DOCSLIB.ORG

Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2013 Progress Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2013 Progress Report Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2013 Progress Report A Report from the Office of Science and Technology Policy In Response to the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and the Requirements of Section 24 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 May 2014 1 ABOUT THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) advises the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. The office serves as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal government. OSTP leads an interagency effort to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets. The office works with the private sector to ensure that Federal investments in science and technology contribute to economic prosperity, environmental quality, and national security. For more information, visit http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION This document is a work of the U.S. Government and is in the public domain (see 17 U.S.C. 105). DEPARTMENT, AGENCY, OFFICE, AND DIVISION ABBREVIATIONS AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory (part of Air Force/DOD) ARL Army Research Laboratory (part of Army/DOD) ASPR Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (part of HHS) CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (part of HHS) CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (part of HHS) DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (part of DOD) DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy DOJ Department of Justice DTRA Defense Threats Reduction Agency (part of DOD) EPA Environmental Protection Agency EERE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (part of DOE) FTC Federal Trade Commission GSA General Services Administration HHS Department of Health and Human Services HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration (part of HHS) HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NCI National Cancer Institute (part of NIH/HHS) NCIPC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (part of CDC/HHS) NEA National Endowment for the Arts NEH National Endowment for the Humanities 2 NEI National Eye Institute (part of NIH/HHS) NIBIB National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (part of NIH/HHS) NIDA National Institute on Drug Abuse (part of NIH/HHS) NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (part of NIH/HHS) NIH National Institutes of Health (part of HHS) NIJ National Institute of Justice (part of DOJ) NSF National Science Foundation ODPHP Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (part of HHS) OMB Office of Management and Budget (part of the Executive Office of the President) OMH Office of Minority Health (part of HHS) ONC Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (part of HHS) ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy (part of the Executive Office of the President) OPM Office of Personnel Management OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy (part of the Executive Office of the President) SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (part of HHS) State Department of State USAID United States Agency for International Development USGS United States Geological Survey (part of the Department of Interior) 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 7 1. BENEFITS OF PRIZES IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR ....................................................................................... 8 2. SUPPORT FOR SCALING THE USE OF PRIZES ..................................................................................... 12 3. HIGHLIGHTS AND TRENDS FROM PRIZES CONDUCTED UNDER COMPETES IN FY 2013 ......................... 15 4. SUMMARY OF PRIZES CONDUCTED UNDER COMPETES IN FY 2013 ................................................. 22 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................... 27 APPENDIX 1: AGENCY PROGRAMS CONDUCTED UNDER THE PRIZE AUTHORITY PROVIDED BY COMPETES ......... 28 APPENDIX 2: AGENCY PROGRAMS CONDUCTED UNDER OTHER AUTHORITIES .............................................. 109 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 4, 2011, President Obama signed into the law the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (COMPETES). Section 105 of COMPETES added Section 24 (Prize Competitions) to the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (Stevenson- Wydler), granting all agencies broad authority to conduct prize competitions to spur innovation, solve tough problems, and advance their core missions. Prizes have an established record of spurring innovation in the private and philanthropic sectors. This report details examples of how, under the right circumstances, well-designed prizes, integrated into a broader innovation strategy, have enabled Federal agencies to: • Pay only for success and establish an ambitious goal without having to predict which team or approach is most likely to succeed; • Reach beyond the “usual suspects” to increase the number of solvers tackling a problem and to identify novel approaches, without bearing high-levels of risk; • Bring out-of-discipline perspectives to bear; and • Increase cost-effectiveness to maximize the return on taxpayer dollars. The Obama Administration has taken important steps to make prizes a standard tool in every agency’s innovation toolbox. The September 2009 Strategy for