And Media Partner

Innovation | Climate Change | Research and the Future | Education
Energy | Fresh Water | The Internet | Science in Public Policy

It is widely acknowledged that Federal investment in science and technology contributes to economic growth and sustained prosperity.  The United States has historically led in global research and development, but other countries—notably China—are recognizing the correlation between increased funding and technological innovation.  The United States now ranks eighth when research and development expenditures are calculated as a fraction of a nation’s Gross Domestic Product.  We have not lost our position as a global leader in science and technology innovation, but even the best policies will not lead to continued advancements and breakthroughs without financial commitments to the fields of science and technology from our Federal and state governments.

Luckily, we already have a comprehensive assessment of the standing of investment and productivity from which to develop policy. In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences evaluated U.S. performance in science and technology investment. Recommendations from that study informed the policy in the America COMPETES Act of 2007 and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. Both Acts called for a doubling of the Federal investments in basic research at the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science to maintain the United States’ position at the forefront of global innovation. But subsequent budget requests from two administrations, annual appropriations, and legislation stretched out that doubling trajectory from seven years to anywhere from 11 to more than 18 years. Both parties have spared these areas from more significant funding cuts, but our government reduces funding and investment in proven economic drivers without consideration of the consequences.

Certainly the financial crisis and the fallout from blindly slashing agency budgets to reduce the deficit have contributed to the current political climate surrounding investment. But we must realize that forward-thinking policy and investments lead to economic prosperity that, in turn, supports greater breakthroughs in innovation. I will continue to push for science and technology research and education because they put our economic recovery on a stronger course; however, we can all do more to publicize the tangible benefits that greater investment in science and technology has on our global competitiveness.

There is clear and compelling scientific evidence that anthropogenic climate change is occurring.  Ultimately, for this issue to be addressed in a meaningful way, a global effort will have to be coordinated that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emission in both the developed and developing world.  The United States should first show leadership in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

The initial step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions must promote technology and practices to increase energy efficiency.  In the transportation sector, the new CAFE standards for model years 2017-2025 are expected to decrease greenhouse by 2 billion metric tons.  This is a clear step forward, but we must continue to spur efficiencies in the residential and commercial sectors and promote combined heat and power systems that can dramatically increase energy efficiency in the industrial sector while reducing cost.

We also need to explore alternative fuels with lower greenhouse gas emission profiles, integrate larger amounts or renewable into the electric grid and develop ways to use natural gas and coal in cleaner ways.  To drive investment and provide the certainty needed to develop these technologies, some form of pricing mechanism will be needed to reflect the cost of greenhouse gases that is currently being paid by society.  Incorporating a pricing mechanism into our climate policy would likely be more efficient at driving down greenhouse gas emissions at a lower cost than the current policy of regulating such emissions under the Clean Air Act.  We saw success with the cap and trade mechanism in reducing acid rain at a significantly lower cost than originally anticipated.  If we don't act swiftly to embrace the changes required to address this global challenge we could also face a carbon tax.  No matter what mechanism the United States ultimately decides to employ in addressing climate change, it must be implemented in a way that minimizes costs and recognizes the impacts on different regions of the country, like my home state of West Virginia.

Predictable and sustained research investments are necessary if we are to prevent the loss of our competitive edge, which is why I have fought for R&D investments for many years.  The United States has historically enacted policies that deliberately advance science and technology through creating the economic and intellectual conditions needed for innovation. The international community is now recognizing areas of policy that have enabled the United States to maintain its competitive edge in science and technology. Countries like Japan, Germany, China, and South Korea have developed the technology to compete in industries once dominated by the United States.

An area where the United States continues to lead, for example, is in nanotechnology R&D and commercialization, but the European Union and Russia have outspent the U.S. in government funding for nanotechnology research. The Senate Commerce Committee has focused on national investment in nanotechnology and its potential to transform such fields as health care, homeland security, and information technology. Continued funding and new legislation would help to fully realize the economic return on the federal investment in this area. The National Nanotechnology Initiative is a great example of cross-agency cooperation working toward shared goals and priorities that has allowed the U.S. to gain global leadership in the field. The United States is able to pioneer research and development, but we will need to translate early successes into effective commercialization if we want to reap the full economic potential of new fields.

Concurrent with the long-term investments in research is the need to invest in STEM education. The trend is clear: Globalization and outsourcing, combined with a decrease in U.S. preeminence in scientific and technological advancement, has led to job losses. The United States has lost 28 percent of the high-technology manufacturing jobs that existed in 2000 while nearly 85 percent of R&D-related employment growth by U.S. multinational companies since 2004 has been abroad. Policies to encourage STEM education for U.S. students and contribute to effective learning will increase our workforce’s capabilities to compete in a 21^st Century global economy.

