New NSF Board Chair Introduces Vision for a National S&T Strategy

The National Science Foundation’s board met last week for the first time since electing as its chair IBM executive Darío Gil, who used the occasion to reflect on the nearly 75 years since NSF’s founding and share his vision for the next 75. He called for the U.S. to pursue a “cross-sectoral national strategy for science and technology” that maintains the creativity and resilience of the country’s current decentralized science system yet is more responsive to “radical changes” underway across the global R&D landscape.

These shifts include a “dramatic” rise in corporate funding of R&D relative to federal funding, China’s emergence as both the biggest competitor and collaborator of the U.S. in science and technology, and weakness in STEM workforce development in the U.S. that amount to a “crisis,” Gil said. These trends are highlighted in a policy brief the board released in conjunction with the speech.

Gil framed the past 75 years of U.S. scientific progress as shaped by shock events, from the launch of Sputnik in 1957 to the supply chain issues for silicon chips during the pandemic. Within a year of Sputnik, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) to pour money into all levels of U.S. educational institutions, with a focus on STEM disciplines. Now, Gil said, it is “well past time” for an NDEA 2.0, echoing testimony his predecessor, Dan Reed, made to Congress in May.

Gil also noted that although industry funding for R&D has significantly outstripped government funding over the past decade, it is significantly clustered in a few sectors like IT and pharmaceuticals. Industry still relies on the federal government to fund innovative basic research across all scientific fields, Gil said.

“Many of the S&T advances that underpin today’s commercial technologies and industries are rooted in research conducted decades before practical applications were realized,” Gil said. “Federal investment in fundamental research today enables the emerging industries of tomorrow.”

Science and technology now carry the same geopolitical importance as trade or military alliances, Gil said, and the U.S. is falling behind. He pointed out that China has surpassed the U.S. in rate of research publications, number of patents, and most recently in number of doctorates awarded. However, he also noted that China is the largest collaborator of the U.S. for publications.

Gil concluded by offering a series of open questions that included the prospect of creating completely new structures for both coordinating research across like-minded countries and enabling continued interaction with competitors. “What is the G7 or the G20 of technology? Do we need a NATO for S&T?” Gil asked. “Do we lean into continued but selective collaboration with China on basic and open science to stay true to our values about open scientific inquiry, and to avoid technological surprise?”

Science leaders discuss U.S. international competitiveness

The board further explored these themes during a panel discussion with science leaders representing government, academia, and philanthropy.

Rafael Reif, president emeritus of MIT, described China as the first country to simultaneously challenge the U.S. in science, military, economics, and diplomacy. Reif said that he sees competition from China as today’s Sputnik, which could drive interest in an NDEA 2.0. Such legislation could address issues of access and opportunity in higher education, from the 60% of U.S. adults who do not have a bachelor’s degree to university students who work long hours to send money home, Reif said.

At the same time, he warned against policies in both countries that limit mutual academic exchange.

“Putting blanket limitations on such collaborations would mean limiting U.S. progress and understanding much less about where China stands technologically,” Reif said. “Both countries need to take a more balanced view of the risks and benefits of working together.”

David Spergel, president of the Simons Foundation, noted that restrictive policy on China might unintentionally weaken relations with other countries.

“As we think about the U.S.’ role, things we do that isolate China often isolate other international partners, and it is, I see, very important for the U.S. to remain the focus of international collaborations,” Spergel said. He noted his foundation does not support research in China but that about 20% of its funding goes to scientists outside the U.S.

Tarun Chhabra, senior director for technology and national security at the National Security Council, said he has seen significant interest in an NDEA 2.0, but it will require building bipartisan support. The CHIPS and Science Act has created an opportunity where private companies are interested in throwing their weight behind fostering the STEM workforce, he said.

“If you talk to any of the companies taking part of [the CHIPS Act], their top concern is being able to recruit the people to do the work,” Chhabra said. “Our encouragement to industry in that sector has been to put all the energy that they put behind getting the bill done to now making the changes we need to both cultivate the talent domestically, and also to work on immigration policy.”

Reif also highlighted the importance of “patient capital” to take advantage of existing domestic talent and research. Some of the most groundbreaking inventions from MIT labs never reached commercialization because the long timelines discouraged industry investments, he said. The CHIPS and Science Act recognizes the importance of federal funding in these cases, but Congress so far has failed to fund the initiatives authorized by the act, risking the nation’s position as a global competitor, Reif said.

“Entire fields may stall out, or worse yet, they may end up being developed first in competing nations,” he said.