U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

86–891PDF 2013

KEEPING AMERICA FIRST: FEDERAL INVESTMENTS 

IN RESEARCH, SCIENCE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY AT NSF, NIST, OSTP, 

AND INTERAGENCY STEM PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 13, 2013 

Serial No. 113–53 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana, Chair 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

FEDERICA WILSON, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

AMI BERA, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

November 13, 2013 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Larry Bucshon, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Richard Buckius, Vice President for Research, Purdue University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Dr. Daniel Sarewitz, Co-Director, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, 

Professor of Science and Society, Arizona State University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

Dr. Timothy Killeen, President, The Research Foundation for SUNY, Vice 

Chancellor for Research, SUNY System Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 39 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41 

Mr. James Brown, Executive Director, STEM Education Coalition 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 49 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 51 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 65 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Richard Buckius, Vice President for Research, Purdue University .............. 86 

Dr. Daniel Sarewitz, Co-Director, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, 

Professor of Science and Society, Arizona State University ............................. 94 

Dr. Timothy Killeen, President, The Research Foundation for SUNY, Vice 

Chancellor for Research, SUNY System Administration .................................. 97 

Mr. James Brown, Executive Director, STEM Education Coalition .................... 111 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted statement of Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ......................................................... 116 
Page

IV 

Discussion draft ....................................................................................................... 117 
(1) 

KEEPING AMERICA FIRST: FEDERAL 

INVESTMENTS IN RESEARCH, 

SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY AT NSF, NIST, 

OSTP, 

AND INTERAGENCY STEM PROGRAMS 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Larry Bucshon 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman BUCSHON. The Subcommittee on Research and Technology will come to order. 

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today’s hearing titled 

‘‘Keeping America First: Federal Investments in Research, Science 

and Technology at NSF, NIST, OSTP and Interagency STEM Programs.’’ In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and Truth in Testimony disclosures for today’s 

witnesses. I will now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

I am pleased to call to order this morning’s hearing to examine 

the fundamental science and research activities at NSF, the National Institutes for Standards and Technology, known as NIST, 

and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP. We have 

circulated a discussion draft, and I want to emphasize, it is a discussion draft, of legislation that would reauthorize basic science research and education programs at NSF, NIST and OSTP, and 

strengthen coordination of science, technology, engineering and 

mathematics—STEM—education programs across the Federal Government. 

I am pleased the majority and minority staff had an opportunity 

to review the discussion draft carefully and identify areas of agreement. We have asked NSF, NIST and OSTP as well as other stakeholders in the university and business communities for their comments about the discussion draft. We look forward to a thoughtful 

and productive dialogue. 

Scientific research is essential fuel for America’s engine of innovation. Research-driven innovation is critical for American businesses to remain competitive and world-class in a global marketplace. Additionally, educating our children in the STEM fields is 

crucial to their futures and to the future of our Nation. 

NSF spends nearly $7 billion of taxpayers’ money every year. 

Congress has a responsibility to work with leaders at the NSF and 

the National Science Board to ensure that these taxpayer dollars 

focus on high-priority research. 

The FIRST Act discussion draft affirms our commitment to highintegrity science and transparency of research results. The proposed legislation improves transparency of taxpayer-funded research by making more information available to the public about 

awarded grants and how they promote the national interest. Furthermore, it is consistent with steps the NSF is already considering 

to improve accountability, which have been approved by the National Science Board. 

As it relates to STEM education, if leading the world in the hightech sector and achieving the innovations of tomorrow are an imperative goal of the United States, American students and America’s education system must excel in the STEM fields. 

Unfortunately, America lags behind many other nations when it 

comes to STEM education. American students rank 23rd in science 

and 31st in math. We must improve these numbers substantially 

if we expect to remain a world leader. We must engage our Nation’s youth to study science and engineering so they will want to 

pursue these careers. Private and nonprofit stakeholders are also 

working to engage students in STEM subjects. Understanding and 

leveraging these resources is an important aspect of strengthening 
9 

Federal support for STEM education. The FIRST Act discussion 

draft improves coordination for Federal STEM programs and recognizes the importance of industry investment in outcome-oriented 

STEM education efforts. 

Another key part of this discussion draft is the ‘‘Technology and 

Research Accelerating National Security and Future Economic Resiliency Act’’—I did get that out—or TRANSFER Act, of which I am 

a cosponsor, and which has been endorsed by a long list of business 

and nonprofit organizations. The research and development conducted at our nation’s universities, research institutes and national 

laboratories have served as the basis for many technology breakthroughs that have driven American innovation and our economic 

growth. In order to bolster American economic competitiveness, the 

TRANSFER Act will improve technology transfer and accelerate 

commercialization of federally funded research and development at 

our Nation’s research universities and laboratories, in part, by encouraging stronger R&D partnerships among universities, national 

laboratories and businesses. 

Basic research funded through our Nation’s science agencies has 

provided the basis for many of the technology breakthroughs that 

have kept America and our universities at the scientific forefront. 

They have also helped create new industries, innovations and jobs 

that have boosted our economy and strengthened our economic 

competitiveness. 

As our country continues to face a fiscal crisis, part of our challenge is how to achieve the most benefit from our limited resources 

both now and in the years ahead. We recognize that returns on 

these long-term investments, including expanding STEM education, 

may take many years to be realized fully. 

As we all anxiously await the results of the work done by our colleagues who are taking part in the budget conference negotiations, 

we also recognize that in a time of tight budgets in Washington, 

it is even more important to preserve as much stability in Federal 

funding as possible. 

I want to reiterate what we are reviewing is a discussion draft, 

not final legislation, and on both sides of the aisle, the staff and 

the Members are working together to come up with a final piece 

of legislation that will benefit our country. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and 

having a productive discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bucshon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

CHAIRMAN LARRY BUCSHON

I am pleased to call to order this morning’s hearing to examine the fundamental 

science and research activities at the National Science Foundation, known as the 

NSF, National Institutes for Standards and Technology, known as NIST, and the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP. 

We have circulated a discussion draft of legislation that would reauthorize basic 

research and education programs at NSF, NIST, and OSTP, and strengthen coordination of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education 

programs across the federal government. 

I am pleased the majority and minority staff had an opportunity to review the 

discussion draft carefully and identify areas of agreement. We have asked NSF, 

NIST, and OSTP, as well as other stakeholders in the university and business com-
10 

munities for their comments about the discussion draft. We look forward to a 

thoughtful and productive dialogue. 

Scientific research is essential fuel for America’s engine of innovation. Researchdriven innovation is critical for American businesses to remain competitive and 

world-class in a global marketplace. Additionally, educating our children in the 

STEM fields is crucial to their futures and our nation’s. 

NSF spends nearly $7 billion of taxpayers’ money every year. Congress has a responsibility to work with leaders at the NSF and the National Science Board to ensure that these taxpayer dollars focus on high priority research. 

The FIRST Act discussion draft affirms our commitment to high-integrity science 

and transparency of research results. The proposed legislation improves transparency of taxpayer-funded research by making more information available to the 

public about awarded grants and how they promote the national interest. Furthermore, it is consistent with steps the NSF is already considering to improve accountability, which have been approved by the National Science Board. 

As it relates to STEM education, if leading the world in the high-tech sector and 

achieving the innovations of tomorrow are an imperative goal of the US, American 

students and America’s education system must excel in the STEM fields. 

Unfortunately, America lags behind many other nations when it comes to STEM 

education. American students rank 23rd in science and 31st in math. We must improve these numbers substantially if we expect to remain a world leader. We must 

engage our nation’s youth to study science and engineering so they will want to pursue these careers. 

Private and nonprofit stakeholders are also working to engage students in STEM 

subjects. Understanding and leveraging those resources is an important aspect of 

strengthening federal support for STEM education. The FIRST Act discussion draft 

improves coordination for federal STEM programs and recognizes the importance of 

industry investment in outcome-oriented STEM education efforts. 

Another key part of this discussion draft is the ‘‘Technology and Research Accelerating National Security and Future Economic Resiliency Act,’’ or TRANSFER Act, 

of which I am a cosponsor, and which has been endorsed by a long list of business 

and non-profit organizations. 

The research and development conducted at our nation’s universities, research institutes, and national laboratories have served as the basis for many technology 

breakthroughs that have driven American innovation and our economic growth. 

In order to bolster American economic competitiveness, the TRANSFER Act will 

improve technology transfer and accelerate commercialization of federally funded research and development at our nation’s research universities and laboratories—in 

part, by encouraging stronger R&D partnerships among universities, national laboratories, and businesses. 

Basic research funded through our nation’s science agencies has provided the 

basis for many of the technology breakthroughs that have kept America and our 

universities at the scientific forefront. 

They have also helped create new industries, innovations, and jobs that have 

boosted our economy and strengthened our economic competitiveness. 

As our country continues to face a fiscal crisis, part of our challenge is how to 

achieve the most benefit from our limited resources—both now and in the years 

ahead. 

We recognize that returns on these long-term investments, including expanding 

STEM education, may take many years to be realized fully. 

Also, as we all anxiously await the results of the work done by our colleagues who 

are taking part in the budget conference negotiations, we also recognize that in a 

time of tight budgets in Washington, it’s even more important to preserve as much 

stability in federal funding as possible. 

I want to reiterate what we are reviewing is a discussion draft, not final legislation. I look forward to hearing from out distinguished witnesses and having a productive discussion. 

Chairman BUCSHON. At this point I now recognize the Ranking 

Member, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for an opening 

statement. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, for holding today’s 

hearing on the discussion draft of the FIRST Act, and I want to 

welcome our witnesses here today. 

We have all seen the headlines about how our competitors are 

pouring resources into research and development. They may not be 
11 

ahead of us now in total investment, but China and others are already far outpacing us in R&D growth. As we all know, these are 

long-term investments, and failing to adequately invest now will 

catch up with us when we see slower job growth from less innovation. 

In my district last week, Argonne National Lab announced that 

due to sequestration and future budget uncertainty, they would be 

forced to let go 120 of their staff. Although Argonne is funded primarily by the Department of Energy rather than NSF or NIST, 

this serves as a reminder of what will happen if we continue to let 

science funding stagnate across the Federal Government. If this 

trend continues, the long term effects on our scientific competitiveness will be catastrophic. Agencies and universities won’t be able 

to plan, some of the best and brightest will give up and leave their 

labs, and the younger generation will see what their mentors are 

up against and decide against a career as a researcher altogether. 

A witness before this Committee recently said that if he were a 

young scientist in a foreign country he doesn’t think he would decide to come to America to study and stay to do research, as he had 

done early in his career, and this is something that we have to be 

concerned about. 

I understand very well that America faces a serious debt threat 

and that we need to make some tough decisions, but almost all of 

these are well outside the purview of this Committee or the scope 

of today’s hearing. The Chairman’s intent is to hold off on including 

authorization levels until we have a budget deal. I hope that we 

can use the time before the budget deadline to more fully discuss 

some of the policy proposals contained in the draft, and I also hope 

this does not mean that we intend to let budget negotiators dictate 

to this committee what the appropriate levels of funding are for 

Federal science agencies. We are an authorizing committee, and as 

an authorizing committee, I always hate to see the appropriators 

be able to call all the shots, and I think it is important for us here 

to have a discussion on authorization levels that reflect a smart 

and balanced approach to making sure we remain strong and competitive in science, technology and innovation. I look forward to 

working with the Chairman and all of my colleagues to do that. 

Before we hear from the witnesses, let me just comment on a few 

of the priorities I have for this legislation. First, manufacturing 

plays a significant role in our economic and national security. We 

must reinvigorate and expand America’s manufacturing base, and 

we cannot do that with the technologies and processes of yesterday. 

