By Stanley Tsou
Student Intern, Science and Technology Policy Program
On June 28, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the National Science Foundation (NSF) for the Future Act (H.R. 2225) by a vote of 345 to 67. Originally introduced in March, the NSF for the Future Act would authorize more than $72 billion for NSF, increasing its current annual budget of $8.5 billion to $17.9 billion by fiscal year (FY) 2026. The bill represents a counterproposal to the Endless Frontier Act, reintroduced by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in April as part of the United States Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) of 2021 (S. 1260). While both bills seek to create a new directorate in NSF and increase federal research and development (R&D) funding, the USICA’s focus on technology and competition with China stands in sharp contrast to the House bill’s comprehensive approach of reauthorizing NSF holistically while addressing key societal challenges. To best advance U.S. scientific and technological innovation, Congress should reconcile differences between the House and Senate bills to arrive at a common solution. An ideal reauthorization bill for NSF should incorporate the same funding levels as the USICA but retain the agency’s broad mission of supporting basic research and its autonomy to invest in research areas that address both scientific and societal needs.
Both the USICA and the NSF for the Future Act would establish a new directorate within NSF, but they differ in their delineated goals. The USICA would add a new Directorate for Technology and Innovation to NSF aimed at promoting emerging technologies in the U.S. to better compete with China. On the other hand, the NSF for the Future Act proposes the creation of a Directorate for Science and Engineering Solutions that would be tasked with translating basic research funded by NSF into applied technologies. Unlike the USICA, however, which mandates a list of 10 “key technology focus areas” for the new directorate, the NSF for the Future Act would allow the NSF director to identify and regularly update up to five focus areas, taking into consideration societal challenges such as climate change, national security and social inequality. As such, the provisions laid out in the NSF for the Future Act are less prescriptive and more adaptable to the changing needs of our nation.
Additionally, while both bills would authorize a significant budget increase to existing and new NSF programs, the USICA places a greater emphasis on funding the new technology-focused directorate. Prior to its passage through the Senate, the original USICA sought to invest $100 billion directly into the new Technology and Innovation Directorate while making few investments in the rest of the agency. Although the original $100 billion proposal has now been redistributed to other agencies and programs, including the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the newly earmarked $29 billion over five years for the new directorate still represents a significant proportion of the $81 billion total investment for NSF. In contrast, the NSF for the Future Act would authorize $72 billion for NSF over five years, of which less than one-fifth of the budget would go toward the new Science and Engineering Solutions Directorate. Moreover, under the House proposal, the budget for the new directorate would begin to level off by FY 2025, whereas the Senate bill seeks to grow the share of the new directorate’s budget to 43.7% of the total NSF budget. Such venturing efforts could divert funds away from NSF’s other activities and potentially dilute NSF’s mission for funding basic, curiosity-driven research.
Common between the two bills are provisions related to research security and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Both bills would establish an Office of Research Security and Policy within NSF and appoint a chief of research security whose tasks are to coordinate all research security policy issues across the foundation and evaluate potential security risks. In addition, both bills would appoint a chief diversity officer within NSF and establish a 5-year pilot program to enhance the research capacity of “emerging research institutions,” with funds allocated toward faculty training and resources, research experiences for undergraduate and graduate students, and maintenance and repair of research equipment. In a time of growing attention to racial justice and health equity, these provisions for promoting STEM education can help diversify racial and ethnic representation in the STEM workforce. However, efforts to invest in domestic STEM education should not come at the expense of international scientific collaboration. While both bills would prohibit federal employees from participating in foreign government talent recruitment programs, the Senate bill goes a step further by safeguarding funds to “Foreign Entities of Concern” and restricting funding for institutions hosting a Confucius Institute, established as a partnership between U.S. and Chinese institutes of higher education to promote Chinese language and culture. These efforts to craft science policy through the lens of outcompeting China can be counterproductive by redirecting attention from unleashing our nation’s talent to solve domestic challenges.
Nevertheless, provisions related to the original Endless Frontier Act represent only a portion of the Senate’s USICA package. Also included in the USICA is the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) for America Act, which would directly appropriate $52 billion in federal investments for domestic semiconductor research, design and production. Such initiatives to strengthen the nation’s semiconductor industry are laudable, given that the share of global semiconductor manufacturing capacity in the U.S. has fallen from 37% in 1990 to just 12% in 2020. However, the USICA’s aim to secure U.S. leadership in science and technology for the sake of competing with China is myopic. Rather than attempt to contain and interfere with China’s internal affairs, as demonstrated in the USICA’s Strategic Competition Act of 2021 and Meeting the China Challenge Act of 2021, Congress should devote greater attention to solving domestic societal challenges such as climate change and social inequality, which are equally important in achieving scientific progress and ensuring continued economic growth.
The ideal NSF reauthorization bill should incorporate the ambitious funding goals of the USICA and delineate clearly stated objectives, including greater geographic diversity and racial equity across NSF programs and STEM education. However, the bill should give the agency the flexibility to implement specific programs and invest in areas in which it decides. As President Biden has applauded bipartisan efforts by both the Senate with its passage of the USICA and the House with its passage of the NSF for the Future Act, his recent budget proposal also includes $10.2 billion for the NSF, a 20% increase from the 2021 funding level. For the final bill to pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by the president into law, the Senate should pull back on language that alienates China from other foreign competitors, and the House should consider adding provisions related to semiconductor manufacturing and global competitiveness. In reconciling differences between the two bills, Congress should not neglect NSF’s mission in funding basic research and the importance of international scientific collaboration, both of which are critical to the future of U.S. innovation.