Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce

MEMORANDUM

TO: MEMBERS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION FROM: REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE STAFF DATE: April 23, 2021 RE: COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE NOMINATIONS HEARING, April 29, 2021 ______

On Thursday, April 29, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will hold a full committee hearing in SR-253 on the following nomination:

• Eric Lander, of Massachusetts, to be Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy

The nominee’s responses to the committee questionnaire can be accessed on the committee's website. If you would like to review the confidential portions of the nominee’s committee questionnaire or financial disclosures, please contact Steven Wall at 202-224-1242 or Kennedy Pope at 202-224-1249.

ERIC LANDER, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

OVERVIEW

On January 15, 2021, President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate Eric Lander as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Senate received his official nomination on January 20, 2021.

BIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

Eric Lander is a geneticist, molecular biologist, and mathematician. He served from 2004 until 2021 as President and Founding Director of the Broad Institute, consolidating the MIT and Harvard biomedical research communities in a network of more than 4,000 staff members and 300 affiliated faculty. Lander had been a professor of biology at MIT since 1989 until his nomination by President Joe Biden, in addition to serving simultaneously as a professor of systems biology at Harvard Medical School from 2004 to 2021. He taught courses at Harvard Business School from 1981 to 1990, as well.

Lander devoted his early career to creating maps of the human genome—including genetic maps, physical maps, and the sequence map of human DNA. In 1986, he founded the Whitehead Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to biomedical research at the MIT Center for Genome Research, serving as its director between 1990 and 2003. As a geneticist and molecular

1

biologist, he was also a principal leader of the international Human Genome Project, a research project with the goal of identifying, sequencing, and mapping all genes of the human genome. Between the late 1990s and early 2000s, Lander made important contributions to cancer genomics, as well, including developing methods to discover cancer subtypes based on gene expression and identifying new cancer genes based on genome sequencing. He chaired a committee for the National Cancer Institute that proposed The Cancer Genome Atlas, a project to create a comprehensive map of cancer genomes.

In addition to his academic experience, Lander has held advisory roles that influence public policy. President Obama appointed Lander as co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, where he served between 2009 and 2017. From 2016 to 2020, he served as a member of the Defense Innovation Board, which advises the Secretary of Defense on matters related to technological and organizational innovation, including the roles of computer science and artificial intelligence in national defense.

He was elected as a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 1997 and to the U.S. Institute of Medicine in 1999. As a mathematician per his initial academic training, Lander has been involved in multiple Supreme Court cases, filing amicus briefs on cases about gene patenting and the use of technology in gerrymandering.

Lander earned a B.A. in mathematics from Princeton University in 1978 and a doctorate in philosophy at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar in 1981. He holds honorary doctorate degrees from thirteen colleges and universities, as well.

KEY BACKGROUND ISSUES

IVF and Genetic Correction Lander advocates for “genetic correction” using preimplantation diagnostics with embryos created through in-vitro fertilization (IVF). This process allows doctors to determine whether an embryo has a genetic defect or disease through a screening process, and then only the unaffected ones are transferred back into the female’s uterus. It greatly reduces the probability that a couple will have children with an undesired genetic disorder since embryos with obvious genetic conditions are unharvested. Lander summarized the procedure, which enjoys broad support throughout the medical community, in a podcast episode titled “Playing God.” He has not articulated a clear position on what should be done with the embryos that are not transferred, although their consequent destruction is implied by the process. On the other hand, he opposes “enhancing” the genes of human embryos through a process called germline editing, which could allow humans to select the traits embryos carry by changing heritable DNA (in sperm, eggs or embryos) to make genetically modified children. He cites unresolved questions of safety, medical ethics, and the lack of international standards preventing countries from engaging in “eugenics” to make their populations artificially “stronger” or “resilient” against certain conditions and diseases.

2

Broad Institute Favoritism and Alleged Sexism Lander has been accused of prioritizing the scientific contributions of individuals associated with the Broad Institute––which he founded––over the contributions of unaffiliated scientists, including renowned female geneticists. For example, Lander wrote a widely criticized history of the revolutionary technology CRISPR that minimized the contributions of female scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, both of whom have won the Nobel Prize, and instead highlighted the work of Broad Institute-affiliated scientists. This type of conduct from Lander appears part of a pattern, which at a minimum has been characterized as favoritism toward the scientific research of his own colleagues at the Broad Institute and at most has been construed as sexist. Alleged Connection to Jeffrey Epstein Shortly after Jeffrey Epstein pled guilty to solicitation of prostitution involving an underage girl, Lander met Epstein in what he described as “an informal sandwich lunch to talk science with various people.”1 Lander claimed that he was unaware Epstein would be present. Photos from the event include pictures of Lander and Epstein together, and indicate that Epstein hosted the event.2 There was reportedly another event in 2012 at which Lander met or interacted with Epstein, but details regarding that event have not been disclosed. Separately, on the archived Epstein Foundation website, there are claims of sponsorship for “many prominent scientists,” including Lander.3 A Buzzfeed investigation confirms that Epstein sponsored scientists, but mentioned neither Lander nor the Broad Institute. It also found no confirmed record of a Harvard donation since Epstein’s guilty plea, though MIT had accepted nearly $200,000. Both MIT and Harvard conducted formal investigations into Epstein’s connections to their universities, neither of which found that Lander or the Broad Institute maintained a significant relationship with Epstein. Committee staff have received some, but not all, requested donor information for the Broad Institute for the past 10 years, and the documents received thus far do not show any donations from Jeffrey Epstein or his foundation. James Watson Toast Eric Lander led a toast in honor of scientist Dr. James Watson, who discovered the double helix and is known for racist and misogynistic views, during an event celebrating his 90th birthday at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in 2018. Dr. Watson had served as director of that laboratory before being forced to step down more than a decade ago after suggesting that black people are intellectually inferior to white people.