The small and medium-sized industries that comprise a significant 

portion of our manufacturing capacity don’t have the resources or 

capacity to invest in the most far-reaching R&D with potential application to the manufacturing technologies and processes of the future. NIST and NSF play a critical role in funding such research, 

and we should take the opportunity of moving legislation to reinforce and expand our efforts to revitalize American manufacturing. 

Next, NSF is responsible for supporting research across all scientific disciplines, from the physical and life sciences, to engineering, to the social, economic and behavioral sciences. I know that 

some of my colleagues question the value of research in the social 

and behavioral sciences, but there is ample evidence that this re-
12 

search is just as important as any NSF conducts, and the budget 

for the entire social, behavioral, and economic science directorate 

amounts to just over three percent of all of NSF’s budget. Social 

and behavioral sciences have played a critical role in strengthening 

our response to disasters, improving public health, strengthening 

our legal system, and optimizing the use of Federal resources. I believe any reauthorization of NSF should provide sustainable funding to all scientific disciplines and not impose any unique restrictions or conditions on any specific type of research. 

I would also like to see inclusion of language to formally establish NSF’s I–Corps program. Results from the first couple of years 

of this program support my belief that I–Corps will yield exponential benefits, helping turn NSF’s research investments into new 

companies and jobs across the country. In fact, it is important that 

we work together across the Federal research portfolio to lower the 

barriers for the commercialization of federally funded research. 

Supporting the creation of public-private partnerships, reducing 

the risk for capital investment, and eliminating obstacles to technology transfer will help us get a larger return on our investment 

in science not only in economic terms, but in benefits for all Americans. 

I am going to close with just a couple of thoughts about the draft 

bill. I have concerns with language in the bill that would make 

changes to the way that NSF conducts merit review of research 

proposals. While some of my colleagues may believe that these provisions merely increase accountability and transparency in the use 

of Federal resources, which certainly we all agree we want to do, 

I fear that the criteria used in the bill are vague and the process 

is unnecessarily burdensome. At best, this language may add a 

good deal of uncertainty as to how research grants would be awarded; at worst I fear it could fundamentally alter how merit review 

is done at an agency that is viewed as a gold standard by the rest 

of the world. As I said, I am certainly not opposed to increasing accountability and transparency, and I welcome rigorous oversight of 

NSF programs, and we have an obligation to do that, but I believe 

we need to think through these concerns and possible solutions 

more carefully, and I hope we will have the opportunity to do so 

not just today, but in additional hearings on this bill. I think we 

are going to have some questions on that for the witnesses. I look 

forward to hearing from them on this and other issues. I want to 

thank the Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DANIEL LIPINSKI

Thank you, Chairman Bucshon for holding today’s hearing on the discussion draft 

of the FIRST Act, and welcome to our witnesses. 

We have all seen the headlines about how our competitors are pouring resources 

into R&D. They may not be ahead of us now in total investment, but China and 

others are already far outpacing us in R&D growth. As we all know, these are longterm investments, and failing to adequately invest now will catch up with us when 

we see slower job growth. 

In my district last week, Argonne National Laboratory announced that due to sequestration and future budget uncertainty they would be forced to let 120 of their 

staff go. Although Argonne is funded primarily by the Department of Energy rather 
13 

than NSF or NIST, this serves as a reminder of what will happen if we continue 

to let science funding stagnate across the Federal Government. If this trend continues, the long term effects on our scientific competitiveness will be catastrophic. 

Agencies and universities won’t be able to plan, some of the best and brightest will 

give up and leave their labs, and the younger generation will see what their mentors are up against and decide against a career as a researcher altogether. A witness before this committee recently said that if he were a young scientist today in 

a foreign country he doesn’t think he’d decide to come to America to study and stay 

to do research, as he had done early in his career. 

I understand very well that America faces a serious debt threat and that we need 

to make some tough decisions; but almost all of these are well outside the purview 

of this Committee or the scope of today’s hearing. The Chairman’s intent is to hold 

off on including authorization levels until we have a budget deal. I hope that we 

can use the time before the budget deadline to more fully discuss some of the policy 

proposals contained in the draft, and I also hope this does not mean that we intend 

to let budget negotiators dictate to this committee what the appropriate levels of 

funding are for federal science agencies. Since we are an authorizing committee, we 

should be leading the discussion about authorization levels that reflect a smart and 

balanced approach to making sure we remain strong and competitive in science, 

technology, and innovation. I look forward to working with the Chairman and all 

of my colleagues to that end. 

Before we hear from the witnesses, let me just comment on a few of the priorities 

I have for this legislation. First, manufacturing plays a significant role in our economic and national security. We must reinvigorate and expand America’s manufacturing base, and we cannot do that with the technologies and processes of yesterday. 

The small and medium-sized industries that comprise a significant portion of our 

manufacturing capacity don’t have the resources or capacity to invest in the most 

far-reaching R&D with potential application to the manufacturing technologies and 

processes of the future. NIST and NSF play a critical role in funding such research 

and we should take the opportunity of moving legislation to reinforce and expand 

our efforts to revitalize American manufacturing. 

Next, NSF is responsible for supporting research across all scientific disciplines, 

from the physical and life sciences, to engineering, to the social, economic, and behavioral sciences. I know that some of my colleagues question the value of research 

in the social and behavioral sciences, but there is ample evidence that this research 

is just as important as any NSF conducts, and the budget for the entire social, behavioral, and economic science directorate amounts to just over three percent of all 

of NSF’s budget. Social and behavioral sciences have played a critical role in 

strengthening our response to disasters, improving public health, strengthening our 

legal system, and optimizing the use of federal resources. I believe any reauthorization of NSF should provide sustainable funding to all scientific disciplines and not 

impose any unique restrictions or conditions on any specific type of research. 

I would also like to see inclusion of language to formally establish NSF’s I-Corps 

program. Results from the first couple of years of this program support my belief 

that I-Corps will yield exponential benefits, helping turn NSF’s research investments into new companies and jobs across the country. In fact, it is important that 

we work together across the federal research portfolio to lower the barriers for the 

commercialization of federally funded research. Supporting the creation of publicprivate partnerships, reducing the risk for capital investment, and eliminating obstacles to technology transfer will help us get a larger return on our investment in 

science not only in economic terms, but for the benefit of all Americans. 

I will close with just a couple of thoughts about the draft bill under consideration 

today. I have concerns with language in the bill that would make changes to the 

way that NSF conducts merit review of research proposals. While some of my colleagues may believe that these provisions merely increase accountability and transparency in the use of federal resources, I fear that the criteria used in the bill are 

vague and that the process is unnecessarily burdensome. At best this language may 

add a good deal of uncertainty as to how research grants would be awarded, at 

worst I fear it could fundamentally alter how merit review is done at an agency that 

is viewed as a gold standard by the rest of the world. I am not opposed to increasing 

accountability and transparency. I welcome rigorous oversight of NSF programs. 

But I believe we need to think through these concerns and possible solutions more 

carefully and I hope we will have the opportunity to do so not just today, but in 

additional hearings on this bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and with that I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 
14 

At this time I am going to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for her statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me 

say thank you to our witnesses for being here this morning. 

The Science Committee, perhaps more than any other committee, 

is where we lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth and 

prosperity. It is here where we make the decision to continue or to 

cede the U.S. leadership in science and technology. It is here where 

we make the decision to plant the seeds for the fruits of U.S. 

science to grow into new companies and jobs, improved health, 

strengthened national security, and improved quality of life for all 

Americans. 

The 2005 Rising Above the Gathering Storm report was a call to 

action that brought us all together in this common cause, Democrat 

and Republican, Congress and the Administration. In 2007, Congress enacted the America COMPETES Act with an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority. That bill set three of our agencies, NSF, 

NIST and DOE’s Office of Science, on a doubling path and it created the very successful ARPA–E. Unfortunately, as we all know, 

the vision of COMPETES was not fully realized. Across-the-board 

cuts magnified by all of the budget uncertainty over the last few 

years are causing deep and in some cases irreparable harm to our 

leadership in S&T. 

Last week, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, one of the 

champions of the original COMPETES Act, testified before his colleagues during a hearing on reauthorization of the Competes Act. 

He said there are plenty of things that we do that are less important than this, if we want to keep a high standard of living. Senator Alexander went on to urge his colleagues to authorize what 

our goals should be. I can’t agree more. 

This is not the time to be timid. This is the time to send a clear 

message to the appropriators of our priorities as authorizers. 

While all of the feuding about the budget goes on around us, the 

Science Committee is one place where we should be able to agree 

more than we disagree. We did so successfully for many years, even 

during divided government, and it is my hope that we can do so 

again. I have been troubled by occasions over the past year where 

that spirit of bipartisanship has broken down, and where science 

has at times seemed to be under siege. We need to get back to the 

approach to legislating that has served this Committee well for 

many years, and certainly the 21 years that I have been on it. 

Unfortunately, the draft legislation before us today leaves me 

puzzled. For one thing, it appears to cede our responsibility as authorizers to the appropriations committee by leaving out the funding levels that we think are necessary to carry out the provisions 

of the bill. Perhaps more concerning are the policy directions in 

this bill. There are some provisions on which we can agree. However, it troubles me that this draft seems to be dominated in both 

tone and volume by everything that some of my colleagues believe 

that NSF and scientists are doing wrong, and contains very little 

in the way of a vision for the future. I am also confused why the 

draft strikes two sections of existing law establishing broadening 

participation as an important part of NSF’s mission when the 

changing demographics of this country should make efforts to 
15 

broaden participation in STEM. That is really a no-brainer. I worry 

that this discussion draft reflects a lack of imagination that will 

not help this Nation meet the competitive challenge we face. 

A few weeks ago I circulated a comprehensive COMPETES reauthorization draft bill that I hope captures the COMPETES principles laid out earlier this year by the scientific community. I am 

in the process of gathering feedback and more ideas from stakeholders and Democratic Members, and I welcome the witnesses’ 

thoughts on my discussion draft. As we move forward, I would be 

very happy to work with the Chairman and with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as I have always done to craft 

a bipartisan bill that truly sets a vision for continued U.S. leadership in science and technology. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all the witnesses 

for being here. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to our witnesses for being here this 

morning. 

The Science Committee, perhaps more than any other Committee, is where we lay 

the groundwork for long-term economic growth and prosperity. It is here where we 

make the decision to continue, or to cede U.S. leadership in science and technology. 

It is here where we make the decision to plant the seeds for the fruits of U.S. 

science to grow into new companies and jobs, improved health, strengthened national security, and improved quality of life for all Americans. 

The 2005 Rising Above the Gathering Storm report was a call to action that 

brought us all together in this common cause, Democrat and Republican, Congress 

and the Administration. In 2007 Congress enacted the America Competes Act with 

an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority. That bill set three of our agencies, NSF, 

NIST, and DOE’s Office of Science, on a doubling path and it created the very successful ARPA-E. Unfortunately, as we all know, the vision of Competes was not fully 

realized. Across the board cuts magnified by all of the budget uncertainty over the 

last few years are causing deep and in some cases irreparable harm to our leadership in S&T. 

Last week, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, one of the champions of the 

original Competes Act, testified before his colleagues during a hearing on reauthorization of the Competes Act. He said ‘‘there are plenty of things that we do that 

are less important than this, if we want to keep a high standard of living.’’ Senator 

Alexander went on to urge his colleagues ‘‘to authorize what our goals should be.’’ 

I couldn’t agree more. This is not the time to be timid. This is the time to send a 

clear message to the appropriators of our priorities as authorizers. 