American Innovation1 recognized the potential for prizes to mobilize America’s ingenuity to solve some of the Nation’s most pressing challenges. In March 2010, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a formal policy framework2 to guide agency leaders in using prizes to advance their core missions. In September 2010, the Administration launched Challenge.gov3, a one- stop shop where entrepreneurs and citizen solvers can find public-sector prizes. By September 2013, Challenge.gov had featured more than 280 competitions from over 45 Federal agencies, departments, and bureaus. The prize authority provided by COMPETES supports this effort. By giving agencies a clear legal path, the legislation has made it dramatically easier for agencies to use prizes, subject to the availability of appropriations or other allowed sources of funds. By significantly expanding the authority of all Federal agencies to conduct prize competitions, the legislation enables agencies to pursue more ambitious prizes with robust incentives. Since the signing of COMPETES in January 2011, the Administration has laid the policy and legal groundwork to take maximum advantage of the new prize authority in the years to come. Policy and legal staff in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) jointly developed a Fact Sheet and Frequently Asked Questions 1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/innovation/strategy and http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/innovationstrategy-prizes.pdf 2 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-11.pdf 3 http://www.challenge.gov/ 5 memorandum,4 issued in August 2011, which provided guidance to assist with implementation of the new, government-wide authority. Agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have established strategies and policies to accelerate widespread use of the new prize authority granted to them through COMPETES. Some agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), HHS, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), have personnel dedicated to lead prize design and administration efforts at their agencies and to provide internal support to program managers interested in making use of prizes. As many agencies expand their use of the prize authority provided to them under COMPETES, some agencies have continued to administer prizes and challenges developed under other pre- existing authorities, including agency-specific authorities, grant-making authority, and procurement authority, such as that provided by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), adding additional lessons learned and best practices regarding the use of prizes and challenges. In addition, as called for in Section 24(n) of Stevenson-Wydler, in July 2011, the General Services Administration (GSA) launched a contract vehicle5 to dramatically decrease the amount of time required for agencies to tap the private-sector expertise that is so critical to early success. In addition, a government-wide Center of Excellence, led by NASA, provided support to multiple agencies for the full lifecycle of their pilot prize competitions: from design, through implementation, to post-prize evaluation. The authority provided in COMPETES has led to significant new efforts, applying prizes to national priority areas including energy, climate change resilience, health, and employment. Since its creation, 68 prize competitions have been offered through the authority provided by COMPETES. The number of prizes conducted under this authority increased significantly in FY 2013 to 41, up over 50% compared to FY 2012 and a nearly six-fold increase compared to FY
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FROM LONGITUDE to ALTITUDE: INDUCEMENT PRIZE CONTESTS AS INSTRUMENTS of PUBLIC POLICY in SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY Clayton Stallbau
    FROM LONGITUDE TO ALTITUDE: INDUCEMENT PRIZE CONTESTS AS INSTRUMENTS OF PUBLIC POLICY IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Clayton Stallbaumer* I. INTRODUCTION On a foggy October night in 1707, a fleet of Royal Navy warships ran aground on the Isles of Scilly, some twenty miles southwest of England.1 Believing themselves to be safely west of any navigational hazards, two thousand sailors discovered too late that they had fatally misjudged their position.2 Although the search for an accurate method to determine longitude had bedeviled Europe for several centuries, the “sudden loss of so many lives, so many ships, and so much honor all at once” elevated the discovery of a solution to a top national priority in England.3 In 1714, Parliament issued the Longitude Act,4 promising as much as £20,0005 for a “Practicable and Useful” method of determining longitude at sea; fifty-nine years later, clockmaker John Harrison claimed the prize.6 Nearly three centuries after the fleet’s tragic demise, another accident, also fatal but far removed from longitude’s terrestrial reach, struck a nation deeply. Just four days after its crew observed a moment’s silence in memory of the Challenger astronauts, the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated upon reentry, killing all on board.7 Although * J.D., University of Illinois College of Law, 2006; M.B.A., University of Illinois College of Business, 2006; B.A., Economics, B.A., History, Lake Forest College, 2001. 1. DAVA SOBEL, LONGITUDE: THE TRUE STORY OF A LONE GENIUS WHO SOLVED THE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM OF HIS TIME 12 (1995).
