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

65–910 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 109–1130 

THE IMPORTANCE OF BASIC RESEARCH TO 

UNITED STATES COMPETITIVENESS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION, 

AND COMPETITIVENESS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 29, 2006 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

KENNETH R. NAHIGIAN, Republican Chief Counsel 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL E. WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Policy Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION, AND 

COMPETITIVENESS 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Ranking 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 29, 2006 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Ensign .................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Pryor .................................................................................... 25 

WITNESSES

Bement, Jr., Dr. Arden L., Director, National Science Foundation ..................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Drobot, Dr. Adam, Chief Technology Officer, Telcordia Technologies Incorporated; Chairman, Communications Research Division, Telecommunications Industry Association ............................................................................... 50 

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

Jeffrey, Dr. William, Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Administration, Department of Commerce ....................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Knapp, Steven, Ph.D., Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, Johns Hopkins University ......................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Marburger, III, Dr. John, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

Executive Office of the President ........................................................................ 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Pietrafesa, Dr. Leonard J., Associate Dean, Professor of Ocean and Atmosphere Sciences, North Carolina State University; Chair, Science Advisory 

Board, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ............... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Ritter, Philip J., Senior Vice President, Public Affairs, Texas Instruments ...... 44 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

APPENDIX

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, prepared statement ........... 67 

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr. by: 

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 68 

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 70 

Rockefeller IV, Hon. John D., U.S. Senator from West Virginia, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 67 

(1) 

THE IMPORTANCE OF BASIC RESEARCH TO 

UNITED STATES COMPETITIVENESS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION, AND

COMPETITIVENESS, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in room 

SD–562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Ensign, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator ENSIGN. Good morning. Welcome to today’s hearing on 

the importance of basic research to United States’ competitiveness. 

As the world becomes dramatically more interconnected and competitive, the United States must lead the world’s innovation. Innovation fosters new ideas, technologies, and processes that lead to 

better jobs, higher wages, and a higher standard of living. 

While innovation is key to the future global competitiveness of 

the United States, basic research is the key to future innovation. 

Basic research is research that is conducted to understand the 

basic underpinnings of science, the world around us, and how it all 

operates. It is very broadly-based research. Although basic research 

is not specifically directed toward solving any one particular problem, it is essential research for society. 

Over the past 25 years, basic research supported by the National 

Science Foundation in chemistry, physics, nanotechnology, semiconductor manufacturing, and other fields has brought about revolutionary technological advances. For example, basic research funded 

by NSF in the 1980s and early 1990s on laser crystalization of 

amorphous silicon enabled today’s popular flat-panel displays for 

computers and TVs. Basic research conducted in the 1980s on hot 

electron injection in thin insulator films facilitated the creation 

today of digital cameras, pocket memory sticks, and iPods. I challenge a lot of other Senators to pronounce some of these things. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ENSIGN. The World Wide Web, magnetic resonance imaging, bar codes, airbags, global-positioning devices, and fiber optics 

technology all emerged through basic research projects that received Federal Government funding. In every case, research investment by the Federal Government was necessary to proceed to the 

2 

point at which the private-sector recognized a potentially-marketable product and invested in its further development. 

I believe that increased funding of basic research at the National 

Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, and other Federal agencies should be a national priority. 

I am a fiscal conservative, but Federal investment in basic research remains vital, because basic research is very important to 

the long-term economic vitality of the United States, and corporations and other participants in the private-sector are not well situated to fund basic research. 

Experts vary in their assessment of the exact rates-of-return on 

basic research. There is broad agreement, however, that basic research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics makes 

a critical contribution to the growth of the United States’ economy. 

Especially given increased competition from nations like India and 

China, failure to support NSF and basic research creates a serious 

risk for our Nation. U.S. competitiveness in global markets and the 

creation of good jobs at home rely increasingly on the cutting-edge 

innovation that stems from high-risk, high-reward basic research. 

U.S. technological leadership, innovation, and jobs of tomorrow require a commitment to basic research funding today. 

We are pleased to have two panels of witnesses here to testify 

on the importance of basic research to United States’ competitiveness. The record will remain open for 7 days for Senators to submit 

questions or statements, and any Senators that wish to make statements for the record will be allowed to do so without objection. 

On our first panel we will have three witnesses. Our first witness 

will be Dr. John Marburger III. Dr. Marburger is the Director of 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy. After Dr. Marburger’s 

testimony, our second witness will be Dr. Arden Bement. Dr. 

Bement is the Director of the National Science Foundation. After 

Dr. Bement’s testimony, our third witness on this panel will be Dr. 

William Jeffrey. Dr. Jeffrey is the Director of the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology. 

I welcome all three of you, and look forward to your testimony. 

If you could keep your testimony to around 5 minutes in length, 

it would be helpful. Please summarize where appropriate. Your full 

statements will be made part of the record, but if you can summarize your main points we can save as much time as possible for a 

good discussion on this important topic. I always like subcommittee 

hearings, because we end up having a lot more give and take. I always enjoy the subcommittee hearings a great deal. I look forward 

to the discussion today. 

Doctor Marburger? 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN MARBURGER III, DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

Dr. MARBURGER. Great. Thank you very much. Chairman Ensign, the Administration greatly appreciates the efforts of the Senate Commerce Committee, and your work, in particular, to highlight the importance and priority of federally-funded basic research, 

which has resulted in good outcomes for our Nation. 

3 

I do have a longer written testimony, and I’ll try to summarize 

as quickly as possible. 

President Bush introduced the American Competitiveness Initiative in his State of the Union Address to ensure America’s continued economic competitiveness through innovation based on technologies that have their basis in scientific research. This initiative 

occurs in the context of a budget that aims to reduce the deficit by, 

among other things, reducing non-Department of Defense, nonHomeland Security discretionary spending by almost one-half of 

one percent. And, consequently, this budget is about priorities: winning the war on terrorism, securing the homeland; these are necessarily urgent priorities. But investing in America’s future competitiveness through research and development is also of critical 

importance to our Nation. 

The President is seeking a 2 percent increase in nondefense R&D within a declining overall nondefense budget. At a record $59 billion, the nondefense R&D budget is up $1.1 billion in this year’s 

request. The President’s budgets have always supported research 

and development at impressive levels. I’ve brought a display here. 

I like to show this, though, the blue mountain here to indicate Federal nondefense spending and how it’s soared in this Administration. 

The centerpiece of the American Competitiveness Initiative is the 

President’s proposal to double funding over 10 years for key agencies that sponsor basic research in physical sciences and engineering that is likely to have a high impact on future economic competitiveness. For FY07, the President is requesting $6 billion for the 

National Science Foundation, $4.1 billion for Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and $535 million for the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology core programs. New funds for these agencies total $910 million, or a 9.3 

percent increase, for these agencies. 

The President’s budget also prioritizes similarly high-leverage 

basic and applied research at the Department of Defense in 2007 

by requesting additional funding for them. 

Annual increases for these agencies would average roughly 7 percent to achieve doubling in 10 years, which amounts to a total of 

$50 billion in new investments. And we have another display that 

indicates how the money ramps up for these agencies. 

The ACI also identifies priority strategies in education, workforce 

training and integration practices, and Members of Congress, including many on this committee, have helped to bring attention to 

the need for such strategies. And many other groups also deserve 

credit for highlighting the importance of investment in these areas, 

including the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), Council on Competitiveness, and the National 

Academy of Sciences. 

While the Administration designed the American Competitiveness Initiative to prioritize and advance scientific endeavors with 

the highest marginal value for future economic competitiveness— 

and, Mr. Chairman, your opening remarks summarized the value 

of this and the conclusions of economists that indicate that there 

is an important return to the public for these investments, so I’m 

not going to go further into this; my colleagues on today’s panel can 

4 

offer many examples of the contributions their agencies have made 

that support current technologies that have changed our way of 

life—this Initiative, the ACI, directs funds to agencies with well-defined programs with a clear relevance to future economic competitiveness. It does not attempt to expand support for every area of 

basic science, nor even for every field within the physical sciences. 

It seeks the maximum impact with a minimum of bureaucratic apparatus, taking advantage of programs and processes already in 

place and working well. 

In view of the many proposals for enhancing America’s future 

competitiveness, the challenge now is to retain a focus on the most 

important actions we must take, and avoid diffusing the impact of 

the resources at our disposal. This Initiative resists the impulse to 

act on every good idea. And our plea is to reject unnecessary new 

programs and bureaucratic burdens and to keep the Initiative clean 

and simple. 

President Bush has also called upon Congress to ensure that 

funds provided to the agencies under this Initiative are free of earmarks. 

This Initiative enhances fundamental research in key areas of 

the physical sciences and engineering, similar to the emphasis on 

biomedical research over the last decade. A broad consensus exists 

that these are the most important areas for generating additional 

breakthroughs that drive the economy, and these are also the areas 

of Federal R&D portfolio most in need of additional resources. 

I look forward to working with you and others in Congress to ensure that these critical areas receive the support they need to keep 

our Nation strong. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Marburger follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN MARBURGER III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE

AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Chairman Ensign, Ranking Minority Member Kerry, and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss ‘‘The Importance of 

Basic Research to United States’ Competitiveness,’’ which is embodied in the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative. The Administration greatly appreciates 

the efforts of the Senate Commerce Committee—and your work in particular Mr. 

Chairman—to highlight the importance and priority of federally-funded basic research, which has resulted in good outcomes for the Nation. 

One of these outcomes has been widespread recognition of the critical role the 

science and technology enterprise plays as the foundation for the United States’ economic competitiveness. This is a message President Bush has elevated through his 

American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which he announced in his State of the 

Union Address and has repeated in many speeches and remarks since then. 

I will discuss the ACI in a moment, and its focus on basic research, but it is important first to place it in the context of this year’s budget. 

President Bush has made it clear that his top budget priority is to cut the deficit 

in half by 2009, by continuing this Administration’s strong pro-growth economic 

policies and limiting the growth in Federal spending. The President’s FY 2007 budget does what is required to achieve this goal by reducing non-Department of Defense, non-Homeland Security discretionary spending by almost one-half of one percent. Consequently, this budget is about priorities. And while winning the War on 

Terror and securing the homeland are necessarily at the top, investing in America’s 

future competitiveness through research and development is also of critical importance to this Administration. That is why the President is seeking a 2 percent increase in non-defense R&D within a declining overall non-defense budget. Under the 

President’s 2007 budget, R&D is 14.3 percent of non-defense discretionary budget 

5 

authority, compared to 13.7 percent in 2001 when the President took office. At a 

record $59 billion, non-defense R&D is up $1.1 billion in this year’s request. 

Given the overall environment of fiscal discipline, it is notable that President 

Bush once again proposes a record R&D budget—over $137 billion, 2.6 percent, or 

$3.4 billion, more than this year’s funding level. This represents an increase of more 

than 50 percent during this Administration (Figure 1). Funding proposed for the category of Basic Research is $28.2 billion in 2007, up from $21.3 billion in 2001—a 

32 percent increase. While this year research received prominence in the President’s 

State of the Union address and the American Competitiveness Initiative, it is an 

important fact that the President’s budgets have consistently supported research 

and development at levels commensurate with other major priorities throughout 

this Administration. Real five-year growth in the conduct of the R&D budget has 

exceeded 40 percent for each of the last 2 years, the first time five-year inflation 

adjusted R&D outlays have topped 40 percent since 1967 and the Apollo era. 

American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) 

American economic strength and national security depend on our Nation’s rich 

tradition of innovation. To assure our future technological leadership and take full 

advantage of America’s current technological dominance in the world, President 

Bush launched the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The ACI commits 

$5.9 billion in FY 2007, and more than $136 billion over 10 years, to increase investments in R&D, strengthen education, and encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. 

The centerpiece of the American Competitiveness Initiative is the President’s proposal to double, over 10 years, funding for key agencies that sponsor basic research 

in the physical sciences and engineering that is likely to have high impact on future 

economic competitiveness. Certain areas within the physical sciences not only advance fundamental knowledge, but also generate new technologies that are broadly 

useful in society as well as in many other fields of science, such as nanotechnology 

and supercomputing. President Bush seeks to strengthen Federal investments in 

these priority areas by making landmark initial investments in 2007 in three key, 

innovation-enabling research agencies: $6 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF); $4.1 billion for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science (DOE SC); 

and $535 million for the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) core programs. The President’s budget also prioritizes the 

similarly high-leverage basic and applied research at the Department of Defense in 

2007 by requesting $5.9 billion, $442 million (8 percent) more than last year’s request. 


mar1.eps
6 

In 2007, the ACI proposes overall funding increases for NSF, DOE SC and NIST core of $910 million, or 9.3 percent (Figure 2). Overall annual increases for these 

agencies will average roughly 7 percent to achieve doubling in 10 years. This 

amounts to a total of $50 billion in new investments in high-leverage, innovationenabling research that will underpin and complement shorter-term and mission-oriented R&D performed by other agencies and the private-sector. To encourage private investment in innovation to be equally bold, President Bush continues to propose permanent extension of the R&D tax credit and supports steps to modernize 

it to make it even more effective. 

While the President has given funding priority to specific physical science and engineering programs in previous budgets, through such coordinated initiatives as the 

Networking Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program, 

the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and others, the ACI recognizes the enabling role of broader areas within the physical sciences in contributing to national 

competitiveness, and proposes a significant ramping-up of funding for selected agencies over a sustained budget period. Of course national competitiveness depends on 

more than research. The ACI identifies similar selected priority strategies in education, workforce training, and immigration practices as well. Members of Congress—including many on this committee—have helped to bring attention to the 

need for such strategies in our national discourse. Many other groups also deserve 

credit for highlighting the importance of investment in these areas, including the 

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), the Council on 

Competitiveness and the National Academy of Sciences. It is rare that so many different organizations speak the same language. I am optimistic that with your help 

and the support of the scientific community, we can provide funding for the ACI. 

Why Basic Research? 

The Administration designed the American Competitiveness Initiative to prioritize 

and advance those scientific endeavors with the highest marginal value for future 

economic competitiveness. Public-sector research funding that typically has the 

highest marginal value is not directed toward specific products or technologies, but 

rather fosters the generation of fundamental knowledge that has significant spillover benefits that cannot be captured through intellectual property protection. 

Economists have concluded that such research can generate large public returns but 

does not usually provide a direct profitable return for private-sector performers. 

The economic payoffs of such research often come in the form of process and product innovations that reduce the costs of production, lower product prices, and result 

in new and better products and services. This research can even spawn entire new 

industries. The economic return shows up in economic statistics through increases 


mar2.eps
7 

in firms’ output, aggregate GDP, and ‘‘total factor’’ productivity—that is, the amount 

of economic output that we can get from a given amount of labor, capital, energy, 

and material inputs. Consumers ultimately benefit from having access to less expensive, higher quality, and more useful products and services, as well as from earnings 

accruing to innovative companies. Put another way, basic research raises the standard of living. 

Economic research finds private rates-of-return to R&D in the range of 20 to 30 

percent, reflecting the returns received directly by the innovator. These private returns to R&D are considerably higher than the roughly 10 percent average return 

on other types of investments, attributable to the considerable risk and uncertainty 

associated with the technical and commercial success of R&D projects, as well as 

the depreciation of innovation value over time. Total social rates-of-return to R&D— 

including the ‘‘spillover benefits’’ to firms and consumers that did not conduct the 

original research—are typically estimated to be much higher than the private returns, ranging from 30 to 80 percent. 

Innovation spillovers flow through at least three distinct channels. First, ‘‘knowledge spillovers’’ occur because knowledge created by one firm cannot typically be 

contained within that firm, and thereby creates value for other firms and other 

firms’ customers. Second, ‘‘market spillovers’’ occur when an innovation creates benefits for consumers and non-innovating firms that are not fully captured by the innovating firm due to competition and other market forces. Third, because the profitability of a set of interrelated and interdependent technologies may depend on 

achieving a critical mass of success, each firm pursuing one or more of these related 

technologies creates economic benefits or ‘‘network spillovers’’ for other firms and 

their customers. Technical standards often have an important role to play in the 

context of markets with significant network effects. 

The location of innovation also matters in that spillovers, at least to some degree, 

tend to spread from a geographical locus. For example, flows of knowledge to U.S. 

innovators are more likely to come first from the United States than from abroad. 

Globalized information flows reduce the impact of the distance factor, but it remains 

significant in explaining technology diffusion and spillover effects. The comparative 

advantage of the high-cost countries of North America and Western Europe is increasingly based on knowledge-driven innovative activity. Thus, the location of 

knowledge-based activity matters for innovation and ultimately comparative advantage. 

The Council on Competitiveness summarizes the importance of basic research in 

a ‘‘calculus of innovation’’: (1) Knowledge drives innovation; (2) Innovation drives 

productivity; and (3) Productivity drives our economic growth. 

Why Physical Sciences and Engineering? 

Certain areas of physical science and engineering research are strongly correlated 

with innovation and economic growth. The ACI priority agencies each have special 

features that merit significant attention even in a period of budgetary constraint. 

The DOE Office of Science (SC) is the Nation’s largest sponsor of physical 

science research. It supports physical science capabilities and infrastructure 

used by a large number of investigators in nearly every field of science, and particularly those related to economically-significant innovations (e.g., nano-, bio- 

, info-tech, energy, new materials and processes). Within DOE–SC, the new 

funding from ACI is expected to improve facilities and support approximately 

2,600 new researchers. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary source of support for 

academic research in the physical sciences. It funds potentially-transformative 

basic research in areas such as nanotechnology, information technology, physics, 

materials science, and engineering. The NSF is well-regarded for management 

of funding through competitive, peer-reviewed processes. The NSF funding derived from the ACI is expected to support as many as 500 more research grants 

in 2007, and provide opportunities for upwards of 6,400 additional scientists, 

students, post-doctoral fellows and technicians to contribute to the innovation 

enterprise. 

The DOC National Institute of Standards and Technology may be the highestleverage Federal research agency supporting economically-significant innovations. Its world-class team of scientists, recognized by three Nobel prizes during 

the past decade, plays a critical role in supporting standards development activities that are essential for the commercial viability of new technology. In FY 

2007, NIST will seek to focus 3,900 scientists and engineers from government, 

industry and universities—an increase of 600 researchers over 2006—on meetVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:02 Apr 27, 2011 Jkt 65910 PO 00000 Frm 000011 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06621 S:\GPO\DOCS\65910.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
8 

ing the Nation’s most urgent measurement science and standards needs to 

speed innovation and improve U.S. competitiveness. 

While the very nature of basic research limits our ability to predict what inventions and technologies will one day arise from investments in these agencies, a look 

at the past value of basic research provides a sense of what we might expect in the 

future. In recent decades, fundamental research advances have provided society 

with technology that has enabled microchips, personal computers, the Internet, balloon catheters, bar codes, fiberoptics, e-mail systems, hearing aids, air bags and 

automated teller machines, to name just a few quality-of-life improving and standard-of-living raising changes. These inventions can usually be traced back to Federal 

support for basic research. The development of the portable MP3 player is a timely 

and useful example of this connection (Figure 3). 

The development of MP3 technologies illustrates the unexpected benefits of basic research. In 

1965, a hand-sized storage and playback device that would hold 15,000 recorded songs was the 

stuff of science fiction. Even simple hand-held calculators were rare and expensive at that time. 

Research funded by the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, the National 

Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, and the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology contributed to the breakthrough technologies of magnetic storage drives, lithium-ion 

batteries, and the liquid crystal display, which came together in the development of MP3 devices. 

The device itself is innovative, but it built upon a broad platform of component technologies, each 

derived from fundamental studies in physical science, mathematics, and engineering. 

The inventions and innovations of the future that will be advanced in terms of 

quality, quantity and timeliness by ACI are in the areas of nano-, bio-, and information technology and manufacturing, solar, nuclear and hydrogen energy, new materials and processes. Specific innovation-enabling potential outcomes of ACI basic research include: 

• world-leading capability and capacity in nanofabrication and nano-manufacturing—a determinant industry of the future. 

• necessary next-generation investigation tools to study materials at the 

nanoscale. 

• world-leading, high-end computing capacity (petascale) and capability (design) 

and advanced networking as fast as possible to address grand challenges. 

• overcoming technical barriers for quantum information processing. 

• new technologies for hydrogen, nuclear and solar energy through novel new 

basic research approaches in materials science. 

• addressing gaps and needs in cyber security to lead the world in information, 

knowledge and intellectual property protection and control. 

• basic research on sensor and detection capabilities (e.g., for Improvised Explosive Devices) which can also lead to world-leading automation and control technologies. 

• solving fundamental technical problems in the application of biometrics. 


mar3.eps
9 

• develop manufacturing standards for unprecedented technologies for the supply 

chain. 

• improving building standards in high-risk areas (e.g., hurricane and earthquake-prone regions). 

• responding to international standards challenges which affect U.S. competitiveness. 

Maximizing the Effectiveness of Research Funding 

The widespread support for actions such as proposed in the President’s American 

Competitiveness Initiative is deeply gratifying to us in government who labor on behalf of science and engineering. I want to take this opportunity to point out that 

the recommendations of the many organizations that have spoken out on the need 

for such an Initiative express priorities for action in a very broad and general way. 

When money is tight, and many needs compete for finite resources, it is necessary 

to define priorities with much more specificity than these otherwise excellent advocacy reports. The ACI responds to this need to prioritize. It attempts to direct funds 

to agencies with well-defined programs with a clear relevance to future economic 

competitiveness. It does not attempt to expand support for every area of basic 

science, nor even for every field within the physical sciences. It seeks the maximum 

impact with the minimum of bureaucratic apparatus, taking advantage of programs 

and processes already in place and working well. 

In view of the many proposals for enhancing America’s future competitiveness, the 

challenge now is to retain a focus on the most important actions we must take, and 

avoid diffusing the impact of the resources at our disposal. The ACI resists the impulse to act on every good idea. Our plea is to reject unnecessary new programs and 

bureaucratic burdens and to keep the Initiative ‘‘clean and simple.’’ 

To that end, President Bush has called upon Congress to ensure that funds provided to the agencies under the American Competitiveness Initiative are free of earmarks. As we discuss the importance of pursuing the best science to contribute to 

U.S. competitiveness, I hope the Congress will join with us to encourage competition 

for research funding by rejecting research earmarks in the FY 2007 appropriations 

process. 

Conclusion 

America currently spends one and a half times as much on federally-funded research and development as Europe, and three times as much as Japan, the next 

largest investor. Our scientists collectively have the best laboratories in the world, 

the most extensive infrastructure supporting research, the greatest opportunities to 

pursue novel lines of investigation, and the most freedom to turn their discoveries 

into profitable ventures if they are inclined to do so. We lead not only in science, 

but also in the productivity, innovation, and technological prowess that is necessary 

to translate science into economically-significant products that enhance the quality 

of life for all people. 

Nonetheless, other nations seek to achieve the quality of life for their own large 

populations that many Americans take for granted. These nations aim to close the 

gap by emulating our successful model—devoting increased resources to their scientific and technological enterprises in an effort to better compete with the U.S. on 

the global economic stage. To ensure that their success does not diminish our own, 

we must act now with the confidence to which our leadership position entitles us 

to build upon our strength. 

The President’s FY 2007 budget will sustain this leadership and maintain science 

and technology capabilities that are the envy of the world. The proposed ACI basic 

research investments and R&D tax credit changes directly address America’s innovation challenges. These are sound in terms of science and technology policy, and 

consistent with the broader Administration economic policy to foster and maximize 

America’s long-term growth potential. ACI refocuses the Federal R&D portfolio by 

placing increased emphasis on fundamental research in key areas of the physical 

sciences and engineering, similar to the increases in fundamental biomedical research over the last decade. A broad consensus exists that these are the most important areas for generating additional breakthroughs that drive the economy, and 

these are also the areas of the Federal R&D portfolio most in need of additional resources. They deserve priority in the FY 2007 budget over all other R&D, except 

perhaps for selected programs supporting national and homeland security. 

I would be pleased to respond to questions. 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you, Dr. Marburger. Dr. Bement? 

10 

STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Dr. BEMENT. Chairman Ensign, I’m delighted to appear before 

you for the first time. 

For over 50 years, NSF has been a strong steward of the Nation’s 

scientific discovery and innovation process. The President recognized this when he designated NSF to be a key participant in the 

American Competitiveness Initiative. 

Despite its small size, NSF has an extraordinary impact on 

science and engineering knowledge and capacity. While NSF represents only 4 percent of the total Federal budget for research and 

development, it accounts for 50 percent of non-life sciences basic research at academic institutions. In fact, NSF is the only Federal 

agency that supports all fields of science and engineering research 

and the educational programs that sustain them across generations. 

We provide funding to the best of the best. Of the 504 U.S. individuals who have received the Nobel Prize since NSF first awarded 

research grants in 1952, 166, or 33 percent, received NSF funding 

at some point in their careers. NSF-funded results permeate our 

society, from Doppler radar to MRI scans, from the Internet to 

nanotechnology, from Google to barcodes, and from computer-aided 

design systems to tissue engineering. NSF investments have had a 

profound effect on our quality of life and on American competitiveness. Just these examples have added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy over the past 15 years. 

As we know, investments in fundamental research often yield 

unexpected benefits. One example I like to use is NSF support for 

complex auction structures, through abstract auction theory and 

experimental economics. NSF-supported researchers provided the 

FCC with its current system for apportioning the airwaves. Since 

their inception in 1994, FCC spectrum auctions, based on game 

theory, have netted over $45 billion in revenue for the Federal Government and more than $200 billion in worldwide revenues. Although the payoff was unexpected at the time, it is many times 

greater than the total investment NSF has made in the social and 

behavioral sciences. 

I would like to point out just a few other recently funded, less 

well-known developments with equal promise, most of which illustrate the accelerating convergence between the physical and health 

sciences. 

For example, the world’s first ultrafast, ultra-accurate laser scalpel was developed by a physicist and ophthalmologist at NSF’s 

Center for Ultrafast Optical Science. Called ‘‘InterLase,’’ it replaces 

the old LASIK system that required a blade. 

Penelope, a robot surgical assistant, made her operating room 

debut last June. Completely autonomous, it delivered and retrieved 

instruments during an operation at Columbia University Medical 

Center. 