While all of the feuding about the budget goes on around us, the Science Committee is one place where we should be able to agree more than we disagree. We 

did so successfully for many years, even during divided government, and it is my 

hope that we can do so again. I have been troubled by occasions over the past year 

where that spirit of bipartisanship has broken down, and where science has at times 

seemed to be under siege. We need to get back to the approach to legislating that 

has served this Committee well for many years. 

Unfortunately, the draft legislation before us today leaves me puzzled. For one 

thing, it appears to cede our responsibility as authorizers to the appropriations committee by leaving out the funding levels that we think are necessary to carry out 

the provisions of the bill. Perhaps more concerning are the policy directions in this 

bill. There are some provisions on which we can agree. However, it troubles me that 

this draft seems to be dominated in both tone and volume by everything that some 

of my colleagues believe NSF and scientists are doing wrong, and contains very little in the way of a vision for the future. I am also confused why the draft strikes 

two sections of existing law establishing broadening participation as an important 

part of NSF’s mission when the changing demographics of this country should make 

efforts to broaden participation in STEM a no-brainer. I worry that this discussion 
16 

draft reflects a lack of imagination that will not help this nation meet the competitive challenge we face. 

A few weeks ago I circulated a comprehensive Competes Reauthorization draft bill 

that I hope captures the Competes principles laid out earlier this year by the scientific community. I am in the process of gathering feedback and more ideas from 

stakeholders and Democratic Members and I welcome the witnesses’ thoughts on my 

discussion draft. As we move forward, I would be very happy to work with the 

Chairman and with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft a bipartisan bill that truly sets a vision for continued U.S. leadership in science and technology. 

Thank you again to the witnesses for being here this morning and I look forward 

to your testimony. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, and thank you for 

your comments, and I will remind everyone again, it is a discussion 

draft, and obviously we want to work with everyone on amendments and changes that will make it a true bipartisan approach. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time I am going to introduce our witnesses. 

Our first witness today is Professor Richard Buckius of Purdue 

University. Dr. Buckius is currently the Vice President for Research and Professor of Mechanical Engineering. Previously, he 

was a faculty member at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, my alma mater, and Dr. Buckius also served as the 

National Science Foundation’s Assistant Director for Engineering. 

Dr. Buckius received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees and Ph.D. 

in mechanical engineering at the University of California at Berkeley. 

Our second witness is Professor Daniel Sarewitz of Arizona State 

University. He currently is a Professor of Science and Society, and 

the Co-Director and Co-Founder of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University. Dr. Sarewitz is the 

editor of the magazine Issues in Science and Technology, and is 

also a regular columnist for the journal Nature. He received his 

Ph.D. in geological sciences from Cornell. 

Our third witness is Professor Tim Killeen. In June 2012, Dr. 

Killeen was appointed President of the Research Foundation for 

the state of New York, and State University of New York Vice 

Chancellor for Research. Dr. Killeen previously served as the National Science Foundation’s Assistant Director for Geosciences. He 

also served as the Director of the National Center for Atmospheric 

Research. Dr. Killeen completed his undergraduate and graduate 

education at the University College-London, earning his Ph.D. in 

atomic and molecular physics. 

And our final witness today is Mr. James Brown. Mr. Brown is 

the Executive Director of the STEM Education Coalition, an alliance of more than 500 businesses, professional and education organizations that works to raise awareness about the critical role of 

STEM education. Prior to joining the coalition, he was Assistant 

Director for Advocacy at the American Chemical Society. Mr. 

Brown received his B.S. from the University of New Mexico and an 

M.S. from Penn State, both in nuclear engineering. He also holds 

an MBA from George Washington University. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here this 

morning, and as our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is 
17 

limited to five minutes, after which the Members of the Committee 

will have five minutes each to ask questions. 

I now recognize Dr. Buckius for five minutes to present his testimony. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. RICHARD BUCKIUS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

RESEARCH, PURDUE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. BUCKIUS. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member 

Lipinski and the honorable Members of the Committee. I am here 

to discuss the discussion draft of FIRST. Thank you for the introduction. You saved me some time. I don’t have to go through my 

background. 

I just want to add, though, that I was 30 years at UIUC, Illinois, 

and served as a Department Head, and Associate Vice Chancellor 

for Research. During that time, I was fortunate enough to serve at 

NSF in almost all the capacities. I was a Division Program Director 

initially, then later came back and served as a Division Director, 

and then as the AD, the Assistant Director for Engineering. Now 

at Purdue, we overlook almost all of the research activities that go 

on at Purdue University. 

Two comments that might be important. The service that I provided to NSF was granted on an Intergovernmental Personnel Act 

leave from Illinois, which is the subject of some of the discussion 

in this particular discussion draft, and at NSF, in engineering, engineering at NSF oversees the SBIR/STTR program, and so that 

might be important. 

I would really only want to share a few comments, and then I 

am looking forward to questions. First thing was regarding fiscal 

reality and basic research. As noted in the original Act in 1950, 

fundamental basic research continues to provide tremendous impact, and we need to make sure that that occurs in the future. 

Some outcomes of basic research can be anticipated, some might be 

obvious to others, yet many of the discoveries and innovations are 

entirely unexpected. NSF takes a very long view for supporting efforts that expand knowledge, enhance understanding and provide 

an engine for new technologies. As important, Federal research 

supports and enables the education and training of the next generation of innovators. 

It is clear that we are in a period of great financial stress in 

many areas of the Federal Government, and it is stressing all of 

us in our homes around the Nation. The projections of the national 

future debt paint a picture of an extremely heavy burden on future 

generations. With this Act, the opportunity exists to meet a great 

challenge that can both fund future discoveries and innovations 

and prepare our young people to participate in the innovation future. Placing discretionary research spending in opposition to mandatory spending could jeopardize the future discoveries that will 

yield tomorrow’s innovations. It could also jeopardize the undiscovered talent in our youth who will make those future research 

generations. It is my hope that we can finance future innovative research and thereby cultivating this future generation of innovators 

together with balancing and handling our looming fiscal debt. 

On the STEM priority, Purdue strongly urges Congress to provide a reliable, sustained funding for STEM research and education 
18 

in the context of a responsible budget. We applaud the current 

draft’s language to consider the coordination in Federal STEM 

funding yet ensuring each agency’s approach. A coordinated multidisciplinary approach is that which is taken at Purdue. We believe 

in our STEM students, and all of our students need a broad-based 

education to make a difference in the world. A diverse, interdisciplinary approach can only work if we remove barriers. We 

don’t duplicate activities but rather collaborate across disciplines to 

enhance the total impact. This is very similar to the current approach in this country as well as NSF in support of STEM research 

and education. 

And finally, comments on transparency and impact. We fully 

support the open public access for results of federally funded research. It is central to the mission of higher education. For decades, Purdue together with others in higher education community 

have promoted open access. The publication delay of open public 

access is a key point, and various sound arguments have been provided, yet I think it is important to proceed with the implementation of this as soon as possible and with a shorter publication delay 

time. We applaud the open access directive and are eager to see it 

succeed. 

Finally, comments on NSF, and you have heard this from our 

Chair and Ranking Chair. The National Science Foundation relies 

on thousands of experts every day in their expert fields to provide 

knowledgeable evaluations of the proposals. Reviewers deliver 

these detailed evaluations confidentially and without compensation. 

This is a valuable service to the Nation, and it needs to be preserved. Consistent with the wording in Section 104 of this discussion draft related to the awarding of the proposals, an affirmation 

of award quality by the Foundation in general should be possible 

with a slight increase in administrative load. Yet the prior publication of awards and associated information will severely compromise 

the process and add tremendous burden, administrative burden, to 

the process. 

In summary, I would like you to consider the intellectual discovery debt incurred by foregoing investments in basic research together with the looming financial debt. Hopefully we can enable a 

coordinated and distributed approach currently proposed for STEM 

education research, and finally, ensure open public access to federally funded research findings while protecting the confidential 

merit review process. 

Thank you very much for letting me provide you some insight, 

and for your leadership on this Act. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Buckius follows:] 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Dr. Buckius, for that testimony. 

I now recognize Dr. Sarewitz for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DANIEL SAREWITZ DR. DANIEL SAREWITZ, 

CO-DIRECTOR, CONSORTIUM FOR SCIENCE, 

POLICY & OUTCOMES, PROFESSOR OF SCIENCE AND SOCIETY, 

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. SAREWITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. 

I want to begin by bringing to your attention the cover story of 

the October 19th issue of The Economist, which was titled ‘‘How 

Science Goes Wrong.’’ The article investigates the question, can the 

scientific community by itself assure the quality of its research results, and we have all been taught to believe that it can through 

peer review, the scientific method and a culture of skeptical inquiry, and of course, these accountability mechanisms are crucial 

to the integrity and value of science, but the article—as the article 

details, they are not always enough. So The Economist provides a 

timely reminder of one reason why today’s hearing is important 

and appropriate, and I will limit my comments right now to the 

issues raised in Title I of the discussion draft of the FIRST Act, 

which represents a positive step in considering how do we improve 

the performance of the publicly funded science enterprise, and I am 

pleased to be testifying as a part of this effort. 

It is apparent that we all agree that NSF is a remarkably effective Federal agency, institutionally quite innovative and with a 

complex, increasingly complex and important mission. In this context, Title I makes clear the Committee’s desire to ensure that NSF 

is accountable for spending research dollars effectively, that research results are valid and that alternative research funding models are explored. These goals are laudable, yet as detailed in the 

discussion draft, are somewhat scattershot. The draft could benefit 

from a more strategic focus and greater clarity about how and 

where to intervene to incentivize better performance. For example, 

talking also about Section 104 that Dr. Buckius mentioned, I would 

say that it doesn’t seem like it would create the new level of accountability at NSF that the Committee seeks. I don’t see this 

interfering with peer review as articulated but the list of eight criteria that would be used to determine if a grant is worthy of support seems so general that it could actually act against the Committee’s aims by adding a meaningless rubber stamp to the grant 

approval process. 

The key strategic goal here has to be to maintain and improve 

the integrity, capacity and productivity of NSF despite the fact that 

Federal support for science is not likely to increase significantly 

over the next several years or more and despite the fact that competition for limited resources is likely to grow ever more fierce. 

The Committee could work with NSF and other R&D funders to 

explore a range of approaches to improving accountability, public 

value and sustainability of the enterprise. Let me mention just five 

possibilities that I think are not typically considered. 

NSF could ensure that peer review panels give full consideration 

as required in NSF’s proposal guidelines to both of NSF’s review 
25 

criteria, intellectual merit and broader impacts. This approach to 

accountability recognizes that excellence arises both from the quality of the science and its potential to contribute to larger programmatic goals, and I say this fully aware of the question of patience and unpredictability that Dr. Buckius mentioned. In this regard, NSF would need to expand its definition of peer expertise to 

allow for competent assessment of broader impact. 

NSF could implement a process to identify and reduce hype in 

proposals. The super-competitive environment for getting Federal 

grants encourages hyping the potential for projects to yield results 

that are important, groundbreaking, transformational and so on. 

Hype serves to inflate expectations about what a project might accomplish and may contribute to bias as well by committing researchers to look for positive results even when the evidence is 

weak or absent as detailed again in this Economist article that I 

mentioned. Hype assessment should be done by evaluating the 

plausibility of specific claims and promises of scientific advance and 

broader impacts that are made in proposals, and overhyped research could be denied funding. 

NSF could competitively fund red team projects aimed at replicating research results from high-priority or high-profile lines of research. NSF could similarly fund groups that would assess the scientific robustness of computer models used in a variety of fields 

with potential application for policymaking. NSF could give preference to researchers whose previous work has been replicated by 

independent research groups, to researchers whose academic units 

assess quality rather than quantity of research as the main criteria 

for tenure promotion, and to researchers who demonstrate that 

their projects have been developed collaboratively with potential 

knowledge users or that results from previous projects have been 

taken up by organizations outside of the academic setting. 

