest links in the process of technology transfer and 

economic development. Perhaps talk for a second or two or 26 seconds actually on the impediments perhaps. 

Dr. TANG. Certainly, Senator. 

Well, the pathway between basic research and commercialization 

is not a linear pathway by any means. 

75 

Senator SCOTT. No doubt. 

Dr. TANG. It’s a very tortuous pathway. Today I think the biggest 

gap is in the area referred to as proof-of-concept funding, which is 

to do enough validation that the concept in the laboratory can be 

successful in the marketplace. That’s an area that’s not getting 

enough investment from the venture capital world. 

As the Nation and the world have become more risk averse, they 

view that area as not investable because the returns are too speculative and the horizons for payback are too long and the exits are 

nonexistent. 

So we can’t afford to have a pipeline of innovation that stalls because there’s no proof-of-concept funding. And so therefore, that’s 

become a domain of technology-based economic-development organizations like the Science Center to jump into the breach, because 

we don’t require those return on investments and we can look at 

the developments as a pipeline, if you will, for new jobs. 

So that to me is the biggest missing link today. We need more 

risk capital in the marketplace to be able to fund these ideas. And 

as a result, you know, we have to be very creative. 

Senator SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you sure that’s all? 

Senator SCOTT. I’m sure, that’s all. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Blumenthal. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much for being here and 

welcome to Washington. 

I see by the smiles on your faces—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, what a nasty thing to say. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I say that, I’m new here, too. And 

you know, a lot of the debate on this issue depends on how the 

question is phrased. If we regard the spending that’s been described earlier and the deficits and the financial challenges that 

our Nation faces and we have to face them as being out-of-control 

spending, that’s one way of looking at the picture. 

What we’re talking about here, I think, is an investment. An investment in research, in the skills that produce better research, the 

skills of young people. Rather than stealing from their futures, in 

fact, enhancing and enriching their futures. 

And so this Act, the America COMPETES Act of 2007, I think, 

is an enormous step forward. I can take no credit whatsoever for 

it. I give full credit to our chairman and other leaders who have 

really broadened our vision and had the courage to really stand up 

and speak out, as you do in your communities, meaning your intellectual communities, your university communities, and your professional communities. And I want to salute and thank you for doing 

so. 

I don’t know whether Ronald Reagan has been quoted yet today, 

but he said, and I’m quoting, ‘‘although basic research does not 

begin with a particular practical goal; when you look at the results 

76 

over the years, it ends up being one of the most practical things 

government does.’’ 

And at an age where the capacity of government to get things 

done is in question and widely doubted, I think that is a truth that 

is undeniable about what government can and should do. Investing 

in basic research is one of those things. And yet my understanding 

is that the United States global advantage in research development 

is, in fact, receding in terms of our economic competition. 

The Federal Government funds 31 percent of all R&D in the 

United States, and we are behind other nations in terms of what 

we invest in R&D as a percentage of our gross domestic product. 

So focusing on one of the areas that concerns me greatly as a member of the Armed Services Committee, as well, as this committee, 

national security, particularly cyber. 

There is an area where the Federal Government has a distinct 

and undeniable responsibility, and I wonder if you could give us, 

I’m not going to ask any particular witness, but maybe if you could 

give us your assessments of where we are on basic research for our 

national security, in particular cyber. 

Dr. KLAWE. Maybe I’ll take that one. I would say that this is a 

critically important area. I think virtually every high-tech company 

has been hacked into by the Chinese. And in many cases it was 

only with the help of Federal cybersecurity teams that companies 

actually found out that they’d been hacked into. 

My sense is that we currently still lead the world in terms of the 

kinds of areas of computer science that you need to do this, but 

that a lot more funding is needed and that China is investing huge 

sums in this area. And, you know, I think it’s really important that 

it’s funded both through NSF and through DARPA. I think it’s of 

critical importance to the Nation. And it gets more important every 

day. 

Dr. DROEGEMEIER. Yes, if I could respond just briefly. NSF is the 

primary funder of all computer science research in this country, I 

think about 80, 75, 80 percent; and it has a major initiative that 

is in line with the Federal initiative in cybersecurity; but also the 

networking information technology R&D program, which has been 

around for quite some time is a major flagship program, as well. 

So although NSF doesn’t do classified research, fund classified 

research like places like DARPA, a lot of the very fundamental research in cryptography and the things that really lead to the systems that we depend on for our security today are really funded by 

NSF. 

And finally, NSF has a new cyber infrastructure framework for 

the 21st century. Infrastructure being very broadly defined; people, 

physical systems, technologies, and so on. And that is a big part 

of the CIF–21 framework, as well. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. My time has expired, but I, 

again, I really want to thank you, each of you for your great work. 

And thank you for being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator Schatz. 

77 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you very much to the panelists for offering your views. 

America COMPETES provided bold direction when it was first 

passed in 2007 and reauthorized in 2010 by addressing innovation, 

coordination, and STEM funding for research. The COMPETES report provides an assessment of where we stand. 

I want to first talk about some of the findings of the report, in 

particular STEM education. As you know the administration recently proposed a consolidation of STEM programs. And many Senators were concerned about the effect of consolidation on the blossoming programs in various communities. For example, in Hawaii, 

people are really learning science through culture and culture 

through science. And I’ve seen it with my own eyes with my own 

children and across the Department of Education in the State of 

Hawaii. 

And I and many other Senators objected to the administration’s 

proposal because we were fearful that it would extinguish the great 

momentum that is occurring in lots of communities across the Nation. As a result as you know, no action was taken to implement 

the consolidation proposal in the Senate version of the bill. But this 

proposal from the administration is not without merit. 

The idea behind it was essentially efficiency, allowing all communities to compete for these funding resources where they’re not necessarily available to every community, to every nonprofit, to every 

agency. And finally, sort of a QA piece, standards and an assurance 

that these STEM programs are meeting minimum standards. Many 

of them are excellent. But the consolidation piece would have actually helped us to make sure that all of them were meeting minimum standards. 

So this is a question for all of the panelists. Can you talk about 

the balance that needs to be struck between the administration’s 

very reasonable goals of trying to get efficiency, accountability, and 

fairness, but also, you know, not stifling the innovation and the exciting thing that is happening? 

And one other aspect of STEM education that I think is so important from the standpoint of Hawaii, but really from all of our 

communities is that a lot of it is place based. A lot of it is grounded 

in the culture and the community in which it occurs. And that’s a 

way to plug kids into science who might not otherwise be interested. But there’s a tension there, and I’d like you to talk about it, 

maybe starting with Dr. Tang. 

Dr. TANG. Thank you, Senator. 

So I’ll refer to your comments on learning through culture. At the 

Science Center, we are advocates of STEM education; science, technology, engineering, and math. But we are also advocates of 

STEAM education; that’s science, technology, engineering, art, and 

math. What we found, the cliff that I think Dr. Klawe spoke about, 

girls studying science subjects, typically if they’re not interested in 

the sciences as traditionally taught by the 8th grade, you lose them 

for the rest of their lives. 

So by introducing the arts into STEM education, it allows for 

right-brain/left-brain thinking in meeting their interests where 

78 

they are. And so I think that’s very important. The construct we 

have for science, technology, engineering, and math education 

today has sustained us very well to date, but I think we all are 

aware that other nations are overtaking us in those areas. And so 

we have to find a way of being appealing and accountable to the 

interests of our children to get them interested in these areas. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

Dr. Klawe. 

Dr. KLAWE. It turns out that one of our explore computer science 

projects for middle school students are going on in Hawaii. And we 

had something like 20 middle school teachers working with us this 

last summer. I’m a very big believer in allowing teachers to personalize what they’re doing for their students. On the other hand, I’m 

a very strong supporter of the common-core standards because 

they’re not in conflict with each other. 

If you set a set of objectives for what our students should learn, 

but then give the teachers the professional development and the 

freedom—and I have to tell you I think No Child Left Behind is 

awful legislation because it has resulted in so many of our teachers 

teaching to the test. You really want teachers teaching to the students, not to the test. 

So I support a blend of setting high rigorous standards and empowering teachers to really teach to the students they have to 

achieve those. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

Dr. PERLMUTTER. I should preface some comments by just saying 

that this is not an area that I’ve looked at very closely myself, but 

I have been hearing the concerns from the science community that 

if you consolidate all of the science education in a place where the 

scientists don’t live, then you’ll, it’s very easy to lose touch with the 

cutting-edge science world. And so the concern has been that, you 

know, the NIH scientists were actually getting quite involved in 

teaching, you know, their areas. And the NASA scientists were getting involved in teaching things that had to do with their areas. 

And that if this is all moved out of their orbit, you know, to some 

professional, you know, group that is not necessarily from the 

science side, that you can lose some of the whole point of science 

education. 

So this was just one extra concern that had a very similar flavor 

to the one you’re describing in terms of the cultural, you know, engagement that you’re describing. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

Dr. DROEGEMEIER. As you can imagine, Senator, NSF watched 

with great interest the consolidation of the programs where NSF 

was provided the undergraduate and the graduate programs. I can 

tell you right now the National Science Board is working with NSF 

leadership on a really kind of a deep dive into the education-research portfolio at NSF, which is about $830 million, so it’s one of 

the bigger directorates. 

And so it’s something that’s getting our attention right now. And 

in fact, we’ll be meeting here in a couple of weeks to really do the 

next big dive to see really where that program can go. And so we’re 

looking quite intensely at that very important problem. 

Senator SCHATZ. Great. 

79 

Thank you, all. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Markey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Massachusetts, we are number one in math, verbal, and science 

at the—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, what a way to show off. 

Senator MARKEY.—4th, 8th, and 10th grades. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. And we have a high percentage of minorities. 

We’re number one at 4th, 8th, and 10th; math, verbal, and science. 

If we were a country, we would be 6th in the world behind Finland, 

Singapore, but we’d be number 6. Our little 6.5 million people up 

there. 

We see it as part of a plan, a business plan actually. The higher 

the education level of these kids, the more likely they’re going to 

get hired by the companies that have been looking for a workforce, 

that they are then going to be able to place their company where 

it is, that the kids who have the highest scores on math, verbal, 

and science at the 4th, 8th, and 10th grades are going to get hired. 

So we see that as a little business plan. 

And when it comes to research and building a strong base for 

America’s high-tech economy, I am concerned about three things. 

Number one, is that we’re starving America’s innovation engine of 

funding through sequestration and mindless budgets cuts. We can’t 

have an honest conversation about research without acknowledging 

that elephant in the room, sequestration. 

A high-tech economy like ours needs research investments to 

keep the innovation pipeline stocked, period. We need to stop playing budget games which undermine our Nation’s long-term economic competitiveness. And that is the subject of our hearing 

today. 

Massachusetts is 2 percent of America’s population. We have a 

business plan. You are the business plan. America is 4 percent of 

the world’s population. That has to be our business plan. We can’t 

compete with these other countries in these other areas. If we don’t 

have a business plan that involves what you all are talking about 

here today, then we’re going to lose because the other countries are 

coming. 

You don’t have to fear China, but you should respect them. They 

have a plan. The others have plans. We need a plan. And you have 

to understand the plan. 

Second, we must continue to support high-risk high-reward discovery. We must support science for the sake of science even if 

there is not necessarily a specific commercial application in sight. 

Doppa.net was not intended to create Google, eBay, Amazon, Hulu, 

and YouTube, but it did. Well, cracking the human genome was not 

intended to create companies all over America, but it did. There 

were other purposes that originally were just rooted in basic 

science and technology, but you get the payoff if your country is the 

one that is making the investment. 

80 

And third, we need to look at public-private partnership models 

and help get innovation out of the lab and into the factory. We 

have some deeply entrenched industries that do not invest in innovation. That’s the paradox of them. OK. They might be the world’s 

leaders, but then they don’t even invest in innovation of the future 

because they’re happy with their monopoly or what they think is 

their monopoly until some young kid, you know, comes up with the 

idea; but we have to create the conditions whereby that kid is getting the education they need and access to the technologies they 

need to crack the monopoly, because we have to keep our lead competitively over the rest of the world, over their kids who are going 

to be thirsting to make these changes that are going to be made. 

You just can’t hold on to a technological lead. You just have to 

keep moving. We have some basic history on this. We know it’s all 

part of ensuring that there is an adaptation to new business models. We have to keep keeping the pressure on. In those sectors we 

need to look at ways of partnering with our innovators on proofof-concept and demonstration projects so that more breakthroughs 

can bridge the valley of death and reach the market. 

And I know that’s something that the chairman is interested in, 

that Mr. Thune is interested in, and I think we should be able to 

do something, you know, that reflects that in the legislation that 

we are considering. 

I actually have a bill that I plan to introduce soon that would address the issue that leads to, you know, kind of solving this valleyof-death problem. And I think we have to do it if we’re going to be 

successful. And I’d like to work with you on that. 

Dr. Tang, do you agree that there is a legitimate government role 

here to partner with the private sector to prove out and demonstrate new technologies? 

Dr. TANG. Senator, absolutely. I think the—it’s—let me go back 

to what you said about the plan. Unless we view the combination 

of STEM education, basic research, translational research, and 

commercialization as a continuum and all part of an economic development plan overall, I think that we’ll miss key components that 

continue to make us successful. 

So part of what you mentioned in part—in public-private partnerships is that that, I think, has to be part of the plan, as well. 