An NSF-funded researcher has developed specially-coated 

nanotubes that can be painlessly implanted under the skin. They 

fluoresce in direct proportion to glucose levels in the blood, potentially eliminating the need for glucose testing using needles. 

11 

Both the artificial retina to assist the blind to see and the new 

ultra-sensitive artificial cochlea to assist the hearing-impaired to 

hear were developed with NSF support. The cochlea replacement is 

expected to be far cheaper and easier to manufacture than today’s 

replacement devices. 

Finally, researchers funded by NSF have engineered a biofiltration system that produces hydrogen gas while cleaning waste 

water. The invention won Popular Mechanics’ Breakthrough Award 

last year. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope these brief examples of what basic research can do to help U.S. competitiveness are compelling. But it’s 

important to note that in our efforts to advance the frontier, we 

also aim to enhance development of the Nation’s STEM talent pool 

by integrating research and education. The world-class scientists, 

technologists, engineers, and mathematicians trained through 

NSF-sponsored research transfer new scientific and engineering 

concepts from universities directly to the entrepreneurial sector as 

they enter the workforce. This capability is a strong suit in U.S. 

competitiveness and one of NSF’s greatest contributions to the Nation’s innovation system. 

Another significant contribution comes from NSF’s coupling with 

industry in the private-sector. NSF’s research centers programs, 

such our Engineering Research Centers and Science and Technology Centers, directly invite private-sector partners to engage in 

and sponsor related cutting-edge research that can lead to high-leverage innovations. 

Furthermore, NSF couples investments in our Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs with high-impact emerging technologies such as nanotechnology, information technology, and biotechnology. 

NSF’s research and education efforts contribute greatly to the 

Nation’s innovation economy and help keep America at the forefront of science and engineering. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you, and I’d be 

happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Chairman Ensign, Ranking Member Kerry, and members of the Committee, thank 

you for this opportunity to testify on the importance of basic research. It is a pleasure to appear before you for the first time today. 

I am especially pleased that we are able to be talking about competitiveness. As 

you are well aware, the National Science Foundation is an integral part of the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative. The President’s request for an 8 percent 

increase at NSF this year represents the first step in the Administration’s firm commitment to doubling the NSF budget over the next 10 years. 

The ACI encompasses all of NSF’s investments in research and education. These 

investments—in discovery, learning, and innovation—have a longstanding and proven track record of boosting the Nation’s economic vitality and competitive strength. 

For over fifty years, NSF has been charged with being a strong steward of the 

scientific discovery and innovation that has been crucial to increasing America’s economic strength, global competitiveness, national security, and overall quality of life. 

For many years, the United States economy has depended heavily on investments 

in research and development—and with good reason. America’s sustained economic 

prosperity is based on technological innovation made possible, in large part, by fundamental science and engineering research. Innovation and technology are the enVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:02 Apr 27, 2011 Jkt 65910 PO 00000 Frm 000015 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06621 S:\GPO\DOCS\65910.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
12 

gines of the American economy, and advances in science and engineering provide 

the fuel. 

Investments in science and technology—both public and private—have driven economic growth and improved the quality of life in America for the last 200 years. 

They have generated new knowledge and new industries, created new jobs, ensured 

economic and national security, reduced pollution and increased energy efficiency, 

provided better and safer transportation, improved medical care, and increased living standards for the American people. 

Investments in research and development are among the highest-payback investments a nation can make. Over the past 50 years technological innovation has been 

responsible for as much as half of the Nation’s growth in productivity. 

Sustaining this innovation requires an understanding of the factors that contribute to it. The Council on Competitiveness, a consortium of industry, university, 

and labor leaders, has developed quantitative measures of national competitiveness: 

the number of R&D personnel in the available workforce; total R&D investment; the 

percentage of R&D funded by private industry; the percentage of R&D performed 

by the university sector; spending on higher education; the strength of intellectual 

property protection, openness to international competition; and per capita gross domestic product. A similar set of indicators has been developed by the World Bank 

Group, and voluminous data have been compiled by NSF. The important point underscored by these indicators is that, for America to remain a prosperous and secure 

country, it must maintain its technological leadership in the world. 

Perhaps the Council on Competitiveness’ 2004 National Innovation Initiative re- port captured it best by simply stating, ‘‘Innovation has always been the way people 

solved the great challenges facing society.’’ 

Often the connection between an area of research, or even a particular scientific 

discovery, and an innovation may be far from obvious. Fundamental research in 

physics, mathematics and high-flux magnets supported by NSF led to the development of today’s magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology. Today, MRIs are 

used widely to detect cancer and internal tissue damage. Fundamental research on 

extremophiles, or microorganisms living in extreme environments, led to the polymerase chain reaction, a procedure essential to modern biotechnology, as well as one 

that allows us to use DNA for forensic evidence. Continuing progress in basic 

science and engineering research promises more discoveries as well as further improvements in living standards and economic performance. 

And still, science and engineering is becoming an ever-larger portion of our Nation’s productivity. In the early 1950s, Jacob Bronowski wrote, ‘‘The world today is 

powered by science.’’ I would take this premise one step farther, ‘‘No science; no economic growth.’’ Our current level of scientific and technological productivity is what 

keeps us ahead of our global competitors as the playing field continues to become 

more level. 

NSF has helped advance America’s basic science and engineering enterprise for 

over fifty years. Despite its small size, NSF has an extraordinary impact on scientific and engineering knowledge and capacity. While NSF represents only 4 percent of the total Federal budget for research and development, it accounts for fifty 

percent of non-life science basic research at academic institutions. In fact, NSF is 

the only Federal agency that supports all fields of science and engineering research 

and the educational programs that sustain them across generations. NSF’s programs reach over 2,000 institutions across the Nation, and they involve roughly 

200,000 researchers, teachers, and students. 

NSF specifically targets its investments in fundamental research at the frontiers 

of science and engineering. Here, advances push the boundaries of innovation, 

progress and productivity. 

Compared to other commodities, knowledge generated from basic science investments is unique, long lasting and self-leveraging. Knowledge can be shared, stored 

and distributed easily, and it does not diminish by use. Incremental advances in 

knowledge are synergistic over time. NSF is proud to have built the foundation for 

this knowledge-base through decades of peer-reviewed, merit-based research. 

Innovation has become the watchword for our Nation’s future. It is both a rallying 

cry and a challenge, one that is now touted by every sector of society—industry, academia, and government. 

At the National Science Foundation, we have long heard this clarion call and consider it our most important challenge. Innovation is at the core of what we are 

about at NSF, and our vision statement reflects that. It is direct and crisp: ‘‘enabling the Nation’s future through discovery, learning, and innovation.’’ 

To realize our mission, we see to it that each of our investments builds intellectual capital, integrates research and education, and promotes partnerships. In all 

of these endeavors, we focus on the frontiers of knowledge and beyond—the fertile 

13 

1Losing the Competitive Advantage? The Challenge for Science and Technology in the United 

States; American Electronics Association, February 2005. 

territory where new ideas are born, nurtured and eventually bear fruit in economic 

and social returns. 

America has always measured its own progress not by comparison with others, 

but with an eye on the next unmet challenge, the territory unexplored by other nations. That is becoming increasingly difficult with the prospect of nations like China 

and India building powerful economic momentum through a burgeoning science and 

engineering workforce and strong research capacity. There is fierce competition for 

ideas and talent, for comparative advantage and market opportunities worldwide. 

As we consider our options for policies that promote and foster innovation— 

whether it is funding for science and engineering research and education, or incentives for increasing venture capital, or reforms in math and science education—we 

need to recognize that policies should leave ample room for experimentation and exploration. That is a hallmark of innovation, and a key to our future. 

Early last year, the American Electronics Association (AeA) published a report 1

that included the chart below. It illustrates how some of today’s ubiquitous technologies have been generated by federally-funded frontier research, and the tremendous role that the Foundation has played in helping U.S. competitiveness and innovation. 

Innovation Resulting From U.S. Federally-Funded Research 

Innovation Funder 

The Internet DARPA/NSF 

Web Browser NSF 

Bar Codes NSF 

Fiber Optics NSF 

Routers NSF 

MRI NIH/NSF 

Doppler Radar NSF 

Speech Recognition NSF/DARPA 

Nanotechnology NSF 

Computer-Aided Design NSF/DARPA 

Global Positioning Satellites DARPA 

The Mouse DARPA 

Note: 

NSF = National Science Foundation. 

DARPA = Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. 

NIH = National Institutes of Health. 

There was a time, in the 1960s and early 1970s, when the norm was 20 years 

for the results of fundamental research to find their way to the marketplace. The 

AeA report describes how Federal funding of solid-state physics, and ceramics and 

glass engineering in the late 1960s created the knowledge-base for widespread development and use of fiber optic cable in the 1990s. It is also well known that much 

of this seminal work was performed by private industry as well. 

As you know Mr. Chairman, the time frame in which these innovations developed 

has now collapsed in many fields, often to 20 months or less. The pace of scientific 

discovery and technological change has accelerated dramatically with the advent of 

more powerful and sophisticated tools, more robust computing and networking, and 

the relentless pressure of global competition. Creative disruption at the frontier and 

reduced lead-time between discovery and application are the principal drivers of 

global competition today. 

In many fields, what was once viewed as a linear process from basic research, to 

application, to commercialization is now much more multidimensional, complex and 

parallel. Even the inquiries encountered in developing commercial products and 

services can generate ideas for frontier research. This give and take blurs the lines 

between the old categories, and makes innovation a much broader team sport. 

What remains vital and constant, however, is a focus on frontier research and 

education. Transformational research and technological innovation converge on the 

frontier to produce truly revolutionary progress. Tinkering on the sidelines may be 

important, but it is not what drives cutting-edge innovation. 

It is important to note that in our efforts to advance the frontier, we also aim 

to enhance development of the Nation’s talent pool by integrating research and education. This may be basic research’s most profound, and lasting, impact. By proVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:02 Apr 27, 2011 Jkt 65910 PO 00000 Frm 000017 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06621 S:\GPO\DOCS\65910.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
14 

viding students with significant research experiences throughout their schooling, the 

world-class scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians trained in this 

way can transfer new scientific and engineering concepts from universities directly 

to the entrepreneurial sector as they enter the workforce. This capability is a strong 

suit in U.S. competitiveness, and one of NSF’s greatest contributions to the Nation’s 

innovation system. 

And although we are primarily a basic research agency, we are proud of our couplings with the private-sector and industry that fosters innovation and competitiveness for the Nation. NSF’s research centers programs, such as our Engineering Research Centers and Science and Technology Centers, directly invite private-sector 

partners to engage in and/or sponsor related cutting-edge research that can lead to 

high-leverage innovations. The Foundation’s Partnerships for Innovations program 

develop entrepreneurial pathways to couple new concepts developed in colleges and 

universities to early adopters in the form of new start-up companies and innovation 

consortiums between private and public-sector entities. 

Furthermore, NSF couples investments in our Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs with high-impact emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, information technology, and biotechnology. 

We also co-fund cutting-edge, peer-reviewed research in next-generation semiconductor technologies in partnership with the Semiconductor Research Corporation. 

Mr. Chairman, I’ve only touched upon the variety and richness of the NSF portfolio. NSF research and education efforts contribute greatly to the Nation’s innovation economy and help keep America at the forefront of science and engineering. At 

the same time, NSF-supported researchers produce leading edge discoveries that 

serve society and spark the public’s curiosity and interest. Extraordinary discoveries 

coming from dozens of NSF programs and initiatives are enriching the entire 

science and engineering enterprise, and making education fun, exciting and achievement-oriented. 

The President’s American Competitiveness Initiative makes clear the larger rationale for investments in science and engineering. This is to put knowledge to 

work—to improve the quality of life and enhance the security and prosperity of 

every citizen. NSF is committed to cultivating a science and engineering enterprise 

that not only unlocks the mysteries of the universe but that addresses the challenges of America and the world. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I hope that this brief overview 

conveys to you the extent of NSF’s commitment to advancing science and technology 

in the national interest. I look forward to working with you in months ahead, and 

would be happy to respond to any questions that you have. 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you, Dr. Bement. Dr. Jeffrey? 

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM JEFFREY, DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION, 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Dr. JEFFREY. Chairman Ensign, thank you for inviting me today 

to testify about the importance of basic research. 

The mission of NIST is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial 

competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and 

technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve 

our quality of life. Enabling innovation and competitiveness has 

been an important part of our mission since we were founded. That 

mission is becoming increasingly important as the Nation’s capacity for technological innovation is increasingly driven by the ability 

to measure, control, and manufacture ever more complex and small 

devices. If you cannot measure something, you can’t control it. And, 

if you can’t control it, you can’t reliably manufacture it. NIST’s 

unique role is to advance measurements and standards so that the 

next innovation can be realized and commercialized. 

NIST’s measurement science is focused at the extremes, being 

able to measure smaller objects faster, or more accurately. One example of how these extreme measurements enable innovation is 

15 

the work of our most recent Nobel laureate, Dr. Jan Hall. Dr. Hall 

significantly contributed to the development of the laser from a laboratory curiosity to one of the fundamental tools of modern science. 

His research concentrated on improving the accuracy with which 

lasers can produce a specific sharp frequency or color of light, and 

the stability with which it can hold that frequency. The development of the laser as a measurement tool enabled a series of innovations and resulted in the creation of whole new industries. These 

innovations include fiberoptic communications, vastly improved 

clocks, which enable accurate navigation, precision spectroscopy for 

detecting minute quantities of a substance, and measurements of 

fundamental physical constants. 

As you can see by this example, NIST’s measurement and standards infrastructure is one of the foundations upon which innovation 

is built. You can think of this as sort of ‘‘inftatechnologies,’’ as the 

roads, bridges, and communication networks of the scientific world. 

Just like the physical infrastructure, this common good ultimately 

benefits whole industries. 

Another area in which NIST’s research impacts competitiveness 

is with standards. Today, thanks in part to NIST, most consumers 

take it for granted that weights and measures are accurate and 

that products fit together. That was not always the case. In 1901, 

there were as many as eight different standard gallons, and Brooklyn, New York, recognized four different legal definitions of ‘‘the 

foot.’’ Today, American consumers and businesses are confident in 

the quantity of products being purchased, making transactions reliable and cost-effective. 

So, how is it that we know that measurements and standards 

play such an important role in terms of our economic competitiveness? Well, like everything else we do at NIST, we try to measure 

it. 

Over a 7-year period, NIST conducted 19 economic studies to develop an indicator of NIST’s impact on industry. These studies document an average direct return to the economy of $44 for every one 

dollar spent by NIST. 

Recognizing the importance of NIST’s role in innovation and 

competitiveness, President Bush has included NIST as part of the 

American Competitiveness Initiative. The President’s Initiative will 

give NIST the resources that we need in order to give U.S. industry 

and science the measurement and standards tools they need to 

maintain and enhance our global competitiveness. 

As part of the ACI, the 2007 budget request for NIST will target 

the most strategic and rapidly-developing technologies, increase the 

capacity and capability of critical national scientific assets, meet 

the Nation’s most immediate measurement needs, and improve 

NIST facilities. 

While you’ve undoubtedly heard of the breakthroughs occurring 

in nanotechnology, I’d like to close today by describing a similar, 

but, in some respects, an even more exotic discipline. Quantum 

physics describes the rules by which electrons, nuclei, and other 

subatomic particles interact. At these small scales, the laws of our 

everyday experience break down and new phenomena arise. With 

several world-renowned scientists, including three Nobel Laureates, NIST is well positioned to develop the tools for measuring and 

16 

controlling these quantum phenomena and harnessing their properties to achieve benefits for the Nation. 

With my testimony today, I’ve demonstrated how and why 

NIST’s basic research plays a unique role in our Nation’s R&D enterprise. NIST’s development of extreme measurement science and 

standards is the nexus between academia and industry, strengthening our Nation’s capacity to innovate, and, thus, compete in the 

global economy. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify, and I’d be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Jeffrey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM JEFFREY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE

Chairman Ensign and members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify today about the importance of basic research and the vital role 

it plays in enabling competitiveness. I have the great honor of being the Director 

of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), one of our Nation’s 

oldest Federal laboratories. Our mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards and technology 

in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. Enabling 

innovation and competitiveness has been an important part of our mission since we 

were founded as the National Bureau of Standards 105 years ago. In the Spring of 

1900, when Congress was considering the Act that created the National Bureau of 

Standards, the accompanying Committee report stated: 

‘‘. . . that no more essential aid could be given to manufacturing, commerce, 

the makers of scientific apparatus, the scientific work of the Government, of 

schools, colleges, and universities than by the establishment of the 

institution . . .’’ 

That statement is as true today as it was then. From our early electrical measurement research to today’s quantum information science, NIST has long been a center 

for high-impact basic research. 

In today’s global economy, the ability of the United States to remain competitive 

relies increasingly on our ability to develop and commercialize innovative technologies. The amount of scientific components in products has increased dramatically. Just think about how much more complex an iPod is compared to a record 

player. The ability of America to be technologically-innovative, both drives and is 

driven by our ability to observe and to measure. If you cannot measure something— 

you will not be able to control it. And if you can not control it—you will not be able 

to reliably manufacture it. NIST’s unique role, or niche, is to advance measurements 

and standards so that the next innovation can be realized and commercialized, thus 

allowing our industries to be competitive. Recognizing the importance of NIST’s role 

in innovation and competitiveness, President Bush has included NIST as part of the 

American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The President’s Initiative includes key 

resources necessary for NIST to develop the measurement and standards tools to 

enable U.S. industry and science to maintain and enhance our global competitiveness. 

When the Secretary of the Treasury proposed the creation of the measurements 

and standards laboratory that became this agency, he wrote: 

‘‘The extension of scientific research into the realm of the extremes of length, 

mass, time, temperature, pressure and other physical quantities necessitates 

standards of far greater range than can be obtained at present. The introduction of accurate scientific methods into manufacturing and commercial processes 

involves the use of a great variety of standards of greater accuracy than formally required.’’ 

Extreme measurements are still needed today; the only difference is that today’s 

measurement frontier is smaller, colder, more precise, and more accurate. One example of how these extreme measures impact innovation is the work of our most 

recent Nobel Laureate, Dr. Jan Hall. Dr. Hall significantly contributed to the development of the laser, first demonstrated in 1961, from a laboratory curiosity to one 

of the fundamental tools of modern science and a ubiquitous component of modern 

17 

communications. His research concentrated on improving the precision and accuracy 

with which lasers can produce a specific, sharp frequency or color of light, and the 

stability with which they can hold that frequency. His work has been essential to 

the development of the laser as a precision measurement tool. This ability to precisely control the frequency and improve stability has enabled a broad range of laser 

innovations in science and technology, including precision spectroscopy for physical 

and chemical analysis, new tests and measurements of fundamental physical laws 

and constants, time and length metrology, and fiberoptic communications, among 

others. 

As you can see by this example, NIST’s measurement and standards infrastructure is part of the foundation upon which innovation is built. You can think of this 

‘‘infratechnology’’ as the roads, bridges, and communications networks of the scientific world. Just like physical infrastructure, no one person or company can claim 

enough benefit from the work or has the capability to build this infrastructure. This 

‘‘common good’’ infratechnology ultimately benefits whole industries. 

Another area in which NIST’s research impacts competitiveness is in the area of 

standards. Standards promote the free market by acting as the ‘‘grease’’ which increases transactional efficiency, resulting in reduced costs and opening of new markets thus enhancing competitiveness. Today, thanks in part to NIST, most consumers take it for granted that weights and measures are accurate and that products fit together. That was not always the case. In 1901, there were as many as 

eight different standard gallons; Brooklyn, NY, recognized four different legal measures of the foot, and about 50 percent of tested food scales were wrong, usually favoring the grocer. Today, American consumers and businesses can be confident in 

the quantity of product being purchased—making transactions more reliable and 

cost-effective. 

However, the need for standards has increased as the economies of the world have 

become linked through global trade. To compete in this global marketplace, U.S. 

products must meet specified standards for quality and performance. NIST collaborates with other agencies and the private-sector to represent U.S. interests in the 

development of international standards. Ideally, such standards should not put U.S. 

products at a competitive disadvantage. 

The United States Standards Strategy calls for standards to be developed in an 

open and consensus-driven process and the resulting standard to be performancebased and relevant, in other words, to create a level playing field for all participants. 

This philosophy is not consistently applied in all countries—requiring constant 

vigilance to prevent standards being adopted by other countries that de facto serve as barriers to trade. 

NIST works proactively to encourage other countries to adopt standards that satisfy the criterion outlined above. For example, NIST staff has worked with U.S. 

based organizations, such as the International Code Council (ICC) and the National 

Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to promote the adoption and use of building and 

construction standards in different parts of the world—thus opening these markets 

to exports of U.S. products and services. As just one result, Saudi Arabia has adopted significant parts of the ICC Building and Construction Codes, requiring technologies that are widely used in the United States. The current value of Saudi Arabian new and planned construction is approximately $35 billion. The Saudi Arabia 

Standards Organization (SASO) is currently translating the code into Arabic, paving 

the way for its use in other countries in the region. 

So how is it that we know that measurements and standards play such an important role in terms of our economic competitiveness? Well, like everything else at 

NIST, we try to measure it. Over a 7-year period, 1996–2002, NIST conducted 19 

retrospective economic impact studies on a wide range of technologies and industries 

that can be collectively viewed as a legitimate indicator of NIST industry impact. 

The average benefit-cost ratio of the studies was 44 to 1. That means for every dollar invested in these projects, we documented $44 of direct economic benefit to the 

Nation. 

One of the studies looked at the economic impacts of NIST’s cholesterol standards 

program. In 1969, the variability of cholesterol in blood measurements was reported 

to be approximately 18 percent. Over the following 25 years, NIST—working with 

the Centers for Disease Control—established and maintained a reference infrastructure for cholesterol measurements that has contributed to a steady decrease in 

measurement variability to less than 5 percent, representing potential savings of 

over $100 million per year in treatment costs for misdiagnosed patients. Additionally, due to the availability of highly-accurate cholesterol reference materials, manufacturers of cholesterol measurement systems experience lower production costs 

than they would if standard reference materials were not available. They also faced 

18 

significantly lower transaction costs than they would if the accuracy of their products was not ‘‘anchored’ to these nationally-recognized standards. 

Maintaining and extending our Nation’s competitiveness is critical to our Nation’s 

future economic security. To address this, the President has proposed the American 

Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). One component of the President’s Initiative is the 

strong commitment to double over 10 years investment in the key Federal agencies 

that support basic research programs in the physical sciences—the National Science 

Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and NIST. ACI allocates 

$535 million for the high-impact research and facility upgrades at NIST. This is an 

increase of $104.1 million over FY 2006—after removing directed grants—a 24 percent increase for our measurement and standards programs. The major focus of 

NIST’s portion of the American Competitiveness Initiative includes the following: 

Targeting the most strategic and rapidly developing technologies ($45 million): 

• Enabling nanotechnology from Discovery to manufacture ($20 million)—This 

initiative will fund a national research facility for developing and disseminating 

nanoscale technologies, and an R&D effort, utilizing the resources of both the 

facility and NIST’s multidisciplinary labs to develop measurement science, 

standards, and technology for nanomanufacturing. 

• Enabling the Hydrogen Economy ($10 million)—This initiative will expand research efforts at NIST to develop the technical infrastructure to enable safe production, storage, distribution, and delivery, as well as equitable sale, of hydrogen in the marketplace. 

• Quantum Information Science: Infrastructure for 21st Century Innovation ($9 

million)—NIST proposes to accelerate advances in this critical field through 

three complementary efforts: (1) an expanded in-house program; (2) an enhanced effort to exploit the fundamental properties of quantum systems to develop new metrology tools and methods; and (3) funding for a Joint Quantum 

Institute. 

• Innovations in Measurement Science ($4 million), and—This initiative will expand the scope and nature of projects selected for the Innovations in Measurement Science Program to allow this program to keep better pace with the evolving needs of industry and science. 

• Cyber Security: Innovative Technologies for National Security ($2 million)— 

NIST proposes to work with industry and academia to develop measurement 

science and technologies to identify the level of vulnerability of IT systems, assess the effectiveness of cyber security controls, test system functionality, address vulnerabilities, identify vulnerabilities in real-time, and mitigate attacks. 

Increasing the capacity and capability of critical national assets ($27 million): 

• NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) Expansion and Reliability Improvements: A National Need ($22 million)—This initiative begins a planned fiveyear program to expand significantly the capacity and capabilities of the NCNR 

to help meet this pressing national need. 

• Synchrotron Measurement Science and Technology: Enabling Next-Generation 

Materials Innovation ($5 million)—NIST proposes to accelerate innovation in 

U.S. materials science by creating a diverse set of scientific instruments at the 

National Synchrotron Light Source (NSLS) at Brookhaven National Laboratory. 

Meeting the Nation’s most immediate needs ($12 million): 

• Manufacturing Innovation through Supply Chain Integration ($2 million)—This 

initiative will enable an extensive and wide-ranging program with U.S. manufacturers, to develop standards for seamless data transactions throughout global 

supply chains. 

• Structural Safety in Hurricanes, Fires, and Earthquakes ($2 million)—This initiative will allow the development of technical tools required to enable innovations in multi-hazard risk assessment and mitigation technologies, and the scientific basis to improve the codes and standards used in the design, construction, and retrofit of buildings and physical infrastructure. 

• International Standards and Innovation: Opening Markets for American Workers and Exporters ($2 million)—Under this proposed initiative, NIST will promote U.S. competitiveness by ensuring that innovative U.S. businesses are better equipped to satisfy standards-related requirements in key export markets 

and that these firms have access to level playing fields. 

19 

• Bioimaging: A 21st Century Toolbox for Medical Technology ($4 million)—NIST 

will partner its expertise in the physical and information sciences with the experience and know-how of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the bioimaging industry to develop the needed measurement capabilities to move from 

simple observation to quantitative diagnosis. 

• Biometrics: Identifying Friend or Foe ($2 million)—NIST will develop: (1) tests 

to determine the accuracy of multimodal systems; (2) image quality standards 

and standard measurement techniques to improve the accuracy and interoperability of facial recognition systems used for border security; (3) tests to determine the image quality of live-scan fingerprint equipment; and (4) tests and 

guidelines to assure that future biometric systems are interoperable and work 

in realistic environments. 