NSF could broaden the range of its programs to require partnerships between universities and industrial firms, nonprofit organizations, museums, state and local governments and so on as they do 

in a number of programs. The goal of such partnerships would be 

in part cost sharing but equally important would be creating meaningful linkages between knowledge creation and knowledge use. 

While these suggestions are made tentatively, I want to emphasize that cumulatively, a portfolio of appropriate policies strategically conceived, carefully tested, and implemented with adequate 

staffing might have the effect of helping to catalyze a shift in the 

incentive structure and culture of university science in ways that 

could better allow the Federal Government to ensure sustainable, 

long-term support and improved accountability and value for our 

public investment. 

The discussion draft of the FIRST Act in today’s hearing offers 

valuable opportunity for consideration of such options. I am pleased 

to discuss these ideas and other points raised in my written testimony, and thank you for your time and attention. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sarewitz follows:] 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Dr. Sarewitz. 

I recognize Dr. Killeen for five minutes for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. TIMOTHY KILLEEN, PRESIDENT, 

THE RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR SUNY, 

VICE CHANCELLOR FOR RESEARCH, 

SUNY SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION 

Dr. KILLEEN. Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

today on this important draft legislation and for your important 

work, critically important work. 

My name is Tim Killeen. I am President of the Research Foundation for the State University of New York and Vice Chancellor for 

the 64-campus system. I would like to thank the Committee for releasing two different legislative proposals that focus on innovation 

through scientific research and development as keys to improving 

our economic competitiveness. I believe that this legislation should 

send an unmistakable message to our international competitors 

that we will take the actions and make the investments necessary 

that will keep the United States at the cutting edge of the 21st century’s global knowledge economy. 

Just over one year ago, Superstorm Sandy slammed into our 

coast. As recovery efforts still continue, we should ask what would 

be the impact if the storm had hit 50 years earlier without the subsequent research and development over those decades. Frankly, it 

could have killed thousands of people living in the storm’s path. 

Hurricane advisories back then existed only two days into the future. Computer models and weather satellites were in their infancy, and forecasters would probably not have predicted Sandy’s 

right hook into the Jersey Shore. While not perfect, the modern 

forecasts save lives and property. 

So how did we acquire that ability to offset those costs and make 

such a forecast? The Nation did make continuous investments over 

decades in its research and education enterprise. Key to this work 

was basic research in mathematics, computer science, the development of satellites and instrument packages that make the vital observations. It included interdisciplinary environmental research as 

well as research into the social and behavioral sciences to examine 

how people use storm-related information to respond to warnings. 

And through commitments to STEM education, we had the talented human capital to put these tools into use that enable local 

officials to prepare citizens in ways that save many lives. 

Sandy is just one example that demonstrates the linkage of research and education to the economy. My longer list would include 

Internet, lifesaving vaccines, medical devices such as the heart, 

lung and MRI technologies developed initially at SUNY, the laser, 

GPS, touch screens, and the ability to access natural gas from 

shale deposits. 

So the Nation owes a debt of gratitude to Congress and this 

Committee for its steadfast support for excellence in research and 

education that has led us to our position as first in the world. The 

new legislation offers a chance to build on and strengthen that enterprise. If done well, the return on future investment will be incalculable, just as it has been in the past. 
39 

As we meet today, however, it must also be said that our Nation’s role as the world’s innovation leader is imperiled. The combination of eroding buying power here and the enormous resources 

that other Nations are pouring into these areas is creating a new 

kind of deficit for the United States, one that has been called an 

innovation deficit. It is troubling, for example, as the Chair has 

pointed out, that we have fallen to 12th among developed countries 

in the proportion of young adults who hold college degrees and our 

lead in patent applications is eroding. So ensuring the health and 

vitality of the research enterprise therefore is and should be a national imperative. If we fail to act boldly and in a determined and 

united fashion of the past, we could face a less prepared, less highly skilled U.S. workforce, fewer U.S.-based game-changing breakthroughs, fewer patents, startups, products and jobs. These impacts 

may not be immediately obvious but the consequences are inevitable if we do not respond. 

In my written testimony, I tried to list a set of principles that 

I believe should be considered for the legislation. First, even with 

the major budget challenges we face, the bill should make clear the 

priority that scientific and engineering research has as a top national priority and provide support for responsible and sustainable 

growth and across all scientific and engineering disciplines. 

Second, the bill should provide robust support for STEM education tools, to enhance public scientific literacy, and to prepare our 

young people for the jobs of tomorrow while continuing to work to 

open doors for underrepresented groups. Third, we must insist 

upon both public accountability and vibrancy in our research enterprise. Both are needed to retain support of the taxpaying public. 

Our research system has been successful because it has relied on 

highly competitive merit review processes to make decisions about 

funding. This gold standard of peer review cannot be allowed to degrade because of complacency, lax oversight or overly onerous new 

bureaucratic burdens. 

This international competition we face is real, and we simply 

cannot coast and stay first. We also need to tune up, indeed, I 

would say turbo charge, the innovation ecosystem, accelerating the 

purposeful commercialization of federally funded research and technologies. In New York, for example, led by Governor Cuomo, we are 

working on a full innovation agenda tied to research and education 

and leveraging higher education and industry and businesses as 

never before. 

Throughout our history, this Nation has kept the promise of a 

better tomorrow for each new generation. This has been possible 

because our economic prosperity has relied on our role as the global 

innovation leader, so the message should be sent: the United States 

will remain at the absolute cutting edge of the 21st century global 

knowledge economy. 

Thank you so much for inviting me. I will be glad to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Killeen follows:] 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Dr. Killeen. 

I now recognize Mr. Brown for five minutes for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JAMES BROWN, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

STEM EDUCATION COALITION 

Mr. BROWN. Well, first, thank you to the Committee for the opportunity to be here today and offer our coalition’s views on the 

draft legislation that is before us and on issues related to Federal 

STEM education policies. 

As you mentioned in your introduction, we are a very broad coalition but what unites us is the belief that we need to elevate STEM 

education as a national priority. At the end of our testimony, our 

written testimony, there is a list of the 35 members of our coalition’s leadership council which inform our policy positions and 

which guide our activities. 

I am fond of mentioning a couple of statistics whenever I talk 

about this topic that I think really clearly illustrate the challenge 

that we have both for our coalition and for the country. A 2011 poll 

showed that 93 percent of parents think that STEM education 

should be a top priority for the United States. The poll also showed 

that little less than half believe it is actually a priority for the 

United States, and something I think is at least a little bit related, 

and that is, another poll I saw showed that 68 percent of parents 

think their kids are in the top third of their class, which I think 

those are at least ironically linked, right? 

So suffice it to say, one of the things this Committee has done 

over the years is with a long line of witnesses established the connections between STEM education and the STEM workforce and 

the future of the country. They are inextricably linked. They underpin our capacity for innovation and our American leadership. I also 

think the parents are on to something else, and that is that they 

get a very clear sense that STEM education, the STEM fields are 

where the best jobs of the future are going to be, and if you look 

at the statistics as an aggregate, the STEM fields have higher salaries, lower unemployment, and I think just parents get that sense 

from looking at the world around them, that is where the future 

is going. But it is one of the easiest things in the world to talk in 

broad terms about the importance of STEM education. It is much 

harder—the Committee has a much harder job in formulating policies that are practical, that are real to deal with these challenges, 

and in that spirit, we tried to answer your questions in as much 

detail as we possibly can in our written testimony, and we have 

also attached a letter to that testimony that in a five-page letter 

that addresses our views on the Administration’s most recent budget proposal which was signed by more than 50 leading national organizations. So we hope that is helpful to you. 

I wanted to touch on three topics that I thought were the most 

important points of our message to you, and that is—the first is on 

the subject of fiscal sustainability. The other witnesses have acknowledged this, and I think it is absolutely clear when you look 

at the budget environment of today and you look at the challenges 

that we face, that the Federal portfolio of more than 200 different 

STEM education programs across multiple agencies is in need of a 
49 

very serious overhaul, but that overhaul, if we are to do the service 

that our kids and our future innovators deserve, has to be based 

on evidence and it has to be based on stakeholder input and it has 

to be capable. We have to make decisions as a country that will 

scale up the programs that we think work and that will improve 

or will eliminate the programs that are not working over time, and 

you emphasized this in your opening statement: this has to be a 

long-term process. 

The other thing I would just say is, we also have to recognize 

that every Federal education program can be improved and that if 

we are going to use taxpayer dollars to support them, we need to 

have constructive oversight mechanisms. That is simply a fact of 

life. 

Another point to make is that we have offered some views in our 

testimony around what we think the properties of a good coordination and management mechanism would look like, and some of 

those relate to the fact that it has to have a good conduit for stakeholder input, there has to be a mechanism for that input informing 

policy decisions, the coordinating mechanism has to have a voice in 

budget deliberations at the various high—very highest levels of 

government, and we have to do what we can to expand the evidence base around what is working, and that is a very complicated 

problem. It is not simple. 

And finally, why does stakeholder input matter? At the end of 

the day, the challenges we face in this space are so complicated 

that no one entity in government, no one person, no one education 

group is going to be able offer a master plan that will solve these 

challenges. It is simply not going to happen. So we have to work 

together across party lines, across disciplinary lines, and across the 

boundaries of Federal agencies to make it happen, and we have to 

do it over time. 

And the last thing I would just echo, and it is something you 

mentioned in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, and that is, 

we have to be persistent. This is a long-term challenge, and I hope 

what we can do with this draft legislation is set in place a process 

that will get at this challenge over time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. At 

this point I remind Members that the Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes, and at this point the Chair will open the 

round of questions. I recognize myself for five minutes. 

Dr. Buckius, in your opinion, yes or no, does the proposed FIRST 

bill have any what you would call Congressional interference in the 

peer review mechanism for evaluating grants at NSF? 

Dr. BUCKIUS. Can I do yes and no? So the two points that I 

would like to make on this regard is regarding who would actually 

affirm the awards that go out of the Foundation. The way the language of the discussion draft says it, the Director should. I don’t 

believe anyone is all knowing enough to be able to affirm all the 

11,000-plus awards that go out of the Foundation, so that is one 

item I would like to change if I had my choice. 

The other one is in Section C where it talks about prior announcements of awards before they are awarded. You could only 

imagine in some of the engineering directorates, we only fund a few 

out of 100, so single digits. So that means that there is going to 

be 90-plus folks who prior to the award can energize the system, 

can create what I would call chaos. So the system would become 

extremely bogged down. So those are the two points on the wording 

that I would recommend you consider. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

Dr. Sarewitz, do you have any comments on that question? 

Dr. SAREWITZ. Just to reiterate what I said. It seemed to me that 

to a certain extent it depends on what you actually expect. As I 

said, it seems to me the language kind of endorses the possibility 

of a rubber stamp that any program manager or up through the 

directorship could engage in without much risk to their conscience 

or integrity. So it doesn’t seem to me that it offers a direct threat 

to the integrity of the peer review process, but on the other hand, 

it doesn’t seem to me that it offers much in the way of actual assurance. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Okay. Thank you. And Dr. Sarewitz, do individual scientists behave based on incentives? I mean, how can we 

change the current incentive system so that we can change the culture of scientific funding? And some of you in your comments—I 

mean, I was a medical doctor and I did some basic science research 

when I was in medical school, and I think one of you commented 

on that the incentives can be aligned with volume of work, less 

focus on quality of work. I mean, how can we try to revise that culture, so to speak, so that people are rewarded for the—more along 

the lines of the quality of the work, and I would say the accountability is brought more forward rather than there is this pressure 

amongst—I mean, I understand because my professors told me, the 

pressure to produce work, and that seems like we could maybe— 

we could change the incentives around some. Is that a—can you 

answer that? 