There have to be incentives to perform and sustain programs that 

can help by combining the private sector, government, and nonprofits. 

Senator MARKEY. So, Dr. Tang, do you agree that supporting 

translational research and proof-of-concept activities increase competition in the market and help to overcome the types of corporate 

risk aversion that keep promising technologies bottled up? 

Dr. TANG. Absolutely. I—and I noted earlier, I think that is the 

key missing part of the plan right now, is there are promising developments in the laboratories, in our great academic institutions 

that don’t see the light of day because there is not that risk capital 

to provide proof-of-concept funding and further that development. 

Senator MARKEY. You know, I’ve heard from many of scientists 

in Massachusetts that they first got interested in when they were 

taken over to the Boston Museum of Science when they were kids 

or—— 

81 

Dr. TANG. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY.—over to the Boston Aquarium when they were 

kids and they were kind of excited by the science that they saw 

there and a kind of light bulb went off and they said, let’s think 

about that as a career. 

Can we help to increase the diversity of our future science and 

engineering workforce by having more education outside of the 

classroom? So that we’re, you know, encouraging and inspiring 

kids. 

Dr. Klawe. 

Dr. KLAWE. Absolutely. Informal science education, which is 

what goes on in museums and after-school clubs and all kinds of 

other things is an important component. However, it’s most effective when it’s actually tied, when it’s combined with formal science 

education, as well. So it’s a great thing when a teacher will actually take her class on a field trip to the Boston Science Center and 

then come back and actually teach material that ties into what 

they experienced there. 

Senator MARKEY. Yes. And you know, it’s kind of part of the 

modern era that we’re in that you have members of the Senate and 

the House just kind of mocking basic research, you know, like it’s 

not special, you know. Why should we tease that out and just make 

sure that we keep that on the front burner, you know. Who cares 

if the National Institutes of Health get cut 7 percent a year for 9 

years in a row, you know. 

That—will that impact on finding the cure for Alzheimer’s or 

heart disease or—no, no, the private sector will go and do it anyway even if there is no commercial likelihood that they’re going to 

get a reward for doing it. So why do we do this? We do it so that, 

you know, we encourage the best and the brightest to go into these 

fields. You know, you have to create a draw so that they come over 

here because they can use the same 800s in their boards to write 

an algorithm for a hedge fund that doesn’t contribute one iota to 

the overall productivity or well-being of the planet. 

And they’re equally drawn as they’re going through educational 

process over to this other early payoff financially set of companies 

that will draw them away. So you need to have the basic research 

if for no other reason than you’re going to draw the kids over there. 

But let me give one other practical example. Last year in the United States we spent $131 billion on Alzheimer’s patients. And 

the chairman and I, we’ve both had personal experiences with this 

disease. $131 billion. The entire defense budget in our country is 

$600 billion. So Medicare and Medicaid paid $131 billion to some 

of the 5 million families that now have an Alzheimer’s patient. 

Well, the baby boomers, when they’re all retired, there’s going to 

be 15 million baby boomers with Alzheimer’s. So 131 times 3 is, 

you know, pretty much $400 billion, two-thirds of the defense budget of our country for one disease, unless we find the cure. Unless 

we draw the smartest kids in science and mathematics into these 

fields to find the cure. 

And you just can’t say, well, we’re going to cut the budget every 

year for 9 years in a row, because now you’re dooming our country 

to making it impossible to have a balanced budget in the future because you’re not investing in those programs that are going to pay 

82 

the big dividend for those families that dread that that disease is 

going through their family, or Parkinsons or heart disease or diabetes or you name it. 

And you have to believe we can do it, but you have to invest in 

the basic science even though you don’t know exactly where the 

payoff is. And that’s why sequestration is the stupidest idea of all 

time. That it treats agriculture subsidies and finding the cure for 

Alzheimer’s equally, that basic research is treated as though it’s 

just another expendable, you know, a commodity that the government really shouldn’t be in. 

As though the private sector is going to do the basic research, 

they are not. We’ve learned this. And so, Mr. Chairman, I’ll just 

end by saying this, that each year for better or worse, you know, 

we have Americans that win Nobel Prizes in science. And I get invited with my wife, you know, to go to just the little reception. And 

I’m always in awe. 

And one year they asked one of the scientists, do you think we’ll 

be able to compete against the Chinese and the Indians 30 years 

from now for Nobel Prizes? And the scientist said, we are here 

today, the 6 of us because of an investment made 30 and 40 years 

ago in us. We do know—we do not yet know the wisdom of this 

generation. That generation had the wisdom to invest. 

And so that’s what’s in the balance here, you know, despite of 

how wise we are, to make the investment in the kinds of science 

and technology that will continue to keep America cutting edge, but 

also make the changes that so profoundly effect American’s families. 

We can’t have a more important hearing than this, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for having it. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, I mean, you’ve just spoken nothing but one 

piece of wisdom after another, which is typical of you. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to add on precisely to that. Because I’m 

not going to do something that I’m meant to be doing, because I 

don’t know of anything which is more important than this hearing 

or the implications of this hearing, whether this hearing has— 

changes any minds, has any impact or not. 

I started out talking about sequestration with some vigor, Senator Markey. 

And it’s horrible and it’s inexorable, but something else happened 

which struck me, we had a government shutdown. It was not a government shutdown that lasted, you know, for 6 months. It lasted 

a relatively short period of time, but during that time, I think, 99 

percent of all the people at the National Science Foundation were 

furloughed. 

And in that it was an event which predictably would come to an 

end, because there was a political calculus that showed that it 

could only last so long without so much damage being done politically, much less to the country, that one could have said, well, we 

can work with this. 

But I think you, Dr. Klawe, I think you used the word body language at one point in an earlier part of your presentation. 

The body language of a shutdown haphazard, it just happened, 

wasn’t planned, made for political purposes, shutoff by political 

83 

purposes is precisely what Senator Markey is talking about. And 

that is, you commit yourself to something or you don’t. Your students know it. You indicated that through the use of the word body 

language. I’m investing in you something which I perhaps am mistaken in, but you can tell a great deal from body language about 

that person’s view of the present and of the future, whatever. 

I think it’s true nationally. If we can do things like have, first 

of all, sequester, which I agree with Senator Markey, is it’s so horrible. And what scares me is that I’m not sure the American people 

have any idea how it aggregates and destroys unless we can shut 

it off. 

But in this political world, one group feels that’s the way you 

keep government small and keeping government small is an end in 

and of itself of celestial purpose. Not so from my point of view. 

What Senator Markey said, 30 years ago some people decided to invest in me and here I am today and I have a Nobel Prize; these 

things cannot happen haphazardly and have a good result. 

I think we in America, and I’m guilty of this myself, I look at 

some of these things that are happening, and I think, yes, OK, 

America is America; we always come back, we always get out, we 

always have the most innovative people, people are still coming to 

us, we always lead in technology and all the rest of it. 

And it’s not that I’m beginning to doubt myself, but I’m beginning to doubt the underpinnings of the decisions that we’re making 

and am therefore doubting myself. 

People have to believe that you mean it for real and that you’re 

investing in it for real and come hell or high water we will not be 

detoured. It’s a national priority. If it’s not a national priority, then 

you have a government shutdown of small consequence in terms of 

time, but I don’t think we have any idea yet of the alteration or 

the diminution of the curiosity of young people, of young teachers 

who are working in smaller institutions who want to get an 

EPSCoR grant and they’re going to, and maybe they’re women and 

they can break through the ceiling and maybe they’re not and they 

can still break through the ceiling, but you don’t have to go to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton or Stanford or Boston College. That’s 

where he’s from. OK. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And you don’t have to do that. Wherever you are, 

if you are good, you will be found out about and we will help you 

succeed. We will secure your future by investing in you. And you 

can only do that with money. We don’t teach; you teach, but we 

help with money. 

And so the concept of both the sequestration not being understood fully the American people or at all by the American people, 

not just understood fully by this Congress and not understood deliberately by parts of this Congress is terrifying. And then you add 

on the instance that come up, the shutdown, well, whatever it 

might be. 

And there’s EPSCOT, there’s EPSCoR, there are all kinds of 

things that are at risk. People clearly in line to do something, 

clearly have their minds set on something say, oops, I can’t depend 

on that for certain. And what is the tipping point? Is the shutdown? Is it suddenly they understand sequestration? 

84 

It doesn’t matter. Whatever it is, if it doesn’t work properly, 

they’re out. And you not only lose all that you’ve put into them up 

until this point, but you lose all that you will get from them from 

this point. 

And I worry about that, Senator, and I’m sure you do, too. 

I mean, this is just such an incredibly serious business. It’s discovery. It’s innovation. The curiosity of minds. The curious mind 

feeling supported, that they’re part of an elite, that they’re valued 

by their country, they’re supported by their country come hell or 

high water. And in simpler days that’s the way it worked. 

Oh, but we’ll conquer that; we’re America. Maybe not so certain 

if, as Senator Markey said, the scientist said, I can just judge 

where I am today because 30 or 40 years ago people believed in me 

and invested in me. 

So that’s what we in this committee have hearings like this for 

is to take people like Senator Markey and myself and others who 

are really worried about this and who really want to help it. He 

comes from whatever he described Massachusetts as. I come from 

West Virginia, which is just a bit different. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. But I yield in no way, shape, or form. In fact, I 

remember facing down Erick Block, Dr. Erick Block. He was head 

of NSF. And I took to them the idea of EPSCoR, of giving money 

to not the top tier, but to others in other States so that you would 

have more of a collaborative we’re-all-in-it-together type of atmosphere. And it’s worked absolutely wonderfully except now it’s going 

to be grabbed by sequestration. And 99 percent of the NSF people 

were furloughed during those several weeks. 

We’re such a great country. We have so much to be proud of. People that come to this country and stay. We have to protect it. I’m 

really trying hard not to make a speech here, but we have to protect it. We just absolutely have to do it. 

And you have to help us by involving your folks who fund you 

and who you have access to, to put pressure on the Congress to get 

rid of this ridiculous thing called sequestration. It will not go otherwise. Because there’s a tool that those who want to keep cutting 

government have and it’s locked into law and all they have to do 

is filibuster and we can’t get 60 votes to overcome that filibuster 

and so sequestration goes on and on and you go down and down, 

which is what we do not want. 

So I guess I challenge all of us that we have to overcome this. 

And the tipping point may not be that far off. And I have every 

right to be nervous and a bit scared about it and with a vast desire 

to do something about it. 

And so I thank all of you very much for coming and for putting 

up with us. And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:34 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(85) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO DR. KELVIN K. DROEGEMEIER

Question 1. According to a recent survey of scientists performed by the American 

Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 53 percent of respondents have 

turned away promising researchers due to a lack of funding and 18 percent are considering moving their research outside of the United States. Last year, a CEO of 

a major U.S. corporation was quoted as saying that his company was expanding 

abroad due, in part, to the ‘‘moribund interest in science in the U.S.’’ 

How would you describe the long-term effects of lower funding in terms of training the scientific workforce, attracting and keeping top talent, and supporting innovation and have you started to see these effects already? 

Answer. Since the end of World War II, the long-term, forward-thinking commitment of Congress and multiple Presidential administrations to supporting transformative basic research and the education of our next generation of scientists and 

engineers has underpinned our national health, security, and economic prosperity. 

At the present time, the U.S. is the global leader in research output, producing the 

highest share of ‘‘highly-cited’’ research papers and ‘‘triadic’’ patents, and also leading the world in the share of value-added high-tech (HT) manufacturing and knowledge-intensive (KI) service industries. 

Although the U.S. research enterprise is strong, our status as the world’s leader 

is, without question, in jeopardy. Other countries are gaining ground on the metrics 

noted above as they invest heavily in their own innovation capacity. Several foreign 

competitors have significantly increased their funding of higher education, bolstered 

their investment in R&D, and increased their output of research publications. These 

investments by other nations have, disturbingly, coincided with a slowing of U.S. 

Federal investments in R&D and an increasingly uncertain funding landscape for 

the U.S. scientific enterprise. 

Budgetary uncertainty, sequestration, and government shutdowns have deleterious effects on our scientific enterprise. Occurring in isolation, they are extremely 

significant. However, because they have occurred simultaneously, their combined effects are vastly more harmful. These include meritorious projects that are never undertaken, insufficient funding for existing projects that leads to a de-scoping and 

thus a diminution of output, inadequate training of the next generation of scientists 

and the loss of large numbers of individuals who might have pursued STEM as a 

career, and strains on facilities used for scientific research or the failure to construct 

facilities that could ensure a global leadership position for the U.S. (this is particularly true in high energy physics and nuclear science). The effects of sequestration 

are clearly evident already: the National Science Foundation (NSF, Foundation) 

awarded about 700 fewer grants in FY 2013 than in FY 2012. NIH Director, Francis 

Collins, announced that NIH would make 650 fewer new competitive awards in 

2013. Fewer awards mean less research, less innovation, a smaller STEM workforce, 

and a decrease in national competitiveness. According to the survey you cite, about 

54 percent of scientists reported they know a colleague who has lost a job. 