Improving NIST Facilities ($20.1 million): 

• Physical improvement to research buildings in Boulder, CO ($10.1 million). 

• Increasing the base for Safety, Capacity, Maintenance and Major Repairs of 

NIST’s Facilities ($10 million). 

In today’s modern world, measurements and standards are critically important for 

such things as the integration of the manufacturing supply chain, development of 

novel nanomaterials, adoption of a hydrogen economy, and harnessing the power of 

quantum mechanics. I would now like to take the opportunity to talk about a few 

of our initiatives and how they will impact the United States’ ability to innovate 

and remain competitive. 

America’s large manufacturers are globally-distributed enterprises that rely on a 

system of small manufacturers, parts suppliers, shippers, and raw materials producers organized in extended supply chains. Using the auto industry as an example, 

the average car has over 15,000 parts coming from 5,000 manufacturers that must 

be there on time, every time, with the precise specifications of the large manufacturers. Production costs are no longer the only cost drivers in these global supply 

chains—an increasingly important factor is the cost of engineering and business activities, which depend critically upon clear and error-free exchange of information. 

Successfully managing production throughout the supply chain is critical to the competitiveness of these extended enterprises. An independent economic study commissioned by NIST found that the U.S. automotive supply chain loses $1 billion annually from these inefficiencies. NIST research on interoperability standards is the key 

to successfully ‘‘lubricating’’ these supply chain transactions. The nanotechnology-related market is predicted to exceed $1 trillion globally by 

2015. Within the next 10 years, experts expect at least half of the newly designed 

advanced materials and related manufacturing processes to be at the nanoscale. The 

United States is making significant investments in nanoscience and nanotechnology, 

and it is essential that we rapidly and efficiently transfer our basic scientific discoveries to practice within our manufacturing sector. Globally, no one country or region 

has a significant technological lead in this area—with the European Union, Japan, 

and other countries each investing about the same amount of government resources 

as the United States. Successfully translating nanoscale discoveries into manufactured products will be critically dependent on: (1) developing process technologies 

to efficiently and reliably produce commercially-significant quantities of nanomaterials, (2) developing advanced measurement and process-control technologies—including standard reference materials—to monitor production processes and for quality control, and (3) close cooperation and interaction between the research sector, 

the manufacturing sector, and the national measurement standards system. In 

order to meet each of these requirements and thus allow the U.S. to be globally competitive, NIST will have to conduct the research to support the development of a 

measurement and standards infrastructure for nano-products. 

Everyone understands that one of the factors affecting our global competitiveness 

is our dependence on foreign oil. President Bush issued a challenge to the Nation’s 

scientists and engineers in his 2003 State of the Union speech to overcome technical 

obstacles so that ‘‘the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by 

hydrogen, and pollution-free.’’ In order to make this vision of a hydrogen economy 

a reality, measurements and standards must lead the way. 

For the past 50 years, NIST has been a leading provider of data on the chemical 

and physical properties of hydrogen. NIST’s Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) 

is a premier facility for the study of hydrogen. The NCNR was cited by a 2002 working group of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy as ‘‘the highest performing and most used neutron facility in the United States.’’ The NCNR already is being used in conjunction with major U.S. manufacturers to study the flow 

of hydrogen through operating fuel cells to help improve the efficiency and duraVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:02 Apr 27, 2011 Jkt 65910 PO 00000 Frm 000023 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06621 S:\GPO\DOCS\65910.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
20 

bility of these devices. NIST is, in fact, the lead agency for weights and measures 

for vehicle fuels and will need to develop physical reference standards, calibration 

services, and new consensus standards to help ensure equitable trade of hydrogen 

in the marketplace. Moreover, NIST’s expertise will be critical for advancing hydrogen process control technologies, the design of fuel cells, and the development of innovative tools needed to make the hydrogen economy a reality. 

America’s future prosperity and economic security may rely in part on the exotic 

properties of some of the smallest particles in nature to accomplish feats in physics, 

information science, and mathematics that are impossible with today’s technology. 

Quantum information science seeks to use the fundamental properties of nature at 

very small scales to build technologies that can only be imagined today. While classical physics describes the way objects interact at the everyday scale, quantum 

physics describes the rules by which electrons, nuclei, and other subatomic particles 

interact. At these small scales the laws of our everyday experience breakdown and 

new phenomena arise. This revolutionary new technology offers potential solutions 

to issues looming on the horizon of technology development, including the limits of 

Moore’s Law on the microelectronics industry. Around the year 2015, the microelectronics industry will reach its limit in reducing the size, and increasing the processing speed, of integrated circuits manufactured by traditional silicon technology. 

Additional process power and capacity will then only be achieved through revolutionary technologies such as quantum information. With several world-renowned scientists, including three Nobel laureates, NIST is perfectly positioned to play a more 

critical role in developing the tools for measuring, controlling, and ultimately understanding the quantum realm and harnessing its power to achieve benefits for the 

Nation. 

With my testimony today, I have demonstrated how and why NIST’s basic research plays a unique role in our Nation’s research and development enterprise. 

NIST sits at the nexus of science and industry, conducting extreme measurement 

science and developing standards that allow industry to innovate and compete in 

the global economy. The President’s 2007 budget recognizes this role and provides 

our researchers the ability to keep advancing the critical measurements that will 

enable U.S. industry to develop the most advanced and best products and services. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator ENSIGN. Thanks to all of you. 

I want to ask a question and have each of you comment. And it 

is fine if we go back and forth. I want to discuss how you decide 

what is a meritorious grant proposal. Obviously, we have peer review to try to rate the various grant proposals. From what I understand, there is an entire rating system that goes along with this 

process. One of the things that I want to explore before we go into 

the amount of money that may be required to meet the needs of 

the grant proposals, rated excellent or very good, is how we are and 

how we should be assessing the merits of each grant proposal. 

We were with the President yesterday. He convened several Senators, a bipartisan group of us, along with the Secretary of Education, to talk about the various proposals, the National Innovation 

Act, which Senator Lieberman and I introduced, the PACE proposal, and the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative. It 

was a very good meeting. And we talked about various topics. But 

Chairman Mike Enzi, from the HELP Committee, mentioned what 

they do with peer review over in Ireland. I guess they have a second panel of the peer review, involving business. So that you have 

academics on the first peer-review panel, and you have representatives from business conduct a second peer review, because there 

are limited funds. And so, I would like to hear any of your comments on a peer review system like that being set up in the United 

States. 

Dr. MARBURGER. Let me start answering that question, and I’ll 

pass it on to my colleagues. 

21 

The National Science Foundation has the distinction of having a 

particularly well-regarded peer-review process for its grant programs. And I might add that the Irish system is modeled on our 

system very closely. But this is a new feature, that you mentioned. 

I believe that some types of grants do require input from the 

nonscience community, a community of people who attempt to 

translate technology into commercial products. And most agencies 

that have applied missions work very closely with industry in order 

to calibrate themselves and their judgment. I know NIST, among 

agencies, probably works more closely with industry, and has a 

very effective relationship in that regard. 

But I’d like to ask my colleagues to respond to that, as well. I 

think it is appropriate, in certain contexts, to have that kind of 

input. 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I would respond a couple of ways. First of all, 

there has been a program in existence for some time that has had 

that two-level review. It was the Advanced Technology Program. 

The first review dealt with scientific or engineering or technical 

merit. The second review really had to do with business feasibility, 

or had to have a good business plan. 

At the National Science Foundation, we feel that our mission is 

to work at the frontier, because if we vacate the frontier, we do a 

disservice to the Nation, so that we’re looking for investigators who 

see the frontier, or maybe even see beyond the frontier, and determine, or at least have some concepts of, where the next big move 

of the frontier will come. 

That’s generally called high-risk research or transformational research or frontier research. There are a lot of designators. On the 

other hand, at the other extreme we also have programs, like the 

SBIR and the STTR program, that do deal with the private-sector—they’re usually small businesses—where we also look at the 

technical feasibility and the business feasibility of the concept. But 

in even those cases we try to be sure that we pick those projects 

that are at the cutting-edge of emerging technologies, whether it’s 

nanotech or information technology or biotechnology, to be sure it’s 

moving new technologies forward, rather than just embellishing existing technologies. 

Senator ENSIGN. Good. 

Dr. JEFFREY. I’d just like to expand upon some of the comments 

that Dr. Marburger made. NIST does work very closely with industry. In fact, one of the features is that we have as many technical 

researchers on our campus that come from industry and universities as we actually have NIST researchers. So, we have about 

1,800 guest researchers a year. 

In addition, we work with industry consortia in developing technical roadmaps that help guide what the investment strategy 

would be. One of the more long-term relationships we’ve had is 

with the semiconductor industry. In addition, we work with other 

industry consortia in all disciplines, again, trying to identify the 

highest-priority needs, because we do, as Dr. Marburger said, ‘‘fill 

that niche between the pure fundamental transformational research,’’ that Dr. Bement was talking about, and then what industry’s requirements are for the future. 

22 

Senator ENSIGN. I just raise the point, because when Senator 

Enzi mentioned that yesterday, Dr. Bement, what you said struck 

me. That is why I wanted to hear your comments on it. I think 

there is a place for that, but you also have to have that transformational foundation research. I think it is really important. Because we do not know whether a lot of the research is ultimately 

going to be applicable to anything. Someone may have an exciting 

idea to pursue something, but the researchers, scientists, and policy makers do not know whether a lot of these are going to be deadends. You have to pursue some dead-ends. 

I always think back to Thomas Edison and to the number of experiments that he did that went nowhere before he conducted experiments that were very, very successful. I think that is the type 

of thinking that NSF is especially involved with and why I think 

it is important to bring it out. And to have that discussion in public 

could be helpful going forward. 

Now I want to address now the fact that I proposed and the 

President proposed, significantly increasing funding for NSF and 

NIST and in a more targeted approach than some others have 

done. Senator Lieberman and I took a slightly different approach 

with the National Innovation Act, but, still, I think our approach 

is very similar philosophically with the President’s proposal. My 

legislation seeks to use a lot of the dollars that we have effectively, 

and increase funding where we can and must. And, just to make 

that comment, and to re-emphasize this, I am as fiscally conservative as anybody in the U.S. Senate. There are two areas that I 

think give us a great return for our whole economy, where all 

Americans benefit, where the investment is not a drain, actually, 

on the Federal budget. Rather, you actually, you get a positive return. Basic research is absolutely one of those areas. And infrastructure is the other area. And some of these infrastructure investments end up being in cyberinfrastructure in some of the 

things that we have seen. 

But with all of the proposals that we have out there that are 

rated—and I guess I want to get the comments that—OK, we’ve 

proposed, for instance, in our legislation, doubling NSF. And we 

targeted some increased support for NIST. Can you comment—and, 

once again, I’ll have the whole panel comment—on if what we’ve 

proposed is adequate? Would it meet a lot more of the needs? How 

much more would you need—if you had to put a dollar figure on 

it—to meet what you would consider all of the meritorious grants 

that are out there. 

Dr. BEMENT. Do you want me to comment? 

Dr. MARBURGER. The President’s budget request for the American Competitiveness Initiative tries to make priorities, and tries 

to identify the things that really need to be boosted right now in 

order for us to maintain this very long-term capability of producing 

new science that will lead to new technologies in the long-term. 

And there are—because of the generous funding that this and some 

previous Administrations have given to basic science, many parts 

of our scientific enterprise are funded in a way that’s nearly commensurate with their challenges and opportunities. But there were 

a few areas, particularly in some aspects of the physical sciences, 

and departments like NIST, for example, that create tools for evVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:02 Apr 27, 2011 Jkt 65910 PO 00000 Frm 000026 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06601 S:\GPO\DOCS\65910.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
23 

erybody else, that we felt were really underfunded, relative to their 

challenges. And the President’s budget request recognizes those 

challenged areas. And that’s why there is not only a pretty significant boost in the first year, but also a commitment to those departments, over a long period of time, to try to focus on them and build 

them up to—so that they can be where they need to be. We’re not 

trying to do this all at once, but over a period of time. 

So, you can imagine, my answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, 

is that we put the proposal together, aware of what the needs are 

and what the capacity is, and this is what we think is the appropriate amount. 

Senator ENSIGN. OK. 

Dr. Bement? 

Dr. BEMENT. I would have both a philosophical and a pragmatic 

answer to your question. The question, ‘‘How much investment in 

research and development is enough?’’ has plagued industry, the 

private-sector, the public-sector for many, many years. My feeling 

about it is, it’s enough if it builds the capacity that the Nation 

needs, in terms of a STEM workforce that can take on the new jobs 

to develop the new technologies that are coming along. It will be 

enough if it broadens participation so that women and under-represented minorities can be part of that workforce. It will be enough 

if we provide the very best math and science education to our children, from pre-kindergarten all the way up through graduate 

study. And it will be enough if it keeps the United States in a leadership position in the key technical fields around the world, so that 

we can be competitive. If not the leaders, at least equal, or at least 

with enough capacity that we can be fast followers if new concepts 

emerge elsewhere in the world. 

Now, to put a number on that would be far beyond anything that 

we could possibly handle in our current discretionary budget. On 

the other hand, I have to say that the ACI is a first big step in 

moving in that direction. 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you. 

Dr. JEFFREY. Just to elaborate on that, NIST is that little yellow 

sliver at the top on the chart. It’s one of the pieces, again, as part 

of the technical infrastructure for the Nation, that has played a 

really important role, and as, again, the economy is becoming more 

technical, will play an increasingly important role. 

The plan for ACI is exactly what we need, at the right time. It 

not only increases our ability to do some of the research, but it also 

increases our capability and capacity, in terms of some of our infrastructure. And so, it was well thought through, and, again, would 

be exactly what we need at this point. 

Senator ENSIGN. Great. One last question that I have for this 

panel is that, in doing some reading about what Michael Milken 

has done with prostate cancer in the Foundation, and experiencing 

some of what National Cancer Institute and NIH have done in the 

life sciences—and I know that some of the things are done differently with the physical sciences—but, I’m just finishing one of 

the books that was written about what they had done. One of the 

things that they discovered was that the grant proposals that people had to submit were very cumbersome, long and inflexible. It 

would take grant applicants a long time to write the grant proVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:02 Apr 27, 2011 Jkt 65910 PO 00000 Frm 000027 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06601 S:\GPO\DOCS\65910.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
24 

posals. But now, they limit grant proposals to five pages. The grant 

proposals would have to be five pages. As I recall, the other thing 

that they did was give increased flexibility. I guess what happened 

a lot of times in the life sciences is that the way the grant proposals and the strict criteria was written, sometimes halfway 

through a research project, a researcher would realize a project was 

not going anywhere, but the researcher was not allowed to adapt, 

because of the strict criteria written to this grant proposal. You 

could only spend the grant money for this particular project in this 

particular way. There was not enough flexibility. So, they tried it 

in the private-sector, they felt like they had more ability to give the 

researchers that added flexibility. 

Any comments on that type of an approach? Is it possible—is 

government able to do this? 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. 

Senator ENSIGN. Is government able to be that flexible? And is 

it possible to streamline—are you always looking at ways to 

streamline the grant proposals, but still get enough information on 

whether grant proposals are meritorious? 

Dr. BEMENT. On the National Science and Technology Council, 

there is a Business Practice Subcommittee that’s looking at how to 

normalize these processes across all the Federal agencies. In our 

experience at the Foundation, since many fields of research are becoming more complex, proposals may involve more than one principal investigator and in some cases, are highly interdisciplinary. 

Our experience is that about 20 pages are about optimal to fully 

describe the research. On the other hand, we do have a Small 

Grant for Exploratory Research program, which tries to pay attention to areas that are really beyond the frontier. These are really 

new concepts. And for those types of proposals, we accept much 

shorter proposals, about three or four pages. And the program officer has a fair amount of discretion in approving those kind of proposals. 

Senator ENSIGN. OK. 

Dr. MARBURGER. Dr. Bement referred to the National Science 

and Technology Council. OSTP staffs the interagency working 

groups for this council. And, by popular demand several years ago, 

this committee that Dr. Bement referred to, on business practices 

and business models, was created to identify best practices among 

all the agencies. The grant approval and evaluation process does 

differ from agency to agency. And some agencies have more cumbersome processes than others. 

National Science Foundation has good practices in this area, 

with a variety of evaluation mechanisms. And this interagency 

group is trying to encourage other agencies to follow this model and 

to be even more flexible. We recognize that there is a burden on 

investigators for all this paperwork and writing reports and so 

forth. 

But NSF has been very good at being able to get money to people 

to follow up things like damage to the levees in the Katrina Hurricane last year, in following up the damage—deplorable damage to 

the World Trade Center after 9/11. NSF was able to get money to 

investigators to go in immediately after the collapse of those buildings and perform preliminary investigations, seemed to me, almost 

25 

within hours, if not days. So, with a capacity like that, we clearly 

have the mechanisms to respond quickly to opportunities and situations where immediate scientific analysis would be helpful in the 

long-term, and we just have to spread those best practices. That’s 

one of the reasons that the National Science Foundation was selected for inclusion in this priority ACI, because they do have an 

excellent track record for getting the money out. 

Senator ENSIGN. I agree with that. 

Dr. JEFFREY. I have nothing to add to that. 

Senator ENSIGN. OK. 

Senator Pryor? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m sorry I was late. 

But let me, if I can, Dr. Jeffrey, ask you about the Advanced 

Technology Program. Have you covered that yet, Mr. Chairman, 

the Advanced Technology Program? That much? OK. Well, we—— 

OK, well, the program is one of the only programs directed at innovation that has been actually called effective by the National 

Academy of Sciences. Dr. Jeffrey, do you agree that it has been effective? 

Dr. JEFFREY. I believe that the OMB PART score for ATP was 

‘‘adequate.’’ So, within its area, that it has made some very substantial progress. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. And as I understand it, in the President’s 

budget, that line item’s been zeroed out. If we are able to restore 

that funding, would you be opposed to us restoring that funding? 

Dr. JEFFREY. Well, the way that the budget was put together is, 

trying to look at the priorities, based upon a number of things, including, reduction of the deficit. And in those priorities, I talked 

about in my opening statement, was the role that NIST plays in 

terms of the general technical infrastructure and the things that 

we do that support entire industries. The ATP has been effective, 

as you said, in terms of support of specific technologies in specific 

companies. But in terms of the priorities, we’re looking at the 

broader base impacting the entire economy and entire industries. 

And so, the priorities would certainly be with the basic lab programs. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Dr. Bement, let me ask you—there’s an increase in funding for NSF research and development, and I’m just 

curious about the additional money. How are you going to spend 

that this year? What’s the expectation there? 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. Our first priority is to advance the frontier. So, 

that’s focused on building up our core research capabilities among 

our different directorates. The second priority is broadening participation. And significant increases have gone to those programs that 

have had a very significant impact on getting larger numbers of 

under-represented minorities, persons with disabilities, into the 

STEM fields, at all levels, including Ph.D. programs. The third priority is to invest in the infrastructure in the major facilities that 

are truly transformational, with significant investments in 

cyberinfrastructure, which is having a revolutionary effect on how 

research is being conducted and the levels of complexity that we 

26 

can now deal with in understanding science. And the final priority, 

not necessarily least, is to put more resources into our math and 

science education program. 

Senator PRYOR. All right. Let me follow up on that, if I can. Just 

generally, who makes those decisions about how to spend money? 

You’ve listed out your priorities, but who, in the final analysis, actually makes the decision on where the money goes? 

Dr. BEMENT. We go through a fairly elaborate budget preparation 

process, listening to the community, first of all, getting inputs from 

our Advisory Committees and through workshops, and also by listening to Congress. We understand there are priorities, from previous years’ appropriations. Then we assemble that information, 

try to synthesize it, and then we review it with the National 

Science Board. And the National Science Board ultimately approves our budget. And that review takes place in several sessions 

throughout the spring and summer, prior to our submitting our 

budget to the OMB in September. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. And you mentioned math and science, as 

well. Is that part of the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative? 

Dr. BEMENT. It is. It’s part of building the workforce for the 21st 

century. 

Senator PRYOR. And how—in your view, is that going? I mean, 

do we have a good game plan to make progress there? Because I 

know there have been some cuts in the education budget, et cetera. 

But, from your perspective, how’s that looking? 

Dr. BEMENT. I think it’s going exceptionally well. In our Math 

and Science Partnership program, we have currently done an assessment of our first year cohort after 1 year of results in testing. 

We’ve been able to show that, in the elementary grades, we’ve been 

able to improve proficiency by at least 4 percentage points, and, in 

the high schools, we’ve been able to increase it by as much as 14 

percentage points. Now, that’s quite significant. But that’s only 1 

year of results in the partnership. We expect that those will continue to go up. 

And in some specific schools, the results are really quite impressive. I learned, this morning, a report of a school, in Pennsylvania, 

who now ranks first in the world, by international testing, in math 

and science performance at the fourth grade. They tied with Korea. 

They were tied for first place. And in the tenth grade, in the same 

school, they came in second in the world, second only to Sweden. 

These are quite dramatic results. 

And they are a member of our Math—they are a—— 

Senator PRYOR. OK. 

Dr. BEMENT.—participant in our Math and Science Partnership 

program. 

Senator PRYOR. Well, maybe I misunderstand, but has the NSF 

eliminated new Math and Science Partnership grants—— 

Dr. BEMENT. No, that’s not—— 

Senator PRYOR.—and transferred—transferred those over to Department of Education. 

Dr. BEMENT. No, that’s not correct, Senator. The program is forward funded. Each of the 48 projects under the Partnership have 

a 5-year grant. There is adequate funding in the program, at the 

27 

present time, to continue those grants. We expect that they will be 

continued until they’re completed. In addition to that, there’s—— 

Senator PRYOR. But are there new grants coming on? 

Dr. BEMENT. No. We currently have 48 Partnerships, and the— 

those are not being increased. But this, basically, is a research and 

development program that involves 5,000 schools, 500 school districts. It’s the largest research and development program of its type 

that has ever been mounted. And so, our next challenge is to deal 

with scaling that up through implementation by working with the 

Department of Education and with the State departments of education. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, I think that’s all I have. Thank you. 

Senator ENSIGN. Well, thank you. 

I want to thank the witnesses for your excellent testimony. And 

we really look forward to working with you. This is a critical area 

of our economy. We all know that. And so, the exciting part about 

it is that there is a lot of bipartisan support for what we’re trying 

to do going forward. And, as we know, these days, anything that 

can be bipartisan, we are looking for. So, we are excited about 

going forward with some of these proposals. 

So, thank you. I would now like to call the next panel of witnesses to the table. 

Our second panel has four witnesses. The first witness on the 

panel will be Dr. Steven Knapp. Dr. Knapp is the Provost and sEnior Vice President for Academic Affairs at Johns Hopkins University. The next witness will be Dr. Leonard Pietrafesa. Dr. 

Pietrafesa is the Chairman of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Independent Science Advisory Board. The 

next witness will be Mr. Philip Ritter. Mr. Ritter is a Senior Vice 

President and Manager of Public Affairs for Texas Instruments. 

And our final witness today will be Dr. Adam Drobot. Dr. Drobot 

is the Chief Technology Officer for Telcordia, Incorporated. 

We’ll start with Dr. Knapp. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN KNAPP, PH.D., PROVOST AND SENIOR 

VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, JOHNS HOPKINS 

UNIVERSITY 

Senator ENSIGN. Dr. Knapp, could you push your microphone, 

please to make sure it is on? There you go. 

Dr. KNAPP. Is that better? Thank you. 

As you can see from the item displayed to my right here, Drs. 

Brody and Barrett were recently joined by over 140 business, academic, and other national leaders in support of the innovation 

agenda. I’m pleased to have the opportunity today to share our 

University’s perspective on this important issue. 

The United States has long been the world leader in scientific 

discovery, thanks in large measure to policies that encourage innovation, improve education at all levels, and facilitate the transfer 

of knowledge from the lab to the marketplace. But today we face 

serious threats to this preeminence. Other nations bring to the 

table strong education systems, focused government policy, and 

low-cost workers. Asia and Europe are committing unprecedented 

resources to science and engineering. 

28 

Basic research is essential to our capacity to meet this challenge. 

Our ability to compete in the global economy depends, first and 

foremost, on our ability to make new discoveries. The more we 

learn about how things work, the principles of basic biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics, the more opportunities we have to 

put that knowledge to use building businesses, creating products, 

improving our standard of living, and preserving the security of our 

Nation. 

Today’s most innovative industries are built on decades of basic 

research, research that had no discernible practical application 

when it was undertaken. And, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned some 

examples of this in your opening comments. And, just to highlight 

a few of those: 

Quantum mechanics spawned the semiconductor industry and 

the information revolution. CDs and DVDs? We would still be using 

vinyl and videotape if not for lasers, which are based on ideas that 

have their roots in the theoretical work of Albert Einstein. 

In the United States, funding basic research has long been a government function. Why is that the case? Because basic research 

must be sustained for years or decades, sometimes coming to nothing, and entails no immediate return on investment. There is no 

entity other than government that can take on this role. 

But U.S. Federal research and development spending, as a percentage of gross domestic product, peaked 40 years ago, in 1965. 

It was then just below 2 percent of GDP. In the past 40 years, that 

share has diminished by more than half, to about .8 percent of 

GDP. 

We must reverse this trend now by strengthening the Nation’s 

commitment to science-related Federal agencies and programs, particularly NSF and NIH, the Department of Energy’s Office of 

Science, NASA, and the basic research programs sponsored by the 

Department of Defense. 

In Fiscal Year 2005, Johns Hopkins won $1.28 billion in Federal 

R&D funding, won that competitively. That support allowed us to 

improve medical care worldwide, advance human knowledge, and 

train new generations of innovative researchers. 

But investment in research universities yields tangible economic 

benefits, as well. In 2004, Johns Hopkins produced 89 patents. 

That same year, our friends at the University of California won 270 

patents, MIT won 159, and Caltech, 142. In all, there were more 

than 3,200 patents issued that year to U.S. universities. That’s a 

tremendous amount of knowledge made available to American business and the American public. 

Johns Hopkins strongly supports efforts to secure the competitive 

strength and national security of the United States by bolstering 

the Nation’s ability to innovate. The National Innovation Initiative, 

the National Academy’s report, ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering 

Storm,’’ President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative, the 

National Innovation Act, and the PACE Acts, each of these welcome efforts is bringing the role of basic science and innovation forward for discussion and debate. Each envisions increased support 

for Federal science agencies. 