Dr. SAREWITZ. Let me make a couple of comments, and I think 

that my colleagues to my right and left would have more higher 

view, ability to answer this question as well. But it is certainly true 

that the level of time that many faculty members spend chasing 

after research dollars and pumping data into papers so that they 
65 

can build their publication lists makes it—often makes it difficult 

to actually focus with the level of depth and concentration that one 

would like on one’s work. I think this is a common experience 

across academia. I think there are ways to deal with that. I think 

much of this has to do with the culture of academia itself, and I 

think many universities are experimenting with different ways to 

try to address it. I have suggested a few things that I thought 

could be done on the NSF end. 

At my university, Arizona State, and I think, as I say, many universities are addressing this issue, one of the types of things we are 

doing is trying to organize in a more transdisciplinary way, which 

means around problems. That allows people from different disciplines to be attracted to research groups with a more problemsolving focus that I think kind of changes the perspective from one 

of just productivity and turning the crank to getting the papers 

done and getting the grants in to actually thinking about what is 

the role of one’s intellectual endeavor vis-a-vis a problem that the 

university or the community or stakeholders have come together to 

identify as worth resolving. So I think there are lots of organizational things that can be done. I do think it is a problem. It can’t 

be addressed with a simple quick fix. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. I yield back now and recognize 

Mr. Lipinski for his line of questioning. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The last NSF reauthorization I had authored, so of course, nothing is going to be nearly as good as what I authored, but I really 

want to focus on what are some of the things going on with NSF 

here, and I hope that we can make changes because we—from this 

draft, because we certainly have heard some issues. I just want to 

follow up on what the Chairman was asking with Dr. Buckius and 

also get Dr. Killeen to add it here if he has anything. 

We were talking about—you were talking about Section 104. The 

new review requires the Director to make an affirmative determination that awards are in the national interest, worthy of Federal funding and meets one or more lists of potential outcomes, and 

Dr. Sarewitz had pointed out that—he pointed to the eight areas 

that had—that one of those had to be met, but this is an ‘‘and,’’ 

so it has to be all three of these. One issue is what is a—what is 

the national interest and how do you define that. I don’t know if 

anyone wants—that gets to be—I am not sure if that is very broad 

or very narrow, and that is something I think we really need to 

work out. But leaving that aside for the moment, Dr. Buckius had 

said that one person could not affirm—be able to affirm the 11,000- 

plus awards. Is there any way to—that such an evaluation could 

be carried out? Do you see this as a need for this? I mean, what— 

besides the fact that one person couldn’t do it, the Director of the 

NSF doesn’t have the expertise, the ability to go through 11,000- 

plus, is this—you know, what other comments do you have on instituting such another review? 

Dr. BUCKIUS. So the current process is one where you have multiple peers assessing the merit. That goes to the program director. 

The program director has to then justify why the award will be 

made or not, and then the division director has to sign off, and so 

as a division director, I would read all of the evaluations of all the 
66 

awards we are going to go through and all of the ones that were 

on the border. It is a very detailed process already, and so I think 

that two-level review, I think it works really well. That is why my 

point is, I think the wording, as you have noted, they are all ‘‘and’’ 

but I think that those could be justified. So I really don’t think that 

we need to make a major change. I mean, I think your point here 

is, you want an affirmation, and I think that is a very reasonable 

thing in general, but I just think putting it onto one person is the 

hard part. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And Dr. Killeen, do you have any thoughts on that? 

Dr. KILLEEN. I have a few—— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Microphone. 

Dr. KILLEEN. —comments about the prior notification and also 

his comment about single person affirmation. The program includes 

all of those peer review commentary and the program director review and write-up and the division director’s sign-off, and then the 

portfolios of grants are then further looked at by committees of 

visitors that come in periodically to look and see whether the balance is right. So I do worry a little bit about every proposal conforming to a specified set of criteria because we are talking about— 

and that is why I use the word ‘‘vibrant’’ in my testimony. We are 

talking about scientific inquiry that includes following leads that 

may not take you anywhere. That includes setting hypotheses. So 

scientific inquiry is not necessarily always reliably, predictably 

serving a particular element of the national interest. But I think 

the portfolio has to do that. The basic organic mission statement 

for NSF really speaks to the national interest, and all of those 

‘‘and’’ statements are all directly relevant and are addressed often 

in these reviews. 

There is another comment I would like to make about Section 

104 in that if the Director of NSF were to affirm, then it would 

take that person, he or her, out of the appeal process, which is also 

another part of the current mechanisms that are in place. As the 

division director signs off on every grant, the AD looks at the balance—enough young investigators, geographic, disciplinary, collaborative. The committees of visitors come in. Then if an investigator 

gets declined and wants to appeal that decision, there is a very formal and rigorous process at NSF for that appeal and it goes up 

through two courts: the assistant director, and I managed several 

of those appeals during my stay, and all the way to the Director 

of NSF. So I think that would also be influence. There would have 

to be some other mechanism to ensure right of appeal for a declined proposal. So I have those comments about that Section 104. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Mr. Collins is recognized for five minutes 

for your questioning. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the 

witnesses for coming today. It is an important hearing. As a mechanical engineer, I have spent my entire business career in engineering-related and science-related companies, and I think certainly we are here today with budget deficits and related debt out 

of control. It is important that we help Americans understand the 

importance of funding for the programs this hearing is referring to 

and the impact that funding has on future economic growth in the 
67 

United States. Basic R&D and government help in commercializing 

that R&D is certainly a proper and a vital role of government. 

So Dr. Killeen, a fellow New Yorker, a question for you, and I 

will start with a point of interest. I have had a longstanding relationship with the State University of New York at Buffalo as both 

a mentor to the Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership and also 

the annual Panasci Science Competition, so I know the great work 

that the university does. 

SUNY and the State of New York have embarked on a series of 

efforts designed to take advantage of the role research can and 

should play in the innovation and economic growth, and we often 

hear in Washington that the states are the laboratories or the incubators of innovative public-private partnerships, and I think it 

would be helpful if you described some of the efforts in New York— 

I know I am familiar with many of them—that are using this government funding so that we can, you know, understand the importance of it and particularly some of those which you think could 

have follow-up national implications, touching on the so-called innovation deficit. 

Dr. KILLEEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Collins, and I noted in 

my testimony that research and development has accounted for 

roughly 40 percent of the total economic growth of the country 

since World War II, so we are talking about major return on these 

kinds of investments. In New York, as you pointed out, I think 

there are some very interesting experiments underway in really 

closing the gap between what I would call the knowledge creation 

and dissemination community, which is researchers and educators, 

and the jobs creation community, which is the private sector and 

commercial firms, and there is a win-win situation there with job 

prospects for students and so forth; so making those technologies 

coming to fruition from bench research funded by Federal dollars, 

making that transfer into commercializable products and services, 

what we call the innovation ecosystem, making that work really 

well I think is something we are really trying to focus on in New 

York with things like Governor Cuomo’s Start Up New York program, which is turning each one of our 64 campuses into a tax-free 

zone for up to ten years for qualified companies to work in close 

combination with academic researchers to make sure that the technologies as they get developed and the new knowledge that gets 

created can have applicability. We also have entrepreneurs in residence so that professors and investigators who may not have any 

affinity or experience with writing a business plan or forming a 

new startup company can get help along the way. 

So I would say that the innovation ecosystem is a system that 

is actually as weak as its weakest components, and we need to 

tune those components up going from the discovery-class research 

all the way through to full-blown commercialization and make sure 

that we don’t lose traction along the way so that the fruition of the 

federal investments are seen in the economic development. I personally believe that there is much more than we can do in that, 

and I believe that New York is going to set the path, blaze the path 

to do this extremely well. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I agree, and again, I think, you know, when 

we have these budget deficits and the country is saying why do you 
68 

spend money here and not here, you know, everyone has a good 

case to make for the money they spend but I think it is important 

that we connect those dots, what you are talking about, between 

basic research and then ultimately getting it out and creating jobs 

with it. It is not enough to just do the research, put it on the shelf 

as an academic exercise, and I have noticed in New York, at least, 

you know, we are emphasizing that in an important way. So I appreciate that input. 

Dr. KILLEEN. If I could make a last sentence, I really applaud 

your work and that of Mr. Kilmer in the TRANSFER Act, because 

I think that really is homing in on a particular piece of the innovation ecosystem that really needs that kind of bold support. Thank 

you. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, that is what we refer to as the Valley of 

Death where the ideas come forward, just hasn’t quite attracted a 

business partner. So currently, there just isn’t that funding available, and the TRANSFER Act will allow universities to help attract 

a level of funding to help bridge the gap in that Valley of Death 

and has bipartisan support and hopefully that is something we can 

move forward on very quickly. Thank you all again for your time. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Kilmer for 

five minutes. 

Mr. KILMER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for coming to address us today. 

I think this is a big deal. This is part of my excitement about 

being on this Committee. We had a—I used to work in economic 

development in Tacoma, and we had a sign on the wall that said 

‘‘We’re competing with everyone, everywhere, every day forever,’’ 

which I always found terribly intimidating. But, you know, I think, 

you know, if you look at the genesis of COMPETES and Rising 

Above the Gathering Storm, I think it is a shot across our bow in 

terms of what it takes to increase our global competitiveness and 

prepare tomorrow’s workforce, and it was done initially in a bipartisan way, and I think that is the hope here as well. 

Several of us on this Committee as part of the new Democratic 

Coalition have worked on developing a set of principles to guide the 

reauthorization of COMPETES legislation, and in reviewing this 

draft, there is some overlap including in the legislation that was 

just discussed about dealing with the valley of death and improving 

proof-of-concept ideas or seed money for projects that can lead to 

commercialization. At the same time, I think as drafted, this neglects some I think very core issues around the lack of funding for 

basic research and lack of an innovation title, and I want to ask 

initially at least about the lack of an innovation title. As drafted, 

the FIRST Act doesn’t include any directed authorizations for programs such as the Regional Innovation program, the reauthorization of a program authorized in the 2010 COMPETES legislation 

to help spur the development of regional innovation clusters or in 

general any pilot that continues to examine ways to push innovation on a regional level. 

I would like to address the first question to all of the witnesses. 

Do you feel it is important to include an innovation title in the 

FIRST Act, and specifically if you can speak to ideas around regional innovation clusters? 
69 

Dr. KILLEEN. I am happy to go first. I think regional innovation 

is very much a sweet spot. Communities have built up with past 

capacities, say, for example, in manufacturing that now need to 

reach beyond the past into the new economy, and the new economy 

is different from the old one. It is a knowledge economy. So I think 

these regional clusters where you have the combination of intellectual capacity and human capacity, students coming forward with 

competencies, that is why the connection to higher education is so 

important. You have the flow of talent, you have the intellectual 

setting of the—and the interdisciplinary kind of collaboration that 

is needed, and you put that in a regional setting where there may 

be specific things. So in New York, the regional economic development councils have been very successful in forging that. So I would 

personally strongly support an innovation title. 

Dr. SAREWITZ. Let me reinforce that and add a little something 

to it. Dr. Killeen has mentioned a couple of times the notion of innovation ecosystem, and I think those who have been doing research on innovation systems have come increasingly to appreciate 

the importance of regional connections, and if you go back and look 

at the origins of Silicon Valley and the Route 128 corridor around 

Boston, what you see is the role of DOD in catalyzing all the different elements of the ecosystems so they were aggressively funding basic research at universities in the context of the defense and 

military mission but also in the context of trying to increase the 

flow of experts who they could then hire into the defense system, 

but they were also providing funding for startup firms, they were 

negotiating intellectual property agreements, helping negotiate intellectual property agreements between faculty and small startup 

firms, and from these—from this ecosystem approach that DOD 

took in the late 1940s and the early 1950s grew of course these innovation powerhouses around Boston and Palo Alto. So I think it 

is really important to take both a regional approach and an ecosystem approach in trying to understand how to intervene in these 

systems. 