At my own institution, the University of Oklahoma, sequestration has led to the loss of $6.4 million in competitive funding, which is about 6 percent of the total 

amount awarded per year to my campus. Importantly, however, this 6 percent impacted three large projects, each of which was performing extraordinary and transformative research. Such projects take a disproportionately large amount of time 

and institutional investment to win and start, and thus their reduction or elimination has a proportionally greater negative impact on science and personnel. Ultimately, however, the impact is felt in the loss of high-paying jobs and national capability, including, in the case of these projects, national security. 

Further, scientists are less inclined to recommend a career in science to their students because the life of a researcher is increasingly unattractive, unappreciated, 

and unable to compete with jobs in other fields in terms of lifelong earning potential. Lower grant funding rates mean more time is spent writing proposals, rather 

86 

than performing research, with lower prospects of success. Declining state support 

for universities leads to less time and support for research. High tuition means students will face significant debt after graduate study, and uncertain funding for research means they might not secure jobs to repay that debt. Thus, the pool of outstanding students is decreasing, and competition for those in the pipeline is intense. 

Uncertainty or pessimism about future budgets makes anticipating improvement notably difficult, even for the eternal optimist. If we overtly and with unmistakably 

clear messaging discourage our best and brightest from a career in science, we 

might well never recover from the leadership gap we will create. Today’s Nobel Laureates in the U.S. succeeded because they were attracted to science, and because 

the Nation invested in them twenty or thirty years ago. If no such investments 

occur today, the future is predictable, and the picture is bleak. 

Thus, the consequences of sequestration and stagnating Federal research budgets 

will reverberate well into the future. Lack of funding today means we will be without the new knowledge that seeds innovation and prepares our Nation to meet unexpected challenges. It also means diminished support for the training of our future 

scientists, engineers, innovators, and entrepreneurs. Finally, the lack of stable, 

strong research funding today will indelibly weaken the public and private institutions that rely on strong government support for civilian science. Universities and 

businesses will be less able attract and retain top domestic and foreign talent, U.S. 

businesses will be more inclined to make R&D investments abroad, and careers in 

STEM will be less appealing to our students. 

Question 2. Some have argued that the United States should focus its R&D efforts 

more on applied research and less on basic research, as some other countries have 

done. 

Dr. Droegemeier, if the United States chose not to invest heavily in basic research, could we simply import the knowledge and expertise from other countries? 

Answer. Innovation is often mischaracterized as a linear process proceeding 

through distinct stages: basic research in universities, followed by applied research 

and development at the boundary between academia and industry, and then innovation within the private sector. In reality, innovations emerge from a complex ecosystem consisting of the fluid interplay of knowledge, application, development, and 

commercialization, all undertaken by individuals and teams working in close coordination spanning the public and private sectors. Rather than proceeding in a linear 

fashion, innovation has numerous feedbacks and loops that occur at different points 

in the process, with these points differing for different types of research. 

The innovation ecosystem also includes research facilities and equipment, transportation, communication, and education systems, and is influenced by other factors, 

such as the business cycle, and tax, regulatory, and trade policies. Our Nation’s ability to create new businesses and bolster our health and prosperity rests squarely 

on these interdependent components working together in mutually reinforcing ways 

to produce innovations. We must be careful to not oversimplify the portrayal of this 

complex interplay of organizations and cultures, as some try to do, for four key reasons. First, the ecosystem is only as strong as its weakest link, and in the United 

States, all components have been strong historically. Such is not the case today as 

all elements are being weakened dramatically, some faster than others. For example, U.S. research universities are among the best in the world and a vital part of 

this system. These institutions have benefited from long-standing Federal support 

of basic research in all disciplines, forming the bedrock of our Nation’s capacity to 

innovate. Academic research produces a deep reservoir of knowledge upon which 

other researchers across disciplines and sectors can draw now and in the future. 

And knowledge produced by basic research is just as important as the expertise it 

builds among students and researchers in private companies and federally-funded 

laboratories. 

Second, the foundation for the ecosystem is basic research, the outcomes of which 

usually are neither predictable nor demonstrable in their tangible benefits for society. However, basic research is without question responsible for the technological, 

military, and economic leadership position of the U.S. in the world today. Foregoing 

basic research would undermine our innovation ecosystem by weakening the ability 

of our universities to produce the knowledge that seeds innovation and trains our 

current and future scientists and engineers. 

Additionally, U.S. universities, particularly public institutions, often perform research and produce human capital tailored to a state or region. Universities generate local ‘‘spillover’’ effects in the form of industry/university partnerships, local 

startup companies, and the production of talent for existing and new businesses. 

For example, the high tech corridors of Silicon Valley and Route 128 were made 

possible because of the intense commitment to basic science research at Stanford 

87 

and MIT, respectively. Universities and other institutions that perform basic research produce a reliable, on-demand supply of knowledge and expertise, much of 

which could have national security implications. If basic research were no longer 

performed domestically, its availability would be uncertain and our innovation ecosystem would be wholly dependent on other countries to function effectively. That 

simply cannot be allowed to occur. As noted in my oral testimony, basic research 

allows the United States to control its own destiny. 

Thirdly, different parts of the ecosystem function on vastly different time scales. 

A diminution of basic research capability today may, in some areas of society, not 

be evident for several years or even two or three decades; however, when the impact 

occurs, it will be dramatic, and it will be hard to reverse. We as a Nation do not 

understand that point because in our rich but short history, we have never experienced it. Thus, we do not believe it will occur. Unfortunately, history shows otherwise. 

And finally, it is because of the strength of our national innovation ecosystem, and 

in particular, the preeminence of our research universities, that the U.S. already imports significant knowledge and expertise. In 2009, students on temporary visas 

earned about one-third of all S&E doctoral degrees, including over 50 percent of the 

doctoral degrees awarded in engineering, computer science, and physics. Likewise, 

foreign students who receive their degrees from U.S. universities tend to remain in 

the U.S. The proportion of foreign S&E doctoral degree recipients who report that 

they plan to remain in the U.S. rose from about 50 percent in the 1980s to 77 percent in the 2006–2009 period. If we fail to continue investing aggressively in U.S. 

basic research, we will no longer be able to attract and retain top foreign talent, 

thus further eroding our Nation’s ability to innovate. 

Question 3. Investments in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences can help 

to combat crime, protect people during disasters, limit the spread of disease, and 

improve cybersecurity. However, some policymakers have targeted the social 

sciences for budget cuts. 

Dr. Droegemeier, can you help me to understand how social, behavioral, and economic science research benefit U.S. security and economic interests and provide examples? 

Answer. Rigorous research in the social, behavioral, and economic (SBE) sciences 

is vital to understanding what drives the behavior, social interactions, and motivations of people in our Nation and the world. SBE research helps us understand the 

factors that support economic development and social stability, that drive the activities of rogue states and terrorists, and that promote the general welfare. This research helps us find ways to improve our health, educate our young people effectively, ensure public safety, and preserve the vitality of our democracy. Sound policymaking on matters, including national security and economic competitiveness, requires the insights of the SBE sciences. 

The Federal Government’s modest investments in SBE research have reaped large 

rewards for the taxpayer. The recent joint NSF/SBE-Department of Defense (DOD) 

Social and Behavioral Dimensions of National Security, Conflict and Cooperation 

initiative has deepened our knowledge of the social and behavioral dimensions of 

national security issues. Psychologists, anthropologists, economists, political scientists, and demographers are helping us understand the drivers of civil conflict and 

unstable states, the conditions that promote terrorism and other forms of extremism, and the effects of various responses to national security threats in both the 

traditional geopolitical and cybersecurity realms. NSF-funded SBE research has also 

resulted in new decision-making tools for shipping container screening, thereby enhancing the safety of our ports and shipping traffic. And NSF-funded SBE research 

is helping us to better understand non-verbal communications across cultures. This 

is vital knowledge for our troops who rely on body language cues with non-English 

speaking civilians overseas and for whom miscommunication can result in a dangerous escalation of an otherwise benign situation. 

SBE research has also been crucial to promoting our Nation’s economic interest. 

In the private sector, such research has enabled companies to better understand 

their customers and to align their products and services accordingly. For example, 

social science research in the fields of network analysis, decision making and user 

behavior helps Google maintain its edge in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. In the public sector, NSF-supported SBE research on how to reapportion 

the Federal Communications Commission’s airwave spectrum has resulted in over 

$60 billion in revenue for the Federal Government since 1994. 

SBE research is also critical to maximizing the return on our Nation’s investments in other realms of medical and scientific research. SBE research into the barriers to the adoption of healthy behaviors is crucial if we are to capitalize on the 

insights of the biomedical sciences into the drivers of obesity and disease. Similarly, 

88 

in my own field of meteorology, SBE research that helps us understand human responses to weather conditions and warnings provides an important complement to 

technological breakthroughs in forecasting, as noted in my written testimony. Both 

types of knowledge are essential if we are to minimize the loss of life amid storms. 

And the potential for additional cross disciplinary collaboration continues to grow 

as physical scientists and engineers recognize that they have hit ‘‘brick walls’’ by 

seeking purely technological solutions to problems driven by human behavior. 

For over 50 years, NSF has helped catalyze transformative SBE research and 

make the U.S. the world leader in these fields. Today, NSF awards 1,200 grants annually through its Directorate for Social, Behavior, and Economic Sciences, supporting the work of nearly 7,400 social, behavioral, and economic scientists. Maintaining our Nation’s leadership in SBE research is crucial to protect our country’s 

economic and security interests, realize the full potential of our innovation ecosystem, and create public policy rooted in facts and science. The National Science 

Board (NSB, Board) vigorously supports Federal funding across all areas of research 

in its current portfolio and believes that targeted reductions in SBE programs will 

have profoundly negative consequences to all areas of science and engineering. 

Question 4. EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research) 

helps avoid unfair geographic concentration of Federal research funding in large 

states. West Virginia, South Dakota, and Oklahoma are just three of 31 EPSCoR 

jurisdictions. 

Dr. Droegemeier, you’ve been heavily involved in EPSCoR and have discussed its 

strategic direction. As we look forward to renewing America COMPETES, how do 

we ensure that students from every state and background have access to STEM education and research opportunities? 

Answer. Encouraging students to engage in the science and engineering enterprise and providing opportunities to do so are vital components of continuing our 

Nation’s long-term success. To meet this challenge, NSF has several programs designed to recruit and retain students from every state and background. For example, 

NSF’s Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program funds dozens of 

sites annually where hundreds of students from all around the Nation, and across 

numerous disciplines, assemble for significant periods of time to participate in cutting-edge research. EPSCoR-state students are fully welcomed by REU sites, and 

the REU program has proven successful in developing student interest and persistence in science majors. 

Further, the vast majority of NSF research proposals include funding for undergraduate and/or graduate students, who participate as research assistants. Thus, 

whenever an EPSCoR project is funded, it is highly likely that students will be gaining access to exceptionally high quality, hands-on science education and research experiences. Additional targeted funding for students would be welcomed in the Reauthorization Act because there is no higher priority than investing in the next generation of STEM professionals as they help perform the research that will maintain 

our Nation’s global S&T leadership. 

Finally, and of notable importance, NSF has been watching with interest the 

rapid growth of new technologies that enable on-line access to high quality education. The Foundation already has put in place several programs that fund research into making these technologies effective for STEM education and assessing 

their impacts. This work should be of special value in the long run for students in 

rural settings or in locales where fewer options exist for obtaining a high-quality, 

place-based STEM education. 

Question 5. I understand that you started a company, Weather Decision Technologies, based on research conducted from an EPSCoR award. Would you have 

been able to start this company without Federal support, and how can EPSCoR contribute to the overall economy? 

Answer. I absolutely would not have been able to start WDT without EPSCoR 

funding. 

More specifically, EPSCoR was instrumental in funding an NSF Science and 

Technology Center (the Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms, or CAPS), one 

of the first 11 such centers created in 1989 when the program was initiated. Centers 

such as CAPS were designed to tackle profoundly deep intellectual questions which, 

according to the state of the science at the time, were thought to be unlikely or even 

impossible to solve. In the case of CAPS, the challenge was using computer models 

to predict extreme weather such as thunderstorms and tornadoes—a capability 

thought to be fundamentally impossible given the chaotic and unpredictable nature 

of the atmosphere on fine scales. The research conducted at CAPS was foundational 

to starting WDT, Inc. 

89 

Not only did CAPS achieve its goal, but the theories it developed, and the practical capabilities it demonstrated experimentally, are now being implemented in the 

National Weather Service as part of the Weather Ready Nation program. Further, 

an entirely new paradigm—warning of extreme weather, such as tornadoes even before the parent storm exists (the so-called Warn on Forecast concept)—offers the 

hope of achieving the ultimate goal: zero deaths. However, to the point made above, 

that goal will be absolutely impossible to achieve without an integrative focus on social and behavioral science, because an increased warning lead time must be accompanied by an understanding of how humans behave in extreme situations when 

given substantially more time than is available to them today. All of this from a 

center that dared to tackle a problem that was viewed as impossible to solve, and 

from Federal funding—especially from EPSCoR—that allowed the Nation to take 

the risk. If we as a Nation focus only on ‘‘safe science’’ in which the outcomes are 

predictable, and if we focus only on the physical science and engineering disciplines 

under the mistaken notion that technology will solve all of our problems, then we will 

cede our world leadership position to nations that embrace a holistic view. 