29 

I’d like to thank Senator Ensign for his leadership on these 

issues and for introducing, with Senator Lieberman and others, the 

National Innovation Act. 

As we engage in this discussion, it is crucial to stress that the 

physical sciences should not be funded to the exclusion of the life 

sciences. Today biologists, statisticians, physicists, engineers, and 

computer scientists all work together to advance the knowledge we 

need to solve our urgent problems. 

And to just mention an example that was not in my written testimony, we have an exciting case of a young biomedical engineer, 

named Dr. Jennifer Elisseeff, who has figured out how to grow replacement cartilage tissue for knee replacements. And she does this 

by inserting cartilage cells into a chemical medium that is a 

‘‘smart’’ gel medium that actually chemically signals the cells how 

much they should grow, and, when the cells reach a certain stage 

of maturity, they signal this chemical medium to disappear, to dissolve. And she has now patented that, and a start-up company is 

working on what could be a critical technology for a very serious 

health problem affecting many of us in the United States. 

Sustained real growth in funding for all kinds of basic research 

is vital. Last year, with the support of the NIH, Johns Hopkins established the Nation’s first Institute for Computation Medicine. It 

is staffed by biomedical researchers and physical scientists from 

our schools of medicine and engineering, using powerful computers 

that will mine data for new and more effective ways to treat disease. It’s noteworthy that approximately $2 billion of NIH funding 

supports research in the physical sciences. 

If NIH funding continues to erode, we are concerned that projects 

that meld physical and biological sciences, such as the Institute for 

Computational Medicine, could be among the first to suffer. 

In general, we applaud the efforts of our leaders in Washington 

to strengthen American competitiveness. If we at Johns Hopkins 

can assist, please contact us. I invite you to visit our campuses, explore our facilities and meet our researchers face-to-face. You will 

find no more persuasive argument for the inestimable value of investment in research than witnessing the innovative enterprise 

firsthand. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Knapp follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN KNAPP, PH.D., PROVOST AND SENIOR VICE

PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify this morning. As you may know, Johns Hopkins has been engaged with the innovation issue for a number of years—primarily 

through the efforts of our President, Dr. William R. Brody, and most recently 

through his work on the National Innovation Initiative with Intel Corp.’s Chairman, 

Dr. Craig Barrett. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to share our University’s perspective on this important issue. 

The United States has long been the world leader in scientific discovery, thanks 

largely to government policies that encourage innovation, improve education at all 

levels, and facilitate the transfer of knowledge from the laboratory to the marketplace. Today we face serious threats to this preeminence. Other nations bring to the 

table strong educational systems, focused government policies, and low-cost workers. 

Asian and European countries are committing unprecedented resources to science 

and engineering programs. 

30 

Basic research is essential to our ability to meet this challenge. President Brody 

puts it this way: ‘‘Knowledge drives innovation. Innovation drives productivity. Productivity drives economic growth.’’ Our ability to compete in the global economy depends, first and foremost, on our ability to continue making new discoveries. The 

more we learn about how things work—the principles of basic biology, chemistry, 

physics, and mathematics—the more opportunity we have to put that knowledge to 

use. When we know more, we can use that knowledge to make our world better, 

to build new businesses and devise new products, and to improve our standard of 

living. 

America’s most innovative industries are built on decades of basic research, research that had no discernable practical application at the time it was undertaken. 

No practical application, that is, until a light bulb went on in someone’s head; until 

someone said, ‘‘I can use that to make something.’’ 

For example: 

• The highly theoretical world of quantum mechanics spawned the semiconductor 

industry and the information revolution. 

• Johns Hopkins scientists thinking about the principle of physics called the 

Doppler effect used it to invent what became today’s global positioning system. 

• Two Johns Hopkins biologists shared a Nobel Prize in 1978 for using restriction 

enzymes to cut DNA into fragments. Had that esoteric basic research not been 

done, we would not today have a thriving biotechnology industry in this country. 

• And what about CDs and DVDs? You would still be using vinyl and videotape 

if it were not for lasers, the roots of which go back to theoretical work by Albert 

Einstein. 

In the United States, funding basic research has long been a governmental function. Why? Because it takes a long time to do it, because there is always a risk that 

any single project will come to nothing, and because it is difficult to capture an immediate return on investment in an idea that has not yet been developed to the 

stage of a marketable invention. 

Despite a societal consensus that basic research is a government responsibility, 

however, U.S. Federal research and development spending, as a percentage of gross 

domestic product, peaked forty years ago, in 1965, at just below 2 percent of GDP. 

In the past 40 years, that percentage has diminished by more than half, to about 

0.8 percent of GDP. Overall R&D spending, especially in basic sciences, continues 

to decline. 

We must reverse this trend now, by strengthening the Nation’s commitment to 

science-related Federal agencies and programs, particularly the National Science 

Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy’s Office of 

Science, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Department 

of Defense’s basic research programs. 

Research and Innovation at American Universities 

The Johns Hopkins University is the Nation’s leading recipient of Federal research grants. In FY 2005, our researchers attracted $1.28 billion in Federal R&D 

funding and $1.44 billion in overall R&D funding, a category in which Johns Hopkins has led all U.S. institutions for 25 consecutive years. This support allows us 

to improve medical care worldwide, advance human knowledge, and train new generations of innovative researchers. 

But investment in research universities like Johns Hopkins yields tangible economic benefits as well. In FY 2004, Johns Hopkins alone produced 89 patents, filed 

402 new patent applications, and generated $6.3 million dollars in income from 

technology licenses. That same year, our friends at the University of California won 

270 patents; MIT won 159 and CalTech, 142. In all, there were more than 3,200 

patents issued to U.S. universities. That is a tremendous amount of knowledge 

made available to American business for commercialization and to the American 

public for an incalculable range of benefits. 

Here are just a few recent examples from my own institution; my counterparts 

at other major research universities, were they here today, would provide examples 

equally illustrative of the point: 

• Johns Hopkins has filed for a patent for self-assembling cubes, the size of a 

speck of dust, that can carry medicine into the body. These devices, which come 

out of an NIH-funded collaboration between engineers and radiologists, open up 

possibilities for the pharmaceutical industry for a new generation of ‘‘smart 

pills’’ aimed directly at a diseased or injured part of the body. 

31 

• The Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory has greatly improved molecularly-imprinted polymers, or MIPs. These are special materials that can be tailored to detect specific chemical substances. We are now working with a startup 

company to develop products using this patented technology to improve drinking water and treat wastewater. 

• Thanks to the licensing of our technologies to industry, one company outside 

Baltimore sells thin films that weld materials together in thousandths of a second. Another is developing products to improve the detection of explosives. 

• There is a company using Johns Hopkins technology to analyze bone health. 

Another is using technology originally created to detect submarines to analyze 

instead the sound of the beating human heart. 

Renewing Our Commitment to Basic Research 

Johns Hopkins strongly supports efforts to secure the competitive strength and 

national security of the United States by bolstering the Nation’s ability to innovate. 

The National Innovation Initiative, the National Academy of Sciences report Rising 

Above the Gathering Storm, President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative 

(ACI), the National Innovation Act, and the Protecting America’s Competitive Edge 

(PACE) Acts: each of these welcome efforts has helped to get the issue of basic 

science and innovation on the table for discussion and debate. Each envisions increased support for Federal science agencies. The ACI, for example, calls for increased funding for programs at the National Science Foundation, the Department 

of Energy’s Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

As we engage in this discussion, it is crucial to stress that the physical sciences 

should not be funded to the exclusion of the life sciences. Today, biologists, statisticians, physicists, engineers, and computer scientists all work together to advance 

the knowledge we need to solve our most important problems. 

Unfortunately, we tend at any one time to favor life sciences over physical 

sciences or vice versa, starving one to feed the other. That must not happen. The 

nature of scientific innovation today means that starving one starves both. 

The basic life sciences research funded by the National Institutes of Health is a 

key component of our overall national science agenda. This Fiscal Year, spending 

for the NIH has been cut $66 million. This was the first cut to the NIH since 1970. 

For FY07, the President has requested $28.43 billion—essentially a freeze at the 

current level. And the number of new NIH grants has already tumbled nearly 15 

percent from its peak in 2003, hobbling the ability of scientists to open up new lines 

of investigation. 

Last year, with the support of the NIH, Johns Hopkins established the Nation’s 

first Institute for Computational Medicine, staffed by biomedical researchers and 

physical scientists from our School of Medicine and School of Engineering. Using 

powerful information management and computing tools, research teams will mine 

data, model molecular networks, identify biomarkers of disease at early stages, and 

find new and more effective ways to treat disease. 

As NIH funding erodes, we are concerned that projects that meld physical and 

biological sciences, such as work of the Institute for Computational Medicine, could 

be among the first to suffer. These projects provide a vital foundation both for medical advancement and for innovation, the kind of innovation that leads to economic 

growth. They should be supported. 

Visa Policy 

Return on our national investment in basic research will be most fully realized 

only if universities can continue to attract the best and brightest from around the 

world. Research universities have relied on open visa policies designed to promote 

international intellectual exchange. But today, delays and difficulties in obtaining 

visas to the United States have contributed to a declining in-flow of scientific talent. 

At Johns Hopkins, for instance, the number of graduate students from China declined from 328 in 2001 to 178 in 2004. The number of foreign undergraduate students dropped from 355 in 2001 to 263 in 2004. 

Competitor nations, meanwhile, are quite naturally taking advantage of our increasingly cumbersome visa process to lure top talent away from the United States. 

And with the strengthening of foreign science, there are many attractive substitutes 

abroad for U.S. degree programs, fellowships, and academic conferences. 

No question: it is critical that Federal policy protect our national security. At the 

same time, however, we must foster an environment favorable to international students and scholars. Immigration policies should make it easy for the best and 

brightest to come here, to stay here, and then to live and work here when their 

studies are complete. Johns Hopkins supports government policies and contracting 

32 

practices that facilitate rather than hinder participation by international students 

and scientists in the conduct of unclassified fundamental research. 

K–12 Education 

Neither strong investment in research nor participation from abroad will preserve 

America’s competitive edge in the long-term if we do not repair our faltering K–12 

education system, especially in the areas of mathematics, science, engineering, and 

technology. Advanced research at universities can only be built on a foundation of 

basic education. 

Since 1980, America’s nonacademic science and engineering jobs have grown at 

more than four times the rate of the U.S. labor force as a whole. But in the same 

two and a half decades, the performance of K–12 students in science and mathematics has declined. According to figures cited by the Association of American Universities, U.S. fourth graders score well against international competition in math 

and science testing. By the 12th grade, however, our students have fallen to near 

the bottom. 

This weakness also shows up at the postsecondary level. In 1966, American-born 

students earned 77 percent of science and engineering Ph.D.s awarded in the United 

States, while foreign-born students earned 23 percent. In 2000, it was 61 percent 

for U.S.-born students and 39 percent for those from abroad. 

At Johns Hopkins, we are able to attract and enroll well-qualified students, but 

our elementary and secondary education experts’ work with schools around the 

country reminds us daily that the problem of deficient K–12 education in math and 

science must be addressed—and soon. 

Colleges and universities are stepping in to help. At Johns Hopkins, we provide 

enrichment for talented students and programs to attract young people into science 

and technology careers. We help schools reform their curricula. We work to train 

new teachers, including scientists or engineers looking for a second career. 

But government action is obviously needed as well. 

The National Innovation Act, the Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Acts, 

and President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative all address this problem. 

I would like to thank Senator Ensign for his leadership on these issues, and for introducing, with Senator Lieberman and others, the National Innovation Act (S. 

2109). This legislation is an important step toward solving many of the issues before 

us today. I hope that we will continue to see bipartisan cooperation, both here in 

the Senate and in the House, on all these proposals. 

I would like to offer two examples of what can be accomplished by strong K–12 

programs. Ryan Harrison and Abe Davis are two incredibly gifted and successful 

Baltimore students. Both were enrolled in Baltimore Polytechnic Institute’s special 

foundation-funded ‘‘Ingenuity Project’’ for gifted math and science students. Both 

worked with some of the city schools’ most accomplished teachers; both received 

dedicated and generous mentoring from Johns Hopkins researchers. 

Thanks to their talent and these advantages, Ryan and Abe were able to make 

extraordinary advances while they were each just 17 years old. Ryan, working in 

a chemical and biomolecular engineering lab at Johns Hopkins, extended the abilities of a molecular biology program called Rosetta. He wrote code late into the night 

until he had come up with a way to predict protein behavior at varying pH levels. 

Abe also invested impossible hours in his project, building an immensely complex 

computer graphics model of the thousands of bounces and collisions that result from 

dropping scores of balls into a box. 

Someday, Ryan’s work may help make it possible to create antibodies customized 

to fight a particular patient’s cancer. Who knows what startling uses medical researchers, scientists, and engineers might find for Abe’s computer simulation technology? 

Both Ryan and Abe are winners in Intel’s Science Talent Search. Ryan is now a 

student at Johns Hopkins and part of our Baltimore Scholars Program, which provides full scholarships to graduates of Baltimore’s public high schools who earn admission to the university. 

Unfortunately, these successes are far from the norm. The kinds of advantages 

Ryan and Abe enjoyed simply are not available in the classrooms of most American 

students, including many of those with real math and science talent. Students from 

disadvantaged backgrounds have been especially shortchanged. 

From early childhood and preschool education through high school, there are heroic, but isolated, efforts under way around the country to better prepare the children of America to make the discoveries and technological advances that will save 

lives, improve living, and drive the economy forward. Those isolated efforts, however, must become systemic and must be backed by the resources and political will 

that can make them effective. 

33 

Unless we act, stories like Ryan Harrison’s and Abe Davis’s will remain nothing 

more than happy exceptions. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for your efforts to strengthen American competitiveness. If we at 

Johns Hopkins can assist you in this important endeavor, please do not hesitate to 

contact us. I invite you and your staff to visit our campuses, explore our facilities 

and meet our researchers face-to-face. You will find no more persuasive argument 

for the inestimable value of investment in research than witnessing the innovative 

enterprise firsthand. 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you. 

Dr. Pietrafesa? Am I saying that right? 

Dr. PIETRAFESA. Pietrafesa, yes, sir. 

Senator ENSIGN. Very good. 

Dr. PIETRAFESA. Yes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. LEONARD J. PIETRAFESA, ASSOCIATE 

DEAN, PROFESSOR OF OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERE SCIENCES, 

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY; CHAIR, SCIENCE 

ADVISORY BOARD, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 

ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) 

Dr. PIETRAFESA. Thank you very much, Chairman Ensign, for inviting me to testify. 

In the late 1930s, at a time when the government did not fund 

basic research, Alfred Loomis, a wealthy New York industrialist 

and science geek, was the benefactor of basic research pursuits of 

the world’s foremost scientists and mathematicians. One of the scientific breakthroughs that he fostered led to the development of 

microwave radar. Mr. Loomis contacted President Roosevelt. An 

enormous mismatch in capabilities resulted between the Allies and 

the Axis. This is an example of a basic scientific breakthrough that, 

to great measure, is responsible for the position in the world order 

that the U.S. has enjoyed since World War II. 

This story both inspires and saddens my father, a World War II 

veteran seriously injured in Europe. He is enormously proud of 

what the United States accomplished by saving the world. Now, in 

his 90th year, he fears for the economic future of the U.S. because 

of what he perceives as misguided government spending priorities. 

‘‘Why aren’t we leading the world in new discoveries like we used 

to?’’ he asks. I cannot answer this question. 

Speaking of radars, in 1918 a flu epidemic killed 100 million people in 24 weeks. We—now, we may be facing the avian flu, but we 

have the NOAA Weather Service National Radar Network in place. 

Buried within the weather radar archives are the signals of flocks 

of birds. Statisticians, radar meteorologists, and ornithologists 

could mine the data and determine the likely pathways of migratory birds to spread the flu virus, and, thus, provide an advanced 

warning system for the Nation. 

Space weather research and forecasting is a jewel at the NOAA 

Space Environment Center. Sun storms interfere with the normal 

operation of communications, and can cause large-scale blackouts. 

Without basic research advances in space weather, the Nation’s 

readiness, transportation, commerce, and competitiveness will be 

severely compromised. 

34 

Autonomous undersea vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, remotely operated vehicles, and marine buoys would all be greatly 

enhanced with more durable sensors and greatly reduced payloads 

via NSF- and DOD-funded nanotechnology advances. The vehicles 

could fly in and out of hurricanes, through the waters below the 

hurricanes, and in noxious atmospheric plumes and harmful algal 

blooms, a very attractive operational possibility. 

Recently, a NASA scientist developed a new mathematical method to process nonlinear data in his basic research, and opened up 

an entire new field of data analysis. He was elected to the National 

Academy. However, the scientist has chosen to retire from NASA, 

and will join a university in Asia, where the success rate for research proposals is 80 percent, versus U.S. rates. The U.S. has lost 

a National Academy member to a foreign country because of scarce 

U.S. research dollars. 

The area of basic research and the understanding of how the atmosphere, ocean, and Great Lakes interact is extremely important 

in forecasts of our weather and climate. But the 140 marine buoys 

that collect data in the Nation’s coastal waters is an order of magnitude too low to properly conduct research or to do proper data 

simulation. 

Here, the NOAA Science Advisory Board has strongly endorsed 

the Integrated Ocean Observing System, IOOS, put forward by the 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The sustained IOOS could be 

managed by NOAA, in partnership with the university community. 

Coupling global climate to regional to local scale models is a significant physical, mathematical, and cyberscience challenge, all 

highly computationally-intensive. The research community needs 

next-generation national computing facilities that can be accessed 

broadly by U.S. scientists so that community models can be run 

and our Nation’s knowledge-base extended. 

NOAA is the leading environmental mission agency for the U.S. 

It is responsible for environmental observing systems and networks, environmental management, and operational forecasting. If 

NOAA were to disappear today, you would have to recreate it tomorrow. It was NOAA, working as a team, that enabled the delivery of accurate and timely information regarding the impending 

landfall of Hurricane Katrina, a forecast that saved tens of thousands of lives; albeit, this forecast was a result of 20 years of prior 

research. 

The SAB recognizes the extraordinary fiscal constraints and difficult choices the Subcommittee must make. However, we have no 

birthright to global economic leadership and a high standard of living. These are things that we have to continue to earn. So, thus, 

the investments must be made. And many of the possibilities that 

I alluded to earlier require funding. 

In the case of NOAA, that would be to support a $4.5 billion appropriation for FY07. This would address research initiatives, such 

as I mentioned, in areas of priority traditionally supported by the 

Senate, all focused on U.S. competitiveness and leadership. And, 

incidentally, coupling the physical, mathematical, statistical, life, 

health, socio, and economic sciences is, of itself, a basic research 

challenge. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement. 

35 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Pietrafesa follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. LEONARD J. PIETRAFESA, ASSOCIATE DEAN, PROFESSOR

OF OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERE SCIENCES, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY; 

CHAIR, SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) 

A hearing on: the Importance of Basic Research to United States Competitiveness— 

The hearing is intended to explore how basic research in the physical sciences impacts both long-term economic development in the United States and the ability of 

American industry to remain globally-competitive. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to submit this 

statement in strong support of the role of basic research to United States competitiveness. 

My name is Len Pietrafesa, and I am an Associate Dean and a Professor of Ocean 

and Atmospheric Sciences in the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences at 

North Carolina State University. I also serve as Chair of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Science Advisory Board. 

The NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated 25 September 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with 

responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on long- and short-range strategies for research, education, and application 

of science to resource management and environmental assessment and prediction. 

SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration science programs are of the highest quality and 

provide optimal support to resource management. The SAB consists of 15 members 

with backgrounds and expertise ranging across the spectrum of NOAA’s mission responsibilities. 

I would like to thank the Chair of the Committee, Senator Stevens for inviting 

me to testify. This is truly an honor to be offering testimony, along with Dr. J. 

Marberger, Dr. A. Bement and Dr. W. Jeffreys. 

More than seven decades ago, Dr. James B. Conant, former President of Harvard 

University and a chemist by profession, said ‘‘to advance scientific knowledge, pick 

a man (or woman) of genius, give him (or her) money and leave him (or her) alone’’ 

(parentheses added). While the paradigm has changed since then, Dr. Conant had 

a colleague, Mr. Alfred L. Loomis, a retired wealthy industrialist and a science geek, 

who in the 1930s, through his vast fortune, became the patron and benefactor for 

basic scientific pursuits to the world’s foremost scientists and mathematicians of the 

1930s (e.g., Bohr, Compton, Einstein, Fermi, Heisenberg). These studies were conducted in the then state-of-the-science and technology laboratory that Mr. Loomis 

constructed in his massive Tuxedo Park, New York mansion. This was a time when 

the government did not fund basic research. One of the subsequent scientific breakthroughs that he and colleagues Dr. E. Lawrence, a Berkeley physicist, Dr. R. 

Varian of Stanford, and others from the RadLab of the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology led to the development of microwave radar. Realizing what he had in 

his laboratory, Mr. Loomis contacted President F.D. Roosevelt, who contacted Prime 

Minister W. Churchill. At that time, the Axis did not have microwave radar but in 

short order the Allies surely did. An enormous mismatch in capabilities was affected. This is an example of a basic scientific breakthrough that led to a technological advance that to great measure is responsible for the position in the world 

order that the U.S. has enjoyed since WWII. 

This story both inspires and saddens my father, a WWII veteran seriously injured 

in Europe, who is enormously proud of what the United States accomplished by 

‘‘saving the world’’ but who now in his 90th year, fears for the economic future of 

the U.S. because of what he perceives as ‘‘misguided government spending priorities.’’ ‘‘Why aren’t we leading the world in new discoveries, like we used to,’’ he 

asks. 

Speaking of radars, in 1918 a flu epidemic broke out and killed 100 million people 

globally in 24 weeks; more than had died in over a century of the Black Plague. 

Now we may be facing another global pandemic, the Avian Flu. But in the U.S. we 

have a national network of radars that was funded by a prior Congress and is managed by the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Weather Service. Buried within the weather radar signal archives are the 

signals of flocks of birds. So, could mathematicians, statisticians and radar meteorologists apply methodologies to mine the radar data and figure out what the likely 

pathways that migratory birds might be to spread the flu virus across North America? Sure, why not. Basic research in mathematical and statistical methodologies 

36 

and radar science could conceivably provide an advanced warning system. What will 

the value of this prior knowledge be worth to the health and the economy of the 

Nation? The point is that the investments made by this Congressional body in the 

modernization of the NOAA Weather Service over the past two decades could undergird and enable new research that will couple the physical, mathematical, health 

and social sciences and result in saving American lives. 

Given the new lives that most of us and all of our children and grandchildren will 

lead, via the Internet, it should be remembered that the Internet was derived from 

Arpanet (which was funded out of DARPA for the purpose of defense contractors 

communicating and exchanging technical reports) and other standalone networks 

such as Omnet which was created by oceanographers (with funding from the Office 

of Naval Research and the National Science Foundation, so that these scientists 

could communicate with each other); a basic, fundamental advance in communications that has created new jobs, new industries, new products and services and led 

to the virtual flattening of the World; all in the relative blink of an eye. Have you 

used www.gotomeeting.com? Try it, you’ll love it. 

The U.S. is the hub of global networks and communications. Space weather research and forecasting is a scientific and technological jewel at the NOAA Space Environment Center in Boulder, CO. Space weather describes (http:// 

www.sec.noaa.gov/) the conditions in space that affect Earth and its technological 

systems. Space weather is a consequence of the behavior of the Sun and the nature 

of the Earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere. Solar disturbances categorized in 

space weather terms are: Radio Blackouts, Solar Radiation Storms and Geomagnetic 

Storms. These storms interfere with the normal operation of communications used 

by airlines and emergency response teams, military detection and early-warning 

systems, global positioning systems (GPS) which control the spatial referencing network, satellite components and spacecraft operations. Solar storms also have the potential to impact power transformers, cause large-scale blackouts in North America. 

and also create a biological threat to both astronauts and people flying in aircraft. 

Basic research in the physical, mathematical and statistical sciences is very important in space weather and without the advances made and hopefully to be made, 

U.S. competitiveness would be severely compromised. The mathematics of the plasma physics of ‘‘space weather’’ is daunting and one cannot design the experiments, 

they come pre-designed so there are no options. They are dealt with on the fly. 

As an example of mathematical enabling in experimental design, the SAS Institute in Cary, North Carolina, the world leader in data analysis software, with billions in annual revenues, had its origins with a group of North Carolina State University researchers, Drs. Goodman and Saul, focused on the statistics of experimental design. The researchers made some breakthroughs in statistical methodologies and formed a company. These advances have resulted in a strongly competitive, 

well run U.S. corporation (featured on CBS’s ‘‘60 Minutes’’).The software itself is 

used to deliver decision-support such as data mining to help other companies make 

more informed choices. 

In the arena of experimental design for quality improvement, carefully constructed settings for factors that affect production allow the maximum information 

extraction for a given amount of experimental effort. For example, a grinding experiment to efficiently create an optical lens (like an eyeglass), with 12 factors (like 

wheel speed, grit size, etc.) each of which can be at a high or low level, would require 2048 runs to see the effect (on say, surface roughness) for every combination 

of the 12 factors. But through the magic of statistical optimization, a carefully designed experiment would require only 192 runs for all factors. This is an incredible 

shrinking in an economy of scale resulting in huge savings to the optical industry. 

Another area of basic statistical research is in ‘‘anomaly detection,’’ whereby statistical methods have been utilized to discover hot spots of activity, such as disease 

outbreaks, a topic of current basic research. Also methods for automatic flagging of 

unusual or outlier values and methods of detecting change points in data taken over 

time have potential not only for controlling manufacturing processes but might be 

used in a homeland security context and in environmental data assessment. This 

approach would be valuable for flagging outliers, unusually extreme or potentially 

bad data, as these data are streaming in; such as data transmitted in real-time from 

the NOAA Weather Service national monitoring network or the upcoming Department of Defense (DOD) and NOAA NPOESS Satellite constellation. Terabytes (or 

petabytes?) of data must be evaluated on the fly and the results of basic statistical 

research could provide new methodologies to evaluate the trillions (or 10s thereof) 

of points of data on the fly; thus ensuring that the multi-billion dollar investment 

of this Congress in our needed satellite systems (e.g., NOAA GOES and the DOD/ 

NOAA NPOESS) yields maxima benefits in data utilization. 

