Hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee - The Federal Research Portfolio: Capitalizing on Investments in R&D

Hearing

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing to consider the federal role in scientific research and development, and how best to capitalize on federal investments.

I join you in welcoming our witnesses to today's hearing, which presents us with a good opportunity to discuss the impact of the U.S. R&D enterprise on our economy and our society overall. Among individual countries, the United States is by far the largest investor in public and private R&D, comprising 30 percent of the global R&D total. Past and current budget realities, however, underscore the importance of maximizing our federal investments so we can get the biggest bang for our buck, and should encourage an examination of ways to leverage even more private sector resources to expand the reach of our R&D.

The America COMPETES Acts of 2007 and 2010 were designed to set our science and technology R&D priorities, and served as the authorizing vehicles for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under our committee's jurisdiction, as well as for the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Office of Science.

I know you, Mr. Chairman, and former Ranking Member Kay Bailey Hutchison worked together on the America COMPETES Acts of 2007 and 2010, and I look forward to reviewing the legislative proposal you and your staff are developing for discussion, and evaluating opportunities for consensus going forward.

At some level, there is broad bipartisan consensus that the federal government should play a significant role in promoting scientific research -- especially basic research. As Dr. Cerf points out in his testimony, businesses can rarely support sustained, long-term, high-risk research in the same way the government can; this is especially true when the benefits--though potentially large--are diffuse. But, once we get beyond the high-level agreement, the nuts and bolts of federal funding can be challenging.

As our colleagues on the House Science Committee have noted, it is not hard to find examples of federally funded research that sound more like the pet projects of eccentric billionaires than matters worthy of limited taxpayer dollars. Plus, even when we accept the scientific merits of R&D, there is no shortage of worthwhile projects with more clear-cut ends that compete with basic research for funding. In this committee, we've heard previous testimony about the importance of funding research intended to stimulate advanced manufacturing, improve forensic science, and bolster cybersecurity. All of these are laudatory goals--but some may be best achieved through means other than direct federal spending. For example, I introduced an amendment to the tax extenders legislation in May that would simplify and make permanent the R&D tax credit. This tax credit encourages businesses to continue investing in R&D and promotes jobs and manufacturing throughout the country.

In my view, the federal R&D enterprise is at its best when it supports important basic research that is foundational to discovery. For example, in my home state of South Dakota, researchers a mile below the surface at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in Lead have been conducting a world-class experiment to detect dark matter. While the applications of this research are yet to be fully understood, such research contributes to our understanding of how the universe works. I am pleased to note that NSF and DOE recently announced that they have jointly selected a portfolio of projects for the "second generation" of dark matter direct-detection experiments that will include another new experiment housed at SURF.

These existing and future dark matter experiments, which present compelling goals and opportunities for U.S. leadership in the physical sciences, include more than 100 collaborators representing 17 universities around the world, including the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology and the University of South Dakota, as well as national laboratories in the U.S., U.K., and Portugal.

Federal support for fundamental research, such as that underway at SURF and at universities across the country, can provide the foundation for many new innovations. These discoveries often provide useful applications far afield from the original research focus. Yet, to help recognize potential applications, a recent National Academy of Sciences report highlighted the need to improve the metrics and measures that track and evaluate these publicly funded research programs and their ultimate impacts on society.

Along these lines, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today both about ways to better maximize the benefits of federally-funded research, as well as barriers that are inhibiting innovation. I am also interested to hear about any challenges our witnesses in the private sector and university community have faced in investing in long-term research, as well as the obstacles they've confronted in attracting and retaining foreign-born students and workers in STEM fields. I would also like to hear from the witnesses about what policies, beyond direct funding from federal agencies, could help to unlock new sources of R&D from the private sector.

Thank you all for your participation and taking the time to share your insights with the committee.

Source