The benefits of the EPSCoR investment in CAPS continue to this day in the private sector, where the company you mention, Weather Decision Technologies, has 

for more than a decade been developing and deploying life-saving technologies, garnering numerous awards and now employing more than 80 people in high-paying 

STEM jobs. Neither this company nor the promise of an hour or more of additional 

lead time for issuing tornado warnings would exist today, without EPSCoR funding. 

And this is not a unique success story but rather one of numerous examples in 

which Federal funding broadly, and EPSCoR funding more specifically, has created 

jobs in important small businesses, built wealth, improved safety and our quality 

of life, and spurred innovation unrivaled anywhere in the world. 

With regard to the overall impacts of EPSCoR to our economy, a state’s capacity 

to influence competitiveness requires coordination, which an integral part of the 

EPSCoR program. For example, EPSCoR’s Research Infrastructure Improvement 

program supports research based on a state’s science and technology plan, often in 

alignment with national research priorities. Since the inception of EPSCoR in 1980, 

the research competitiveness of EPSCoR jurisdictions has increased by as much as 

41 percent. Other NSF programs, such as Innovation Corps (I-Corps) and Industry 

& University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC), enable academic researchers 

to begin translation of fundamental research discoveries, encourage academia and 

industry to collaborate (especially regionally), and prepare students to be entrepreneurial leaders in innovation. In short, EPSCoR contributes to the overall economy 

by making sure that all 50 states are meaningful contributors to the Nation’s innovation. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

DR. KELVIN K. DROEGEMEIER

Question 1. More than half of all basic research in the United States is funded 

by the Federal Government—American universities and colleges are responsible for 

53 percent of this research. I believe that we should be doing more to commercialize 

federally funded research, where possible. However, there is a disparity between the 

amount of commercialization coming from top tier research schools versus lower performing schools. A recent report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science 

and Technology (PCAST) found that top tier schools tend to do very well in terms 

of funding, while lower performing schools are more constrained in their ability to 

commercialize their research. 

One problem I have noticed is that there are a series of closed markets in terms 

of who controls intellectual property (IP) within universities. Bob Litan, an innovation expert, was recently quoted in Forbes noting that ‘‘one of the big disadvantages 

of the traditional TLO model is that the TLO exerts the entire control over which 

innovations reach the market, in what form, and how fast.’’ 

Another issue is that some schools have surpassed others in terms of the amount 

of technology they are able to commercialize. One example is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Deshpande Center, which has funded 100 projects totaling 

over $13 million. The Center has also seen the creation of 28 spinout companies that 

have raised over $400 million in capital. 

I have worked with Senator Moran on a proposal to accelerate commercialization 

within underperforming university tech transfer offices as a part of the Startup Act. 

What is the most aggressive thing that we can do to spur more commercialization 

similar to what has been happening at schools like MIT? 

90 

Additionally, do you think that crowdfunding has any role in tech transfer? I was 

interested to learn that the University of Utah has recently launched its ‘‘Technology Commercialization Office’’ which uses crowdfunding as an alternative to traditional university ‘‘technology licensing offices’’ (TLOs). What do you think about 

this? 

Answer. To your first question about spurring commercialization, I do not believe 

that a single ‘‘silver bullet’’ exists, but rather, a combination of actions can be taken 

to dramatically improve the situation. 

First and foremost, in the context of innovation, it is important to give many ideas 

a chance and not to judge them by inappropriate or naı ̈ve criteria. These are key 

precepts at the National Science Foundation (NSF, Foundation). The Foundation 

asks scientists to submit their best ideas then asks other scientists to openmindedly assess their potential. NSF works hard to not pre-define the kinds of ideas 

it is willing to consider, and to be mindful that unconventional thinking can yield 

important and even transformative results. This is true not only for basic research, 

but also for an innovation ecosystem that allows the best ideas and entrepreneurs 

to flourish. 

In many respects, Congress significantly catalyzed university-based commercialization activities in 1980 with the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act. Bayh-Dole 

aligned university incentives with societal goals in a way that made possible the establishment of MIT’s Technology Licensing Office and similar offices at other universities. Because of that bill, and other opportunities driven by leaders like you, 

there now exists an unprecedented number of new types of mechanisms available 

for technology transfer. Many states, agencies, and universities also see a critical 

need, resulting in intense interest in replicating successes and finding more effective 

and efficient methods for moving innovations from the lab to the marketplace. 

For example, NSF is aggressively seeking to accelerate commercialization and entrepreneurial education through the I-Corps program. By deploying a multi-scale 

network of nodes, sites, and teams, we hope to replicate some of the elements that 

underpin the success of the Deshpande Center and catalyze the development of the 

local and regional innovation clusters that are essential components of commercialization at places like MIT and Stanford University. NSF is also working to better connect the I-Corps program with existing SBIR and STTR programs, and other 

agencies are looking to implement their own versions of I-Corps. 

Many of my fellow ‘‘Vice Presidents for Research’’ have formally added ‘‘and Economic Development’’ to their titles as U.S. universities engage creatively with these 

new ideas and diversify the incentives and arrangements offered to their faculty in 

order to encourage greater social contribution. In this regard, I can recommend to 

you a 2013 Department of Commerce report entitled ‘‘The Innovative and Entrepreneurial University: Higher Education, Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Focus.’’ 

That report is filled with examples of how universities are taking new approaches 

to spur both student and faculty entrepreneurship and technology transfer, including my own university’s Growth Fund that helps scientists develop prototypes, 

among other things. 

I believe Congress can best help the commercialization process by continuing to 

incentivize a range of mechanisms and by supporting unfettered scientific inquiry. 

Specifically, you can help by working with agencies and stakeholders to eliminate 

regulatory obstacles to innovative partnerships (I elaborate on this point in one of 

your subsequent questions), by ensuring that the ability of researchers to pursue the 

best ideas is not restricted by ‘‘one size fits all’’ regulations, and by making sure 

that the creative freedom that underpins the government-university partnership is 

not undermined by politics or bureaucracy. Over the last 50 years, this partnership 

has thrived, performing over half of basic research in the United States, and creating the new knowledge that is the ‘‘seed corn’’ for our innovation economy. 

As Dr. Litan alludes, if university administrators are the sole judges of which 

ideas might reach the marketplace, we may miss important opportunities. Instead, 

we should encourage multiple, robust mechanisms to help scientists consider whether their ideas might have market value, and then ensure that incentives exist for 

those researchers to invest time and thought into application and commercialization. 

The University of Oklahoma (OU), in its Center for the Creation of Economic 

Wealth (CCEW) offers a wonderful example of this strategy. CCEW brings together 

students from all disciplines with a common thread of entrepreneurship courses 

taught in the business college—along with successful alumni businesspersons and 

innovative faculty counselors. CCEW has transformed the landscape of OU intellectual property commercialization and is becoming a force for regional economic development in Oklahoma. 

91 

A second, and often overlooked issue with regard to academic-corporate interactions, involves direct funding of university research by private companies. Although it is true that universities focus considerable attention on basic research, 

certain disciplines, such as those in engineering, also perform applied research as 

well as development. The amount of money coming to research universities from private companies has been essentially stagnant for the past two decades, which suggests that considerable unrealized potential exists in academic-corporate partnerships, as noted in the recent National Research Council (NRC) report chaired by Mr. 

Chad Holliday. In my personal view, Federal and state policies should be examined 

to identify barriers to such partnerships, especially with regard to the disposition 

of intellectual property. 

Universities have spent significant sums of money to create technology transfer 

organizations yet the amount of revenue coming to universities from such licenses 

is relatively small. The principal benefit to universities from linkages with the private sector is funding for research and development, support for equipment, and stipends for students and post-doctoral researchers. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, private companies are willing to support more fundamental ‘‘basic’’ research in 

the context of work having a more applied focus—because private companies realize 

they too must contribute to basic research. The Federal Government cannot do everything. 

If access to intellectual property by private companies that fund universities could 

be greatly streamlined, as is now being done by institutions such as the University 

of Illinois and University of Minnesota, the private sector could unlock enormous 

benefits from the public investment in basic research and thus dramatically and 

quickly transform the competitiveness of a state. Universities would reap substantially greater benefits from strategic corporate linkages than are possible today. In 

my personal view, a positive disruption to longstanding, burdensome practices regarding intellectual property and corporate-academic interactions could yield an impact on commercialization. 

To your second question, crowdfunding engines like the one you mention at Utah 

can be efficient and effective at matching ideas with investors who believe in their 

potential. This helps with a specific, sticky part of the innovation pipeline: the point 

at which a scientist or university has an outcome or idea but cannot conduct expensive market research to see if it really has potential. The NSF I-Corps program addresses this and a few other sticky parts of the innovation pipeline by actively 

teaching researchers to think entrepreneurially from the outset. It also educates 

such researchers about how to build an early-stage company. 

I also should mention that NSF funds scientific research that explores factors that 

enable innovation and diffusion of innovations. This is quite a vibrant social science 

topic. NSF-funded researchers have found, for example, that geographical concentrations of ‘‘star’’ researchers in a field are the best predictor that a given region will 

be an innovation ‘‘hot spot’’ in that field. That is, the stars themselves, rather than 

their disembodied discoveries or their firms, seem to be what matters most. 

Others have identified some of the important social factors that impede diffusion 

of new, unproven technologies. There is much more to learn, of course, and the new 

era of ‘‘big data’’ promises to be a great boon to those who study this sort of phenomenon. Consequently, we can look forward to continued progress in understanding how best to promote and support innovations for the Nation’s greater wellbeing provided that adequate funding is directed toward the social, behavioral, and 

economic sciences. 

Question 2. According to a 2007 report by the National Academies, faculty working on Federally funded research spend 42 percent of their time on administrative 

duties, such as compliance with Federal regulations. Additionally, a November 2012 

PCAST report states: 

‘‘Over the last two decades, the Government has added a steady stream of new 

compliance and reporting requirements, many of which vastly increase the flow 

of paper without causing any improvements in actual performance. Sometimes 

these requirements stand in the way of performance improvements.’’ 

Some solutions proposed include eliminating overly burdensome regulations, such 

as effort reporting, harmonizing regulation across agencies, focusing regulations on 

performance rather than process, as well as others. 

What actions should be taken to make University research regulations more efficient, while still maintaining a high level of accountability? 

Do you have any specific examples of burdensome regulations that should be reformed? 

Answer. I agree wholeheartedly with your concern and with the observations of 

the PCAST report. As a vice president for research at a tier-1 comprehensive reVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:57 May 14, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\94535.TXT JACKIE
92 

search university, I can attest to the growing number of unfunded compliance and 

reporting requirements and their deleterious impact on research. I hasten to add 

that researchers and university research leaders understand and appreciate the importance of appropriate compliance rules and regulations. Indeed, the academic enterprise rests on the integrity of its participants. However, the important issue at 

hand is the extent to which aggregated regulations are appropriately structured, implemented, and evaluated with regard to their effectiveness and unintended or unnecessary consequences. It is also important to note that this is not just a Federal 

problem. States, accrediting organizations, and universities themselves all contribute to administrative burdens. 

Reports, such as the National Academies’ (Federal Demonstration Partnership) report you cite, indicate that the costs in time and lost opportunity are significant. 

In my view, funding scientists to perform administrative tasks instead of research 

is a significant waste of taxpayer dollars. 

My NSB colleagues share these concerns. In December 2012, under the leadership 

of NSB Member, Dr. Arthur Bienenstock of Stanford University and former Associate Director for Science with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the NSB 

created the Task Force on Administrative Burdens to examine this issue and offer 

recommendations. In March 2013, our task force issued an open Request for Information (RFI) to scientists with Federal research funding to identify those Federal 

and university requirements that contribute most to their administrative workload 

and to offer recommendations for reducing it—precisely the questions you raise. We 

also held a series of roundtable discussions across the Nation and have invited comment on our preliminary analyses from agencies, working groups, and organizations 

that can play a potential role in the current level of administrative burden and have 

the authority to reduce it. 

It is our expectation that our recommendations and findings, which are just now 

being finalized, will offer a detailed and comprehensive answer to your question. We 

would like to provide you our full report and any briefings or supporting materials 

that will be of help to you just as soon as our findings and recommendations have 

Board approval, which should be early 2014. 

Preliminarily, I can say that our findings confirm and extend many of those in 

the 2012 Faculty Workload Survey that you cite. Effort reporting, as you note, is 

often characterized as a particular source of burden. This is consistent with our preliminary findings. Our task force responded to the Office of Management and Budget Notice of Proposed Guidance Reform expressing support for effort reporting reforms and encouraging swift implementation. 

Beyond this, we see wide agreement in the RFI comments that adding regulations 

per se adds burden and that fear of audits can precipitate unintended, detrimental 

levels of risk aversion and reporting requirements. The proposed solutions you cite— 

harmonizing regulations across agencies and focusing regulations on performance 

rather than process—also have been recommended frequently in our RFI. My colleagues and I concur that identifying regulations and requirements that lead to 

undue burden and eliminating, modifying, or harmonizing them is essential to improving the research enterprise and fully capitalizing on Federal investments in scientific research. 

We are also highly supportive of the principle that scientific stakeholder communities need to be represented in any and all efforts to prioritize and streamline Federal regulations if we want to achieve productive reform. Scientific activities and the 

universities that house them have some unique, and sometimes fragile, core characteristics. If these are not considered as regulations are revised, reforms could be ineffective or even harmful. 