37 

To paraphrase a popular ad campaign, you could say that statisticians don’t make 

the decisions; they make the decision process better. Basic research in statistics provides tools just as a violin maker provides an instrument rather than making the 

music. One cannot play beautiful music without a well crafted instrument made for 

that purpose. 

How about Nano-Science? Here are some recent headlines and universities involved: 

• Nanotechnology Find and Treat Breast Tumors, Dec. 12, 2005, Nanotechwire— Rice University physical scientists offer enticing insights into how these minute 

particles can be manipulated to have different properties, and tagged with antibodies to target them specifically at cancer cells. 

• Nano for Brain Cancer Imaging, Treatment Nov. 14, 2005, Small Times/Richmond Times—Dispatch—University of Virginia researchers are loading tiny, 

hollow carbon balls with metals and medicine to detect and destroy brain-cancer 

cells. 

• Nanoparticles Create Anti-fog Coating Sep. 7, 2005, Nanotechweb—Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers have devised a silica nanoparticle coating that causes water droplets to flatten into a thin uniform sheet 

rather than form the usual annoying light-scattering beads eliminating fog on 

windows, spectacles and other glass surfaces. 

• Carbon Nanotube Sheets Aug. 18, 2005, PhysOrg—University of Texas at Dallas scientists have produced transparent carbon nanotube sheets that are 

stronger than the same-weight steel sheets and have demonstrated applicability 

for organic light-emitting displays, low-noise electronic sensors, artificial muscles, conducting applique ́s and broad-band polarized light sources, switched in 

one ten-thousandths of a second. 

• Nanotubes For Healing Broken Bones Jul. 8, 2005, Science Daily—University 

of California Riverside physical scientists have shown that carbon nanotubes 

make an ideal scaffold for the growth of bone tissue allowing doctors to inject 

a solution of nanotubes into a fracture for healing. 

• Nanotechnology and Hydrogen, Mar. 29, 2005, Eurekalert—Rutgers scientists 

are using nanotechnology in chemical reactions that could provide fuel for tomorrow’s fuel-cell powered clean energy vehicles. 

Thank you NSF, and the DOD research arms for sponsoring pioneering basic research in ‘‘nano’’ science and technology. This basic research will enable all other 

areas of ‘‘S&T’’. Still, much more of an investment is needed. And the paybacks to 

society will be great. 

Instruments and sensors deployed in or above the ocean environment are often 

at risk due to high winds, waves, currents, sea spray, bio-chemical fouling and the 

marine transportation community not to mention the occasional presence of humans. To that end, nanotechnology may have much to offer in the development of 

more reliable and durable sensors and instruments. As a corollary, the same technology might advance the state of observing science in the atmosphere. Measurements made from moving vehicles, such as autonomous undersea vehicles, Unmanned aerial vehicles and remotely operated vehicles would all be greatly enhanced with more durable sensors and greatly reduced payloads. Data gathering by 

flying in and out of hurricanes and through the waters below the hurricanes via unmanned vehicles is a very attractive operational possibility. Likewise for noxious atmospheric plume events. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) supported a robust 

atmosphere and ocean instrument development program that was especially visionary and produced many of the off-the-shelf ocean instruments that are available 

today. The DOE Brookhaven National Lab, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, the University of Washington, Texas A&M University and many other institutions, advanced the state of technology and science with funding from DOE in the 

1970s, 1980s and mid-1990s. That DOE program no longer exists. But basic research is still needed in all of the above areas. Perhaps NOAA could be the facilitating agency. 

Speaking about the environment, can basic physical and mathematical sciences 

research be conducted on environmental topics that are of value in the competitive 

position of the U.S.? The answer is a resounding ‘‘yes’’. Examples and some challenges are given below. 

The long-time series of basic state environmental variables constitute our climate 

record; generally difficult to decompose and understand. Albeit, a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientist/mathematician developed a new 

mathematical empirical methodology in his studies of the fluid mechanics of water 

waves and in the process of doing this basic research, has opened up an entire new 

38 

field of data analysis, for which he was elected to the National Academy. This advance has enabled new breakthroughs in voice recognition, aircraft wing deterioration, etc. Colleagues and I have used this empirical methodology to determine that 

the modern rate of sea level rise is the second fastest over the past 18,000 years, 

and that the frequency of occurrence of hurricanes in the North Atlantic has 3–5, 

10–12, 25–30 and 45–55 year modes of variability. So there are enormous implications for climate studies to be derived from the mathematical breakthrough of this 

NASA scientist. Incidentally, the NASA scientist was recently informed by NASA 

that he needed to acquire more non-NASA sponsored research dollars, at a time in 

the U.S. when basic research dollars are more difficult to obtain. So he has chosen 

to retire from the agency and to accept an offer to join a university in Taiwan where 

the success rate for proposals is closer to 80 percent vs. the U.S. NSF rate which 

is presently 10–20 percent and in which a reported $2B of proposals rated ‘‘excellent’’ went un-funded last year. The U.S. has lost a National Academy member to 

a foreign country because he can no longer afford to pursue the funding for basic 

research in the U.S. 

The development of ‘‘empirical orthogonal functional’’ (EOF) analysis in the 1950s 

by an MIT physicist was an important mathematical advance. This analysis has recently been used in the development of a hurricane land-fall forecast capability. In 

the NOAA (National Environmental Space & Data Information Service and National 

Ocean Service) sponsored cooperative Climate and Weather Impacts on Society & 

the Environment (CWISE), scientists at North Carolina State University combined 

EOF analyses of past hurricanes and tracks with statistical regression, and are able 

to predict several months in advance, the number of hurricanes most likely to strike 

the Gulf/Caribbean and U.S. East Coasts. The 2006 forecast for the East Coast is 

due on 01 April and the Gulf on 01 June. 

A scientist from Columbia University was studying plate tectonics off of the coast 

of Asia using an acoustic sound array in December 2004. He discovered that the 

acoustic signals generated by the 26 December undersea earthquake that resulted 

in the tsunami that killed several hundred thousand people in Sri Lanka, India and 

Phukut without warning are evident in his data archive. The key here is that the 

speed of sound in water is 1,500 meters/second while the speed of the tsunami wave 

itself is more like 200 meters/second. So the warning of an approaching tsunami can 

be delivered in 1⁄7 the time using acoustic devices. This is a serendipitous finding 

in an all-together unrelated basic research project funded by NSF. 

In the early 1980s an air-sea monitoring network was deployed along the equator 

in the Pacific Ocean. Development of the Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) array 

was motivated by the 1982–1983 El Nin ̃ o event, the strongest of the century up to 

that time, and not detected until nearly at its peak. The event highlighted the need 

for data from the tropical Pacific for an improved understanding of the El Nin ̃ o Southern Oscillation (ENSO). So a modest array was deployed to assess how these 

enigmatic events occurred. What we learned was that ENSO was well structured 

and affected climate and weather patterns globally; thus agriculture, fisheries, the 

global supply of protein, landslides in California and so on. Again, basic research 

in mathematics and computational science and in the technological development of 

related monitoring and computational instrumentation has resulted in huge 

leveraging for U.S. industries in the global marketplace. Today, there are 70 moorings in the TAO array and NOAA makes seasonal forecasts of atmospheric state 

variables for the U.S. based on the disposition of ENSO. 

The area of basic research in the understanding of how the atmosphere and 

oceans exchange heat, buoyancy, energy and momentum is extremely important for 

environmental prediction; such as understanding the causes of and forecasts of our 

weather and climate. We are learning a great deal in university laboratories, on 

NSF, ONR and NOAA field expeditions and by using high-performance computing 

for better data collection and analysis. What are the potential benefits of this research? Well, what is the value of better forecasts of atmospheric storms with heavy 

precipitation, snow, ice and rain, annually? The ski and snowboarding industry cannot prosper without snow and they need to plan well in advance to anticipate what 

the upcoming season holds in store. Water managers need this information seasons 

in advance because they need to plan for upcoming allocations; overages and shortfalls. Emergency managers, the highway patrol and power companies need to know 

where precipitation will fall, how much, in what form and when and whether or not 

flooding will occur. The average annual costs of snow storms alone to the U.S. are: 

removal ∼ $3B; road closures ∼ $20B; flight delays ∼ $4B; public utilities ∼ $2B; and 

flooding from snowmelt ∼ $6B; a total of $35B annually. And agricultural crop and 

timber damage can be up to $2B/ice storm. The cost of flooding to the U.S. in 2005 

will likely total more than $300B. OK, so 2005 was an unusual year with Katrina, 

Rita and 25 additional tropical cyclone events. Or was it? More climate research will 

39 

reveal the rest of the story. Unfortunately there are presently too few observing systems that monitor air-sea interactions and thus the basic research that can be conducted on two fluid interactions is seriously limited. 

How good are we at forecasting precipitation, rain, snow and ice? Well the NOAA 

NWS National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) does a good job, considering the data available to initialize and be ingested and assimilated into NOAA 

NCEP models. But it could be better. It could be vastly improved with better information available in real time. There are but ∼ 140 marine buoys that collect air and 

near surface water temperatures and provide those data in real time, around the 

Nation’s coastal waters including the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coasts, the Great 

Lakes, Alaska and Hawaii. Is that coverage adequate? The short answer from those 

of us who do ocean-atmospheric coupled fluid research is ‘‘no’’. The coverage is an 

order of magnitude too low. 

Here is an image of a two-way interactively coupled atmospheric and ocean numerical model system output that shows a winter storm, a ‘‘nor’easter’’ forming off 

the Carolinas coast in 1996. The white represents clouds, green is rain, pink is ice 

and purple is snow. 

The total of each can be estimated by integrating across the volumes of each form 

of precipitation. How valuable is it to DC, MD, PA, NJ, NY, CT, MA, MN, etc. . . . 

to know these numbers ahead of time? 

In this entire storm area stretching from S.C. to the VA border, there are only 

three permanent coastal NOAA National Data Buoy Center buoys providing air-sea 

information. The red dots are new observing sites in a NOAA National Ocean Service-sponsored program called the Carolinas Coastal Ocean Observing and Prediction 

Program, led by the University of South Carolina, presently extending from southern S.C. to southern N.C. However, the average centroids of these storms tends to 

be closer to Cape Hatteras, N.C. well to the north, near the yellow-green patch 

shown in the storm, so more sites are needed to the north. The reason that this 

1996 storm model output is so robust is that there were 29 ocean-atmosphere university research (DOE and NSF-sponsored) moorings in the region at the time of 

the storm and the assimilation of these data into the model greatly improved our 

ability to more properly hind-cast the storm. The conclusion: a greatly expanded observing network is needed to make better weather predictions, over the ocean, along 

the coasts and over land. Why: to better understand very complex, air/sea interactive couplings. This is basic research to a scientist like me. The value: greatly improved forecasts of the type and quantity of precipitation in a storm, improvements 

in storm track forecasting, improvements in forecasts of ocean current and wave 

fields, improved forecasts of where and how much coastal erosion, coastal mass 

wasting, inlet migration and new inlet formation will occur, and so on. By the way, 

the program alluded to in the winter storm figure shown above was the last of the 

DOE sponsored field expeditions and modeling programs linking the atmosphere to 

the ocean, coastal ocean and estuaries and rivers of the U.S. It ended in 1997. It 

was responsible for enormous advances in new instrumentation, new science and 

new scientists and was worth every dollar of investment by Congress. 

Is the story any better for the modeling of hurricanes in transit; especially the 

potential interaction of the hurricane with the ocean beneath it? Do exchanges between the air in hurricanes and water masses below serve to further intensify or 

to de-intensify the intensity of the wind-field of the hurricane? The figure below 

(from University of Miami and NOAA Hurricane Center scientists) suggests this 

may well be the case. Katrina was more intense over warmer waters and less inVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:02 Apr 27, 2011 Jkt 65910 PO 00000 Frm 000043 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06621 S:\GPO\DOCS\65910.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE

pie1.eps
40 

tense over cooler waters. In the Spring 2005, Undersecretary of Commerce for 

Oceans and Atmosphere, VAMD C.C. Lautenbacher, requested that the NOAA SAB 

commission a study of wind intensity forecasting for hurricanes. The external evaluation is in progress. 

The NOAA SAB has strongly endorsed the Integrated Ocean Observing System 

(IOOS) put forward by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. These observations 

offer critical information not only for atmosphere and ocean and Great Lakes interactions but also on coastal processes necessary for addressing issues, such as the 

health of humans and marine life, broadly defined weather and climate now-casts 

and forecasts, homeland security, and resource management. Coastal and marine 

laboratories have been at the forefront in addressing this need. However, funding 

for existing subsystems is difficult to sustain, and significant additional funding is 

required to implement the national integrated system. Although efforts have been 

made in the past to coordinate Federal agencies involved in ocean and coastal research and national and international programs regarding coastal, ocean, and Great 

Lakes observing systems, further investment and strengthened cooperation at all 

levels is still needed to ensure that these systems are sustained and that they incorporate the long-term monitoring efforts of the Nation’s coastal and marine laboratories. The SAB, and both marine and atmospheric science organizations, enthusiastically support the development of a sustained IOOS to be managed by NOAA. 

Attached to my testimony is a copy of a ‘‘community generated’’ resolution endorsing 

IOOS. However, the university community has an important role to play in that it 

can conduct basic research on data recovery, data quality assessment, data assimilation into models, data mining and coupled model architecture. 

The examples above lead the SAB to strongly support enhanced funding for ocean, 

atmospheric, coastal, and Great Lakes basic research in the physical and mathematical and other natural sciences, the social sciences, education, outreach, and related infrastructure. Part of the basic research challenge is the connecting of the 

physical sciences through the life sciences and to the social and economic sciences. 

This per se is a very challenging research topic that must be resolved if science is 

to properly serve the various sectors of U.S. society and ensure that the U.S. will 

be globally competitive. 

Improving our knowledge of the ocean, atmospheric and hydrologic sciences has 

much to offer the Nation as it seeks to strengthen its ability to innovate and compete in today’s global economy. These sciences are inherently interdisciplinary, push 

the envelope in terms of technology development, test the boundaries of our data 

collection and analysis systems, and offer an effective training ground for future sciVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:02 Apr 27, 2011 Jkt 65910 PO 00000 Frm 000044 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06621 S:\GPO\DOCS\65910.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE

pie2.eps
41 

entists, mathematicians, statisticians and engineers; particularly in a setting of 

working as a team. As the Nation seeks to augment its investment in the physical 

and mathematical sciences to increase its international competitiveness, the SAB 

calls on policymakers to recognize the integrated nature of the environmental 

sciences, particularly the ocean and atmospheric sciences and to support an enhanced investment in these as well as other science and engineering disciplines as 

part of any long-term economic competitiveness policy. 

Human and environmental health are critical factors in the quality of life of the 

citizenry of the society of the U.S. NOAA has and is conducting and supporting important research in such areas as atmospheric chemistry tracking and forecasting, 

coastal nutrification monitoring and modeling, remote detection and monitoring of 

emissions or other airborne contaminants, marine debris detection and source tracking, and development of technologies to detect and predict the pathways of oil spills 

and harmful algal bloom outbreaks. 

The SAB supports increased Federal funding for the National Science Foundation 

(NSF) consistent with the President’s budget for FY 2007. Basic research and the 

transfer and use of the knowledge developed through research are vital for the longterm economic competitiveness and national security of this Nation. It is increasingly important for the Nation to maintain and enhance its scientific edge in a global community with emerging new capacities for scientific research. NSF provides 

vital support for basic research and education which enhances public understanding 

of the atmosphere, oceans, coastal areas, and the Great Lakes. NSF also provides 

important support for basic laboratory facilities, instrumentation, support systems, 

computing and related cyber-infrastructure, and ship and aircraft access. The final 

report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy makes recommendations on the need 

to develop and enhance ocean, coastal and Great Lakes research infrastructure; including research vessels, ocean observing systems, and the shore-based instrumentation and equipment needed to collect and analyze the data and observations made 

by research vessels and the observing systems. Additionally, kids are science geeks 

and the physical and environmental sciences are great vehicles to ride to ensure a 

scientifically, technologically and environmentally literate future U.S. society. 

NOAA is the lead operational environmental mission agency for the U.S. NOAA 

maintains the Nation’s environmental weather and climate observing networks, 

oversees environmental management and is responsible for operational environmental forecasting. It provides decisionmakers with important data, products and 

services that promote and enhance the Nation’s economy, security, environment, 

and quality of life. It was NOAA, and its underlying science enterprise, that enabled 

the delivery of accurate and timely information regarding the impending landfall of 

Hurricane Katrina in 2005, a forecast that saved tens of thousands of lives. While 

that forecast could be cast as the result of ‘‘applied research,’’ in point of fact, the 

ability to model the hydrodynamics and thermodynamics of an anti-symmetric vortex, moving through and interacting with larger scale and smaller scale atmospheric 

systems and interacting in real time, over compatible spatial and temporal scales, 

with a moving interactive body of water that has its own boundary current and eddies, was and remains a basic research challenge. 

Moreover, the ability to quality assess, ingest and assimilate satellite data, ocean 

buoy data and aircraft data into the models is of itself a mathematical research 

challenge. The competitive position of the Nation must be viewed not only on positive advances and successes but also on the role of science in advancing fundamental knowledge to the point of leading to success in reducing the negative impacts that environmental events can have on the Nation’s economy. Basic science, 

conducted to a significant degree by university scientists external to NOAA, has led 

to improved forecasts within NOAA. This science was conducted over several decades and melded together creatively by NOAA scientists to meet the agency’s mission needs. 

For that reason, the SAB supports a $4.5 billion budget for NOAA in FY 2007 

for NOAA. As suggested by an ad hoc coalition of NOAA stakeholders, this amount 

would fully fund the President’s FY 2007 budget request, restore funding for core 

programs, and address all the areas of concern and priority that have traditionally 

been supported by Congress. It would allow enhancements in the development of an 

integrated ocean and atmospheric observing system; increased research and education activities and expanded ocean conservation and management programs; and 

provide critical improvements in infrastructure (satellites, ships, high-performance 

computers, facilities), and data management. It would allow the external university 

community to conduct the basic research that will lead to improved forecasts by the 

agency. 

In August 2004, a Congressionally-requested study of NOAA’s research programs, 

entitled, Review of the Organization and Management of Research in NOAA conVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:02 Apr 27, 2011 Jkt 65910 PO 00000 Frm 000045 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06621 S:\GPO\DOCS\65910.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
42 

cluded that extramural research is critical to accomplishing NOAA’s mission. The 

access to such enhanced research capacities provides NOAA with world-class expertise not found in NOAA laboratories; connectivity with the planning and conduct of 

global science; means to leverage external funding sources; facilitation of multi-institution cooperation; access to vast and unique research facilities; and access to graduate and undergraduate students. Academic scientists also benefit from working 

with NOAA, in part, by learning to make their research more directly relevant to 

management and policy. It is an important two-way interaction and exchange of information and value. 

Climate and long-range weather prediction are substantial basic science challenges. Coupling global climate models to regional scale models at the appropriate 

scales of temporal and spatial variability are significant physical, mathematical and 

cyberscience challenges. The couplings must properly include all components of the 

Earth system, the atmosphere, the oceans, ice and terrestrial components. The couplings must be capable of being downscaled, from larger spatial and temporal scales 

to smaller scales and upscaled (from smaller to larger). But this is computationally 

demanding. The university community and the NSF-sponsored National Center for 

Atmospheric Research anxiously await next-generation national computing facilities 

that can be accessed broadly by U.S. scientists so that community models can be 

run and our Nation’s knowledge-base extended. Business, industry and the military 

await the further development of this fundamental, basic research. The future competitiveness of the U.S. will depend to great degree on the outcome of what these 

studies show for the future climate of the U.S. and other countries throughout the 

world. 

The SAB strongly supports a robust NOAA extramural research activity and calls 

on the Senate Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness to 

support the NOAA’s Ocean and Atmospheric Research programs, including the National Sea Grant Program, the Ocean Exploration Initiative, a true venture into the 

great ocean abyss on our planet, the National Undersea Research Program which 

Ocean Exploration will embrace, as well as research related to aquaculture, invasive 

species, harmful algal blooms and the various joint and cooperative institutes at levels envisioned in last year’s Senate version of the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill. These partnership programs are not only consistent with the findings 

of the Congressionally-mandated August 2004 review of NOAA research, but are 

also consistent with the NOAA strategic plan and enable NOAA to carry out its mission at state and local levels. 

The SAB strongly supports implementation of the recommendations from the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy (COP) and the initial efforts of the Administration’s 

Interagency Committee on Ocean Policy to develop a response to COP’s recommendations. COP’s analysis of policies governing oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes 

has resulted in a collection of bold and broad-reaching recommendations for reform. 

Implementation of these recommendations by the Federal Government will enable 

the U.S. to maintain and strengthen its role as a world leader in protecting and sustaining the planet’s oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. The SAB is particularly supportive of COP’s recommendation to double the Federal investment in ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research as well as its recommendation to promote a strong 

Federal investment in ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes education, outreach, and 

stewardship and in IOOS. 

By any measure, basic scientific research has made monumental contributions to 

technology and to the national priorities of the U.S. The bond between basic research and the development of both novel and current technologies has been and 

is well in place. Science and U.S. society must continue to co-evolve. The nature of 

this evolution will certainly be affected by the extent to which this Senate sets funding priorities. Hopefully this Senate will recognize that the dependence of the development of successful novel technologies on broadly supported basic research will 

lead to a future Nation that is healthier and more economically prosperous than at 

present. Because of the unpredictability of the details of the new science and technology that will evolve, the details of social evolution are also unpredictable. But 

the future health and prosperity of this Nation are inextricably coupled to the investments made in basic research today. 

We see that we have no birthright to global economic leadership and a high standard of living. These are things that we have to continue to earn. The pressures and 

opportunities are relentless and inexorable. At the core of these unprecedented challenges, is the requirement for the highest caliber of human capital, the need for us 

to educate and challenge students to push the limits of innovation, technology and 

discovery. We need national commitments to drive advancements in energy, health, 

environment, food safety, security, solutions to world poverty and much more. 

43 

The SAB recognizes the extraordinary fiscal constraints and difficult choices the 

Subcommittee must make. Nevertheless, the research and education programs 

under the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction are vital investments in the future of this Nation and deserve the maximum support possible. Thank you for the opportunity to 

provide this statement. 

APPENDIX: COMMUNITY RESOLUTION ON INTEGRATED OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM

(IOOS) 

Endorsed by the Coastal States Organization, Consortium for Oceanographic 

Research and Education, National Estuarine Research Reserve Association, National Federation of Regional Associations for Coastal and Ocean Observing, 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Space Enterprise Council 

Recognizing that the oceans and coastal waters affect all our lives—driving weather and storms, influencing climate, providing transport for millions of tons of cargo, 

and sustaining coastal and marine resources. 

Further Recognizing that more than a century ago, the United States began creation of a comprehensive weather forecasting and warning system and today, daily 

weather reports are central to the Nation’s social, economic, and environmental vitality. 

Acknowledging that the Nation’s coastal regions, including the Great Lakes, are 

home to more than half the Nation’s population, but lack basic information to protect those communities and their environment, to track, understand and predict 

change, and to provide quality information to those who work on or near the water. 

Understanding that deployment and operation of a sustained Integrated Ocean 

Observing System will: (1) improve the safety and efficiency of marine operations, 

(2) improve prediction of weather and natural hazards (including tsunamis and 

storm surges) to reduce resulting damages and costs, (3) improve predictions of climate change and its socio-economic consequences, (4) improve national security, (5) 

reduce public health risks, (6) help protect and restore healthy ecosystems, and (7) 

sustain and restore living marine resources. 

Aware that many elements of a national system are already in place, but most 

now operate independently, the IOOS would combine these elements into interconnected global and coastal components. The global component focusing on the 

physical observations associated with climate and weather prediction, including tsunami detection. The coastal component, comprising a Federal ‘‘national backbone’’ 

of observations and data management and regional coastal observing systems, addressing the complex physical, chemical, and ecological observations needed to assess and manage coastal regions. 

Further aware that the national backbone and regional associations must work 

closely with end-users—including state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, industry, and citizens—to identify and meet their needs and to build partnerships that facilitate the opportunity for them to participate and invest in the observing system. 

Affirming that implementation of the IOOS system will require a substantial sustained investment in research, pilot projects, and related infrastructure to develop 

new data products and system enhancements and incorporate new technologies into 

the system. 

Cognizant that the United States and the world are facing critical decisions about 

the future stewardship and management of the oceans, coastal waters, and fresh 

water resources, including the Great Lakes and improved data and predictions resulting from the IOOS is needed to support these decisions. 

Our organizations resolve that we are committed to the development of an ocean 

and coastal observing network endorse the following: 

An integrated ocean observing system should include: 

(a) A national program to fulfill national observation priorities, including marine commerce and the Nation’s ocean contribution to the Global Earth Observation System of Systems and the Global Ocean Observing System. 

(b) A network of regional coastal and ocean observing and information programs 

that collect, measure, and disseminate data and information products to meet 

regional and national needs, managed by certified regional associations. 

(c) The designation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as 

the lead Federal agency for implementation and administration of the system. 

44 

(d) An Interagency Program Office within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that is responsible for program planning and coordination of the observing system. 

(e) Data management, communication, and modeling systems for the timely integration and dissemination of data and information products from the national 

and regional systems. 

(f) A sustained research and development program to advance knowledge of 

coastal and ocean systems and ensure improvement of operational products, including related infrastructure and observing technology and large scale computing resources and research to advance modeling of coastal and ocean processes. 

(g) A coordinated outreach, education, and training program that integrates and 

augments existing programs to ensure the use of data and information for improving public education and awareness of the Nation’s coastal and ocean environment and building the technical expertise required to operate and improve 

the observing system. 

(h) Data products and information that meets the needs of end-users—including 

state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, industry, and citizens. 

Action either by Executive Branch and/or Congress to establish an integrated national system of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes observing systems to address regional and national needs for ocean information. 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you. 

Mr. Ritter? 