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenge Prize— History and Opportunity
    1 THE CHALLENGE PRIZE— HISTORY AND OPPORTUNITY By Larry E. Tise, PhD Historian President, International Congress of Distinguished Awards February 2006 © Larry E. Tise 2006 The Challenge Prize: What Is It? The “Challenge Prize” is a special type of award or prize that has been employed throughout human history to encourage new creative, innovative, and often heroic achievements. The offer of a challenge reward has been used historically to draw forth previously unknown individuals to lead armies to conquests, to motivate individuals or teams in sport to championships, to find hidden secrets in nature, to discover mysteries in science, to innovate new tools to facilitate research, and to produce products that might prove adaptable in altering or “improving” life or the human condition. Kings, generals, and the captains of industry have understood the usefulness of throwing out a challenge that might just captivate the imagination or spirit of a single human being to produce a product or result that can advance national leadership, military conquest, or a hefty profit. Whether issued in the form of promised reward heralded by royal trumpeters and posted on every tree in the realm, issued before throngs of citizenry or soldiery, or posted on the internet as a request for proposals (RFP), the notion of a earning or winning a prize for producing a result that surpasses all others or solves a particular problem, humans— particularly in competitive and entrepreneurial societies—are fully familiar with the notion of the challenge prize and recognize—viscerally if not consciously—the allurement and romance of meeting a challenge, being proclaimed the victor, and securing the promised reward.
    [Show full text]
  • DARPA Grand Challenge - Wikipedia 1 of 11
    DARPA Grand Challenge - Wikipedia 1 of 11 DARPA Grand Challenge The DARPA Grand Challenge is a prize competition for American autonomous vehicles, funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the most prominent research organization of the United States Department of Defense. Congress has authorized DARPA to award cash prizes to further DARPA's mission to sponsor revolutionary, high- payoff research that bridges the gap between fundamental discoveries and military use. The initial DARPA Grand Challenge was created to spur the development of technologies needed to create the first fully autonomous ground vehicles capable of completing a substantial off-road course within a limited time. The third event, the DARPA Urban Challenge extended the initial Challenge to The site of the DARPA Grand Challenge on race autonomous operation in a mock urban environment. day, fronted by the Team Case vehicle, DEXTER The most recent Challenge, the 2012 DARPA Robotics Challenge, focused on autonomous emergency- maintenance robots. The first competition of the DARPA Grand Challenge was held on March 13, 2004 in the Mojave Desert region of the United States, along a 150-mile (240 km) route that follows along the path of Interstate 15 from just before Barstow, California to just past the California–Nevada border in Primm. None of the robot vehicles finished the route. Carnegie Mellon University's Red Team and car Sandstorm (a converted Humvee) traveled the farthest distance, completing 11.78 km (7.32 mi) of the course before getting hung up on a rock after making a switchback turn. No winner was declared, and the cash prize was not given.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Innovation Prizes: a Theoretical, Normative, and Empirical Evaluation
    Research Policy 41 (2012) 1779–1792 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Research Policy jou rnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/respol Grand Innovation Prizes: A theoretical, normative, and empirical evaluation a,∗ b a,1 c Fiona Murray , Scott Stern , Georgina Campbell , Alan MacCormack a MIT Sloan School of Management, 100 Main Street – e62-470, Cambridge, MA 02142, United States b MIT Sloan School of Management and NBER, 100 Main Street – e62-474, Cambridge, MA 02142, United States c Harvard Business School, Soldiers Field Road, Boston, MA 02163, United States a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: This paper provides a systematic examination of the use of a Grand Innovation Prize (GIP) in action – the Received 16 May 2011 Progressive Automotive Insurance X PRIZE –a $10 million prize for a highly efficient vehicle. Following a Received in revised form 7 June 2012 mechanism design approach we define three key dimensions for GIP evaluation: objectives, design, and Accepted 17 June 2012 performance, where prize design includes ex ante specifications, ex ante incentives, qualification rules, Available online 31 October 2012 and award governance. Within this framework we compare observations of GIPs from three domains – empirical reality, theory, and policy –tobetter understand their function as an incentive mechanism Keywords: for encouraging new solutions to large-scale social challenges. Combining data from direct observation, Innovation personal interviews, and surveys, together with analysis of extant theory and policy documents on GIPs, X PRIZE Incentive our results highlight three points of divergence: first, over the complexity of defining prize specifications; Energy secondly, over the nature and role of incentives, particularly patents; thirdly, the overlooked challenges Competition associated with prize governance.