Dr. BUCKIUS. Well, the only thing I can really add to that is, and 

it goes back to the previous testimony in July on the TRANSFER 

Act, the recommendations that are in Section 421 here I think will 

have an impact. At Purdue, we have evidence that we have done 

very similar things with an endowment and we can show for Federal support that when you provide some proof of concept or development funding, we can show a 40 percent increase in licensing 

rate over a 35-year history when you invest this way. So we are 

very supportive of the TRANSFER Act and what it can do in general. 

Mr. BROWN. I just note that our time has expired and I don’t 

think I have anything to add. Thanks. 

Mr. KILMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BUCSHON. You are welcome. I recognize Mr. 

Schweikert for five minutes. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I don’t want to get too off track here, there was a couple 

basic questions I wanted to sort of get my head around, and Dr. 

Sarewitz, just as a bit of background, you have actually staffed this 

Committee. 
70 

Dr. SAREWITZ. The gentleman in the red vest was my esteemed 

boss. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay. We will talk about whether he was a 

good boss or a bad boss later. 

Dr. SAREWITZ. He was a wonderful boss. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay. I hand you a clean slate and say we are 

not going to model the peer review mechanics, the way we distribute funding. The methodology we do today isn’t going to be the 

model we built back in the 1950s but literally I am going to ask 

you to design a modern system based on, you know, the speed of 

distributed information, you know, the way the world works today. 

How different would it look? 

Dr. SAREWITZ. Can I get back to you next year on that, Mr. 

Schweikert? No, it’s a great question because—and I can’t answer 

it directly but I can say that many of the issues that the Committee in the draft bill are dealing with are the legacy issues of the 

system that was created largely in the 1950s and that created the 

initial conditions that now we see in the system that we have, and 

I think that much of what is being discussed today is about how 

to move away from a really over-simple view of innovation that 

started with ramming some resources into the basic research end 

of things and having those diffuse out into the private sector—we 

all know that is not how the system works. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Well, particularly today, and that is the nature 

of my question is, you know, let us face it is, it is a turbulent— 

you know, you never know what the next discovery is going to be. 

Sometimes it is in someone’s garage, sometimes it is in a lab, sometimes it is on the Internet, and I have this great fear we are still 

operating in this sort of silo mechanic, and besides my other great 

concern, which I would love others on the panel who are willing to 

go there in sort of a peer review process where only a small number are getting funded. Having read some of these, they almost 

sometimes read more like marketing pieces, and my fear—and you 

all know, there is literally, you know, grant-writing consultants out 

there that actually have marketing backgrounds helping academics 

write grants. So, I mean, there is something horribly wrong in the 

way the silo works, so what would you change today when we are 

working on it legislatively? 

Dr. SAREWITZ. So I will just talk for a second so I can let my colleagues contribute here as well, but I actually think that the obsession with the individual investigator is a bit of a relic that we need 

to escape from. We are gradually escaping from it. I think NSF’s 

move towards focus on centers, for example, is a productive way to 

think about it. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. We should disclose to the group, we are both 

from Arizona State University, and that has actually been one of 

the fixations of now the largest university in the country is bringing in, you know, discipline, you know, multidiscipline—— 

Dr. SAREWITZ. And organizing around problems. And I think I 

would want to reemphasize the importance of a focus on the relationship across all sectors and between institutions rather than 

particular specific institutions. 

I think it is the ecosystem function that matters, and it is certainly true that the weakest link in an ecosystem can compromise 
71 

its function but we focus much less on the interactions than we do 

on the individual components, and I think that that is the key to 

addressing the sort of rethinking that you are getting at, Mr. 

Schweikert, but I would be interested in—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And it is always great when you give everyone 

60 seconds to answer one of the great questions of life. Doctor? 

Dr. BUCKIUS. Can I just give you two principles that I would put 

as foundational? You have to invest in the genius of our scholars 

and our people. You don’t want a top-down system. You want the 

best ideas come from the genius ideas of the people. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But isn’t that one of the design problems we 

have today? We have very much sort of an ivory tower system that 

we are sort of trying to break apart. 

Dr. BUCKIUS. But the people have the ideas and so if we start 

to tell them what the ideas are, we won’t get the best ideas. The 

other principle I think is certainty. There is so much uncertainty 

now. We are losing a cadre of innovators that will never come back. 

So we need some certainty in the system. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay, in 15 seconds. 

Dr. KILLEEN. Fifteen seconds? It is a great question, and I think 

there are many factors to it. The peer review system, it is like a 

garden. It needs to be tended. There are bushes and flowers and 

so forth. I do think there are some new historic forcing functions 

that have to be taken into account, and NSF, in my experience, 

does a fabulous job of these kind of discussions and experimentation. One would be that the first past-the-post model of peer review needs to be opened up to more collaboration, which is what 

your question is driving at—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And I know we are over time, but I have always had this curiosity of why isn’t there a level of almost 

crowdsourcing in the reviewer process—— 

Dr. KILLEEN. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. —on a very large scale has a purifying effect, 

and that is for a future round, so thank you for your tolerance, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. I will now recognize Ms. Esty 

for five minutes. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Brown, you haven’t had a chance to speak for a while, so I 

think it is time for a question for you. In your testimony, you spoke 

about the poll finding that only one in five college students found 

that they were adequately prepared, well prepared in high school 

through the STEM disciplines, so I would like to follow up on that. 

We have been researching this pretty extensively in Connecticut, 

and we have seen the difficulty schools are having in supporting 

STEM education and making it accessible to students, particularly, 

frankly, in the lower grades, and I have introduced something 

called the STEM Jobs Act, which is focused on enhancing professional development, again, especially in these lower grades where 

frequently our educators are not—this is not their field, this is not 

what they are comfortable with. And I would like from your point 

of view as Executive Director of a STEM ed coalition what you 

think the best way the Federal Government can be successful in 
72 

encouraging STEM support for the teachers, particularly in these 

lower grades. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you for the question. The National Science 

Foundation has a number of programs in this area, and if you look 

across the rest of the Federal agencies, the largest program in the 

Federal Government that deals with STEM education as a sole 

purpose is something called the Math and Science Partnership program at the Department of Education, and one of the challenges 

we face when you talk about teacher professional development is 

that the teaching environment is changing really fast now, technologies in the classroom we are dealing with new standards in 

many states and teachers are challenged to keep up with the stateof-the-art fields that didn’t exist 15 years ago are now the focus of 

major education reform efforts. And so that landscape is changing 

very quickly, and one of the things that research shows that the 

quality of the teacher in the classroom is a really important indicator of the success of students. The corollary to that statistic of 

kids not feeling they are prepared in college is the statistic that 

only about 40 percent of the people who enter college in a STEM 

degree finish the degree in six years. 

So I think one of the principal goals of any coordination function 

across the agencies or any Federal strategic plan needs to place at 

its center the notion that we have to recruit the best possible 

teachers into these jobs and we also have to make sure that the 

existing teaching workforce is getting all those supports that they 

need, and the Federal Government is not the primary provider of 

resources to teachers, that is the states, so we have to make sure 

that the Federal Government is aligning its needs to the on-theground truth that educational stakeholders can bring to that equation. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you. And then I would like to turn again to this 

innovation and ecosystem idea, which I think is tremendously important. 

I was struck as you were all speaking about the fact that DOD 

was central to the development in Palo Alto as well as the BostonCambridge area, but let us look at what DOD has: virtually unlimited R&D money, long-term, no question that money is going to be 

there, as well as specific goals in breaking down silos to get people 

to focus on how to achieve specific goals. So if you could think 

about in this constrained budget situation we find ourselves in 

what lessons do we take from this as we apply it towards publicprivate partnerships, things like the semiconductor research corporation? How can we think about leveraging of U.S. dollars, ensuring a constant stream of dollars for basic R&D that will only 

come out of the Federal Government, and nevertheless recognizing 

that we will need help from the private sector to leverage that 

money, ensure that stream keeps going? So whoever wants to 

weigh in on that? 

Dr. SAREWITZ. Just briefly, first of all, I think you have captured 

exactly the essence of the problem. Let me add two other things 

about DOD. I mean, you mentioned the mission. That is very important. Another is that it is both—it is and was both the entity 

that commissioned the R&D and was the user of the product so it 

could hold the feet of those who were doing the R&D to the fire 
73 

to produce what was necessary, and then here is another key point. 

They had a pretty high price point. It is not that just they spent 

a lot of money on R&D, which they did; they spent a lot of money 

on procuring things and they could do things like spend $30,000 for 

a 40-pound GPS receiver that was the first one that was going to 

be used as a prototype that then created some confidence in the 

producers that they could then spin this out, particularly in civilian 

applications. It is very difficult to reproduce that in the civilian sector. But I do think one of the keys is close understanding between 

the users, potential users of the information and those who are producing it, and often this gets people who are applicants for basic 

research a little edgy because they think it is about controlling the 

agenda of basic research. That is not the case. Much basic research 

is done in the service of particular goals. It is not controlled. It is 

an exploration of the fundamental science, but it is within a context, and I think it is very important to understand that much productive basic research is carried out within a context that requires 

communication between those doing the research or their entities 

and the ultimate user of the knowledge. 

Dr. KILLEEN. I would just like to add if I could, it is another perceptive question. I think it is all about partnering and partnerships, and partnerships have to be authentic and they have to be 

conducted with integrity and all the accountability layers and 

transparencies that are needed. But I think there is an opportunity 

here to open up the throttle on our R&D enterprise largely writ in 

this country to close those gaps, to develop policies that allow those 

intellectual properties to flow and ebb and ebb and flow. This is not 

to take anything away from basic research. It is an ‘‘and.’’ Basic research is absolutely essential and needed in order to enable these 

kinds of larger-scale public-private partnerships that can drive regional economies, and we have seen that and we have examples of 

that happening in our state. 

Dr. BUCKIUS. Do you want more? So, just one quick comment. 

Partnerships other than the Federal Government are going to be 

important to every one of us. We have approval from the board of 

trustees Purdue to fundamentally change our intellectual property 

so that we can be what I would call true partners now with industry rather than a remote partner, and so we hope that we are going 

to become, well, the preferential partners in cases but our goal is 

to be much better partners with folks than we have been in the 

past. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you all very much. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Hultgren 

for five minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

being here to discuss this very important subject and important 

legislation that is going to be before us here. Scientific research 

funded through NSF, NIST, OSTP are such an important piece of 

America’s innovative ecosystem as we have all been talking about 

this morning, and it is crucial, especially at a time like this fiscally 

challenging time, for us to ensure that our money is spent in the 

smartest possible ways. 

I am also greatly concerned by the Administration’s proposed 

STEM reorganization, which many of the scientific community 
74 

were equally caught off guard with. I am glad this Committee will 

continue working with the stakeholder communities, the people actually on the ground and in the classrooms, to ensure our STEM 

education proposals are in the best interest of our children and the 

disciplines we hope to make more accessible to them. 