STATEMENT OF PHILIP J. RITTER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS, TEXAS INSTRUMENTS 

Mr. RITTER. Thank you, Chairman Ensign. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. 

TI celebrated our 75th anniversary last year. And we’re a company that has grown and thrived on innovation and investments in 

research. The competitiveness agenda is our highest public priority—public-policy priority. We see this issue of investing in basic 

research, along with STEM education and access to top graduatelevel talent coming out of our engineering and computer science 

schools, as the most important priorities. 

If I may, I’d like to provide an example of the power of investment in basic research and its direct tie to economic development 

in this Nation. 

Three years ago, TI had a $3 billion decision to make as to where 

we would locate our next-generation semiconductor manufacturing 

facility. And we looked at numerous sites around the world, many 

of which offered very attractive economic incentives, as well as research partnerships. We decided to locate this facility in Richardson, Texas. And, when it’s fully operational, it’ll create over 1,000 

direct jobs and have a tremendous impact on the regional and national economy. 

And I would be remiss if I didn’t thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

your work on the American Jobs Creation Act in 2004. We repatriated $1.3 billion in offshore earnings to help fund this facility that 

we’re building here in the United States. 

The critical factor in the decision to build this facility in Richardson was really the climate for research and innovation. We’ve got 

about 180 very, very smart technologists and scientists that work 

in our company on advanced silicon process technology. And if 

we’re going to attract those kinds of people to our location, we need 

to have, in close proximity, excellent research and development faVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:02 Apr 27, 2011 Jkt 65910 PO 00000 Frm 000048 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06601 S:\GPO\DOCS\65910.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
45 

cilities. And the factor that really turned this deal for us and 

caused us to build this facility in Richardson was the commitment 

by the State of Texas to put $300 million into the Engineering 

School at the University of Texas at Dallas. And this isn’t to do 

contract research for Texas Instruments; this is to invest in basic 

facilities, to acquire top faculty, and to fund graduate students to 

do long-term basic research in silicon process and other advanced 

technologies that are important to our industry. If they hadn’t have 

done it, we hadn’t have come here, we wouldn’t have built this facility here, and we need the Federal Government to continue to 

fund research that these faculty members will be doing, and that 

other faculty members will be doing in related areas at universities 

around the country. 

You know, the Federal Government’s role in basic research has 

always been critical. Jack Kilby invented the integrated circuit at 

TI in 1958, and it was support from NASA and the Department of 

Defense that really created the research environment for the semiconductor industry to grow and thrive in this country. Today, it’s 

a $215 billion industry. It employs over 225,000 Americans. And, 

you know, 30–40 years ago, nobody ever believed the semiconductor 

industry would contribute anything to the U.S. economy. 

Kilby actually holds patents on the electronic handheld calculator, as well as the basic patents on semiconductors. And he did 

that to prove there would be commercial viability to semiconductor 

technology. But the Federal Government knew it before anybody 

else knew it. 

Another example of how investments in basic research translate 

directly into jobs is in technology known as ‘‘digital light processing,’’ and I’ve got a DLP chip here. There are about 1 million 

individual tiltable mirrors on this single piece of silicon. Each one 

of these 1 million mirrors can flutter up to 5,000 times a second. 

And this is the core engine in advanced display technologies that 

you’re seeing in digital cinema, digital TV, and office and conference-room projectors. This arose out of a basic research program 

in the Department of Defense, 25–30 years ago, to improve cockpit 

displays. And today it’s a technology that employs 1,000 people in 

our operations in Dallas, Texas, who work in our DLP division. But 

it’s another example of how investments in basic research translates directly into jobs for our country. 

The chip industry invests about 13—or about 15 percent of our 

revenue into basic research every year. TI will spend $2 billion this 

year on basic research—or, excuse me, on research and development, but a lot of it is in the development side of the house. Our 

products have very, very short life cycles, sometimes mentioned in 

months. And many of our key business—the high-performance analog business, for example, 50 percent of our product portfolio was 

invented less than 3 years ago. 

So, you know, we’ve got to invest in the short-term and bring 

products to market as quickly as we can. And that means we’re 

going to have to rely, longer-term, on universities to do the longterm basic research that’s important for the health of the semiconductor industry. 

This is critically important at this time in our industry’s history, 

because probably in about 10 to 15 years, we’re going to reach the 

46 

1The Perryman Group. Economic and Fiscal Impact of Texas Instruments 300mm Wafer Facility and Collateral Investment at UT Dallas, June 2003. 

end of how many circuits we can pack on a single piece of silicon 

using current manufacturing processes. So, we’ve got to get about 

the business of inventing the breakthrough innovations in advanced research on microelectronics and things like nanoelectronics 

if we’re going to remain competitive in this global industry. And, 

I’ll tell you, universities in India and China and elsewhere are 

making the investments in nanoelectronics and other areas in 

order to try to pre-empt this very, very important field in the future. 

So, what’s been proposed, in terms of the NSF funding, funding 

through DARPA, funding through NIST, funding through the Competitiveness Initiative that the Administration’s proposed, we view 

as very, very important and fundamental to the future competitiveness of our company and our industry. 

Thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ritter follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILIP J. RITTER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC AFFAIRS, TEXAS INSTRUMENTS

Chairman Ensign, Ranking Member Kerry, members of the Committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today on the importance of basic research to U.S. competitiveness. 

Texas Instruments is a company with a 75-year history of innovation. While our 

products have changed many times over the years, we have always fundamentally 

been a company of engineers and scientists. We have always looked to the future 

by investing in R&D. Based in Dallas, TI has become the world’s third largest semiconductor company. 

American competitiveness is the highest public policy priority for TI. We view increased investments in basic research, along with math/science education and access 

to a skilled workforce, as the three critical components to the future competitiveness 

of both our company and our Nation. 

Research and Investment 

Let me provide an example of the power of investment in research on economic development. Three years ago, Texas Instruments had a $3 billion decision to make 

about where to locate our new semiconductor manufacturing facility. We looked at 

sites around the world, and many countries offered attractive incentives. 

This year, we will complete construction on our new state-of-the-art facility—in 

Richardson, Texas, a Dallas suburb. When operational, it will produce the most advanced semiconductors in the world, support over 1,000 direct jobs, and bring thousands of indirect jobs to the Dallas area. An economic impact study estimated the 

investment would generate $13.2 billion in expenditures, $7 billion in gross product, 

and support 82,404 permanent jobs in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area.1 The total cost of 

the construction is $321 million. Of that amount, 25 percent was spent with minority-owned businesses and more than 10 percent with women-owned businesses. This 

was an aggressive goal that we believe had never been matched in the Dallas area. 

The new facility has environmental and energy conservation innovations, with anticipated 20 percent energy reduction, 35 percent less water usage, and 50 percent 

emissions reduction. For the facility, TI received the 2005 Summit Award for Environmental Excellence from the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program of the U.S. Green Building Council. 

Research was the critical decision factor for making our investment in Richardson. 

First, access to our R&D staff based in the Dallas area drives better time-to-market. 

Second was a commitment by the state to invest $300 million at the University of 

Texas at Dallas, to further develop research and engineering capacity and improve 

the innovation ecosystem of North Texas. The investment at UTD will enhance 

basic research capabilities in close proximity to several TI manufacturing facilities. 

Co-locating research with manufacturing is critical in the semiconductor industry, 

as it creates an infrastructure that allows discoveries to go from ‘‘lab to fab’’ efficiently. Corporate R&D projects are frequently done in the same facility as volume 

47 

2 A transistor is a component device that opens or closes a circuit. 

3 A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. A human hair is roughly 50,000 nanometers wide. 

manufacturing, to ensure smooth transition to the new technology with maximum 

yield. Often, new tools introduced in the R&D process become part of full-scale manufacturing. 

TI invests $2 billion annually, or 15 percent of revenue in R&D. Most of this 

spending is on the nearer-term ‘‘development’’ phase to ensure introduction of new 

products in an industry with short product cycles. In our high-performance analog 

division alone, we introduced 400 new products in 2004, and 50 percent of that division’s revenue was from products introduced within the past few years. 

Leading-edge semiconductor companies are on a two-year cycle in reaching the 

next ‘‘technology node,’’ which is characterized by smaller and smaller critical dimensions of the components on a chip. For example, the minimum dimensions of 

individual transistors 2 are currently less than 50 nanometers.3 This is an outstanding example of nanotechnology in volume production today. 

Basic Research Critical to Semiconductor Industry 

In 1958, when Jack Kilby invented the integrated circuit at TI, many were skeptical about his discovery. NASA and the Defense Department were among his first 

supporters in the late 1950s, and Federal support was critical to developing the 

manufacturing technologies in the mid 1960s and 1970s. Today, the worldwide semiconductor industry posts annual sales of $213 billion, with U.S. companies capturing 

about half of the market. The semiconductor industry employs a workforce of 

225,000 in the U.S. Semiconductors have revolutionized the way we live, with computers, cell phones, broadband, television, medical imaging, and global positioning 

systems. 

Another more recent example is Texas Instruments’ Digital Light Processing 

(DLP) technology. DLP is used in televisions, business projectors, and cinemas. The 

digital mirror device technology that underlies DLP was originally developed as part 

of the High-Definition Display Systems program at DARPA. Initial research started 

in the late 1970s as part of an effort to improve aircraft cockpit displays. DLP technology now employs over 1,000 TI’ers in Dallas. 

Overall, the U.S. chip industry invests 15 percent of revenue in R&D, one of the 

highest of any industry. However, given short product cycles, most funds are for relatively near-term development activity. For the majority of longer-term basic research, TI and other companies in the industry depend upon activities at universities and Federal labs. 

The Federal Government is uniquely positioned to fund basic research. It historically has been a primary source of basic research funds for universities. The Federal 

Government plays an important role in supporting higher-risk, exploratory research 

where the economic benefits may not be realized for decades. 

Yet, Federal investment in basic research has not kept pace in key areas such as 

engineering and physical sciences, whether for semiconductor related research or 

other areas of inquiry. It has been essentially flat for three decades. As a percentage 

of GDP, it has declined. 

48 

4 American Association for the Advancement of Science. Trends in DOD S&T, February 2005. 

5 Bureau of Economic Affairs www.bea.gov/bea/dn/comp-gdp.xls. 

While investment in the life sciences has grown exponentially, Federal resources 

in the physical sciences, engineering, math, and computer science have been stagnant. These neglected areas must be revitalized, at least at the levels proposed in 

the Administration’s American Competitiveness Initiative. 

There has also been a portfolio shift toward development activities, often at the 

expense of basic research. At the Department of Defense, basic research as a percentage of the total science and technology portfolio declined steadily from 1994 to 

2004, to 11 percent.4

For the past forty years the chip industry has been delivering on Moore’s Law, 

which states that every eighteen to twenty-four months the component content of 

a semiconductor chip will double. This means faster, more powerful and less expensive semiconductors. The Bureau of Economic Affairs estimated that Federal, state, 

and local governments saved a cumulative $181 billion in computing price declines 

from 1995–2004.5


rit1.eps rit2.eps
49 

6 Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS). 

7 American Association for Advancement of Science. Trends in Basic Research, March 2005. 

But, to continue to deliver on Moore’s Law, significant research hurdles must be 

overcome. The chip industry has mapped out the technical challenges it faces and 

the research needed to adhere to Moore’s Law. Each year, the industry brings together 1,000 technical experts and updates the International Technology Roadmap 

for Semiconductors (ITRS). The ITRS identifies several hundred technical challenge 

areas that collectively comprise a ‘‘red brick wall’’—in other words, problems for 

which there is no known manufacturable solution. 

Collaborative research with outcomes expected in three to 8 years requires industry to pool its resources and partner with government. Longer -term research—8– 

15 years out—involves government-sponsored university research through the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the National Institute for 

Standards and Technology and others to undertake the most fundamental research 

that will result in completely new technologies in the coming decades. 

Industry experts agree that a replacement technology for the current 30-year old 

semiconductor process,6 which is reaching its physical limits, needs to be discovered 

and manufactured by 2020, to continue the historical trends of performance enhancements, size reductions, power conservation, and cost savings. Seminal research 

papers usually appear 12–15 years before commercialization, in other words within 

the next few years. 

Key Agency Partnerships: Defense, NSF, NIST 

The Department of Defense has historically been a funder of basic research in the 

physical sciences. However, in constant dollar terms, the level of basic research (6.1 

account) at DOD was the same in 2004 as it was in 1984.7

The Focus Center Research Program is a partnership between the Defense Department and the semiconductor industry to fund university research at 33 institutions nationwide. All funding goes directly to universities, and funds research centered on the key technical challenges to extending the life of the current chip-making process and transition to the next technology. Federal funds are leveraged 

through an industry match, which is very rare for a basic research program. This 

is an excellent example of the type of activity the Defense Department can support 

with the basic research account. DARPA has been a great supporter of the program, 

providing both funding and expertise. Yet unfortunately, the Defense Research and 

Engineering request for the program has been at zero the past few years, requiring 

Congressional additions for the program to be fully funded. 

The National Science Foundation is also critical to funding basic university research in the physical sciences and engineering. The Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI) is a cooperative effort co-funded by NSF and the semiconductor industry to support university research to find the next generation of semiconductor technology by 2020. 

Other countries are investing heavily in the nanoelectronics research area and 

could surpass U.S. discoveries in this area. If the U.S. does not discover and capture 

the new technology first, the U.S. semiconductor industry will be at a global competitive disadvantage. The NRI partnership will be key to this effort, and is an excellent example of how industry and the NSF can work together. 

The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) has ongoing activities relevant to the industry in semiconductor/electronics metrology (measurement), 

nanomanufacturing, and quantum information science. 

Research and Workforce 

Finally, basic research is important in terms of developing a workforce skilled in 

science and engineering. Many of the funds provide stipends for graduate students 

to conduct research in these fields, both during the course of their education as well 

as post-doctoral opportunities. It has been well-documented that students follow the 

money. Basic research in this capacity contributes to building the pipeline of students with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math fields. 

In turn, this builds a skilled U.S. workforce for our businesses. 

Foreign nationals represent a large percentage of graduates from U.S. universities 

in science and engineering fields. In 2005, 55 percent of the Masters and 67 percent 

of the Ph.D. graduates in electrical engineering from U.S. universities were foreign 

nationals. Electrical engineers are in high demand, with an unemployment rate of 

only 1.7 percent. Unfortunately, current policies and long wait times for permanent 

resident status are a disincentive for these degree holders to stay in the U.S. and 

contribute to our economy. Most of these graduates have participated in important 

basic research at universities. Companies like Texas Instruments need to be able 

50 

to access all talent graduating from U.S. universities, regardless of nationality. Employing these individuals in the U.S. private-sector also assists the Nation in capturing returns on basic research investment. 

Role of States 

State governments are also critical in supporting public research universities from 

a budget perspective. In addition, states play an important role in facilitating commercialization from universities to industry. For example, Texas created a $200 million Emerging Technology Fund. The fund has three goals: invest in public-private 

endeavors around emerging scientific or technology fields tied to competitiveness; 

match Federal and other sponsored investment in science; and attract and enhance 

research superiority in Texas. Several other states have similar mechanisms. 

Last year, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology issued 

a five-year assessment report on the National Nanotechnology Initiative. One of the 

recommendations was to increase Federal cooperation with the states, especially by 

leveraging state research investments. Further, the report recognized the important 

role of states in commercializing nanotechnology research results. 

Conclusion 

The American Competitiveness Initiative and 2007 budget requests on NSF, 

NIST, and DOE Office of Science will be critical to reversing the flat to downward 

trend in basic research in the physical sciences and engineering. The FY 2007 incremental increase is $1.05 billion, which in the context of the overall Federal budget 

is relatively small. These increase requests are an investment in our country’s future economic competitiveness, and should not be viewed as spending. 

The technical challenges faced in the semiconductor industry provide just one example of the importance of basic research. The programs outlined in this testimony 

illustrate how the industry, Federal Government, and the states can work together 

to find research-based solutions that enhance our Nation’s competitiveness. 

Finally, the role of university research in TI’s decision on where to build its new 

facility demonstrates how investment in research can be a powerful economic development tool. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. TI appreciates the Committee’s interest in basic research and its role in U.S. economic growth. We look forward to 

continuing to work closely with you on the broader competitiveness agenda. 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you. 

Dr. Drobot? You can just pull that microphone to you. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ADAM DROBOT, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY 

OFFICER, TELCORDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED; 

CHAIRMAN, COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH DIVISION, 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

Dr. DROBOT. Thank you, Chairman Ensign and members of the 

Committee. I am appearing today as the Chief Technology Officer 

of Telcordia, and also as the Chairman of the Telecommunications 

Research Division. And we are very grateful for the opportunity to 

appear before you today, and such a distinguished panel of witnesses, to discuss the importance of basic research to United States 

competitiveness. 

If you look at the industry that I’m representing today, it’s 

roughly 3 .5 percent of our GDP. It plays a fundamental role that 

really touches all other industries. It impacts the productiveness of 

our economy in very fundamental ways. And it’s really the underpinning of law enforcement, emergency response, and a lot of 

things that go on in the Department of Defense. 

One of the things that I’d like to convey is the fact that, as a scientist, we learned something called the Law of Continuity, ‘‘You 

don’t put something in the hopper on the front end, nothing comes 

out the back.’’ When it comes to technology, it’s basic research, followed by transitional activity, followed by development. Having 

51 

that healthy front end of basic research is what makes the goods 

come out the other end of the pipe. 

And when we look at what has happened over the last two decades in our own industry, the technologies in communications and 

services have not only benefited the United States, they’ve really 

led to rising standards of living around the world. 

If we were to take a look at the critical elements of our infrastructure, telecommunications is a fundamental backbone, and the 

flow of new ideas from basic research to transitional activity to the 

development of the key next-generation services really requires 

that investment be made in the front end. 

We believe that the advances that can be expected in the future 

can be summarized very simply by, ‘‘You ain’t seen nothing yet.’’ 

OK? If you look at the last 25 years, the explosive growth of the 

Internet, the use of computers in business, driving commerce 

around the world, the convenience of mobile cell phones, information services, how they impact how we spend our time, interact 

with our fellow citizens, you know, all of those things have been 

impacted by the way communications has gone over the last two 

decades. 

The same is true of our national defense posture. If you look at 

the roadmap for that, as captured in Vision 2020, situational 

awareness, precision strike, dominant maneuver, focused logistics, 

all of those rely fundamentally on advances in communications. 

It is vital, as a consequence, for the United States to maintain 

leadership in these areas and to be competitive in the future of this 

critical industry. And to steal the words from Vannevar Bush, ‘‘For 

the health, general welfare, and defense of our population.’’ I think 

those wise words, said in the 1940s, apply as much today as they 

did back then. 

Please let me turn to the situation as we see it today. Federal 

spending in our field, in communications research, as a percentage 

of the total spent on information technology has, in fact, gone down 

over the last 5 years. This is in the face of significant growing public investment in other geographies. If you were to look at examples 

in Europe, from the Framework Programmes, the national programs with the tiger economies in the Far East, China, these programs are accompanied by coordinated transitional activities 

where, in native markets, technologies are first deployed, with an 

aim to, in fact, dominate world exports in those technologies to 

other geographies. 

If I were to look at specific examples, there is a new standard 

called WiMax. The first deployment of that on a national scale will 

be done in Korea by an initiative called WiBro. It’s mobile services 

at 10 megabits per second, developed—delivered to a handheld device. 

If I were to take a look at third-generation systems, the Internet 

protocol multimedia subsystems for all IP-based communications, 

those are first going to be developed and deployed in other geographies. While the United States is the single largest market for 

communications, and has a very robust economy, we now rank 16th 

in the penetration of high-speed networks. 

If I were to go down through this litany, I think the future investments through the Innovation Act, through the President’s proVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:02 Apr 27, 2011 Jkt 65910 PO 00000 Frm 000055 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06601 S:\GPO\DOCS\65910.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
52 

posal, are really critical, and the investments to be made in basic 

energy—in, I would say, basic research are really the cornerstone 

of what ought to be done in the future. 

Let me quickly, sort of, jump to the end of my presentation. 

What we have done is attach a white paper to this testimony. The 

Research Division at TIA, that I represent, has membership from 

40 CTOs of U.S. corporations. And what we have done is 

prioritized, I think, the agencies we believe ought to be the recipients of those funds. They are NIST, DOE, and the 6-month programs in the Defense Department. We have also prioritized the directions those investments should go in: security, broadband, the 

use of nanotechnology for telecommunications. 

And if I could share with you a couple of examples, we believe 

that if those investments are made, there will be future devices 

that are just as exciting as what’s happened the last quarter century, integrated devices that you can hold in your hand that do everything from communications, projection, viewing information, 

greater connectiveness—and all of those at incredible speeds. We 

hope the kind of investments that are made in interfaces, are simple enough that all citizens can easily use them. 

Same is true, if I were to take a look at the amount of time we 

spend in automobiles and on the roads, reduction in the number of 

traffic accidents and deaths by a factor of two over the next decade 

or so—again, enabled by fundamental changes in the communication industry. 

Growing problems in healthcare with an aging population. Again, 

communications can play an incredible role in that. The same is 

true of new economic systems. 

What we hope is that the investments that are made here, will 

create the critical mass of citizens, of businessmen, and scientists 

who are familiar with technologies and can make the breakthroughs. We hope that those do not happen first in other geographies. 

So, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today, and we hope that the critical needs of this industry, and, 

really, of all basic research in the United States, are met. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Drobot follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ADAM DROBOT, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, 

TELCORDIA TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED; CHAIRMAN, COMMUNICATIONS

RESEARCH DIVISION, TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Kerry and members of the Committee. I am appearing today as the Chief Technology Officer of Telcordia Technologies Incorporated and as the Chairman of the Telecommunications Industry Association’s Communications Research Division. Telcordia is grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today among such a distinguished panel of witnesses 

to discuss the importance of basic research to the United States’ competitiveness. 

Telecommunications, as an industry, represents about 3.5 percent of our Gross 

Domestic Product and plays a fundamental role that touches all other industries, 

impacts the productivity of our industries and our economy, and pivotally effects 

emergency response, law enforcement and national defense. Prior investments in 

basic and transitional research, and aggressive development of new communication 

technologies and services, have benefited the United States through significant 

gains in productivity and contributed to raising standards of living around the 

world. Today, communications represent a critical element of our infrastructure and 

form the backbone on which all industries and government depend. No industry 

53 

1 $100 million out of a $137.2 billion Federal research and development budget for FY 2007. 

could function effectively today without communications. The flow of new ideas from 

basic research to transitional activity to development is the key to continuing the 

creation of the next generation of communication technologies and services. 

The advances we can expect are as profound and far-reaching as what we have 

experienced over the last quarter century—the explosive growth of the Internet, 

computers connected by high-speed networks driving commerce around the world, 

the convenience of wireless mobility, and information services which are changing 

everything from how we spend our time to how we interact with our fellow citizens. 

The same is true of our national defense posture, where the four elements of Vision 

2020, situational awareness, precision strike, dominant maneuver, and focused logistics, rely on advanced communications and networks. It is vital for the United 

States to maintain the leadership and future competitiveness in this critical industry—for the health, general welfare and defense of our population. 

Please let me turn to the situation today. The Federal spending on communications-focused basic research, as a percentage of total Federal information technology 

research and development in the United States, is declining—down 5 percentage 

points in the last 6 years. This is in the face of significant growing public investments in other geographies. Examples are: the Framework Programmes in the European Union; national programs in Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and 

Japan conducted through national laboratories and economic development authorities; and growing investments in China targeted at all aspects of communications. 

These programs are further accompanied by coordinated transitional activities 

which forge academic, national laboratory, and local industry partnerships aimed at 

native deployment and eventual domination in international markets. An example 

would be the deployment of ‘‘WiBro’’ in Korea—this is high-speed Internet 

connectivity at speeds greater than 10 megabits per second for ubiquitous fixed and 

mobile wireless services based on the WIMax standards. A by-product of the early 

stage investment in innovation that these geographies have made is the deployment 

of next-generation systems significantly ahead of the United States. These systems 

enable third generation (3G) and Internet protocol multi-media sub-system (IMS) 

services. 

While the United States is still the single largest market for communications and 

has the most robust economy, we now rank 16th in the penetration of high-speed 

broadband, and we have not commercially brought 3G or IMS services to the consumer. As a consequence, it is more than likely that the next wave of services and 

technologies will be developed where test beds and deployment of infrastructure will 

support experimentation of new concepts and ideas and where the human capital 

is concentrated—locations where business executives, scientists and engineers are 

familiar with the technology. The experience from my own corporation confirms this. 

Telcordia, which traces its heritage to ‘‘Bell Labs’’ and which participated in the invention of much of modern communications, is the largest seller of operations support systems to the telecommunications industry. To maintain our edge, we are finding it a necessity to rely on growth in foreign markets and are facing increasing foreign competition, which is advantaged by public spending in the local markets and 

long-range government funding. 

Speaking as the Chairman of the Telecommunications Industry Association’s 

Communication Research Division, our Division—made up of Chief Technology Officers and heads of research from 40 companies—is advocating that Federal funding 

for communications-specific, pre-competitive, basic research be increased beyond the 

0.07 percent 1 of total Federal R&D that we have identified as targeted at communications in the current budget. The members of our Division believe that research 

is the foundation of the communications industry and the building block for future 

products and services. As an industry, we are not looking for a hand-out. To the 

contrary, we are asking that the Federal Government invest more of its research 

dollars in this critical area. This will benefit companies, universities and national 

laboratories in the long-run, and it will make our Nation stronger—economically 

and technologically. We are encouraged by the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative and support the doubling of budgets in the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science. We would like to convey to you that developing leading-edge communications applications is complex, requiring, time, money, 

and long-term vision. Fierce competition and financial realities have made it difficult for U.S. industry to self-fund long-term, basic research, and because the U.S. 

Government is not devoting sufficient resources on long-term communications research, the U.S. position in this vital area is waning. 

54 

1See PITAC presentation at http://www.itrd.gov/pitac/meetings/2004/20041104/ 

compsci.pdf. 