    [Show full text]
  • Federally Funded Innovation Inducement Prizes
    Federally Funded Innovation Inducement Prizes Deborah D. Stine Specialist in Science and Technology Policy June 29, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40677 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Federally Funded Innovation Inducement Prizes Summary Since at least the 18th century, philanthropic organizations, industry, governments, and nongovernmental organizations throughout the world have offered many different kinds of prizes with a variety of objectives to reward accomplishments in science and technology. In the United States, Congress authorized most of today’s federally-funded innovation inducement prizes beginning with the 108th Congress (2003). This analysis focuses on federally-funded “innovation inducement prizes,” which are sponsored by federal organizations and designed to encourage scientists and engineers to pursue scientific and technical societal goals not yet reached. The objectives of such prizes are generally to identify new or unorthodox ideas or approaches to particular challenges; demonstrate the feasibility or potential of particular technologies; promote development and diffusion of specific technologies; address intractable or neglected societal challenges; and educate the public about the excitement and usefulness of research and innovation. They differ from “recognition prizes” such as the National Medal of Science, National Medal of Technology, and the Nobel prizes, which reward past S&T accomplishments. The scientific and technological goals for federally-funded innovation inducement prizes include the full spectrum of research, development, testing, demonstration, and deployment. They are an alternative to more traditional ways of achieving societal objectives with S&T such as grants, contracts, fees, patents, and human or physical infrastructure investments that some think are too costly, risk-averse, and bureaucratic.
    [Show full text]
  • FCC TAC AI-WG Artificial Intelligence
    Federal Communications Commission Technological Advisory Council Meeting December 1, 2020 FCC Technological Advisory Council Agenda – December 1, 2020 10am – 10:15am Introduction and Opening Remarks 10:15am – 10:30am Announcements and Roll Call FCC Chairman’s Remarks 10:30am – 11am WG Recommendations (5 minutes for each WG) 11am – 11:45am Artificial Intelligence WG 11:45am – 12:30pm Future of Unlicensed Operations WG 12:30pm – 1:00pm Lunch Break 1pm – 1:45pm 5G RAN Technology WG 1:45pm – 2:30pm 5G IoT WG 2:30pm – 3:00pm Closing Remarks 3pm Adjourned 2 FCC TAC Artificial Intelligence and Computing Working Group [AIWG] – Chairman’s Briefing Chairs: Lisa Guess, Cradlepoint Adam Drobot, OpenTechWorks, Inc. FCC Liaisons:Michael Ha, Mark Bykowsky, Monisha Ghosh, Martin Doczkat, Robert Pavlak, Chrysanthos Chrysanthou, Gulmira Mustapaeva Date: December 1, 2020 2020 FCC TAC AIWG Team Members • Shahid Ahmed, Independent • Nageen Himayat, Intel • Sujata Banerjee, VMware • Steve Lanning, Viasat • Nomi Bergman, Advance • Gabriel Lennon, Intern Univ of Colorado • William Check, NCTA • Kevin Leddy, Charter • Brian Daly, ATT • Anne Lee, Nokia • Adam Drobot, OpenTechWorks • Brian Markwalter, CTA • Jeffrey Foerster, Intel • Lynn Merrill, NTCA • James Goel, Qualcomm • Jack Nasielski, Qualcomm • Lisa Guess, Cradlepoint • Michael Nawrocki, ATIS • Russ Gyurek, Cisco • Dennis Roberson, entigenlogic • Dale Hatfield, Univ of Colorado • Marvin Sirbu, SGE • Stephen Hayes, Ericsson • David Tennenhouse, VMware • Mark Hess, Comcast 4 FCC TAC AIWG Activities in FY2020 Issues Addressed Strategic Priorities Industry Trends 1. Leveraging Federal Investments in AI 1. Closing the Digital Divide 2. Promoting Innovation 2. Understanding Data needs for AI 3. Protecting Consumers and 3. Extracting value from AI and Data to Public Safety address issues of importance to the FCC 4.
