Congress is considering legislation called the Endless Frontier Act that would substantially increase the responsibilities and the budget of the National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF, in its new role, would support research, development, and technology transition for the purpose of strengthening the ability of U.S. industry to compete in cutting edge technology areas with industry in other countries, especially China.
Unfortunately, experts worry that this legislation does not do enough, according to a new paper published in Issues in Science and Technology.
One critique of the legislation, “Improving the Endless Frontier Act,” was written by Christopher Hill, a professor emeritus of the Schar School of Policy and Government and partner at Technology Policy International, a consultancy firm. Hill was joined by Patrick Windham, a policy lecturer at Stanford University and partner at Technology Policy International, and 2008 Schar School PhD alumnus David Cheney, a managing partner at Technology Policy International and consultant for the World Bank.
“We became aware of this bill first by having its authors approach some of us for comment and, later, through the specialist media,” Hill said. “Our conversation naturally turned to the proposed bill and its limitations…While we agree with the policy objectives of this legislation, we think it has a number of weaknesses and we offer constructive alternatives to its main theme.”
The paper, Hill said, considers “whether the model of the relationship of basic research to technological innovation that underpins this legislation adequately describes the complex processes of innovation in most industries. We also consider whether the National Science Foundation is an appropriate and workable institutional home for such efforts.”
The authors also question “whether focusing the new financial resources for research and development and innovation in the legislation on a few key technologies is a sensible strategy for a large complex economy like that of the United States, which enjoys a richly diverse set of institutions that pursue new opportunities.”
Those limitations could be massive. The authors point to failed efforts in the 1990s to identify critical technologies due to the way in which funding was allocated; it quickly became a political game for funding, ultimately doing very little to create a comprehensive guide to technology policy and R&D initiatives. The authors argue that the U.S. government has a better system for technology policy already in place in which national leaders set the priorities, and agency executives are left to see them through.
One example of this is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which the authors say needs a boost in funding—and other DARPA-like entities need to be created in other agencies. Some of what the authors argue has in fact already happened. In-Q-Tel, a non-profit venture capitalist firm located in Arlington, Va., was first founded in 1999 to increase technological capabilities for national security. In-Q-Tel is privately held by the CIA’s Directorate of Science and Technology.
“If you think about technology, the intersection set between what the private sector is doing and the requirements for the intelligence community or defense community has never been greater,” said Chris Darby, president of In-Q-Tel. Darby discussed the topic during a CBS News “Intelligence Matters” podcast, hosted by Schar School Distinguished Visiting Professor Michael Morell, the former acting director of the CIA.
However, technological advancements and technology policy are not exclusive to cybersecurity and defense systems. The most important issue, Darby told Morell in April of 2019, is biodefense. Fast forward a year, and B.Next—In-Q-Tel’s biodefense arm—has been working on technology to help with the COVID-19 pandemic in recent months. If anything, Darby’s foresight, a literal echo from the past, resonates today with the critics of the Endless Frontier Act, such as Hill and his colleagues, as Congress seeks to set technology policy for the new decade.
It demonstrates that ensuring technology policy is correct, flexible, and acted on appropriately can mean the difference between life and death, and already has.