Question 3. I am very supportive of efforts to consolidate STEM programs and 

funding streams. President Obama’s 2014 budget decreases the number of STEM 

programs by 50 percent, from 226 to 112. I know that some Members have expressed concerns about this consolidation, but I believe this a great way to reduce 

administrative overhead and to get more funding to students. 

In considering the reauthorization of COMPETES, do you have any recommendations for further consolidation of STEM programs? 

Answer. The National Science Board has followed the proposed consolidations 

with interest. We, too, are supportive of the goals, both the efficiency goal and, particularly, the goal of ensuring that the most effective STEM education practices are 

identified and diffused quickly and widely across all Federal STEM educational efforts. Ongoing coordination across agencies will be essential for diffusion of effective 

practice. The consolidations should be done in an evidence-based way with engagement of stakeholders. 

As plans related to consolidation move forward, we encourage healthy stakeholder 

engagement and coordination processes centered around evidence of effective eduVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:57 May 14, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\94535.TXT JACKIE
93 

cational practices. NSF has a special role to play in this regard. The Foundation 

is only one of a few Federal agencies that funds basic research into learning and 

learning environments, including valid methods for evaluation of learning, which 

will underpin any evidence-based approach to improving STEM education practices. 

The Foundation is therefore positioned to identify evidence-based research agendas 

that will enable the timely diffusion and coordination of effective STEM education 

practices in Federal agencies. This is a role that the Foundation is equipped to handle well. 

Question 4. I believe that America is lacking a long-term vision for economic 

growth and international competitiveness. There has not been enough of an effort 

to come together across government sectors and devise a strategy for going forward. 

I included an amendment in the 2010 COMPETES reauthorization that directed 

the Department of Commerce to create a National Competitiveness Strategy. However, I was disappointed by the way the process played out. I did not feel like the 

report did enough to concisely and effectively establish solutions for key issues like 

infrastructure investment, immigration policy, research and development funding, 

and others. 

In your opinion, what targeted investment in R&D would do the most to help 

America stay ahead of our global competition? 

What recent investments in R&D have had the most potential impact to American 

global competitiveness? 

Answer. America’s ‘‘innovation ecosystem’’ has propelled our success, and my personal view is that a long-term vision and strategic plan would help ensure effective 

stewardship of available resources and strategic emphasis on areas of greatest 

strength and value. Ensuring that this ecosystem retains the ingredients that have 

allowed our Nation’s researchers, engineers, and businesses to flourish is critical to 

retaining our competitive global edge. U.S. researchers benefit from unparalleled 

freedom to pursue their best ideas; as we think about the future, we need to ensure 

we do not lose this critical component of our R&D enterprise. 

In our increasingly interconnected, big data, high-tech world, strong, stable investment in R&D across all disciplines will need to continue. Fields of science and 

engineering are growing ever more interdependent in order to address large-scale 

and complex problems, ranging from natural resource scarcity to national security 

and health risks. The insights social sciences can provide us about human behavior 

weave throughout all these national challenges. Therefore, it is crucially important 

that we continue to fund all areas of science and technology, and that we erect no 

barriers between them. In fact, we need to maximize the ability for researchers in 

multiple fields to collaborative effectively. 

We need to continue building our STEM workforce, both by investing in the training of U.S. students as well as attracting and retaining foreign STEM students to 

contribute their ideas and skills to our workforce. One significant aspect of U.S. innovation success lies in the creativity of our students; we must make sure that the 

creative edge is not lost in an environment increasingly focused on passing standardized tests, and we must continue our Nation’s long tradition of attracting and 

retaining the best and brightest foreign-born students 

We need to leverage our R&D investments with interagency collaborations that 

extend the reach and yield of our investments and encourage academic-industry 

partnerships. The Foundation’s Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers 

are a good model of such a partnership. 

Steady, predictable Federal funding will help colleges, universities, businesses, 

and others who perform or rely on federally-funded basic research to make wise, forward-thinking decisions that yield maximal returns on taxpayers’ investments. I 

cannot overstate the importance of this issue. Risk taking, which is a foundational 

notion of basic research, simply cannot be pursued in today’s environment of fiscal 

uncertainty. Likewise, strong, consistent Federal support is crucial to recruiting and 

retaining future generations of scientists and engineers. America needs its young 

people to view S&T as a promising career path, and without question, the emerging 

generation of researchers is quite troubled by the lack support for S&T and many 

are choosing other careers. Slowly and surely this is eating away at our competitive 

advantage. 

Investments in R&D that figure prominently in our global competitiveness include 

both those geared toward generating ingenious new ideas and those focused on nurturing the next generation of innovators. As you know, due to the nature of basic 

research, its impact is not immediately felt. Likewise, the education and training 

of the next generation of scientists and engineers is a decades-long endeavor. These 

are both long-term investments where the payoffs come later. 

Thousands of fundamental scientific discoveries made across all disciplines can be 

used and re-used in an almost infinite number of ways now and decades into the 

94 

future to produce outcomes that have extraordinary benefits for society. R&D investments that integrate elements from multiple disciplines and technologies also have 

great potential. Many of the Foundation’s activities focus on areas of national priority and thus lie at the heart of national competitiveness and well-being. These include advanced manufacturing, robotics, and interdisciplinary research to enrich our 

understanding of the brain’s neural networks, nanotechnology, STEM education, 

global change research, and cybersecurity R&D. 

Equally important is investment in the education and training of a scientifically 

literate, globally competitive U.S. workforce that includes scientists and engineers, 

who will advance our fundamental understanding of the world around us, and 

innovators and entrepreneurs, who will use that knowledge to create new products 

and new industries. STEM education initiatives, such as research into learning and 

pedagogy and opportunities for hands-on research experiences, are vital to developing our Nation’s talent pool. Given the trajectory of demographics in the U.S., enhancing the diversity of the STEM workforce is not simply a good idea—it is essential if we are to continue as a leader in S&T research and businesses. 

Finally, a modern research infrastructure is critical to maintaining our Nation’s 

competitiveness. Through its Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction 

account, NSF provides U.S. scientists and engineers with the large, shared tools 

necessary to perform world-class research, such as supercomputing facilities, ships, 

airplanes, and large arrays of observing systems to gauge changes occurring on our 

planet. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. ROGER F. WICKER TO

DR. KELVIN K. DROEGEMEIER

Question. How do your mission agency STEM education programs, such as the 

NOAA Sea Grant education program, contribute to the competitiveness of the 

United States? 

Answer. A STEM-literate workforce is absolutely essential for the U.S. to be competitive in our knowledge-and technology-intensive global economy. Consequently, 

the National Science Foundation (NSF) operates programs across its directorates 

and divisions to ensure a high-quality, STEM-literate workforce and citizenry and 

to enable universities and other organizations to produce the best, most innovative 

research scientists and engineers in the world. In that context, although the National Science Board (NSB; Board) does not have purview over NOAA’s Sea Grant 

program (and likewise the NASA Space Grant Consortium), such programs provide 

critical training and education in STEM fields and are a fundamental component 

of the mission of NOAA, NASA, and NSF. 

NSF currently makes investments in STEM education at every level: pre-K, K– 

12, undergraduate, graduate, and informal/public. Its major, focused education investments fall, for the most part, into four categories: 

• NSF Fellowships and Scholarships, such as the flagship Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF), which attracts the best and the brightest of our Nation’s students to STEM careers and helps enable them to complete their STEM educations. Numerous individuals funded by the GRF over its 60-year history are 

now members of the National Academies and some have won the Nobel Prize. 

• Basic Education Research programs, such as Research on Education and Learning, that addresses fundamental questions, and produces valuable evaluative 

data, about how learning (particularly in STEM fields) occurs and ways to improve learning environments. 

• STEM Education Improvement programs, such as Improving Undergraduate 

STEM Education, which translate scientific evidence and research outcomes 

about STEM learning into innovative materials and practices. It further assesses those innovations and disseminates the most valuable ones for implementation. 

• Research Experience Programs, such as REU Sites (Research Experiences for 

Undergraduate Sites), which bring numbers of students together with leading 

faculty to initiate and conduct projects together. These sorts of learning opportunities can be transformative for students and faculty alike. 

It is also important to note that a large majority of NSF-funded research projects, 

ranging from ‘‘individual investigator’’ awards to center activities to large, multiuser facilities, include funding for undergraduate students to participate as research 

assistants as they seek their B.S. degrees. Such hands-on engagement in cuttingedge science constitutes excellent STEM education in and of itself and has been 

95 

shown to increase a student’s likelihood of completing a STEM major and pursuing 

a career in science. Additionally, projects also frequently fund M.S. and Ph.D. students. In this sense, almost all NSF research investments are also investments in 

the future of the U.S. scientific workforce, and therefore, in U.S. competitiveness. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

DR. KELVIN K. DROEGEMEIER

Question 1. Oklahoma like Nebraska is an EPSCoR state, which means our states 

receive a limited amount of Federal research funding. Over the past three years 

(2010–2012), according to NSF, Oklahoma received 0.46 percent of all NSF research 

funding and Nebraska received 0.38 percent. At a time when technology, innovation, 

and research are so important to industry and job creation, how can states like ours 

become more competitive quickly? 

Answer. As noted in my oral and written testimony, states like Nebraska and 

Oklahoma possess exceptional capabilities in the quality of their research universities, in the organization and prioritization of their overall research capabilities in 

alignment with state and institutional assets and goals, and in their ability to leverage resources, partner with others in innovative ways, and respond quickly to opportunity. Such is the hallmark of EPSCoR states. 

Yet, as shown by the newly released National Research Council (NRC) report, although EPSCoR states have enhanced their competitiveness by traditional measures, so have non-EPSCoR states–thereby leaving the relative position of states like 

Nebraska and Oklahoma essentially unchanged. Your question, therefore, is extremely relevant: Even with EPSCoR, our states are not achieving their full potential and more must be done–as soon as possible–to help them contribute maximally 

to our Nation’s competitiveness. Failing in this effort means that significant national potential will remain unrealized, which is not an acceptable outcome when 

our Nation faces continually increasing competition in science and engineering. 

Embracing the full potential of an economy that is increasingly reliant on knowledge and technology entails both near-term and long-term strategies to maximize 

competitiveness. Although many factors influence competitiveness, a state’s capacity 

to conduct leading-edge research, and to innovate within the private sector, are foremost among them. Building research and innovation capacity within a state requires coordinated and complementary state and Federal policies as well as forwardlooking leadership. 

On relatively long time scales, at the state level, investments in formal and informal education at all levels that ensure a local concentration and retention of a scientifically literate workforce, and policies that attract and retain technology-oriented businesses (e.g., tax incentives, innovative partnerships, research campuses 

that house start-up companies and provide support for developing business plans 

and taking basic research across the valley of death, the provision of consulting support from university faculty to private companies) are crucial to success. 

To your specific question about enhancing competitiveness quickly, as one example, Oklahoma created in 2003 a program called EDGE (Economic Development 

Generating Excellence), which was a state-wide effort to prioritize our assets and 

identify areas where strategic investment in research could lead to rapid job creation and enhanced competitiveness. Based upon the EDGE plan, the legislature authorized the creation of a $1 billion endowment to support research and the transfer 

of technology to the private sector that would make Oklahoma the ‘‘Research Capital of the Plains.’’ Several funding competitions were held, leading to the creation 

of new companies and the rapid movement of research outcomes into innovative 

products and services, especially in the biomedical sector. Other states have enacted 

similar programs, and their ultimate success depends upon a close alignment of research university strengths with private sector capabilities and workforce availability and retention. 

At the Federal level, innovation capacity is fostered by investment in unfettered 

basic research across all disciplines including the social, behavioral, and economic 

sciences. Further, redundant and outdated regulations must be streamlined to ensure that much of every dollar invested in research actually goes toward research. 

Finally, barriers to academic-industry partnerships must be removed, and incentives 

and support provided, so that promising research results can be innovated quickly 

into products and services. This is especially important given that the time from discovery to innovation is now measured in months, rather than in years. 

To the point just made, an often overlooked issue with regard to academic-corporate interactions involves direct funding of university research by private companies. Although it is true that universities focus considerable attention on basic reVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:57 May 14, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\94535.TXT JACKIE
96 

search, certain disciplines, such as those in engineering, also perform applied research as well as development. The amount of money coming to research universities from private companies has been essentially stagnant for the past two decades, which suggests that considerable unrealized potential exists in academic-corporate partnerships, as noted in the recent NRC report chaired by Chad Holliday. 

In my personal view, Federal and state policies should be examined to identify barriers to such partnerships, especially with regard to the disposition of intellectual 

property. 

Universities have spent significant sums of money to create technology transfer 

organizations yet the amount of revenue coming to universities from such licenses 

is relatively small. The principal benefit to universities from linkages with the private sector is funding for research and development, support for equipment, and stipends for students and post-doctoral researchers. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, private companies are willing to support more fundamental ‘‘basic’’ research in 

the context of work having a more applied focus—because private companies realize 

they too must contribute to basic research. The Federal Government cannot do everything. 

If access to intellectual property by private companies that fund universities could 

be greatly streamlined, as is now being done by institutions such as the University 

of Illinois and University of Minnesota, the private sector could unlock enormous 

benefits from the public investment in basic research and thus dramatically and 

quickly transform the competitiveness of a state. Universities would reap substantially greater benefits from strategic corporate linkages than are possible today. In 

my personal view, a positive disruption to longstanding, burdensome practices regarding intellectual property and corporate-academic interactions could yield an impact on commercialization. 