We include a copy of a white paper from the TIA Communications Research Division as part of the testimony. In it, we recommend that increased funding focused 

on communications basic research in NSF, NIST, and the Department of Defense 

(DOD) 6.1 will greatly benefit the Nation. We further recommend investing additional money in: Universal Broadband; Network Security; Interoperable Mobility; 

Telecommunications Research for Homeland Security; Networking Architectures; 

and Communications-Specific Nanotechnologies as priority areas. 

I would like share some examples where the investments that we propose could 

impact the citizens of our great country: 

• In everyday life—devices with much simpler interfaces, but at the same time, 

much more functionality with greater adoption in our society—Imagine a single 

device the size of your cell phone today, which is your PC, your camera, a projector, shows HDTV, plays music, is a portal to the internet—without a button 

in sight? 

• Reduction in traffic accidents and deaths—sensors on a car that could alert you 

to hazardous conditions, such as black ice, another vehicle in your blind spot 

when you are about to change lanes, a deer in the roadway, a washout in the 

highway, and the communications system that can convey warnings about such 

hazards to traffic behind you. 

• Healthcare for the elderly—a handheld device that your grandmother has, 

which could diagnose and warn about medical problems, call for a nurse or a 

doctor’s intervention, or improve quality of life by fostering the ties with a 

grandchild three time zones away through effortless, high-quality communications. 

• New commercial systems—a slim and light portable device to securely purchase, 

receive, redeem, and store concert tickets, airline boarding passes, subway tickets, and conduct financial transactions from anywhere—without printing a 

thing? 

I would like to close by saying that U.S. industry is unable to fully self-fund the 

research necessary to discover and exploit long-term, ground-breaking advances so 

critical to the health and competitiveness of the Nation. The history of the telecommunications industry has left us with weak public mechanisms for funding precompetitive research in communications, paradoxically, because so much of the research was initially done in a dominant institution—‘‘Bell Labs.’’ While that institution left an incredible legacy of successful inventions which has paid off well for our 

Nation—the mechanisms of funding on which it depended no longer exists. New 

partnerships between industry, government and universities are needed to meet tomorrow’s challenges and to maintain the competitive position of the United States 

in the communications industry. 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

INVESTING IN COMMUNICATIONS FOR TOMORROW’S INNOVATIONS: THE CASE FOR

INCREASED COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH FUNDING

Background 

Research is the backbone of the communications industry, a critical national resource. It is the building block for the future development of advanced telecommunications products and services. In recent years, the need for federally-funded communications research has dramatically increased. As a result of the communications 

market crash of 2000, intense market competition and a focus on low price points 

keeping profit margins at a minimum, companies remain focused on survival. This 

has translated into an era of deep cost-cutting and lean workforces, as well as a 

focus on product development and incremental research, rather than innovating for 

the future and seeding technology development. While the United States has been 

and continues to be regarded as a leader internationally in technology research, the 

innovation of recent years cannot be taken for granted. 

Why Federally-Funded Communications Research Is Necessary 

The nature of communications industry investment is long-term, capital-intensive 

and generally, non-cyclical. At the same time, the process of conducting communications research is extremely complex—involving time, money and foresight that must 

be sustained for a decade or more to yield the full fruits of investment. 1 Because 

55 

2 ATP Document on Investments in Telecom and Related Technology Fields, 2003. 

3See Networking and Information Technology Research and Development FY 2004 report. 

4See http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/2007supplement/07%20Supp%20Sections/07SupplFINALAgencyNITRDBudgets.pdf. 5See http://www.ostp.gov/html/budget/2007/2007FactSheet.pdf. 6For the first time, the NITRD LSN budget for FY 2006 and FY 2007 includes research statistics from the OSD budget. The OSD budget includes funding from the DOD Service research 

organizations (Air Force, Army and Navy), as well as DOD’s High Performance Computing Modernization Program Office. Once this line item is subtracted, the total amount of funding allocated for the LSN Program Area in FY 2006 is $252.1 million, and FY 2007 is $273.8 million. 

No similar statistics are publicly available pre-FY 2006, and the addition of these statistics into 

Federal reporting charts makes year-on-year comparisons nearly impossible to make. 7See http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/2007supplement/07%20Supp%20Sections/07SupplFINALAgencyNITRDBudgets.pdf. 

of the tremendous infrastructure requirements associated with the deployment of 

communications networks, a great deal of time, money and vision is needed to advance challenging, high-risk, enabling technologies that could provide broad-based 

economic and societal benefits for the U.S. 2 This is precisely why, with constantly 

diminishing corporate research funds available, the Federal Government’s budget 

for research has become an increasingly important source of funding for U.S. communications research. 

Advances in communications dramatically transform the way in which people live, 

work, learn, communicate and conduct business, and long-term research is essential 

to ensure that these transformations serve human needs, are productive for society 

and sustainable over the long-term. Moreover, long-term communications research 

has significant positive effects, in terms of technical and economic spillovers. Research is a key factor in enhancing innovative performance and productivity, as well 

as long-term economic growth. This is because communications is a supporting sector for the economy as a whole, affecting many specific industry sectors, such as distribution, retail, agriculture, financial services and machine building, among others. 

In fact, all sectors depend on and derive benefits from communications research. 

This is precisely why the Federal Government should be concerned about the poor 

state of funding for communications research and should more actively support the 

sector. 

Research in this area is the principal source of fundamental advances in the digital technologies powering vital national defense, national security and homeland security capabilities. A strong, well-funded communications research program benefits 

innovation in vital infrastructure protection measures, such as increased information security, reliability and survivability of networks, as well as facilitates development of the technologies and tools used to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. 3

Current State of Federal Communications Basic Research Funding in the 

U.S. 

For years, when compared with other industries, communications basic research 

has not been well supported in the U.S. Government’s Federal budget. In Fiscal 

Year 2007, the Federal Government budgeted a little more than $3 billion 4 across 

relevant agencies for networking and information technology research and development (NITRD). This is a minute fraction—about 2 percent—of the $137.2 billion 5

in total research and development funding requested for this fiscal year. 

To further illustrate the lack of Federal focus on communications basic research, 

the total amount of Federal funding budgeted for large scale networking (LSN) research—the part of NITRD that includes communications and high-performance networking research and development in leading-edge technologies and services—totaled about $400 million 6 in Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007, or about 0.3 percent of 

the Federal Government’s total research and development budget. Given the fact 

that LSN includes more than just communications-focused basic research, and this 

figure includes both research AND development spending, as well as spending on 

infrastructure and applications, only a fraction of this number is actually spent on 

communications basic research, likely no more than $100 million. 

Moreover, between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007, the percentage of U.S. Government research funding allocated to the large-scale networking program area declined by 5 percentage points, from 18 percent to 13 percent (see the chart 7 below). 

All of these statistics suggest that the Federal Government views communicationssector basic research with decreasing importance to the economy and security of the 

United States, this despite the fact that communications is a critical infrastructure 

and it is the backbone for all information technologies. Communications are an indispensable part of every other industry, from automobile manufacturing to 

56 

8 2002–2006. 

9See http://europa.eu.int/informationlsociety/research/indexlen.htm. 10See http://europa.eu.int/informationlsociety/research/indexlen.htm. 11See http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/future/indexlen.cfm. 12See http://www.cordis.lu/fp7/breakdown.htm. 13See summary of China’s tenth five-year plan. 

healthcare to financial services and more. No industry today could survive without 

communications technologies and services. 

The following chart depicts LSN as a percentage of the total NITRD budget during the past six Fiscal Years. 

U.S. Communications Research Falling Behind Other Countries 

Communications is a highly competitive, global industry. With relatively little 

Federal and industry money going toward long-term, high-risk communications research, the leadership position of the United States in this vital area is waning, 

threatening our country with potential innovation declines. Decreasing emphasis domestically, both in terms of political support and dollars, on the importance of funding research in this field is strengthening the growth of research funding and related institutions overseas, as other countries seize an opportunity to outpace the 

U.S. in this important, strategic field, and companies find high-level support from 

other governments. This creates an incentive for companies to move research facilities to other countries where funding and support exist. 

For example, Europe is in a competitive race with the U.S. and Asia for a leadership position in technology, especially technology that will impact global markets. 

In the European Union’s (EU) 6th Framework Programme,8 3.98 billion euros of 

funding has been prioritized for information society technologies (IST) research, 

making it the main source of EU funding for IST research projects.9 This is part 

of the EU’s overall goal to increase research and development expenditures to 3 percent of GDP by 2010, and this also makes IST research the largest funding priority 

in the entire EU research program. According to the European Commission, ‘‘Europe 

can lead the world if it can develop a common vision embracing researchers, industrialists, governments and societies across Europe.’’ 10

The EU also is currently developing its 7th Framework Programme (FP7).11 Entitled ‘‘ManuFUTURE Vision for 2020,’’ the EU’s new Framework focuses on innovation in underlying technologies that will enable more efficient manufacturing. FP7 

aims to move the EU from an economy of quantity to one of quality by using digital 

methods to integrate new technologies into the design and operation of manufacturing processes. The EU’s goal is to optimize resources and transfer them to all 

areas where they can be employed, thereby remaining competitive in a global marketplace. Funding for IST research in the 7th Framework Programme has increased 

more than three-fold over the 6th Framework Programme, to 12.7 billion euros.12

China has developed a five-year plan for the 2001–2005 period, which purports 

that the communications industry will be the leading industry among all other industries in its national economy, and the country announced plans to shift resources 

toward achieving this goal.13 In fact, between 1996–2002, China’s science and technology research and development funding, as a share of GDP, doubled from 0.6 perVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:02 Apr 27, 2011 Jkt 65910 PO 00000 Frm 000060 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06621 S:\GPO\DOCS\65910.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE

drob.eps
57 

14OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, 2004, p.18. 15See http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/spendinglreview/spendlsr04/associatedldocuments/ 

spendinglsr04lscience.cfm. 16OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, 2004, p.56. 17See http://www.tekes.fi/eng/news/uutisltiedot.asp?id=4593. 18See http://www.tekes.fi/eng/tekes/rd/statistic04.html. 19OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, 2004, p.57. 20OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, 2004, p.66. 

cent to 1.2 percent.14 According to the OECD, its total R&D investments lag only 

those of Japan and the United States in absolute terms. 

The United Kingdom (UK) has set a target to increase its share of publicly-funded 

science and technology research and development from 1.9 percent to 2.5 percent of 

GDP by 2014. The country’s Science and Innovation Investment Framework 15 proposes that the public science budget increase 5.8 percent annually, in real terms, 

from 2004–2005 and 2007–2008.16

In December of 2005, the Academy of Finland and the National Technology Agency Tekes launched a new research funding program. This program aims to strengthen science and technology research by attracting top foreign personnel to conduct 

research for a fixed time-period in Finland. Researchers will focus on basic research, 

science and researcher training.17 Tekes, the main Finnish research funding body, 

allocated 409 million euros to research programs in 2004, with 122 million Euros 

going to information and communication technology research.18

Japan raised the total amount of government research and development spending by nearly 24 trillion yen (about $233 million) between FY 2001 and FY 2005. And, 

the Korean government set a target to double national research and development 

spending between 2001 and 2007. 19

An increasing number of OECD governments are offering special fiscal incentives 

to businesses to increase spending on research and development, largely because 

R&D and innovation are considered keys to productivity and growth performance. 

For example, the countries of Japan, Korea, Portugal and Spain all offer greater tax 

incentives than the U.S., at rates of 45–50 percent, on incremental increases in 

science and technology research and development investment. 20 Additionally, unlike 

in the U.S., many countries—including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, and the UK—offer generous tax allowances of greater than 100 percent for research and technology development. 

These are just a few examples of how other countries are investing the time, 

money and intellectual capital to create attractive environments for science and 

technology research. The United States cannot afford to ignore the fact that U.S. 

industry needs Federal Government support in order to remain competitive for the 

long-term. 

TIA’s Solution 

With this background, TIA’s Communications Research Division has identified 

four mechanisms to address the funding problem and six technical areas where we 

would like to see Federal funding for communications research directed. Further information about these items is attached. In addition, we believe policymakers should 

reflect on these issues as discussion occurs regarding a rewrite of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. 

TIA PRIORITY AREAS FOR FEDERALLY-FUNDED COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH

Mechanisms To Address the Funding Problem 

1. Prioritize communications research funding within Department of Defense 

(DOD) 6.1 Basic Research Programs. 

a. In the 1990s, the Department of Defense and the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency (DARPA) began to rely heavily on dual-use and industry research funding. Thus, DOD funding became unavailable for technologies that 

were commercially available. As a result, DOD restricted its research funding 

to military-unique needs, which at the time was acceptable because private-sector-led research was driving high-end research. 

b. With the communications downturn, however, the commercial sector has 

ceased to be the major driver of high-end, long-term research. As a result, 

DOD—and DARPA—need to increase their focus on and investment in dual-use 

technologies. 

2. Prioritize communications research funding within the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST). 

58 

a. Miniaturization of electronic components in communications devices continues, resulting in faster, more powerful and more reliable products. Yet, the 

continued shrinking of component parts, at the nanoscale, is hindered by metrology and manufacturing challenges. NIST programs address some of these 

key issues and should be adequately funded. 

b. Additionally, we support the continuation of the National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP), a collaboration between NIST and the National Security Agency. The long-term goal of NIAP is to help increase the level of trust 

consumers have in their information systems and networks through the use of 

cost-effective security testing, evaluation, and validation programs. 

3. Prioritize communications research funding within National Science Foundation (NSF) Research programs. 

a. Federal funding for physical sciences research, the foundation of our Nation’s 

economic competitiveness, has dramatically decreased. Technological advances 

driving the economy require the reversal of this trend. 

b. The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 called for doubling the NSF budget over 6 years; fulfillment of that goal is lagging. 

c. In conjunction with increasing NSF’s budget, we advocate for the creation of 

an NSF Communications Technology Research (CTR) program, similar to the 

Information Technology Research (ITR) program that recently concluded. Such 

a program would greatly benefit the communications sector by creating opportunities at the frontiers of communications research and education. 

4. Establish a National Technology Council, whose charter would be to define and 

guide strategic areas in communications that require further research critical to the 

future growth of the U.S. economy. Such a Council should include representation 

from different sectors, such as government, academia and industry. 

a. To utilize scarce financial resources effectively, representatives from government, academia and industry should be sought to establish long-term priorities. 

Additional research would help identify the technologies likely to be most relevant to U.S. economic growth and competitiveness. 

b. This Council should be modeled after the European Union’s 6th Framework 

Programme initiative, wherein the Council receives proposals from industry 

consortia regarding specific areas of focused research and development and has 

available substantial funding from the government to help fund those proposals. 

c. This Council should also borrow from the United States Alliance for Technology and Engineering for Automotive Manufacturing (U.S. A–TEAM), a partnership created between the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Technology Administration (TA) [consisting of the Office of Technology Policy (OTP), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)] and the United States Council for Automotive 

Research (USCAR). U.S. A–TEAM brings together engineers from the government and industry bodies that are parties to the agreement to facilitate technological research and technology policy analysis focused on improving the manufacturing competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. 

d. The Council, in cooperation with industry, would determine the priority of 

the specific research initiatives of national concern. 

Technical Areas Where Research Is Needed 

1. Universal Broadband—Affordable broadband access and connectivity, using all 

available media (copper, coax, fiber, spectrum, etc.), carrying all services (voice, 

data, video) to all customers everywhere (urban, suburban, rural, mobile) in order 

to enable a greatly upgraded ‘‘superhighway.’’ 

a. Broadband Internet access is critical to support technology convergence and 

advanced communications. A forward-looking U.S. Government should support 

universal access for broadband Internet, as well as policies that promote widespread connectivity. Infrastructure upgrades create increasing returns to our 

economy and encourage the development of businesses, entertainment, education, and e-government solutions and capabilities. 

b. Additional federally-funded research in this field is needed, particularly because special technologies will be needed for rural access, and corporate and 

venture capital financing for research has dropped significantly over the last 

several years. Extremely significant cost reductions are necessary in order to 

meet the technology needs of rural areas. Additionally, the provision of 

59 

broadband access in rural areas is costly due to challenges associated with terrain, low population density, etc. 

2. Security—New authentication, encryption and monitoring capabilities for all 

public broadband networks to protect communications assets from attack. 

a. The U.S. is a post-industrial information society, and as such, its cyber-infrastructure is vulnerable to attack. 

b. Continued research is needed to prevent systemic attacks to infrastructure 

and may provide an opportunity for university-based ‘‘centers of excellence.’’ 

3. Interoperable Mobility—The ability to access commercial mobile services and 

emergency services over any mobile network from any mobile instrument. 

a. Interoperable mobility enables public safety and law enforcement officials to 

use the various public safety and cellular mobile networks while avoiding the 

necessity of carrying multiple mobile devices. It also promotes coordinated communications between various public service agencies and allows higher-priority 

use of scarce spectrum resources for emergency use. 

b. Federally-funded research is necessary because the emergency services market is critical for the common good. Also, bringing commercial technologies and 

emergency services technologies closer together will result in lower costs and 

more advanced features for critical emergency services. 

4. Communications Research for Homeland Security, including interoperability, 

security, survivability and encryption. 

a. Homeland Security is a superset of several other listed visions. Security technologies can help protect public networks and other public infrastructure from 

malicious attacks. A large amount of economic activity today depends on the 

continued availability of public broadband networks and infrastructure. Successful attacks can significantly slow down national economic activity and can 

have other disastrous consequences (e.g., in case of identity theft). 

b. Research is needed in all areas (interoperability, security, survivability and 

encryption) because the needs of first responders and critical infrastructure protection far exceed the needs of ‘‘typical’’ commercial applications. Further research also is needed because new worms and viruses constantly are being invented, and new techniques are needed to prevent attacks before there is significant resulting damage. 

c. The country needs a broad program to address our vulnerabilities and ensure 

the integrity of first responders’ systems. The government should support these 

‘‘extreme case’’ applications, since they are unlikely to be sufficiently developed 

in normal commercial systems. 

5. Nanotechnology. 

a. Many of the advances in communications have been driven by fundamental 

scientific discoveries of materials at the nanoscale level. 

b. Examples of important research areas include: sensors, displays, power systems, radio frequency and nanomicrophones. 

c. Advances will reduce cost, increase mobility, decrease power consumption, 

and improve healthcare, homeland security and public safety. 

6. Networking Architectures. 

a. Advanced networking research on hardware and software for secure and reliable communications and tools that provide the communication, analysis and 

sharing of very large amounts of information will accelerate discovery and enable new technological advances. 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you. 

We’ve been holding a series of hearings—those of you who are 

paying attention—on education, regulation, various other ways that 

our global competitiveness is affected. And even what affects how 

capital is going to be available to firms? You know, what kinds of 

things do we need to do up here to make that capital available that 

the private-sector is willing to put at risk to make us stay on that 

competitive edge? So, we’ve been taking a holistic approach to this 

whole competitiveness issue. And, obviously, the purpose of today’s 

60 

hearing is to discuss the importance of basic research and the dollars applied to that research. There’s no question that broadband 

and our bill for video franchising and trying to encourage the investment in our broadband infrastructure and our high-speed infrastructure is critical to this whole aspect of remaining competitive. 

But that is another topic for another day. 

I would like to explore just a little bit, though, and maybe start 

with you, Dr. Drobot, because of the industry that you are in. You 

know, Bell Labs was a preeminent research institution when AT&T 

had a state-sanctioned monopoly. But, no longer—we don’t see 

nearly the investment in basic research—they used to do even 

basic research with some of their applied research. Why the change 

today, compared to what it was some time ago, as far as basic research is concerned, from the private-sector? 

Dr. DROBOT. I think it’s a, you know, fantastic question. OK? Let 

me—and I have a little bit of this covered in the testimony. You 

know, fundamentally, in 1984, almost all research in communications was done by Bell Labs. There was a funding mechanism for 

doing this, and that was a small tax on every telephone call. And 

if you look at the style of the research that was done, there was 

a large basic component. If you look at the laser, you look at the 

transistor, you look at a lot of the fundamentals, OK, they came 

out of Bell Labs. I think they enriched the Nation, they enriched 

the world. 

With the dissolution of AT&T, what you find is that that kind 

of funding mechanism disappeared. I represent a company that 

came off the Bell Labs stem. It was called Bellcore. It supported 

the Regional Bell Operating Companies. Roughly a third of Bell 

Labs was in it. In today’s world, with the pressures, just as at TI, 

we cannot afford to fund basic research. Everything gets turned out 

on 6-month/12-month cycles. That’s not basic research. The pressure is to produce more of those kind of goods. And so, basically, 

the mechanisms of collecting enough funds that are actually tied to 

needs and requirements is broken, as a mechanism. 

Senator ENSIGN. OK. I need to attend to another matter briefly. 

I was hoping that one of the other Senators would be able to take 

over in my absence. But, we’ll take a short recess, and then we’ll 

reconvene. 

[Recess.] 

Senator ENSIGN. The next place I want to explore is the global 

nature of competitiveness. A couple of you mentioned the rest of 

the world in your testimony. ‘‘Competitiveness’’ means that we are 

competing against somebody. And the rest of the world is starting 

to step up. We realize that. And I think that it is the exact, right 

observation that some have made that as the rest of the world improves, we have to worry about what we’re doing. We have to worry 

about us getting better. But we also have to put that a little bit 

in context of what the rest of the world is doing. They are increasing the amount of money that they are spending on research and 

development, and they are certainly focusing more on education, 

graduating a lot more engineers and a lot more students with advanced degrees than we are here in the United States. And that 

is why a big part of our competitiveness, depends upon our education. 

61 

Maybe you could make some comments about the rest of the 

world. Europe is increasing investments in innovation. Asia is increasing investments in innovation. Some other places are increasingly focusing on innovation. But can you just put that in context 

with how much we’re spending on innovation and related education, compared to the rest of the world? 

Let’s start with Dr. Knapp. You know, how much the United 

States invests as a percentage of GDP in basic research. But can 

you tell, as far as total dollars—what we’re investing in research, 

compared to some of the other nations, Europe or Asia? 

Dr. KNAPP. Mr. Chairman, I—we can certainly—well, I don’t 

have that data right in front of me, in terms of comparing the percentage of GDP here in whole dollars. 

Senator ENSIGN. You don’t have to give me exact numbers, 

but—— 

Dr. KNAPP. Yes. I mean, our—— 

Senator ENSIGN.—from what I understand, we’re still investing 

a lot more than the rest of the world. 

Dr. KNAPP. Yes. And—but there does seem to be—and we have 

a lot of connections with China right now. We have a campus, actually, in Nanjing, China, which we’ve operated for more than 20 

years now. And so, we’re constantly in dialogue with people in technical fields there. And what seems to be the case is this kind of 

seamless—and I think this was mentioned by earlier witnesses— 

the seamless relation that is very carefully planned between what 

goes on in the schools, in feeding students and preparing the infrastructure and all the rest of it. And whatever the overall rate of 

expenditure is, there is a strategic and a kind of aggressive focus 

there that we’ve noticed. 

There’s an aspect to this that I mention in the written testimony, 

did not touch on in the oral testimony, that I think is—also needs 

to be brought into the picture, and that is that for many years we 

have benefited from foreign talent coming to this country in a very 

extraordinary way, and that has, of course, now been complicated 

because of the conditions created by the war on terrorism. And one 

of the things—we’ve been working very closely with the relevant 

Federal agencies on trying to get enough of a system arranged for 

immigration to make it possible for talented scientists and engineers to come to this country and to work here, and, if they are 

effective contributors, even to achieve permanent residence here. 

That’s become more difficult now than it used to be. And it’s—you 

know, I have statistics in the written testimony about the loss of 

access to graduate students and post-docs and young scientists. 

Senator ENSIGN. We have that. And, actually, you mentioned Dr. 

Craig Barrett. He testified a few weeks back on the idea of attaching a visa or green card to advanced degrees. And we’re looking 

into immigration reform, as you may have noticed in the papers. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. KNAPP. Well, I—— 

Senator ENSIGN. We are actually looking at what the Committee 

has done and I don’t know if you’ve looked at the Committee bill 

that came out—but we’re looking at that. And if there are some additional things that need to be done. There is no question that our 

current system is crazy. I mean, we subsidize foreign students eduVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:02 Apr 27, 2011 Jkt 65910 PO 00000 Frm 000065 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06601 S:\GPO\DOCS\65910.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
62 

cation, then we say, ‘‘When you’re done, you go back.’’ I mean, that 

is just as stupid as anything that we have ever done. We’ve always 

been the brain drain for the rest of the world. And, I think that 

we should continue to be, because talented people come here and 

create jobs. And that has to be part of our overall strategy. And one 

of the great things—you know, I look back—and you think about 

Japan, back in the 1980s especially, and you heard some Americans saying, ‘‘Well, you know, we can’t compete.’’ You know, part 

of the beautiful thing about our system—and even when you look 

at India and China, part of the beauty of our system is that we 

have this entrepreneurial spirit that, due to the freedoms that we 

have, is unmatched anywhere in the world. And it is part of our 

economic system. It’s just part of our system of government. It’s 

part of everything here, and I think it will remain an advantage 

for the United States into the future. But we still have to watch 

what they are doing elsewhere around the world and look at the 

strategies that they are using, and not rest on our laurels. And 

that’s part of what we need to focus on. 

Dr. KNAPP. Sir, if I might comment on that—on that point, just 

to highlight what you’ve just said, I think it is absolutely the case 

that—our experience is that the kinds of education we provide in 

science and technology, because of that flexibility and that entrepreneurial spirit, remains a key advantage that the United States 

has over these other institutions in Asia and elsewhere. Right now, 

however, the other countries are aggressively going after the students who are not finding a comfortable reception—— 

Senator ENSIGN. Right. 

Dr. KNAPP.—here. And that includes commonwealth countries 

that are English-speaking, and they have a systematic approach to 

that, which I think is cutting into what used to be a very powerful 

brain drain to the advantage of this country. 

Senator ENSIGN. I agree. 

Dr. Pietrafesa? 

Dr. PIETRAFESA. Yes, I’ll comment in several ways. One is that 

the ocean and atmospheric sciences are funded by several agencies 

principally, for example, the Office of Naval Research, which was 

actually the first funding agency for basic research in the United 

States. It preceded NSF, after the second World War. But ONR, 

along with the Department of Energy, funded not only basic research in the ocean and atmospheric sciences, but actually funded 

the development of new instrumentation and advanced new technologies. But both have significantly reduced funding for basic research. The Department of Energy has essentially gone out of the 

ocean and atmospheric sciences research funding business. So, that 

has put more pressure on the National Science Foundation and on 

NOAA. 