Our nation’s competitiveness and economic prosperity, however, depends on encouraging more participation in the research enterprise. The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) was created to help states underfunded by the National Science Foundation develop the research capacity necessary to compete on a global scale. Our economic future depends on research capabilities extending beyond top-tier universities and institutions to facilities where innovation can still thrive.

I worry that we Americans are spending too much time watching sports and entertainment - and too little time on educational achievement. Education plays a critical role in keeping America competitive.  As the economy becomes more driven by technology, our workforce will need to become more proficient in STEM fields in order to remain competitive on the job market.  Over the last 10 years, STEM jobs were created three times faster than non-STEM jobs.  However, American students are finding themselves ill prepared to excel in college; 20 percent of high school students entering college have to take at least one remedial class to prepare for university-level coursework.  Furthermore, we are losing foreign students studying at advanced levels in the United States to their home countries who return to become leading researchers and innovators.

Legislation in Congress, including the DREAM Act, would provide students with opportunities to further their education and properly prepare for advanced job requirements. And increasing the number of visas allocated for foreign students earning STEM degrees would keep qualified workers in the country and ensure the United States remains competitive, though we can't decrease other green card programs that support other legal immigration.

The majority of the fastest-growing occupations in the United States depend on intimate knowledge of math and science. Yet we are failing our students by improperly preparing them for advanced careers.  U.S. students typically score below the average of OECD nations on international math and science tests. And universities in Asia are now awarding more than half of all engineering degrees.

But our investments in STEM must be strategic.  At a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman gave important testimony about the need to dramatically change how we teach STEM subjects to both students and educators.  Teachers—from elementary school through higher education—need to understand the learning process, scientific method and STEM information in order to successfully instruct and inspire students.  Changing our teacher education programs is a serious challenge, but one that must be confronted to develop a competitive American workforce.

The economic incentives for graduates in STEM fields are also clear. Workers in STEM fields tend to earn a higher salary, on average, and the unemployment rate is historically lower. Despite the national level of unemployment, the United States is facing an overall shortage of STEM workers. Many CEOs are also calling for higher standards for STEM proficiency in U.S. schools, citing the future needs of their companies.

A February 2012 report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology found that one million additional STEM graduates will be needed in the next ten years to fill the growing number of jobs requiring STEM knowledge outside of the traditional STEM fields. We need to improve job training to align our workforce with the skills demanded by the global economy. And we need to find ways to train people to fill these jobs today while preparing students for future high-tech jobs.

There are challenges ahead to properly educate and prepare U.S. students for STEM competency. But programs like NASA's "Summer of Innovation" and the President's "Educate to Innovate" are in place to motivate and inspire students in STEM education. U.S. leadership in research and innovation is ultimately at risk without a skilled workforce with knowledge in STEM fields.

Any comprehensive national energy policy must be based upon providing cleaner, domestic, reliable and affordable energy.  Often these objectives can be conflicting, but we must not accept arguments that we have to choose between these goals.  Rather we should continue seeking improvements in the way we use all energy sources.  We must focus on bringing together wind, solar, natural gas, biofuels, hydroelectric, geothermal and advanced clean coal as part of a diversified energy portfolio since there is no single solution.  Then, we can seek to improve each energy resource individually and better integrate them collectively.  Improving energy efficiency—doing the same with less—is the cheapest and easiest step we can take to increase the security and sustainability of our energy supply.

Increasing our domestic energy production in a clean and sustainable manner will contribute to local economic development and create well-paying jobs in ways that ensure future energy consumption is economically viable. As an example, I firmly believe that there is great promise in advanced technologies, such as Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), that can allow us to use our domestic coal and natural gas with greatly reduced carbon emissions.  At the same time, the CO₂ that is captured from power plants can be used to extract more oil from depleted domestic oil fields through enhanced oil recovery. Additionally, when combined with biomass, co-firing CCS can lead to completely carbon neutral electricity.  This is a win-win technology that will allow us to increase our energy security, benefit from our domestic coal and natural resources, and reduce our environmental impact. We need to think innovatively to encourage widespread development and deployment of CCS. Beyond that, legislation I co-authored in 2010 would create funding for research, financial incentives for large-scale deployment, and technology standards for new power plants. There is also great promise in Underground Coal Gasification.

Clean water is absolutely essential to daily life and survival. But we are facing a potential global resource crisis as the use of water has increased six-fold while the world’s population has only tripled. In areas where water resources are limited we see conflict between multiple needs such as drinking supplies, irrigation and even energy development.  At the same time, existing water supplies are being impacted by climate change and overexploitation.

There are no easy solutions to this problem.  Water desalinization and treatment is possible but incredibly energy intensive.  Conservation needs to be the starting point of the discussion about water policy.  Additionally, we need to continue funding research conducted by the Department of Energy into the energy-water nexus and find ways to reduce the water demands of energy production.