More specific to NSF, EPSCoR facilitates competitiveness not only through support for basic research and STEM education, but also through targeted programs 

that build research capacity within states, encourage public-private partnerships, 

and promote technology transfer. For example, EPSCoR provides funding based on 

competitively-reviewed proposals to states such as Nebraska that historically have 

received comparatively small percentages of NSF support. EPSCoR’s Research Infrastructure Improvement program supports research based on a state’s science and 

technology plans, usually in alignment with national research priorities. Since the 

program’s inception in 1980, competitiveness of EPSCoR jurisdictions has increased 

by as much as 41 percent. Other NSF programs, such as Innovation Corps (I-Corps) 

and Industry & University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC), enable academic researchers to begin translation of fundamental research discoveries, encourage academia and industry to collaborate (especially regionally), and prepare students to be entrepreneurial leaders in innovation. 

Continued, stable support for basic research, STEM education programs, and activities like EPSCoR, Innovation Corps (I-Corps), and the Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC) will strengthen Nebraska’s colleges, universities, 

and industries in mutually beneficial ways. 

Question 2. Economic growth and job creation are critical to any state. I am quite 

proud of Nebraska’s recent success in this area with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, many good jobs, and successful businesses. What do you 

see as the underpinnings for a vibrant economy and jobs in the future? How can 

this legislation contribute to that? 

Answer. Our nation’s economic prosperity rests on complex, often interconnected 

factors: health care, energy and energy security, transportation and infrastructure, 

national security, and education, to name a few. The progress of science underpins 

all of these. As highlighted in the National Academies’ Rising Above the Gathering 

Storm report, the majority of U.S. economic growth since World War II is attributable to advances in science and technology (S&T). The National Science Board believes this trend will continue provided that sustained, stable support exists for basic 

research. Although the cynic might expect such a statement from a board whose 

mission involves fostering exceptional research for the nation, the facts of more than 

60 years of investment attest to the pronouncement’s veracity. 

The progress of S&T requires an unwavering commitment to pursuing transformative basic research and developing our Nation’s human capital. As noted in my 

written testimony, basic research is the DNA from which new innovations and technologies arise to fuel our Nation’s economic prosperity, health, and welfare. That 

DNA, composed of thousands of discoveries made across all disciplines, can be used 

and re-used in an almost infinite number of ways now and decades into the future 

to produce outcomes that have extraordinary benefits for society. 

Equally important is human capital development—the education and training of 

a scientifically literate, globally competitive U.S. workforce. This workforce includes 

97 

scientists and engineers, who will advance our fundamental understanding of the 

world, and our innovators and entrepreneurs, who will use that knowledge to create 

new products and new industries. STEM education initiatives, such as research into 

learning and pedagogy and opportunities for hands-on research experiences are vital 

to developing our Nation’s talent pool. 

Although continued support of basic research and increased STEM literacy are 

critical, as noted above, we also need investments in projects like the ’’Nebraska Innovation Campus,’’ where industry, entrepreneurs, and academic faculty work together in public-private partnerships to move discovery from the lab to the marketplace. The Nebraska Innovation Campus was created as a research campus that enhances opportunities for private business to access faculty to develop marketable innovations and the first building is scheduled to open in spring 2014. 

I can attest to the tremendous potential of the Nebraska Innovation Campus because I traveled to Lincoln a few years ago to meet with the President and Chancellor to share the experiences of my own institution and its counterpart—the University of Oklahoma Research Campus. On this campus, we built a million square 

feet, fully occupied in less than a decade, and the Research Campus was named the 

2013 Research Park of the Year by the Association of University Research Parks. 

NU is heading in this same direction. Such tremendous assets are very quickly becoming magnets for both intellectual and economic vitality in states like Nebraska 

and Oklahoma, and I urge that careful attention be paid to ‘‘research campuses and 

parks’’ at the Federal level as a means for rapidly enhancing national competitiveness via the close integration of government, industry, and academia (often referred 

to as the triple helix). 

To your specific question, the Reauthorization Act can facilitate local, regional, 

and national economic prosperity by sustaining long-standing Congressional support 

for the U.S. S&T enterprise. It can do this in three mutually reinforcing ways: 

• The Reauthorization Act can provide a vision for strong, stable Federal funding 

for basic research in all areas of STEM, including the social, behavioral and economic sciences. I cannot overstate the importance of that point. Basic research 

is a long-term investment, and providing steady, predictable Federal funding 

will help colleges, universities, businesses, and others who perform or rely on 

federally-funded basic research make wise, forward-thinking decisions that yield 

maximal returns on taxpayers’ investments. Likewise, strong, consistent Federal support is crucial for recruiting and retaining future generations of scientists and engineers. These young people must view S&T as a viable and attractive career, and it is abundantly clear they will not do so unless they see, 

and can have confidence in, more than a few feet down a pathway of a thousand 

miles. 

• The Reauthorization Act can enhance investment in the education and training 

of the next generation of scientists and engineers. To remain globally competitive, the U.S. will need an ‘‘all-hands-on-deck’’ approach, bringing all of its assets to bear. This means not only strengthening investments in STEM education, but also committing to efforts to ensure a diverse workforce that harnesses and reflects the Nation’s increasingly diverse population. In this regard, 

funding for additional graduate fellowships, undergraduate research programs, 

and efforts that meaningfully enhance participation are essential. To the latter 

point, EPSCoR states like Nebraska and Oklahoma can play an especially vital 

role if they focus on their own specific strengths (e.g., Native Americans in the 

case of Oklahoma) and work toward a sustainable framework for bringing 

underrepresented groups into STEM fields and helping them succeed. 

• The Reauthorization Act can augment our ability to transform basic research 

discoveries into future innovations by fostering linkages between the public and 

private sectors and streamlining the process for translating research into marketable products and processes. NSF has several programs that can serve as 

models for this legislation: the I/UCRC and the I-Corps programs aim to stimulate academia-industry partnerships (especially regionally), leverage industrial 

support, accelerate technology transfer and commercialization, and prepare students to be entrepreneurial leaders. In addition, NSF’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and its Small Business Technology Transfer 

(STTR) program provide incentives and enable startups and small business to 

undertake R&D. Finally, this legislation could call for a study that seeks to understand and eliminate barriers to academic-corporate partnerships, particularly with regard to Federal tax policies that tend to tie research universities’ 

hands. 

98 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO DR. SAUL PERLMUTTER

Question. According to a recent survey of scientists performed by the American 

Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 53 percent of respondents have 

turned away promising researchers due to a lack of funding and 18 percent are considering moving their research outside of the United States. Last year, a CEO of 

a major U.S. corporation was quoted as saying that his company was expanding 

abroad due, in part, to the ‘‘moribund interest in science in the U.S.’’ How would 

you describe the long-term effects of lower funding in terms of training the scientific 

workforce, attracting and keeping top talent, and supporting innovation and have 

you started to see these effects already? 

Answer. Researchers want to conduct research. I believe it is that simple. Without 

adequate opportunities to conduct science, young researchers will look elsewhere. 

Also, younger students in high school and college still planning their careers will 

be discouraged from joining scientific fields without obvious employment opportunities. 

My research group and many other groups around me have been forced to turn 

down the applications of promising researchers—the next generation of world leading scientists—as funding levels have dropped. As I stated in my testimony, for the 

first time in my career, I have seen examples of researchers choosing to join research groups abroad in fields in which the United States’ investments have stagnated and our leadership is waning. 

That said, I am encouraged by legislation such as the America COMPETES Act 

that if passed would renew America’s commitment to increasing funding for basic 

research, and help us to train a next generation of world leading scientists here at 

home. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

DR. SAUL PERLMUTTER

Question 1. More than half of all basic research in the United States is funded 

by the Federal Government—American universities and colleges are responsible for 

53 percent of this research. I believe that we should be doing more to commercialize 

federally funded research, where possible. However, there is a disparity between the 

amount of commercialization coming from top tier research schools versus lower performing schools. A recent report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science 

and Technology (PCAST) found that top tier schools tend to do very well in terms 

of funding, while lower performing schools are more constrained in their ability to 

commercialize their research. 

One problem I have noticed is that there are a series of closed markets in terms 

of who controls intellectual property (IP) within universities. Bob Litan, an innovation expert, was recently quoted in Forbes noting that ‘‘one of the big disadvantages 

of the traditional TLO model is that the TLO exerts the entire control over which 

innovations reach the market, in what form, and how fast.’’ 

Another issue is that some schools have surpassed others in terms of the amount 

of technology they are able to commercialize. One example is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Deshpande Center, which has funded 100 projects totaling 

over $13 million. The Center has also seen the creation of 28 spinout companies that 

have raised over $400 million in capital. 

I have worked with Senator Moran on a proposal to accelerate commercialization 

within underperforming university tech transfer offices as a part of the Startup Act. 

Question 1a. What is the most aggressive thing that we can do to spur more commercialization similar to what has been happening at schools like MIT? 

Question 1b. Additionally, do you think that crowdfunding has any role in tech 

transfer? I was interested to learn that the University of Utah has recently 

launched its ‘‘Technology Commercialization Office’’ which uses crowdfunding as an 

alternative to traditional university ‘‘technology licensing offices’’ (TLOs). What do 

you think about this? 

Answer. In answer to both a) and b) I am quiet interested in learning more about 

the efforts at MIT, Utah and other institutions to commercialize research, but without knowing more I hesitate to offer an opinion on this. However, I do believe that 

the most important first ingredient of technology development, especially for those 

that are breakthrough technologies, stems from basic science discoveries. That is the 

reason I strongly support healthy Federal investment in basic science and am 

pleased that the COMPETES Act would support increased funding for this research. 

99 

Question 2. According to a 2007 report by the National Academies, faculty working on federally funded research spend 42 percent of their time on administrative 

duties, such as compliance with Federal regulations. Additionally, a November 2012 

PCAST report states: 

‘‘Over the last two decades, the Government has added a steady stream of new 

compliance and reporting requirements, many of which vastly increase the flow 

of paper without causing any improvements in actual performance. Sometimes 

these requirements stand in the way of performance improvements.’’ 

Some solutions proposed include eliminating overly burdensome regulations, such 

as effort reporting, harmonizing regulation across agencies, focusing regulations on 

performance rather than process, as well as others. 

Question 2a. What actions should be taken to make University research regulations more efficient, while still maintaining a high level of accountability? 

Question 2b. Do you have any specific examples of burdensome regulations that 

should be reformed? 

Answer. In answer to both a) and b), I strongly agree with the PCAST report. 

Micromanagement and over regulation stifles the creativity and scientific productivity of the scientists. Although it may appear that fewer mistakes are being made, 

the truth is that the result is smaller scientific returns on the Federal investment. 

You cannot regulate your way to great science (this has been tried, unsuccessfully, 

by other countries). Although at the moment I do not have a list of suggestions for 

specific reform. However, I do believe that Congress could send a strong message 

to the agencies and scientific program managers by making it clear that they care 

more about researchers spending their productive time on science rather than on 

accounting processes and reporting. 

Question 3. I am very supportive of efforts to consolidate STEM programs and 

funding streams. President Obama’s 2014 budget decreases the number of STEM 

programs by 50 percent, from 226 to 112. I know that some Members have expressed concerns about this consolidation, but I believe this a great way to reduce 

administrative overhead and to get more funding to students. In considering the reauthorization of COMPETES, do you have any recommendations for further consolidation of STEM programs? 

Answer. At this time I do not have an opinion on the proposed consolidation of 

STEM programs. 

Question 4. I believe that America is lacking a long-term vision for economic 

growth and international competitiveness. There has not been enough of an effort 

to come together across government sectors and devise a strategy for going forward. 

I included an amendment in the 2010 COMPETES reauthorization that directed 

the Department of Commerce to create a National Competitiveness Strategy. However, I was disappointed by the way the process played out. I did not feel like the 

report did enough to concisely and effectively establish solutions for key issues like 

infrastructure investment, immigration policy, research and development funding, 

and others. 

Question 4a. In your opinion, what targeted investment in R&D would do the 

most to help America stay ahead of our global competition? 

Question 4b. What recent investments in R&D have had the most potential impact 

to American global competitiveness? 

Answer. In answer to both a) and b), I believe that the most important and strategic investment that the Federal Government can make in research and development is in basic science funding—discovery science; science with no obvious commercial application. As articulated in the National Academies’ Gathering Storm Report, 

and as reflected in the goals and objectives of the COMPETES Act, basic science 

drives not only real technological advancement, but also seeds progress in the development of solutions and speeds delivery of technologies to society across a broad 

range of industries and technical areas. Basic scientific discoveries, funded by Federal agencies, have led to commercial breakthroughs in the application of nanotechnology, biology for energy and environmental solutions, and Nobel Prizes. We don’t 

know from where the next ‘‘solution’’ or ‘‘technology’’ may come. But, we do not that 

it will not come at all without basic science discoveries. 

100 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

DR. SAUL PERLMUTTER

Question. Economic growth and job creation are critical to any state. I am quite 

proud of Nebraska’s recent success in this area with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, many good jobs, and successful businesses. What do you 

see as the underpinnings for a vibrant economy and jobs in the future? How can 

this legislation [America COMPETES] contribute to that? 

