For those in the US: Here is a link for submitting a public comment regarding OSTP’s request for information about "Accelerating the American Scientific Enterprise". The US government does this at some rate, requesting public feedback and input on policies under consideration or development. Unfortunately, this public comment period ends on December 26.

Here is the slightly longer version of what I submitted (I had to trim it back b/c of character limits). It doesn’t touch on everything in the RFI, but it’s a start. Many readers will likely disagree with what I wrote, and that’s fine. Submit your own comments. Better that OSTP hear from a variety of perspectives.

Update: I’ve had some ask me what the point of this is, since the comments will likely not be read in a meaningful way. I assume they will feed the comments through an AI tool and have staffers spot check ones that are flagged as interesting (by whatever criteria). I know I’m old fashioned, but I still feel like silence is acquiescence edging toward complicity. Saying something at least helped me organize my ideas a bit.

I appreciate the desire and need to improve the American scientific enterprise. Other rival nations are making enormous investments in basic and applied scientific research, and it is critical for US competitiveness that the US not flag or falter.

I have two overarching suggestions before delving into the specific questions posed in the RFI.

First, it is of vital importance that the US scientific enterprise solicit advice and input from practicing scientists and engineers through advisory panels and committees. In the last year, the US government research agencies have dissolved or disbanded a huge fraction of advisory bodies. I think this is a mistake. While there are always concerns about whether experts are too entrenched to be bold, across-the-board devaluing expertise is not the way to go.

Second, there needs to be coherence between priorities and financial allocations. Complaining that the US is falling behind in critical research areas (e.g. advanced materials) while simultaneously slashing federal support of those research areas is both self-defeating and internally inconsistent. There have been large scale cuts across many agencies in critical scientific areas, seemingly at odds with the stated policies about innovation and competitiveness.

Regarding specific points from the RFI:

Encouraging public-private collaboration runs into the problem that existing economic incentives (the constant need for short-term returns) disfavor companies investing in research that doesn’t have clear, nearly-immediate payoffs. Norm Augustine has spoken publicly about how opening a research laboratory caused Lockheed Martin’s stock to fall. (see here: https://www.aaas.org/news/basic-research-needs-sustained-federal-investment-says-norman-augustine) Moreover, since many very wealthy corporations (e.g. Tesla, 3M) already pay almost no federal taxes, it is challenging to encourage public-private partnerships through offering companies tax incentives. The issue is less of a problem for small and startup companies, in part thanks to programs like SBIR and STTR. Programs like ARPA-E and ARPA-H also are important to consider and expand.

The most financially well-off sectors, all of which depend critically on a spectrum of research from basic to the applied and near to long term, are the financial industry, energy, biomedical/pharma, and tech/semiconductors (especially tied into AI). In the past, research consortia like International Sematech were very effective at guiding research of tremendous economic benefit. Some state governments have had interesting and impactful programs (e.g., the Cancer Prevention Research Institute in Texas, supported by state bonds). The US could encourage the development of industrial consortia aligned to specific aspects of research; these could be supported financially by joint investment of the constituting companies and special bond issues expressly for these topics, with the proviso that funds be used to support use-inspired basic and early-stage applied research. It is critical that any such plan have actual oversight, to make sure that this does not become a giant give-away to the companies that have the best lobbyists.

In terms of supporting models for research that complement traditional university structures and enable projects that require vast resources, interdisciplinary coordination, or extended timelines: There are already large-scale center/institute programs that have been deployed in the past by various federal agencies. While not perfect, these are not a bad model - in the last year, these have suffered greatly due to budgetary uncertainties and outright cancellations. You can’t complain about failing to do research requiring extended timelines if funding is annualized and perpetually at risk. One approach to dealing with this would be to endow such structures at the outset for multiyear support. Congress would have to be willing to do this, and given the level of impasse that seems very difficult, but with executive branch support it could be possible. The short version: Don’t complain about lack of long-term stickiness if the US government cannot be considered a reliable partner year over year.

In terms of identifying and developing scientific talent across the country: the RFI mentions "leveraging digital tools", which sounds a lot like trying to use AI to identify people. This is frought with risk. Programs such as the NSF graduate research fellowship, the NDSEG, the SCGSR, and others are essential at developing talent, as are many research experience for undergraduate programs and internship programs at national laboratories. The recent cuts to these programs are short-sighted and counterproductive. If we want the US to develop top technical talent and have people choose technical paths over "easier" trajectories, then we need to make it financially worthwhile for students to pursue these aims. Federally supported undergraduate scholarship, graduate fellowships, policies that reward companies for providing internships, policies that, e.g. reduce endowment taxes if university resources are spent providing such support, etc. are all worth considering. Again, an advisory task force could likely provide quantitative information about what strategies are likely to work best.

I could go on, but these are a starting point for a discussion. I would be happy to talk further with interested parties and engage in discussions going forward, if that would be helpful.