The Internet is the key to our nation’s growing digital economy.  It has become the essential infrastructure of our day and is how we will grow our economy, expand businesses, foster innovation, increase access to education, improve healthcare, and even transform entertainment in the years to come.

Our country has a strong history of making sure that everyone has access to modern communications networks.  In the past, the Federal government’s efforts have been focused on working to ensure that all communities were connected to basic telephone service.  Now, that the Internet plays such an integral role in our economy, having widespread access to high-speed broadband service will be essential for Americans to compete and to remain at the forefront of global innovation and commerce, especially in science and technology.  As a result, the Federal government must work to ensure that every community has access to broadband.  That is why I continue to support efforts to refocus the nation’s universal service fund program to spur additional broadband deployment.  These reforms will direct our resources to expanding Internet access, especially in unserved or underserved areas.

American innovation spurred by the Internet will only abide if we enforce a free and open Internet and ensure strong protections for privacy for persons using the Internet.  The Federal government also must retain the ability to enforce key longstanding consumer protections over our new advanced communications networks.  Many of the key laws governing our nation’s telecommunications must be updated or clarified to reflect our new broadband-centric society, while still maintaining the core values and strong protections on which Americans have come to rely.

The Federal government will also need to review wireless technologies as more and more Americans access the Internet from mobile devices.  Earlier this year, Congress passed a law I authored to free up a large amount of wireless spectrum for commercial broadband services.  Spectrum is a natural resource that is the lifeblood of the explosive growth we have seen in wireless Internet access services.  At the same time, we were able to use revenues from the auction of this spectrum to address a pressing national security and public safety need – the creation of a dedicated nationwide, interoperable wireless broadband network for our first responders.

The Internet and what it has done for our country is unparalleled. But everything that we have accomplished in this Internet age is now vulnerable.  When the control systems for our nation’s most critical infrastructure—such as nuclear power plants, financial markets, a region’s water supply, and hospital ventilation systems—were built, it was impossible to think they would some day be connected to the Internet. This critical infrastructure is now susceptible to cyber attacks from adversaries who can use the Internet to exploit vulnerabilities and cripple our economy or national security.  As the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have worked with senators from both sides to increase our cybersecurity. Our efforts culminated in compromise legislation that would create an incentives-based, voluntary approach that encourages critical infrastructure companies to adopt practices to protect their systems. It would also allow the government and private sector to share threat and vulnerability information, while protecting privacy and civil liberties.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership sided with beltway lobbyists and the U.S. Chamber of Congress over the professional advice of our nation’s military and national security officials, and filibustered the Cybersecurity Act in July 2012. This is yet another example of Congress failing to act on an immediate threat—the FBI Director has said cyber threats will soon overtake conventional terrorism as the top national security concern of the FBI—with legislation that is the result of more than three years of hearings and meetings with the private sector and interest groups and addresses the many concerns of senators.

President Obama is now considering an executive order that would include most of our bill’s provisions but would not be able to extend incentives such as liability protection to those companies that implement voluntary standards. I commend his decision to protect the nation from cyber attacks in the face of opposition and share his belief that even with an executive order, there will remain a need for legislation to fully address our cyber vulnerabilities. In other words, the Internet has raised us up in many ways, and it can also destroy us due to inexcusable inattention to cybersecurity.

Collaboration between our leading experts in science and technology and Congress and federal agencies is the only way that public policy decisions will be made using sound science. The work we perform on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee reaches across many disciplines. When drafting policy or regulations, we need to solicit advice from a spectrum of experts—from universities, nonprofits, industry, or scientific and professional societies—who deal in the issues every day.

For example, the National Academy of Sciences, the Innocence Project, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Washington Post, and many others have all called for strengthened forensic science and standards. We met with many stakeholders and scientific experts to determine best practices to bring twenty-first century advancements in technology and testing to forensic science. The result of this effort was the Forensic Science and Standards Act, which would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop forensic science standards in consultation with standards development organizations. The standards would be implemented by a committee comprised of research scientists, forensic science practitioners, and members of the legal and law enforcement agencies, along with the Attorney General and the Director of NIST, to ensure they adhere to science-based priorities. The process we went through to develop the legislation is an example of how Congress can work directly with experts to create policy based on the latest scientific and technological information. 

At the same time, the scientific integrity of agencies should remain sacrosanct.  Scientific and technical information plays a significant role in the development of public policy, making it important that the scientific advice provided to policymakers is both impartial and of the highest integrity.  In 2009, the President, through the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), required that each agency develop a scientific integrity policy specific to their agency mission and needs.  The goal is to ensure that technical rigor and transparency are maintained while protecting science from political interference across administrations.  Since 2009, more than 20 federal agencies have submitted drafts to OSTP for review and release for public comment.  In February, OSTP announced that it had completed its review of scientific integrity policies submitted by the agencies and found that each one met or exceeded the minimum requirements.