Answer. As my testimony indicated, it appears that the economic health of today 

stems from past investments in education and in research. Surprisingly enough, 

basic science has proven a crucial part of this mix—not just applied research that 

may appear the most obvious contributor. Therefore, legislation like the America 

COMPETES Act is vital to economic growth and for job creation throughout the 

United States. By authorizing increases in the levels of Federal investment in 

science, including basic research, the COMPETES Act would ensure that the United 

States remains a leader in scientific productivity and has a strong innovation and 

economic foundation. I am particularly pleased that the COMPETES Act contains 

increased funding authorization for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science— 

a organization that is an important part of the Nation’s innovation ecosystem. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO DR. MARIA M. KLAWE

Question 1. According to a recent survey of scientists performed by the American 

Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 53 percent of respondents have 

turned away promising researchers due to a lack of funding and 18 percent are considering moving their research outside of the United States. Last year, a CEO of 

a major U.S. corporation was quoted as saying that his company was expanding 

abroad due, in part, to the ‘‘moribund interest in science in the U.S.’’ 

How would you describe the long-term effects of lower funding in terms of training the scientific workforce, attracting and keeping top talent, and supporting innovation and have you started to see these effects already? 

Answer. When students, both undergraduate and graduate, and post-docs see 

their faculty having serious difficulty in finding funding to support their research, 

it discourages them from pursuing academic and research careers in the United 

States. I am already seeing a decrease in top U.S. undergraduate students choosing 

to enter Ph.D. programs and an increase in top U.S. Ph.D. and post-docs looking 

for academic and research positions in other countries. 

Question 2. What changes to the education system might be necessary to ensure 

that U.S. companies can access a healthy, U.S.-based STEM workforce? 

Answer. The key changes that are needed are: 

• Improving recruitment and retention in STEM degree programs especially for 

women and under-represented minorities in areas like computer science and 

some areas of engineering where participation and retention rates are particularly low. Strategies that have been demonstrated to be highly effective in doing 

this include: 

» Making introductory courses relevant, interesting and non-intimidating 

though inclusion of applications and providing appropriate support for less 

well-prepared students; 

» Providing early (within the first two undergraduate years) team-based handson experiences via projects or research; 

» Providing exposure to role-models from industry who can demonstrate the career opportunities for graduates in various disciplines; 

» Hiring more diverse faculty (women, minorities, and people with industry experience); and 

» Placing equal emphasis on excellence in teaching as on excellence in research 

for promotion, tenure and salary increases. 

• Federal funding via NSF and other agencies can play a huge role in driving 

these changes through: 

» Funding for development and dissemination of more effective introductory 

courses; 

» Funding for early research experiences for undergraduates as well as for more 

senior undergraduates; 

101 

» Funding for regional and national workshops and conferences that bring students and faculty together with industry professionals at all levels (e.g., the 

Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing, The Society of Women 

Engineers (SWE), etc.); 

» Programs that provide funding for salary and start-up research costs for faculty that diversify a department; and 

» Programs that provide significant funding for curriculum development and research to assistant and associate professors who are stars in both teaching 

and research (like the NSF Career Awards but with more emphasis on teaching). 

Question 3. Some have argued that the United States should focus its R&D efforts 

more on applied research and less on basic research, as some other countries have 

done. 

Dr. Klawe, what would a reduction in basic research funding mean for universities? 

Answer. Reducing funding for basic research in U.S. universities would significantly impact innovation in the U.S. economy. The U.S. leads the world in innovation, and, to a certain extent, other countries are able to draft behind us by focusing 

their research investments on applications resulting from our discoveries. By leading the world in basic research, we get a head start on commercializing applications 

from fundamental discoveries. This is why China is making significant investments 

in building basic research at their top universities. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR TO

DR. MARIA M. KLAWE

Question. Dr. Klawe, you spoke about computer programming languages and making them more accessible by helping students and the public understand programming and options for learning that may be useful to securing a career in computer 

science. I understand there are multiple programming languages—can you discuss 

these and how educators and industries can help make computer science studies 

more accessible and understood? 

Answer. Different programming languages have different purposes. Some are easier to learn and/or use, but either run more slowly or can only be used to create a 

limited range of kinds of software. For example there are visual programming languages like Scratch and Alice whose purpose is to make it easy for new learners, 

especially younger students, to build simple programs and understand their structure, but no one would try to build anything complicated with them. A visual language allows students to assemble virtual building blocks to make a program that 

accomplishes the desired task. Examples of this approach can be seen on the 

code.org website. 

Most languages used for serious software development are text-based, where programmers type a list of instructions for the computer to execute. For example, 

Python is a language that is easy to learn and can be used to easily build almost 

anything, but it runs too slowly for some kinds of commercial applications. Languages like C, C++, and Java are general-purpose languages designed for building 

large software systems that run very efficiently but are harder to learn and use. 

In addition there are languages that are designed to make it easier to prove that 

a program runs correctly or to facilitate a particular approach to programming or 

to build a particular kind of software system like a database. Professional software 

developers will often build the first version of a new piece of software using a good 

prototyping language like Python, and then rewrite the pieces of code that need to 

run more quickly in a language like C++ or Java. 

Our understanding of how best to teach computer science has evolved quite a bit 

over the last three decades. As in some other disciplines there are differences of 

opinion on the best approach, but there is growing support for the following strategy. For elementary, middle school or early high school students, start by teaching 

some central concepts and have students understand them by solving puzzles using 

a visual language. For older students with more mathematics knowledge (high 

school juniors and seniors, college students), teach a broader set of core concepts by 

having students solve interesting applied problems using an easy to learn, textbased language such as Python. There are several reasons why Python is increasingly popular as an introductory text-based language for students to learn. First, it’s 

easy. Second, because it’s used by many professional software developers, knowledge 

of Python helps students to get a summer job. Last but not least, the transition from 

Python to languages like C++ or Java is much easier than from a visual language. 

102 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

DR. MARIA M. KLAWE

Question 1. More than half of all basic research in the United States is funded 

by the Federal Government—American universities and colleges are responsible for 

53 percent of this research. I believe that we should be doing more to commercialize 

federally funded research, where possible. However, there is a disparity between the 

amount of commercialization coming from top tier research schools versus lower performing schools. A recent report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science 

and Technology (PCAST) found that top tier schools tend to do very well in terms 

of funding, while lower performing schools are more constrained in their ability to 

commercialize their research. 

One problem I have noticed is that there are a series of closed markets in terms 

of who controls intellectual property (IP) within universities. Bob Litan, an innovation expert, was recently quoted in Forbes noting that ‘‘one of the big disadvantages 

of the traditional TLO model is that the TLO exerts the entire control over which 

innovations reach the market, in what form, and how fast.’’ 

Another issue is that some schools have surpassed others in terms of the amount 

of technology they are able to commercialize. One example is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Deshpande Center, which has funded 100 projects totaling 

over $13 million. The Center has also seen the creation of 28 spinout companies that 

have raised over $400 million in capital. 

I have worked with Senator Moran on a proposal to accelerate commercialization 

within underperforming university tech transfer offices as a part of the Startup Act. 

What is the most aggressive thing that we can do to spur more commercialization 

similar to what has been happening at schools like MIT? 

Additionally, do you think that crowdfunding has any role in tech transfer? I was 

interested to learn that the University of Utah has recently launched its ‘‘Technology Commercialization Office’’ which uses crowdfunding as an alternative to traditional university ‘‘technology licensing offices’’ (TLOs). What do you think about 

this? 

Answer. In my experience the faculty and student culture around commercialization is as important as the TLO in achieving great commercialization outcomes. Institutions that support and reward faculty and students who commercialize their inventions end up with a lot more patents, licenses and spin-off companies than those 

that don’t. Some factors that positively influence the culture include: 

• Facilitating leaves for faculty and students who are creating spin-off companies; 

• Creating commercialization and entrepreneurship courses for undergraduate 

and graduate students so they can learn the process of getting patents, writing 

business plans, and getting angel and VC funding; 

• Holding commercialization and business plan competitions to get angel funding; 

• Giving faculty and students more control of the IP, especially when the work 

results from research primarily funded from non-institutional funds (e.g., NSF 

or other government agencies). 

For smaller universities and colleges, approaches like the Philadelphia Science 

Center that provide TLO services for many institutions make a lot of sense. It’s important to make sure that there are not barriers in access to funding programs for 

multi-institutional TLO operations. 

Crowdfunding for tech transfer makes lots of sense. It’s what many start-ups are 

doing these days in any case, and it should be possible to make the model work for 

tech transfer as well. 

Question 2. According to a 2007 report by the National Academies, faculty working on Federally funded research spend 42 percent of their time on administrative 

duties, such as compliance with Federal regulations. Additionally, a November 2012 

PCAST report states: 

‘‘Over the last two decades, the Government has added a steady stream of new 

compliance and reporting requirements, many of which vastly increase the flow 

of paper without causing any improvements in actual performance. Sometimes 

these requirements stand in the way of performance improvements.’’ 

Some solutions proposed include eliminating overly burdensome regulations, such 

as effort reporting, harmonizing regulation across agencies, focusing regulations on 

performance rather than process, as well as others. 

What actions should be taken to make University research regulations more efficient, while still maintaining a high level of accountability? 

103 

Do you have any specific examples of burdensome regulations that should be reformed? 

Answer. It should be possible to significantly streamline the reporting obligations 

without reducing accountability, but even as, or more, importantly, the amount of 

time that faculty spend in writing grant applications needs to be reduced. My experience is that faculty spend much more time working on grant applications than on 

reporting. This is partly due to the length and complexity of grant proposals and 

partly because of the low percentage of applications being funded. 

My recommendation is to focus on improving the grant application and awarding 

process. 

Question 3. I am very supportive of efforts to consolidate STEM programs and 

funding streams. President Obama’s 2014 budget decreases the number of STEM 

programs by 50 percent, from 226 to 112. I know that some Members have expressed concerns about this consolidation, but I believe this a great way to reduce 

administrative overhead and to get more funding to students. 

In considering the reauthorization of COMPETES, do you have any recommendations for further consolidation of STEM programs? 

Answer. Unfortunately I don’t know enough about this issue to make a responsible recommendation. 

Question 4. I believe that America is lacking a long-term vision for economic 

growth and international competitiveness. There has not been enough of an effort 

to come together across government sectors and devise a strategy for going forward. 

I included an amendment in the 2010 COMPETES reauthorization that directed 

the Department of Commerce to create a National Competitiveness Strategy. However, I was disappointed by the way the process played out. I did not feel like the 

report did enough to concisely and effectively establish solutions for key issues like 

infrastructure investment, immigration policy, research and development funding, 

and others. 

In your opinion, what targeted investment in R&D would do the most to help 

America stay ahead of our global competition? 

What recent investments in R&D have had the most potential impact to American 

global competitiveness? 

Answer. In my opinion, the biggest economic opportunities will come from increased investment at the interface between computer science and electrical engineering and other disciplines such as medicine (and healthcare), statistics, economics, education, environment, and entertainment. The impact of advances in data 

analysis, sensors, and other areas of software and hardware, on all sectors of the 

economy is just beginning. This interface is what is driving competitiveness around 

the world, and we need to be at the forefront. 

The most important investment in terms of actual impact over the last decade has 

been in information technology research, plus the networking infrastructure. The investment in genomics and proteomics also has great potential impact, as does the 

investment in nanotechnology. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

DR. MARIA M. KLAWE

Question. Economic growth and job creation are critical to any state. I am quite 

proud of Nebraska’s recent success in this area with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, many good jobs, and successful businesses. What do you 

see as the underpinnings for a vibrant economy and jobs in the future? How can 

this legislation contribute to that? 

Answer. Innovation and new technology underpin a vibrant economy, accompanied by a strong, well-educated, entrepreneurial STEM workforce. 

The foundation for innovation is basic scientific research, and government funding 

such as the COMPETES Act plays a central role in supporting this research. Government support keeps the U.S. in the lead in terms of innovation and its commercialization. 

Government funding also plays a vital role in educating the scientific workforce. 

COMPETES supports STEM education, especially efforts to improve STEM education and grow and diversify the STEM workforce—critical for meeting the needs 

of industry and spurring economic growth. 

Computing has become the universal underpinning of scientific advancement and 

economic activity; there is incredible economic opportunity at the interface between 

computer science and virtually every discipline, especially the life sciences and engineering, but nearly every field is starting to advance rapidly by incorporating comVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:57 May 14, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\94535.TXT JACKIE
104 

puter science. The U.S. needs to lead in the R&D at this interface, and in its application and commercialization, to maintain a robust, competitive economy. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO DR. STEPHEN S. TANG

Question 1. According to a recent survey of scientists performed by the American 

Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 53 percent of respondents have 

turned away promising researchers due to a lack of funding and 18 percent are considering moving their research outside of the United States. Last year, a CEO of 

a major U.S. corporation was quoted as saying that his company was expanding 

abroad due, in part, to the ‘‘moribund interest in science in the U.S.’’ 

How would you describe the long-term effects of lower funding in terms of training the scientific workforce, attracting and keeping top talent, and supporting innovation and have you started to see these effects already? 