    [Show full text]
  • US Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts
    Federal Aviation Administration 2008 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts: Vehicles, Technologies, and Spaceports January 2008 HQ-08368.INDD 2008 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts About FAA/AST About the Office of Commercial Space Transportation The Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/AST) licenses and regulates U.S. commercial space launch and reentry activity, as well as the operation of non-federal launch and reentry sites, as authorized by Executive Order 12465 and Title 49 United States Code, Subtitle IX, Chapter 701 (formerly the Commercial Space Launch Act). FAA/AST’s mission is to ensure public health and safety and the safety of property while protecting the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States during commercial launch and reentry operations. In addition, FAA/AST is directed to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries. Additional information concerning commercial space transportation can be found on FAA/AST’s web site at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/. Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation i About FAA/AST 2008 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts NOTICE Use of trade names or names of manufacturers in this document does not constitute an official endorsement of such products or manufacturers, either expressed or implied, by the Federal Aviation Administration. ii Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation 2008 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Contents Table of Contents Introduction . .1 Space Competitions . .1 Expendable Launch Vehicle Industry . .2 Reusable Launch Vehicle Industry .
    [Show full text]
  • Carlson, Jaffe, Wiles. (Eds.) the Millennium Prize Problems (AMS, 2006)(ISBN 082183679X)(142S) M .Pdf
    CMI Clay Mathematics Institute AMS American Mathematical Society On August 8, 1900, at the second International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris, David Hilbert delivered his famous lecture in which he described twenty-three problems that were to play an infl uential role in mathematical research. A century later, on May 24, 2000, at a meeting at the Collège de France, the Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI) announced the creation of a The Millennium Prize Problems US$7 million prize fund for the solution of seven important classic problems which have resisted solution. The prize fund is divided equally among the seven problems. There is no time limit for their solution. The Millennium Prize Problems were selected by the founding Scientifi c Advisory Board of CMI—Alain Connes, Arthur Jaffe, Andrew iles, and Edward itten—after consulting with other leading mathematicians. The Millennium Their aim was somewhat different than that of Hilbert: not to defi ne new challenges, but to record some of the most diffi cult issues with which mathematicians were struggling at the turn of the second millennium; to Prize Problems recognize achievement in mathematics of historical dimension; to elevate in the consciousness of the general public the fact that in mathematics, the frontier is still open and abounds in important unsolved problems; and to J. Carlson, A. Jaffe, and A. iles, Editors emphasize the importance of working towards a solution of the deepest, most diffi cult problems. The present volume sets forth the offi cial description of each of the seven problems and the rules governing the prizes. It also contains an essay by Jeremy Gray on the history of prize problems in mathematics.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Innovation Prizes in Government Collaborating Across
    Managing Innovation Prizes in Government Luciano Kay School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Collaborating Across Boundaries Series Collaborating Cover photo: DARPA Urban Challenge, 2007, www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/gallery.asp 2011 COLLABORATING ACROSS BOUNDARIES SERIES Managing Innovation Prizes in Government Luciano Kay School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ..............................................................................................4 Executive Summary ..............................................................................6 Introduction .........................................................................................8 A Brief History of Prizes ................................................................8 The Structure of Innovation Prizes ...............................................10 Types of Impacts from Prizes .......................................................10 Case Studies: Recent Prizes in the Aerospace and Defense Sectors ........ 12 The Challenge of Designing a Prize Competition .............................16 Designing the Prize ....................................................................16 Implementing the Prize................................................................22 Evaluating the Prize .....................................................................25 Conclusions ........................................................................................27 Innovation Prizes as an Alternative Policy