Mr. Brown, I wonder if I can focus this to you at first. What has 

been your reaction to the proposed STEM reorganization and how 

does this draft legislation address potential concerns in the STEM 

education stakeholder communities? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, first I would like to thank you for stepping up 

this Congress and becoming one of the co-chairs of the STEM Education Caucus. It is nice that you and Mr. Lipinski are co-chairs 

and on this Committee. One of the things I mentioned, in our written testimony we cite a lengthy letter with views on many different 

aspects of the Administration’s budget proposal. I think you characterized it correctly in terms of the reaction from the community. In 

fact, the nature of that proposal and the sort of sweeping changes 

that were proposed with very little stakeholder input and with very 

little clarity on how the missions of programs proposed for elimination would either be kept or integrated into other efforts and 

across agencies, across appropriations bills. I think the budget proposal itself has raised this issue of needing to create a more formal 

mechanism for stakeholder input into STEM education programs, 

which it may be somewhat of a blessing in disguise considering 

that despite all these concerns, if you look at how it is reflected in 

the appropriations process we have, it hasn’t really gone very far. 

So if the result of that process is to create a better stakeholder 

mechanism, I think we made some progress there. But I would like 

to give the Administration credit for giving us a good example of 

how things can work the right way, and that is—last summer in 

July, the President announced, I believe in the Rose Garden, a $1 

billion STEM master teacher coordination, and frankly, it is kind 

of hard not to default into my Austin Powers voice when I talk 

about something like that, but it was a really large investment and 

it was news to a lot of the people in this room, and, you know, that 

is a great challenge, but I am not sure that, you know, everybody 

looked at that as being vetted with the community and having the 

right kinds of input, and to the Administration’s infinite credit, 

they got a large group of stakeholders together and worked on this 

problem for about six months and produced something in the budget proposal that was a $35 million very focused pilot program that 

recognizes the challenges in creating a national STEM master 

teacher core. That is the kind of process we like to see on a much 

larger scale. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thanks. I would open this up to all of you if you 

have some thoughts. We certainly have already discussed much 

about the post-secondary education STEM efforts within a formal 

setting, but I would like to get your perspective on the importance 

of utilizing informal science education institutions such as museums as an avenue for STEM engagement that cannot always be 

made in the classroom, especially to earlier grades. We are so 

spoiled, those of us who spend time here in Washington, D.C., just 

the incredible museums we have. I feel the same way in Chicago 

of just amazing museums. I was down at the Museum of Science 
75 

and Industry, just this week I was back visiting with them and seeing some of their latest exhibits, so inspiring, able to walk around 

and just see the faces of young people excited about science 

through that. I wonder if you could talk a little bit—I only have 

a minute left but would love to hear your thoughts if any of you 

have thoughts of some of those informal settings that can inspire 

and be a key component of the ecosystem of STEM education. 

Dr. BUCKIUS. So at NSF under broader impacts, many of the proposals do talk about informal education, and so when we are funding activities in even basic research, the broader impact side can 

address informal education through museums, and I don’t have the 

data but I was absolutely amazed when those folks come forward 

with the impact that museums and informal education can have on 

this country. 

Dr. SAREWITZ. Very quickly, yeah. We have had fabulous interactions with museums, also with the informal science education 

group in education and human resources at NSF. Museums—our 

interest is in getting citizens engaged in discussions about science 

and technology and their social implications. Museums are wonderful places because they cycle through such huge numbers of people 

who are automatically engaged but museums are very creative. 

They really love this kind of stuff, and it is actually a different 

model of science education that I think hasn’t nearly been taken 

seriously enough but we found to be very, very productive. 

Dr. KILLEEN. I would just add, just generalizing your very astute 

comment, I think experiential learning in all settings at all levels 

of education has been shown to give better outcomes in terms of 

STEM competencies and just public affinity for science. Museums 

are great. You know, it can change people’s lives to have an active, 

hands-on experiential opportunity post-secondary, pre-secondary, 

and we need to do that at an enterprise level in order to really attract the best capital, human capital to the table. 

Dr. SAREWITZ. Can I add one quick point to that, which is, it has 

curricular implications too. We have discovered that through museums, getting students interested in the social aspects of science and 

technology, then get them interested in the science and technology 

itself in ways that they wouldn’t have been beforehand. 

Mr. HULTGREN. My time is expired, but I do want to just say 

thank you. We all agree how important this is. I do have to tell 

you, they are nervous again with some of the proposals that have 

been coming out, and just we are shocked, so I ask again, any way 

we can be working together, linking arms, making sure everybody 

understands how important this is and that we are not pulling the 

rug out from this key component of museums that absolutely spark 

interest, certainly in young people but even in parents that get to 

go along with their kids and things. 

So with that, Chairman, thank you for your generosity and the 

time, and I appreciate you holding this hearing. Thank you. I yield 

back. 

Mr. BUCSHON. I now recognize Mr. Peters for five minutes. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, gentlemen, for being here. 

I want to go back to something we talked about, an observation 

that there seems to be a little bit of inconsistency in the draft with 
76 

respect to streamlining and with respect to this national interest, 

and I guess the observation I have is that the system that we have 

developed for science, this peer review system, has proven so effective because it has been independent of the government, and we 

don’t do a lot of supervising of what basic scientific research would 

be because— and by its nature, we don’t really know where it is 

going to lead. So does it strike you as inconsistent with that to add 

this overlay of a governmental judgment on whether it is in the national interest? Does that concern you at all? Dr. Killeen, maybe? 

Dr. KILLEEN. Well, If I have a concern, it is mostly the message 

that this bill will send out to the world. In fact, and as my testimony indicated, I hope it is vibrant, enthusiastic, let’s take on the 

21st century, U.S. can do kind of message rather that one that 

seeks to find the constraints and stiffen the sinews. I think my personal experience with NSF, it is a magnificent national asset, and 

we don’t want to throttle it back nor do we want to have the selfpolicing get to a point where there are clear infractions of integrity 

and accountability. So this is a delicate balance that you have to 

face. We need to unleash the high-performance aircraft here and 

recognize that a lot of the flaps are going to have to be moving to 

keep it stable and flying and not limit the opportunity space. 

Mr. PETERS. It is nice that we are the envy of the world in what 

we have created. We have done it, and we have respected that innovation happens outside of this building, to say the least, and for 

us to be putting anyone in judgment of what is in the national interest in that context seems to me to be shooting ourselves in the 

foot. 

The other thing I will make an observation of is that with respect to streamlining, we are asking in Section 301 that the Office 

of Science and Technology Policy look at regulations to try to make 

streamlined, and now we are adding this Section 104, new requirements that would increase the administrative burden on NSF and 

on its researchers. So it just seems to me that we ought to be combing out of this—the interference that the government would pose 

on a system of scientific research, not just with NSF but across the 

board including things like NIH that has proven to be so innovative and productive and has set us up as the leaders in science in 

the world. So it does strike me as odd that we would be in this 

Committee trying to find ways to constrain what had been so successful. 

Which bureaucratic—assuming you accept the notion that we 

should be asking the government to decide what the scientific value 

or the national interest is in this research, what would be the kind 

of bureaucratic setup and findings that wouldn’t interfere in the 

way that I am expressing concern about? Do you see any way that 

you could set it up without interfering in what has been such a 

success already? Anyone? 

Dr. SAREWITZ. Can I step in here? I think it is important not to— 

it is certainly important to protect peer review from political interference and from bureaucratic excess but it is also important not 

to treat it as sacrosanct and as if it is always perfect. I think—I 

have never administered peer reviewed programs but I have been 

a peer reviewer, I have been on NSF peer review panels, so I am 

familiar—and I have been the subject of peer review, both positive 
77 

and negative. So no one thinks it is perfect, and I think that is important to understand how to improve it especially in a time of 

fierce competition. 

Getting back to the Economist article that I opened my statement with, I think there is evidence in fact that the peer review 

process is not up to some of the tasks of dealing with the challenges of a highly competitive, highly kind of hype-driven enterprise. So I think we need to take that seriously, and I think it is 

really important to have this discussion. As I have said, I am not 

particularly attracted to the specific provision of Section 104 but I 

do think the goal of being smarter about this is appropriate, and 

I think that NSF’s response this summer in basically refusing to 

talk about what its process was did not serve it well because, in 

fact, they should be proud of the peer review process and should 

be willing to talk about how it works. 

Mr. PETERS. As I understand it, the issues you have identified 

aren’t ones that would be dealt with in this building as well as in 

the scientific community at large. 

Dr. SAREWITZ. I am not so sure. I think—— 

Mr. PETERS. Publication of negative information or the way we 

don’t make data available early in the process, those are all things 

that can be done without a determination of whether a specific scientific research project is in the national interest. My time is expired. 

Dr. SAREWITZ. This is true, but Congress is often very good at 

providing signals that allow NSF to act. 

Mr. PETERS. Different issue, but thank you very much for being 

here. I appreciate it. 

Mr. COLLINS. [Presiding] Thank you. The Chair now recognizes 

the Congresswoman from Wyoming, Mrs. Lummis, for five minutes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our witnesses for being in attendance. 

My questions are going to revolve around how to create a sustainable path to fund research, especially basic research. Now, we 

know that under the stimulus bill, there was an additional $3 billion that was provided to the NSF. Other research agencies saw a 

similar injection of funding. So these were one-time funds. Is it better to have steady funding at a sustainable level or do these onetime injections help stimulate an area of research that is really cutting edge? Dr. Buckius? 

Dr. BUCKIUS. Thank you. This is a great question. There is no 

question that the stimulus funding energized a tremendous number 

of activities in this country, well received, and I think the research 

that was performed was just superb. I am going to go back to my 

principles though. Certainty will help our innovators and our 

young people get into basic research, and if we don’t have some certainty, then I am really fearful that we are going to lose a whole 

generation of potential discoveries. So I would argue if you gave me 

a yes or no to go for certainty, but when you plunk down funding 

and if you have a national challenge and you put funding out there 

to solve that problem, you are going to get great ideas too. So I 

don’t want to say that it is an either/or but I do really worry about 

the future of the country, the debt we are going to have if we don’t 
78 

have these folks being the true innovators. So certainty, I think, 

would take precedence. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Does anyone else different? Dr. Killeen, I see you 

nodding. 

Dr. KILLEEN. I absolutely agree with that. I was at NSF when 

the stimulus package came, and I could cite many wonderful things 

that transpired from that. But if you are looking at a steady 

growth, I think that is the recipe for a real muscular program 

going forward. If success rates for proposals drop to single digits, 

you can imagine a young 35-year-old who has gone through all the 

hard classes and is ready to do things for the country in the national interesting, bringing all that to bear, and she has to write 

10 proposals for a chance to get an award to liberate that energy, 

that is not really enough. So we need a way to manage the process 

so that the human capital can actually be brought to the table and 

these brilliant young investigators participate in the future of 

R&D, which I think is Dr. Buckius’s point. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Anyone else wish to weigh in on that particular 

issue? Okay, then. 

I am going to move to the notion of, how then when we have sort 

of a pop of money can we maximize its effect? Dr. Buckius, you 

mentioned earlier the notion of identifying those truly brilliant individuals and providing them with the resources they need to maximize their benefit to society. Can that be done through particular 

prizes? Is there a better way to identify and fund those absolutely 

magnificently brilliant scientists? 

Dr. BUCKIUS. What I was getting at is grant challenges, so it 

might not even be a scientist, but your point is well taken. Prizes, 

I think, are an interesting approach, and I think it goes back to 

this crowdsourcing idea. I think we are going into kind of a new 

era where maybe some of these kinds of ideas could actually challenge our young people and we might see some very creative activities. I am back to this point where the genius is in the individuals, 

and we have got to get it out, and the way to get it ought might 

be some kind of a prize situation, or a moon shot, you know, another Sputnik, something that will actually challenge the young 

folks to actually be very, very creative and get into this business. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Anyone else? 

If we had flat funding, which in this environment seems to be 

more realistic, and then had these little pops of additional funding, 

how could that be utilized most effectively, especially with regard 

to basic research? Anyone? 