Now, the National Science Foundation, I understand, had up to 

$2 billion worth of unfunded proposals last year that were rated excellent. 

Senator ENSIGN. Right. 

Dr. PIETRAFESA. And, that, I consider to be a tragedy for this Nation. And, as I said in my testimony, we lost a member of the National Academy to an Asian university because he isn’t willing to 

63 

spend the time to write ten proposals to get funded one time. And 

I consider that to really be tragic. 

Again, on the ocean and atmospheric sciences side, kids love the 

ocean, they love the atmosphere; they’re science geeks. And we 

could capitalize on this through education at the K–12 levels, and 

then entrain them into the physical and mathematical sciences 

through aggressive education. And so, I really do deeply believe, 

and the community believes, that we are undercapitalized in basic 

research, broadly defined, but certainly in the physical sciences and 

the mathematical sciences, including ocean and atmospheric 

sciences. 

Thank you. 

Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Ritter, I’d like to ask you, being from the 

private-sector, can you comment on what Wall Street would do if 

companies like yourselves started spending a lot of money on research that may take 20 years—basic research, this foundational 

research that we’ve been talking about? I mean, it is important to 

have for the record. 

Mr. RITTER. Yes. Well, the investment community is looking for 

a fast return on investment on any expenditure that we make. And 

to the degree those expenditures aren’t going to return revenue to 

the company with the placement in the market of products that our 

customers want, we’re not going to get rewarded for doing longterm research. 

Yes, we have a—we have an internal metric that we use, in 

terms of looking at our own research spending, and it’s called R&D 

efficiency. I mean, we spend, you know, as I mentioned, $2 billion 

a year on research. But how quickly and over what time line does 

that research expenditure translate into revenue? And that’s what 

we’re measured on by Wall Street. I mean, we like—we’d wish they 

were more forward-looking and long-term in their approach, but 

the reality is that they’re not. 

Senator ENSIGN. Very good. 

You know, it’s interesting, a question we should always ask. I 

have this little document. It’s called the Constitution. And I always 

like to say, ‘‘What we’re doing here, is it Constitutional?’’ And I just 

want to make sure that everybody understands that what we are 

doing helps to ‘‘To promote the progress of science,’’ Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution mentions science in the context of patents. And I think that our founders, you know, recognized that 

there were certain things that should be handled by the Federal 

Government, and promoting the progress of science is built right 

into the Constitution. Even as a fiscal conservative who believes in 

market forces, for those who believe in market forces, OK, market 

forces can’t apply to basic research. Market forces wouldn’t allow 

basic research, in the general sense, as our economy is set up. And 

that’s why it’s so critical that we recognize the valuable role that 

the Federal Government can and should play here. 

What the right amount of funding is, is very difficult to deter- mine. You know, you could put $200 billion to support basic research, and some would say that’s not enough. And it is always difficult, in setting these priorities. That’s why we doubled the funding for NIH, and now we’re proposing doubling the funding for NSF 

and increasing some of the support for these other agencies and 

64 

other programs out there. But it is difficult, as you all know, setting the priorities. 

Mr. Ritter, you wanted to comment. 

Mr. RITTER. Yes. While reciting the Constitution, how about the 

tenth amendment and what the states are doing in this area, too? 

Because, I’ll tell you, there’s a very robust discussion going on in 

several states about how to align, you know, higher education and 

research assets behind, you know, state economic development 

goals. And, you know, as industry is increasingly unable to spend 

for the long-term on research, you know, we’re not only here with 

the Federal Government, but we’re also working with the states 

and in industry collaborative efforts to create new research partnerships. 

You know, a great example of that is the partnership that the 

semiconductor industry has created with the National Science 

Foundation in nanoelectronics research. And there are two, soon to 

be three, nanoelectronics research centers that’ll be up and running—one in New York, one in California, and one in Texas—that 

will have a combination of Federal, state, and private-sector funding, doing advanced research. And so, you know, the States have 

an important role to play in this in providing, you know, facilities, 

faculty, and graduate students, you know, who can do the kind of 

research and compete for the sort of merit-based grants, which 

you’re looking at funding in some of the Federal research programs 

that you’re looking at. 

Senator ENSIGN. Good. 

I want to thank all of you. It’s been a fascinating discussion. I 

guess we just got notice that we have a vote coming up in 5 minutes. And these kinds of discussions are very important. You can 

see why I like them better. Nobody else shows up. I get—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ENSIGN.—to spend more time asking questions and having a discussion with you all. But your testimonies are all valuable 

as we go forward. We’re hoping that we can get a bill. You know, 

some of us think that it should be a comprehensive innovation and 

competitiveness bill. I would love to see that. We don’t know 

whether, in the current climate, we’ll be able to do a comprehensive 

bill. But if we can’t get a comprehensive bill, we’re at least going 

to try to pick off what we can get done this year, and maybe pick 

up the rest of it next year. But it is an exciting process. 

And, you know, the President takes a lot of criticism these days. 

One thing that I told him yesterday in our meeting, was that I was 

really pleased that he mentioned innovation and competitiveness in 

his State of the Union Address. Without Presidential vision, without leadership from the White House—he’s the only one with a 

bully pulpit—it’s just like Eisenhower, with Sputnik, he gave us 

that vision that we had to compete—and we talked yesterday about 

the President giving us that vision, calling on the American people. 

If we want to compete in this globalized economy, there’s no question, we have to set some certain priorities for our country. And the 

President is the one who has to challenge us to do that. And I 

think that if he does that, we will be up to that challenge. 

So, thank you all very much for your testimony. And, before we 

leave, I just want to recognize Susan McDonald. She is over here 

65 

to my right, retiring after 30 years of dedicated employment to the 

Senate. 

Congratulations, Susan. You’ve done a great job. You’ve made all 

of our lives a lot better, and made a lot of these hearings over the 

years go a lot more smoothly. So, thank you. Thanks for your service. 

[Applause.] 

Senator ENSIGN. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(67) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Technological innovation is the lifeblood of U.S. economic growth and well-being, 

and basic research is at the core of this system. 

The National Academies of Sciences describes basic research as the ‘‘seed corn’’ 

for innovation. In their report, ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm,’’ they point out 

that this country is essentially eating its seed corn by failing to make the proper 

investments in basic research necessary to maintain a competitive edge. Federal 

support for all research and development (R&D) has fallen from 67 percent in 1964 

down to less than 30 percent today. 

Industry has increased its support for R&D. However, much of this support is for 

near-term development and not the long-term basic research that is so vital. 

Industry has a great history of supporting basic research through venerable 

names such as Bell Labs and Xerox PARC. But today, Wall Street’s focus is on the 

near-term only, and shareholders do not reward companies for making significant 

investments in basic research. 

This investment is essential for our long-term, economic competitiveness, and it 

is becoming clear that only the government can afford to support the kind of research that may not bear fruit for a decade or more. I would like to hear more from 

our witnesses today about how we can rectify the current situation and ensure that 

we are putting the country on the right path. 

Finally, many of the current reports and proposed legislative initiatives fail to address oceanic research. The oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth’s surface and can 

be a source of numerous new technologies and innovations. We must not disregard 

this important resource. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

I am delighted that the Subcommittee has taken up the subjects of basic research 

and competitiveness, and I regret that I cannot be present to take part in the discussion. There is no doubt that the choices we make now about investments in basic 

research, both the size and the nature of our investments, will be a major factor 

in American prosperity a generation from now. 

The globalization of the world economy is a reality, an accelerating trend that we 

cannot stop. It is also a matter that we must address with some urgency. Where 

we can, we must take steps to protect American jobs. Where we cannot, we must 

work to mitigate the impacts on our workers, their families, and their communities. 

And we absolutely must work to assure that our children and future generations 

will have good jobs, by making certain that America is competitive in the global 

economy of the future. 

It’s well established that basic research conducted at universities can stimulate 

strong regional economic development. Companies focusing on high technology products find it profitable to locate near major research universities where they have 

convenient access to faculty researchers and highly trained graduates. The regions 

known as Silicon Valley in California, Route 128 in Massachusetts, and Research 

Triangle in North Carolina, are perhaps the best-known examples, but it happens 

wherever there are strong research universities. 

I’m concerned that, as we stimulate innovation through investments in basic research, we assure equal opportunity, and proactively draw upon the talent, creativity, and energy of all Americans. 

Congress and the National Science Foundation have long recognized the importance of regional diversity in research funding. It’s explicit in the NSF charter: ‘‘. . . 

it shall be an objective of the Foundation to strengthen research and education in 

the sciences and engineering, including independent research by individuals, 

68 

throughout the United States, and to avoid undue concentration of such research 

and education.’’ 

In 1988, Congress authorized NSF to establish the Experimental Program to 

Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), to help universities in states that receive a very small share of NSF funding improve their competitiveness in research. 

Indeed, through the EPSCoR Program, the research capabilities of many universities have been improved. I strongly support the EPSCoR program’s focus to enhance research capacity which is done through the Research Infrastructure Improvement Grants. However, the geographic distribution of NSF research grants is 

still highly uneven. 

Currently, 60 percent of NSF funding goes to institutions in just 10 states and 

91 percent goes to institutions in 26 states. The remaining 9 percent is distributed 

in the remaining 24 states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. The 27 jurisdictions that together receive only 9 percent of NSF 

funding are home to 19 percent of the U.S. population, 20 percent of the top two 

categories of research universities (by Carnegie Foundation ratings), 15 percent of 

employed scientists and engineers, and 14 percent of graduate students in science 

and engineering. And they are home to a large portion of Minority Serving Institutions—minorities that have not yet participated proportionately in the development 

of the American science and technology enterprise. 

I also believe that NSF’s investments in education are essential. It is vital for our 

Nation to improve the quality of education, and to evaluate programs and teaching 

methods to learn what really works. I was proud to be a sponsor of the Math and 

Science Partnership (MSP) program a year ago, and I believe it shows promise and 

deserves additional funding. 

I am sure than many of my colleagues on this Subcommittee will agree with me 

that we must do better. Eleven of us, both Republicans and Democrats, represent 

states that receive a very low percentage of NSF grants. Others cannot get an MSP 

grant due to funding limitations. It’s an issue of equal opportunity. But it’s also in 

the broad national interest that we enlist as many Americans as we can into the 

cause of assuring prosperity for future generations. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR. 

Question 1. The Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST) is slated to be built 

on Haleakala. Using adaptive optics technology, ATST will be able to provide the 

sharpest views ever taken of the solar surface. The National Science Foundation 

(NSF) has declared the project in ‘‘readiness.’’ However, the Foundation has instituted new processes for selecting Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) projects. ATST is the first project living under the new rules. 

In order to be on the ‘‘approved’’ list and be budgeted for construction funding, 

a project must have all of its environmental approvals and a firm cost for any intended mitigation. On the other hand, the shelf life of any environment impact 

statement (EIS) is limited, particularly with regard to the location of flora and 

fauna. If too much time elapses between the issuance of the EIS and the initiation 

of construction, some fear that the EIS may have to be redone. In addition, it is 

difficult to get community buy-in for a project when construction funds seem elusive 

or far off. There had been some talk of the potential for ATST to be included in the 

FY 2008 budget, but we now have indications that it will be included in FY 2009, 

at the earliest. 

Can you tell me when the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST) can be 

included in the Foundation’s Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction 

budget? 

Answer. In order to be included in the Foundation’s Major Research Equipment 

and Facilities Construction budget, ATST must successfully pass two milestones: 

1. The preparation of the necessary environmental impact statement as well as 

the required consultations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

2. An extensive review of cost, schedule, and management that will be carried 

out in October 2006, in order to establish the baseline budget and schedule. 

Provided that the review is satisfactory, this schedule would support a possible 

decision by the National Science Board to include ATST in the Foundation’s FY 

2009 budget request. 

Question 2. Can you assure me that you will work with the ATST advocates to 

ensure that the new requirements for Major Research Equipment and Facilities 

69 

Construction project development and funding are realistic and allow projects to 

move forward in a timely manner? 

Answer. NSF can give you that assurance. Indeed, representatives of ATST, the 

Division of Astronomical Sciences, and the Office of the Deputy Director for Large 

Facility Projects have already met to discuss the necessary steps and resultant time 

scales that must be completed before ATST can be included in an NSF budget request. The Division of Astronomical Sciences and the Office of the Deputy Director 

for Large Facility Projects are working closely together to plan the upcoming baseline review of ATST in order that the requirements are fully understood and the 

project can be well prepared for the review. 

Environmental Management 

Question 3. In late January, OMS announced a new scorecard to be applied to 

Federal agencies that would evaluate, among other things, their environmental 

management systems. Though in the past, NSF has funded primarily scientific research projects with few environmental impacts, there are now more than 25 

projects on the various Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction priority lists, most of which involve construction or activities that would likely impact 

the human environment. Moreover, before most of these projects can move forward, 

the agency will have to demonstrate compliance with all requisite environmental, 

biological, and historical laws or risk litigation and millions of dollars in cost overruns. Has NSF’s infrastructure and facilities planning capabilities advanced sufficiently 

to manage these increased environmental management and compliance issues? 

Answer. As is the case with ATST, the Foundation uses program and support staff 

to ensure sufficient consideration of environmental issues. Whenever a large facility 

project is suitably advanced for consideration and possible funding, NSF assigns a 

program officer to support project-specific environmental requirements through the 

NSF grants and cooperative agreements process. The Office of the Deputy Director 

for Large Facility Projects and the Office of the General Counsel work closely with 

program officers to ensure proper identification and management of environmental 

issues. NSF’s Grant Policy Manual, the particular terms of a solicitation or announcement, and the various documents that inform the oversight and management 

of a large facility all support the Foundation’s management of environmental issues. 

The Foundation’s experience has been that its processes and infrastructure provide 

sufficient opportunity for responsible management of environmental issues. 

Question 4. Do you need additional legislative authority to build dedicated environmental management expertise at NSF? If not, how to you intend to build that 

expertise? 

Answer. NSF has broad legislative authority pursuant to its organic act ‘‘to do all 

things necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter [to initiate and support 

basic scientific research and programs].’’ 42 U.S.C. § 1870. Accordingly, NSF would 

not need additional legislative authority to further strengthen environmental management at the Foundation. 

NSF recognizes that environmental considerations are an important part of planning for many large facility projects. NSF has staff with specialized expertise in this 

area within the Office of General Counsel and in some Directorates. NSF also recognizes that the demand for this expertise is likely to expand as a number of large 

facility projects advance into more mature stages of pre-construction planning. This 

is especially true for those Earth-observing systems that will consist of widely distributed infrastructure at multiple locations. 

Development of New, Very Large Projects 

Question 5. Last year, a provision was included in the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) Authorization bill to examine the problem of designing very large projects, including consideration of allowing funding for some planning and design work to come from the MREFC account rather than the research 

account. 

What is the status of that review? How can we make sure that the design of new 

facilities does not overwhelm the capacity of the Science Directorates? 

Answer. The NASA authorization addresses two pertinent items: (1) ‘‘Senior Review’’ of the facilities portfolio within the Division of Astronomical Science, and (2) 

design and development for Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction 

(MREFC) projects, including a provision to consider alternative funding sources. 

Item one, the Senior Review, is being conducted under the auspices of the Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences. The final report is expected to be 

issued shortly. Item two, planning for very large projects, has been considered by 

the Foundation. The Office of the Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects reVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:02 Apr 27, 2011 Jkt 65910 PO 00000 Frm 000073 Fmt 06601 Sfmt 06621 S:\GPO\DOCS\65910.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
70 

cently published Guidelines for Planning and Managing the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction Account, which outlines the pre-construction planning and development process. NSF’s position is that funding for pre-construction 

planning of MREFC candidate projects should not be provided within the MREFC 

account. While the Foundation recognizes that the resources needed are very large, 

from five to as much as twenty-five percent of total construction/acquisition costs, 

NSF does not use MREFC funding to support these activities for several reasons: 

• Annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for major facilities, once constructed, usually range from ten to twenty percent of the total construction cost. 

The annual outlay for operations and maintenance is roughly equivalent to the 

annual outlay for pre-construction planning. O&M budgets are funded from the 

Research and Related Activities (R&RA) Account. Over the 20–30 year typical 

operational lifetime of a facility, cumulative O&M expenditures represent a 

much larger total outlay than the construction funding, and one that competes 

directly with the pool of funds available to individual investigators in that discipline. Having these activities funded from R&RA ensures the backing of 

stakeholders. The research community served by the proposed facility must 

strongly support the facility throughout its various life-cycle phases and endorse 

the balance between the support of infrastructure and support for researchers 

using that infrastructure. NSF funds pre-construction activities within the 

R&RA account to retain pressure on the Directorates to propose no more facilities than they can afford to study and operate. 

• Facilities ultimately proposed for construction funding are the result of a very 

long process of review by the supporting research community and NSF. This includes: peer review of the candidate project’s scientific merit; NSF’s ranking and 

relative prioritization of the project within its discipline and across disciplines 

served by NSF; and a thorough assessment of its relative importance to the Nation in comparison to other opportunities and national needs. This multi-step 

process involves progressive levels of scrutiny as the project definition matures. 

At any stage of review a project may be rejected, and many are. Assessment 

must be objective, based on expert review and peer judgment. Including specific 

projects in the MREFC budget at early stages of planning, before this objective 

judgment can be fully applied, would give them stature prematurely and would 

compromise this careful review process. 

• Large facilities built by NSF almost always involve interagency and international partnerships. It is important to send the right messages to these partners regarding NSF’s intentions, so that the tentative nature of investment in 

pre-construction planning activities is fully understood. MREFC funding for preconstruction planning may appear to give unintended ‘‘standing’’ to a project 

that may not progress to late-stage planning. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR. 

Question 1. How well is NSF performing in its mandate to assure that it avoids 

undue concentration in research funding? Please provide the Subcommittee with 

data showing how the geographic distribution of research funding has changed over 

the past several years. 

Answer. As noted in its mission statement, the NSF EPSCoR program is designed 

to assist the Foundation in its statutory function to strengthen research and education in science and engineering throughout the U.S. and to avoid undue concentration of such research and education. Therefore, broadening participation is a major 

objective for NSF EPSCoR and its investment portfolio is structured to enhance the 

competitiveness of EPSCoR jurisdictions for NSF’s spectrum of regular research 

funding. The regression line on Figure 1 demonstrates that the initial 22 EPSCoR 

jurisdictions (AL, AK, AR, HI, ID, KS, KY, LA, ME, MS, MT, NE, NV, NM, NO, 

OK, PR, SC, SO, VT, WV, and WY that have participated in EPSCoR for at least 

5 years) increased their aggregate percentage of NSF research support funds from 

approximately 5.1 percent in FY 1980 to 6.9 percent in FY 2005. This increase 

verifies that modest progress has occurred in the ability of the initial 22 EPSCoR 

participants to compete for merit-based research support from NSF. 

71 

Figure 2 shows a similar graph for all the current 27 EPSCoR jurisdictions (the 

preceding 22 plus U.S.-VI, DE, NH, RI, and TN that were added during the FY 

2002–2004 period). The regression line on this latter graph illustrates that the aggregate percentage of NSF research support funds awarded to the 27 EPSCoR jurisdictions went from approximately 7.6 percent in FY 1980 to 9.2 percent in FY 2005. 

Another measure of EPSCoR’s impact is the positive trend in the total annual 

amount of NSF research support funds awarded to EPSCoR jurisdictions during the 

past 6 years. The amount of this NSF funding has increased from $273 million in 

FY 2000 to $383 million in FY 2005. Such data reveal that the EPSCoR strategy 

has indeed improved the geographic distribution of NSF’s research funding. 

Question 2. The President’s Budget for FY 2007 proposes a smaller increase for 

the NSF EPSCoR program than for the total NSF budget. I believe that the NSF 

EPSCOR budget should increase proportionally with the total budget to meet the 

basic goal of not leaving the EPSCoR states behind. What do you think and how 

can we meet geographic diversity goals without increasing EPSCoR? 

Answer. The EPSCoR budget is small relative to the overall NSF budget and is 

used primarily to support investment elements that stimulate an increased research/education capacity in EPSCoR jurisdictions through: (1) awards to advance 

research infrastructure, both physical and human resources, in focused areas; (2) 

support for outreach activities to further acquaint the EPSCoR community with 

NSF opportunities, priorities, policies, and people; and (3) co-funding of meritorious 

proposals submitted from EPSCoR investigators to other NSF programs that are 

recommended for funding by the peer review process but for which there are insufficient funds for an award without joint support from EPSCoR. The awards co-funded 

by EPSCoR often involve young or new faculty members, members of underrepresented groups, graduate and undergraduate students, private-sector partnerships, 


bemq1.eps bemq2.eps
72 

and cross-disciplinary projects. The infrastructure awards are sufficient to ‘‘initiate’’ 

the development of new scientific capacity (research equipment, start-up packages 

for attracting new faculty, competitive stipends for recruiting talented graduate students and post-docs, etc.). The jurisdictions are aware that EPSCoR investments 

should lead to other sources of significant funding to fully develop the assets needed 

for increased capacity, competitiveness, and project sustainability. 

One measure of competitiveness of EPSCoR participants is the absolute difference 

between overall NSF and EPSCoR funding rates for proposals submitted to the 

Foundation’s research support programs. Figure 3 shows a plot of these absolute differences in success rates for the FY 1996 through FY 2005 period. As shown, the 

success rate difference was approximately 8 percent in FY 1996 (27 percent for all 

NSF proposals compared to 19 percent for EPSCoR-based proposals) but decreased 

to about 4 percent in FY 2003 (24 percent for all NSF proposals compared to 20 

percent for EPSCoR-based proposals), and has stayed near this 4 percent delta 

value since FY 2003. This ‘‘closing-of-the-gap’’ in funding rates for proposals submitted from EPSCoR jurisdictions is largely due to the successful EPSCoR co-funding and infrastructure improvement programs. 

Question 3. The primary strategy of the NSF EPSCoR program has been to invest 

in the research infrastructure of states that receive very small portions of NSF 

funding. Do you agree that competitive grants for research infrastructure should 

continue to be the principal tool used by EPSCoR to enhance regional research competitiveness? 

Answer. Please see the next response. 

Question 4. What improvements would you recommend for the EPSCoR program, 

and will you be sure to consult with the stakeholders and Congress on any major 

changes? 

Answer. Investment in critical research infrastructure is a productive and essential tool for enhancing the research capacity and competitiveness of EPSCoR jurisdictions. The evolving EPSCoR investment portfolio has yielded definite gains during the past years as evidenced by the trend lines in Figures 1 through 3. However, 

these gains appear to have leveled-off during the recent FY 2001–2005 period. Such 

indicators suggest it is now prudent to think about the optimum investment strategy for catalyzing further progress by the EPSCoR jurisdictions during the next 10– 

15 years. Therefore, NSF is organizing a community workshop entitled EPSCoR 

2020 to obtain broad, expert input on the goals, objectives, and investment strategies that will help define the future EPSCoR program at NSF. A proposal to develop 

and conduct this workshop event has been submitted to NSF by the University of 

South Carolina. The workshop, scheduled for June 15–16, 2006, will bring together 

key representatives from both the EPSCoR and non-EPSCoR communities to discuss 

and develop an updated vision for the NSF EPSCoR program. Such a strategic planning exercise is timely because of the essential contributions that EPSCoR-based 

scientists, engineers, teachers, and students can make to the American Competitiveness Initiative. NSF and its EPSCoR Office look forward to the opportunity of obtaining further input from our multiple stakeholders and their concomitant recommendations for EPSCoR 2020. Potential changes in the EPSCoR program as a 


bemq3.eps
73 

consequence of our attentive consideration of these recommendations will be discussed with stakeholders and Congress. 

Math and Science Partnership Program 

Question 5. Can you provide more information about the promise of the MSP program, and what NSF could do to enhance education if Congress provided the 

amount of money authorized for the program which is $200 million? 

Answer. America’s students have significant aspirations for their own education. 

More than 90 percent of the Nation’s high school seniors plan to attend college, including two-year colleges, and approximately 70 percent of graduates actually do go 

on to college within 2 years of their graduation [Education Trust, 1999]. Yet, the 

middle and high school years foster a leaky pipeline in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education that falls short in supporting student aspirations and therefore requires special attention. 

NSF’s Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program has yielded some promising 

findings for students, for teachers, and with newly developed tools and instruments. 

NSF’s MSP has focused on building human and institutional capacity to engage in 

K–12 STEM education, especially in the Nation’s institutions of higher education. 

Approximately 1,200 faculty and administrators have documented their participation to date. Of these, 69 percent are STEM disciplinary faculty and 67 percent are 

tenured or on a tenure-track. Additionally, 30 percent report ‘‘no prior experience’’ 

in K–12 reform. To further build and sustain the capacity of the Nation’s STEM disciplinary faculty for educational work, the new MSP solicitation (NSF 06–539) calls 

for proposals that engage the national disciplinary/professional societies. MSP is 

also building human capacity to engage in high-quality evaluation (e.g., evaluationfocused projects at Utah State University, University of Wisconsin—Madison). Evidence: An Essential Tool—Planning for and Gathering Evidence using the DesignImplementation-Outcomes (DIO) Cycle of Evidence (NSF 05–31) is an example of an 

MSP product for guiding project-level evaluation. 

MSP has contributed to sustainability through the development of tools and instruments that did not exist previously, including a number of such resources being 

extensively used in the Department of Education’s MSP sites in the states. Examples include tools that assess teachers’ growth in content knowledge in mathematics 

(University of Michigan) and the sciences (Horizon Research & AAAS for one 

project, Harvard University for another), that address student motivation (University of Michigan) and that evaluate STEM education partnerships (Georgia Institute 

of Technology). 

MSP work has changed teacher education. In a first analysis of a sample of 10 

Partnerships, over 100 college courses have been redesigned or newly developed 

with MSP support. Most new courses are packaged within existing, formalized programs or as part of new pre-service programs. Most are also aligned with state 

standards and external disciplinary recommendations. Every Partnership in the 

sample has developed new programs, certificate pathways or degrees. 

NSF looks forward to applying these and other findings to support the important 

work of the Department of Education’s MSP program. 

Æ