    [Show full text]
  • SELECTED INNOVATION PRIZES and REWARD PROGRAMS KEI Research Note 2008:1
    SELECTED INNOVATION PRIZES AND REWARD PROGRAMS KEI Research Note 2008:1 Table of Contents Introduction.........................................................................................................4 Deutsch-Archdeacon Prize (1903)...............................................................11 Agriculture and Food..........................................................................................6 Scientific American Prize (1908).................................................................11 Académie de Besançon Prize for Substitute Foods (1771)............................6 English Channel Crossing Prize (1909).......................................................11 Sainte-Lucie Prize for the Best Processed Sugar, the Best Rum, and the Rheims Airshow Prizes (1909)....................................................................11 Best Cotton Mill (1780s)................................................................................6 Milan Committee Prize (1910)....................................................................12 Napoleon's Food Preservation Prize (1795)...................................................6 Hearst Prize (1910)......................................................................................12 Elkington Reward for Drainage Technology (1795)....................................7 Daily Mail Trans-Atlantic Prize (1913).......................................................12 Dutch Prize for Sugar from Native Plants.....................................................7 Orteig Prize
    [Show full text]
  • The Millennium Prize Problems
    CMI Clay Mathematics Institute AMS American Mathematical Society On August 8, 1900, at the second International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris, David Hilbert delivered his famous lecture in which he described twenty-three problems that were to play an infl uential role in mathematical research. A century later, on May 24, 2000, at a meeting at the Collège de France, the Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI) announced the creation of a The Millennium Prize Problems US$7 million prize fund for the solution of seven important classic problems which have resisted solution. The prize fund is divided equally among the seven problems. There is no time limit for their solution. The Millennium Prize Problems were selected by the founding Scientifi c Advisory Board of CMI—Alain Connes, Arthur Jaffe, Andrew Wiles, and Edward Witten—after consulting with other leading mathematicians. The Millennium Their aim was somewhat different than that of Hilbert: not to defi ne new challenges, but to record some of the most diffi cult issues with which mathematicians were struggling at the turn of the second millennium; to Prize Problems recognize achievement in mathematics of historical dimension; to elevate in the consciousness of the general public the fact that in mathematics, the frontier is still open and abounds in important unsolved problems; and to J. Carlson, A. Jaffe, and A. Wiles, Editors emphasize the importance of working towards a solution of the deepest, most diffi cult problems. The present volume sets forth the offi cial description of each of the seven problems and the rules governing the prizes. It also contains an essay by Jeremy Gray on the history of prize problems in mathematics.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2012 Progress Report
    Implementation of Federal Prize Authority: Fiscal Year 2012 Progress Report A Report from the Office of Science and Technology Policy In Response to the Requirements of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 December 2013 ABOUT THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) advises the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. The office serves as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal government. OSTP leads an interagency effort to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets. The office works with the private sector to ensure Federal investments in science and technology contribute to economic prosperity, environmental quality, and national security. For more information, visit http://www.ostp.gov. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION This document is a work of the U.S. Government and is in the public domain (see 17 U.S.C. 105). 2 DEPARTMENT, AGENCY, OFFICE, AND DIVISION ABBREVIATIONS AF Air Force (part of DOD) AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory (part of AF/DOD) CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (part of HHS) CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (part of HHS) DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (part of DOD) DOC Department of Commerce DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy DOL Department of Labor EPA Environmental Protection Agency EERE Office of Energy Efficiency and
    [Show full text]