Dr. KILLEEN. Well, what comes to my mind is, the hardest decisions at NSF are the declination decisions, and if you are leaving 

on a cutting-room floor so many wonderful ideas, a pop sounds 

great, any pop sounds great if you are representing a community 

that is vital, that is integrated, that is moving out, that has got 

great ideas. So I wouldn’t dismiss anything that would provide us 

the scientific and technical and educational communities with forward momentum. That is what we need, forward momentum to 

grasp the challenges that we have talked about before of economic 

development, of new knowledge creation, of retaining our status as 

first in economic competitiveness. 
79 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. My time is expired. Thank you all, 

gentlemen. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the Congresswoman from Florida, Ms. Wilson, for five minutes. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Over the past decade, inflation-adjusted wages for the bottom 70 

percent of income earners have actually fallen. A key reason for 

this unacceptable decline is decline of manufacturing and other sectors that offer high-paying jobs and offer good wages. There is a responsible and sustainable way to address this crisis of jobs and 

wages. We must invest in innovation. 

While it is essential that we authorize America COMPETES, I 

have deep, deep concerns about the FIRST Act as it now stands. 

We need to maintain our focus on research to boost competitiveness 

but I fear that the new stipulations in this bill are focused more 

on regulating the efforts of scientists who do not need burdensome 

new Federal oversight. Can either of you speak to why the Innovation Services Initiative was eliminated under the Manufacturing 

Extension Partnership, MEP program, in the current draft? The 

initiative’s purpose has been to help small and medium-sized manufacturers lower their energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and environmental waste. I have always believed that efficiency and cost saving were bipartisan values, and given the recent 

events in the Philippines and the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it strikes me as highly irresponsible to eliminate efforts to deal with the mounting problem 

of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Can you speak to why you believe the Innovation Services Initiative was eliminated? 

Dr. BUCKIUS. I will be very honest: I did not understand that section of this particular draft discussion. 

Ms. WILSON. You do not understand what? 

Dr. BUCKIUS. I didn’t—so I think you are referring to 408, and 

I did not understand what was actually being withdrawn, so I really can’t comment on that. 

Ms. WILSON. So is that a secret? 

Dr. SAREWITZ. I think I can speak for us and say that overall we 

are sympathetic with the position that you are articulating but 

can’t speak to the specifics of the point as made in the bill. 

Ms. WILSON. Oh, okay. So perhaps we need additional hearings 

on that particular initiative. 

Okay. I believe Mr. Kilmer did speak about America COMPETES, but in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 

2010, this Committee authorized the Department of Commerce to 

partner with local communities to help spur the development of regional innovative clusters that leverage regional assets and resources around a particular niche or industry. This was an exciting 

provision with regard to my goal of spurring innovation that promotes job creation. As currently drafted, the FIRST Act does not 

reauthorize this program. This Committee has heard repeatedly 

that regional innovation is important for economic growth and job 

creation. Are you supportive of Federal efforts to spur regional 

clusters? If so, what should this Committee be doing to foster success in such clusters? 
80 

Dr. KILLEEN. I think I am definitely in support of regional economic development clusters. I think we have seen in New York, for 

example, tremendous advances in nanotechnology which are leading to new jobs in advanced manufacturing that can transform 

communities and that kind of thinking is I think underpinning 

your questions and your concerns. We talked earlier in the hearing 

about an innovation title to this draft discussion bill, which I think 

might well add value to that along the lines that you are suggesting. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. Anyone else? No one else is supportive 

of the Federal efforts to foster clusters? 

Dr. BUCKIUS. No, I think you heard we are supportive. 

Ms. WILSON. Good. 

Dr. SAREWITZ. We had, before you were able to come to the hearing, a similar colloquy with Congresswoman Esty, and I think we 

all indicated that we think that this is where the action is to a considerable extent. 

Ms. WILSON. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. COLLINS. I would like to now ask unanimous consent that 

the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, be recognized for five 

minutes. Without objection, the Chair does recognize Ms. Bonamici 

for five minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing, and thank you to the Ranking Member as well, and 

for allowing me to participate even though I am not on this Subcommittee. It is a very important issue. 

In the district I represent in Oregon, innovation is key to the 

economy, much of which depends on STEM and high-tech fields, 

and even though I missed the testimony—I was in the Education 

Committee—I assure you, I read the testimony and the word ‘‘innovation’’ is mentioned multiple times, not only in your testimony but 

also in the proposed legislation, and business leaders often describe 

innovation and creativity as a key to economic growth, global competitiveness, and like my colleagues, I hear from technology companies about the need for more STEM graduates and from constituents and educators who know that keeping students interested in 

STEM requires interdisciplinary education. But how do we assure 

that we have innovators? As this Committee considers legislation 

to reauthorize America COMPETES Act and in any STEM education discussions, I urge my colleagues to consider the potential 

that integrating the arts and design broadly defined into STEM 

education and the role that that can play in developing innovative 

minds. 

Research shows that educating and engaging both halves of the 

brain can help to foster innovation and do more to keep students 

engaged, and this potential is why our colleague, Representative 

Aaron Schock, and I have started a bipartisan STEM to STEAM 

Caucus where we promote the integration of arts and design into 

STEM learning, to engage students, to develop their creativity and 

critical-thinking skills, and to encourage them to pursue and stay 

in STEM careers. 

There was a recent issue of Economic Development Quarterly, 

and they talked about a study. Here is just a part of the abstract. 

Government, schools and other nonprofit organizations are engaged 
81 

in critical budget discussions that may affect our economic development success. The assumption is that arts and crafts are dispensable extras. Research suggests, however, that disposing of arts 

and crafts may have negative consequences for the country’s ability 

to produce innovative scientists and engineers who invent patentable products and found new companies. And that is one of the reasons why the U.S. Patent Office was at our kickoff of the caucus, 

very interested in this issue of assuring we have an innovative 

workforce. 

So I want to ask Dr. Buckius—I hope I said your name right— 

in your testimony, you talk about Federal research and how it enables the education and training of the next generation of 

innovators, and you say that our STEM students and all students 

need a broad-based education to make a difference in the world. So 

can you talk about that difference that a well-rounded, broad-based 

education makes in fostering innovation? 

Dr. BUCKIUS. Thank you for this question. I could not have asked 

a better one. So Purdue, when you add up our engineering graduates and our technology graduates, we graduate the most of those 

in the country now. Our president at Purdue has very clearly made 

a statement that we believe in a broad-based education. We believe 

that if you are going to succeed in this world today, it cannot only 

be the STEM disciplines—we have two A’s, by the way, arts and 

agriculture—and we clearly support this concept. Interdisciplinary 

activities which you referred to are also central. People need to understand that the problems and the issues that are facing this 

country and facing this world aren’t going to come from one discipline very much longer, and so we need to generate graduates 

who understand the breadth of problems that we are all going to 

see. I am very supportive of all your comments. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

And Dr. Killeen, you mentioned workforce development in America COMPETES and indicate you would support research into understanding how students learn STEM and how to best teach students in STEM fields. So is there room for improvement in the curriculum? And I would also like Mr. Brown to respond to that as 

well. 

Dr. KILLEEN. Yes, I think there is also room to improve the curriculum and to improve the cognitive gain that students get, and 

I love your A perspective on STEM. It is all-hands-on-deck kind of 

world we are living in. We need to engage all primary stakeholders 

in solutions that are meaningful for society. I think the biggest 

thing I would say, though, about STEM education is, I think we 

know now the role of experiential learning, that that really can 

transform engagement. It leads to persistence when students enter 

undergraduate settings. We have seen that firsthand as research 

demonstrates that. So it is not just in the classroom hearing the 

pedagogy or online with online but hands-on opportunities that 

allow for experiential learning. I think that is definitely part of the 

secret sauce. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. Mr. Brown? 

Mr. BROWN. This is a fascinating topic about how to integrate 

the arts into STEM education or STEAM education, and thank you 

for starting your caucus and trying to integrate those efforts with 
82 

the larger STEM education conversation. I think we have a lot of 

issues with regard to how the term STEM is defined, and one of 

the things that we emphasize really strongly in our testimony, and 

I hope the Committee moves on this, is the notion of having a very 

stakeholder-based definition of the STEM subjects, and I would certainly think that the arts community would be a stakeholder in 

that conversation because when we talk to employers, they talk 

about creativity, design skills, things that fall within the arts community, and we certainly want to make sure they have a seat at 

the table when we talk about what, you know, the skills of the future really are. 

Ms. BONAMICI. My time is expired. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, thank you. That will bring our hearing to a 

close. I want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony. It was 

very appropriate and timely. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from Members. 

So with that, the witnesses are excused. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(83) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
84 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Richard Buckius 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 

Responses by Dr. Daniel Sarewitz 
93 
94 
95 

Responses by Dr. Timothy Killeen 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 

Responses by Mr. James Brown 
110 
111 
112 
(113) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
114 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT LAMAR S. SMITH, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, 

SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

Fundamental scientific research is critical to maintain American innovation and 

competitiveness. American researchers have developed new technologies that save 

lives, increase economic productivity, jump-start new industries and improve the 

quality of life for all Americans. 

Our challenge today is to ensure America remains first in the global marketplace 

of ideas and products. 

Today we consider a discussion draft of the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, 

Science, and Technology Act or FIRST Act. The FIRST Act helps ensure that American researchers remain number one in the global marketplace for innovations that 

change our communities and advance our understanding of the world. 

The FIRST Act reauthorizes the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and makes changes to improve coordination of STEM education programs. This discussion draft is, in part, a result of 

discussions with stakeholders in the R&D community. 

Federally-funded R&D is one of the best investments we can make in our nation’s 

future. We can’t have innovation without research and development. We must continue to support the fundamental R&D that creates jobs, encourages innovations 

and establishes scientific bridges to next generation technologies. 

The FIRST Act affirms our commitment to high-integrity science and prioritizes 

national R&D to ensure that American tax dollars are used effectively and efficiently in funding federal research. We must focus scientific funding on high priority 

research like developing technologies to help wounded warriors or creating a highperformance supercomputer to rival China’s. 

The FIRST Act ensures that our nation stays on the cutting edge of new technology and strengthens technology transfer and commercialization of federally funded R&D. Not only does the FIRST Act help us remain globally competitive in the 

present, it ensures stakeholder input in STEM programs so that we remain the 

world leader in innovative research and technology for years to come. Our draft legislation also increases transparency within federally funded science and research. 

Americans want and deserve to know what their money is paying for. 

The FIRST Act requires federally funded research data to be made available to 

the public. It also requires that federally-funded researchers certify that what they 

publish is based on accurate representation of research results. 

The FIRST Act stresses quality over quantity for publication citations used in 

NSF grant applications. This provision will ensure that only quality science that is 

vital to American innovation and competitiveness receives funding. 

The bill also directs the NSF to assure that each grant application is relevant to 

the national interest. The bill requires that NSF staff provide clear justifications for 

why grants are awarded federal funds. 

Government employees and their program managers should be accountable to the 

American taxpayer for their funding decisions. They should explain why grants that 

receive taxpayer funding are important research that has the potential to benefit 

the national interest. It’s not the government’s money; it’s the people’s money. 

Enhanced transparency and accountability isn’t a burden; it will ultimately make 

NSF’s grant award process more effective. 

Eight of the 13 Nobel Prize winners in 2013 received support from NSF. We want 

to continue NSF’s success of supporting high-quality research. Making more information available to the American public about awarded grants and requiring that 

they promote the national interest will help NSF to continue to produce first-rate 

scientific research. 

At a time of budget cuts, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer 

dollars are spent wisely and are focused on national priorities. The FIRST Act will 

ensure that federally funded research is conducted in a transparent and responsible 

manner in order to ensure that America remains ‘‘FIRST’’ in all areas of science and 

research. 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 

Æ