Answer. There is no doubt that in order to attract top talent and ensure that our 

country remains a leader in innovation, the Federal Government must prioritize investment in research activities. The economic downturn disrupted traditional financing channels for budding entrepreneurs. Since 2000, our country as a whole has 

seen a decline in commercialization of research. At a time when private capital is 

most limited, it is even more important that the government provide support for innovation and economic growth. 

At the Science Center, we have witnessed a greater need for Federal investment 

for basic and applied research. While we strongly believe in public-private partnerships, often the private sector funds only the least risky and most lucrative endeavors. Federal resources are necessary to ensure that innovators apply their knowledge and expertise widely and respond to market forces. 

Question 2. Dr. Tang, drawing on your corporate experience, how does the availability of quality STEM graduates and promising researchers affect corporate decisions about where to conduct research and where to manufacture goods? 

Answer. Corporate leaders understand the necessity of employing a skilled workforce to achieve success. Tech-based entrepreneurs and innovators depend on STEM 

talent to achieve their goals. While STEM is a growing field in this country, the demand for individuals specializing in science and math still outpaces the demand. 

Often in an attempt to capture these talents, corporate entities establish a presence 

within areas highly concentrated with STEM professionals. 

At the Science Center, we witnessed this in late 2010, when Eli Lilly acquired 

Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, a startup company located on our campus. The Greater 

Philadelphia region is home to a number of leading research institutions which have 

spun out a number of startup companies that have attracted interest from Lilly and 

other large firms. Business, industry and venture capital firms will relocate to areas 

where talent is dense and resources are rich. STEM professionals are the backbone 

to innovation and as a country we must encourage top talents to embrace this field. 

Question 3. Some have argued that the United States should focus its R&D efforts 

more on applied research and less on basic research, as some other countries have 

done. 

Dr. Tang, if the Federal Government significantly cut back its investment in basic 

research, could the Nation depend on the private sector to close the funding gap or 

is government-industry collaboration necessary? 

Answer. If the Federal Government significantly cut back its investment in basic 

research, I do not believe that the private sector would close the funding gap entirely on its own. As noted in the Department of Commerce’s study of the Nation’s 

economic competitiveness and innovation capacity, issued in January 2012 pursuant 

to the last reauthorization of America COMPETES, the Federal Government is the 

logical primary funder of basic research because the knowledge generated by basic 

research is considered to be a ‘‘public good’’: 

A public good has two main characteristics: (1) one person’s consumption of that 

good does not reduce the amount available for others to consume and (2) it is difficult to exclude others from consuming the good . . . 

What this means, particularly for basic research, is that it may not be possible 

for those conducting the research to fully appreciate the benefits from research and 

innovation. In such cases, the social benefits (those that accrue to society as a 

whole) from these innovative activities likely exceed the private benefits (those that 

accrue just to the entity conducting the research). . . . Because individual researchers cannot recoup the full value of their work, the incentive to produce a socially 

optimal amount of innovative activity is lacking. This creates a potential role for 

105 

government to fund innovative activity to raise this activity closer to the social optimum. The Competitiveness and Innovative Capacity of the United States, prepared by 

the U.S. Department of Commerce in consultation with the National Economic 

Council, January 2012, pp. 3–2—3–3. (I had the privilege of serving on the 15-member Innovation Advisory Board, appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, which provided advice with respect to the conduct of the study.) 

Accordingly, I believe it is critical that the Federal Government, at a minimum, 

maintain its level of investment in basic research so that the United States can 

maintain its position as a world leader in innovation. However, government-industry 

collaboration should continue to be encouraged, where feasible or appropriate, with 

respect to both basic and applied research. As noted in the Department of Commerce report, ‘‘Federal funding, coupled with private industry funding, was critical 

for the development of the transistor by Bell Labs in the 1950s, the growth of the 

semiconductor industry, and the birth of Silicon Valley in the 1980s.’’ The Competitiveness and Innovative Capacity of the United States, p. 3–7. In addition, simplifying and extending the corporate R&D tax credit would encourage private industry 

to undertake the risks associated with R&D activity and spending. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

DR. STEPHEN S. TANG

Question 1. More than half of all basic research in the United States is funded 

by the Federal Government—American universities and colleges are responsible for 

53 percent of this research. I believe that we should be doing more to commercialize 

federally funded research, where possible. However, there is a disparity between the 

amount of commercialization coming from top tier research schools versus lower performing schools. A recent report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science 

and Technology (PCAST) found that top tier schools tend to do very well in terms 

of funding, while lower performing schools are more constrained in their ability to 

commercialize their research. 

One problem I have noticed is that there are a series of closed markets in terms 

of who controls intellectual property (IP) within universities. Bob Litan, an innovation expert, was recently quoted in Forbes noting that ‘‘one of the big disadvantages 

of the traditional TLO model is that the TLO exerts the entire control over which 

innovations reach the market, in what form, and how fast.’’ 

Another issue is that some schools have surpassed others in terms of the amount 

of technology they are able to commercialize. One example is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Deshpande Center, which has funded 100 projects totaling 

over $13 million. The Center has also seen the creation of 28 spinout companies that 

have raised over $400 million in capital. 

I have worked with Senator Moran on a proposal to accelerate commercialization 

within underperforming university tech transfer offices as a part of the Startup Act. 

What is the most aggressive thing that we can do to spur more commercialization 

similar to what has been happening at schools like MIT? 

Additionally, do you think that crowdfunding has any role in tech transfer? I was 

interested to learn that the University of Utah has recently launched its ‘‘Technology Commercialization Office’’ which uses crowdfunding as an alternative to traditional university ‘‘technology licensing offices’’ (TLOs). What do you think about 

this? 

Answer. I am aware of the provision to which you are referring to in your legislation, the StartUp Act. We at the Science Center are highly supportive of this effort 

and applaud your attention to the need for a Federal commitment to commercialization. 

I believe that this specific provision could be further strengthened by allowing eligible non-profit venture development organizations (VDOs) to assist universities 

with commercialization activities. As you mention, some universities and research 

institutions are more adept at tech transfer than others. There are VDOs across the 

country, including research parks and other technology-based economic development 

organizations, which have extensive experience with evaluating commercialization 

potential and market viability. I urge you to allow universities the ability to contract with VDOs like the Science Center to provide proof-of-concept and other commercial research. Often these entities match resources and leverage additional funding, to enable a TLO to be able to do more than it could on its own. 

An example of this is the Science Center’s QED Proof-of-Concept Program. While 

QED was modeled after MIT’s Deshpande Center, our program is unique in that it 

is multi-institutional, and currently counts 21 colleges, universities, hospitals and 

106 

research institutions in the Greater Philadelphia area as participants. All of these 

institutions have agreed to common terms and conditions of participation. 

When we started QED, our premise was that given access to appropriate funding, 

business advice and other resources, participating institutions that have not previously taken a lead in commercialization would have marketable technologies. After 

five years of running the program, we have found this premise to be true. While 

many of the winners do come from institutions like the University of Pennsylvania 

and Drexel University, we have also funded projects from Philadelphia University, 

the University of Delaware, Lehigh University and Rutgers University. The QED 

program has resulted in six licenses and $9 million in follow on capital to date. We 

strongly believe this multi-institutional model could be replicated across the country, in virtually any R&D domain. 

Crowdfunding could be an important tool in the toolbox of entrepreneurs interested in commercialization of technology. As has been mentioned, the private markets only invest in low-risk, high-yield projects. Crowdfunding could provide access 

to capital for technologies or therapies with market potential. 

That said, it is imperative that safeguards be put in place to ensure that individuals who can participate in crowdfunding arrangements meet certain criteria and 

agree to specific terms of return on investment. Fraud prevention measure must 

also be put into place by the Federal Government to protect investors. 

Question 2. According to a 2007 report by the National Academies, faculty working on Federally funded research spend 42 percent of their time on administrative 

duties, such as compliance with Federal regulations. Additionally, a November 2012 

PCAST report states: 

‘‘Over the last two decades, the Government has added a steady stream of new 

compliance and reporting requirements, many of which vastly increase the flow of 

paper without causing any improvements in actual performance. Sometimes these 

requirements stand in the way of performance improvements.’’ 

Some solutions proposed include eliminating overly burdensome regulations, such 

as effort reporting, harmonizing regulation across agencies, focusing regulations on 

performance rather than process, as well as others. 

What actions should be taken to make University research regulations more efficient, while still maintaining a high level of accountability? 

Do you have any specific examples of burdensome regulations that should be reformed? 

Answer. Redundant and overly burdensome regulations impact not only universities but the productivity of their researchers. Some of our university partners have 

mentioned that regulations related to conflict of interest can often discourage research faculty from working with industry. We at the Science Center believe that 

university/industry partnership can spur commercialization and job creation, and 

therefore would support efforts to modify the regulations so as to encourage faculty 

to work with industry. 

The corporate tax rate of 35 percent in this country provides a competitive advantage for other countries to house our talent and capital. We lose American educated 

researchers abroad due to antiquated immigration laws as well as uncompetitive tax 

policy. I would support repatriation incentives for U.S. companies to move operations back onshore in an effort to retain both talent and economic growth. 

Question 3. I am very supportive of efforts to consolidate STEM programs and 

funding streams. President Obama’s 2014 budget decreases the number of STEM 

programs by 50 percent, from 226 to 112. I know that some Members have expressed concerns about this consolidation, but I believe this a great way to reduce 

administrative overhead and to get more funding to students. 

In considering the reauthorization of COMPETES, do you have any recommendations for further consolidation of STEM programs? 

Answer. In general I am supportive of coordinating programs with similar or dual 

missions to maximize resources and reduce redundancy. I understand that when 

programs are consolidated there are always concerns that the specific focus of each 

program will diminish. As long as we continue to prioritize STEM education, I support providing one entity (the NSF) with resources to improve inter-agency collaboration and promote a nationwide STEM agenda. 

Question 4. I believe that America is lacking a long-term vision for economic 

growth and international competitiveness. There has not been enough of an effort 

to come together across government sectors and devise a strategy for going forward. 

I included an amendment in the 2010 COMPETES reauthorization that directed 

the Department of Commerce to create a National Competitiveness Strategy. However, I was disappointed by the way the process played out. I did not feel like the 

report did enough to concisely and effectively establish solutions for key issues like 

107 

infrastructure investment, immigration policy, research and development funding, 

and others. 

In your opinion, what targeted investment in R&D would do the most to help 

America stay ahead of our global competition? 

What recent investments in R&D have had the most potential impact to American 

global competitiveness? 

Answer. As a member of the Innovation Advisory Board that drafted the report 

on U.S. competitiveness and innovative capacity, I also had hoped for a more comprehensive document. 

Related to your question about R&D priorities, I strongly believe the Federal Government must invest more in applied research, as a complement to the Nation’s continued support of basic research. To be clear, I do not advocate for commercialization at the expense of basic research; however, we must empower researchers to 

study proof-of-concept and think about market viability. In large part, a shift in culture at many universities must occur to create environments that support commercialization activities, and a commitment from the Federal Government could help 

spur this change. 

I would argue that Federal investment in human capital through STEM education 

is the most significant in terms of potential for American global competitiveness. 

There is no one technology or therapy that makes America competitive alone; rather, it is our talented researchers that are continually investigating, finding new 

products and creating new companies. Significant and important technologies have 

been developed with the assistance of Federal funds in the fields of life sciences, national defense, and space exploration, all of which make our country competitive 

among nations. Without a talented and education workforce these developments 

would never come about. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. DEB FISCHER TO

DR. STEPHEN S. TANG

Question. Economic growth and job creation are critical to any state. I am quite 

proud of Nebraska’s recent success in this area with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, many good jobs, and successful businesses. What do you 

see as the underpinnings for a vibrant economy and jobs in the future? How can 

this legislation contribute to that? 

Answer. Regional economies must recognize their strengths and build an environment where all necessary economic components can work together and collaborate. 

In Philadelphia we are fortunate to have a large concentration of life sciences resources, leading research institutions and industry, in close proximity. For regional 

economies to prosper, essential components—such as investors, inventors and entrepreneurs—should be given the space, opportunity and incentive to collaborate on a 

regular basis. 

In particular, I am a strong proponent of ‘‘scalable innovation,’’ in which regional 

economies assess their innovation capacity in conjunction with their particular assets and strengths, and then scale in accordance with local market forces. While 

Southeastern Pennsylvania, for example, is focused on an innovation economy that 

highlights the life sciences, other areas could ‘‘scale’’ innovation in manufacturing, 

energy or other industries in which they have strength. 

The Federal government should support local, regional and state efforts to create 

innovative and vibrant economies. The America COMPETES Act is an important 

tool that reinforces this commitment. At the Science Center, and at other technology-based economic development entities across the nation, we work to commercialize federally funded research; that is, to transform the significant investment the 

government has made in basic research into marketable technologies and companies. America COMPETES’s creation of the Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Department of Commerce has spurred a focus on and investment in 

translational research and commercialization. The Regional Innovation Program will 

assist local economies in scaling to their innovation potential. Finally, the reauthorization of America COMPETES provides us with the opportunity to further capitalize on promising research and allow for a focus on job creation. With additional 

tools, such as the ability to compete directly for a larger number of National Science 

Foundation grants, non-profit economic development entities across the Nation 

could significantly boost their efforts to assist academic researchers and start-up entrepreneurs, thereby leading to more economic development and job creation. 

Æ