1 Alex Thompson, Theodoric Meyer, and Marianne Levine, Biden’s Top Scientist Met Jeffrey Epstein Twice. It’s Now Complicating His Confirmation, POLITICO (Apr. 22, 2021), https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/22/biden- top-scientist-met-jeffrey-epstein-confirmation-484159. 2 Martin Novak Institute, 2012 Meeting at Harvard hosted by Jeffrey Epstein, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6346698-2012-Meeting-Martin-Nowak-s-Office.html. 3 The Jeffrey Epstein IV Foundation, Jeffrey Epstein Ideas Forum, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20131214125819/http:/www.jeffreyepsteinforum.com/. 3

Shortly afterward, the public backlash intensified against those who offered remarks at the event. In an email to the Broad Institute, which Lander led as founding director before his nomination, he described toasting to Dr. Watson as the “wrong decision.” In particular, he noted that the embattled scientist “holds and publicly espouses views that are abhorrent,” describing them as “sexist, racist, and anti-semitic.” Although Lander said that he emphasized Dr. Watson’s contributions to the field of genetics during the toast, he did “not go nearly far enough” to characterize Watson’s “views as despicable.” Lander concluded that “they have no place in science, which must welcome everyone.”

AGENCY & KEY POLICY ISSUES

AGENCY STRUCTURE

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), within the Executive Office of the President, was established under the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976.4 OSTP advises the President on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of policies, plans, and programs of the federal government. OSTP also leads interagency science and technology policy coordination efforts, assists the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with an annual review and analysis of federal research and development (R&D) in budgets, and serves as a source of scientific and technological analysis for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the federal government.5 It is important to note that OSTP does not have direct authority over federal agencies, yet serves an important interagency coordinating role in overseeing science efforts across the federal government. OSTP is funded at $5.5 million in FY 2021.6

For the first time in history, the presidential science advisor position will be elevated to a cabinet post.7 The Director of OSTP is nominated by the President and is subject to Senate confirmation, as are at least two (and up to four) OSTP Associate Directors. The Director of OSTP is often concurrently appointed to the position of Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), the President’s lead advisor on science and technology issues. The Director of OSTP manages the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and co-chairs the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The NSTC, established in 1993 by Executive Order 12881, coordinates and establishes science and technology policy and R&D investment goals and strategies across federal agencies.8 PCAST is an advisory group of the nation’s leading scientists and engineers to advise the President on

4 P.L. 94-282 5 White House, Office of Science and Technology Policy, accessed on January 27, 2021, available at, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ 6 P.L. 116-260. 7 Office of the White House, Executive Order on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Presidential Actions, January 27, 2021, available at, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential- actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-presidents-council-of-advisors-on-science-and-technology/ 8 White House, Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Science and Technology Council, accessed on January 27, 2021, available at, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/nstc/

4

science and technology policy.9 President Biden recently re-chartered the PCAST on January 27, 2021.10

KEY POLICY ISSUES

In his committee questionnaire, Dr. Lander lists what he believes to be the top challenges facing OSTP:

• Ensure that America learns from the current pandemic in the broadest sense – about what is possible or what should become possible – to address the widest range of needs related to our public health; • Ensure that the United States will be the world leader in the technologies and industries of the future that will be critical to our economic prosperity and national security, especially in competition with China; and • Ensure that the creation and rewards of science and technology are fully shared across America and among all Americans

Administration Science Efforts

President Biden is expected to focus his administration’s scientific efforts on the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, U.S. global leadership in science and technology, and restoring “trust in science.” On January 20, 2021, President Biden wrote to Dr. Lander, posing five questions on the general strategies, specific actions, and new structures the federal government should adopt regarding science and technology.11 Specifically, the questions focused on America’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, climate change, economic prosperity and national security in competition with China, equitable distribution of the benefits of science and technology across America, and the long-term health of science and technology in America.

Biden Executive Orders: In his first month in office, President Biden has signed many executive orders and actions related to science and technology policy, including coronavirus relief efforts, America’s reentry to the Paris Climate Accords, and the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline. The President also signed a memo charging the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy with responsibility for ensuring scientific integrity across federal agencies.12

9 US Department of Energy, Office of Science, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), available at, https://science.osti.gov/About/PCAST 10 Office of the White House, Executive Order on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, presidential actions, January 27, 2021, available at, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential- actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-presidents-council-of-advisors-on-science-and-technology/. 11 Joseph R. Biden, Jr. A letter to geneticist Eric Lander from President-elect Biden, January 20, 2021, available at https://science.gmu.edu/news/letter-geneticist-eric-lander-president-elect-biden 12 Christopher Hickey, Curt Merrill, Richard J. Chang, Kate Sullivan, Janie Boschma, and Sean O’Key, Here are the executive actions Biden has signed so far, February 25, 2021, available at https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/politics/biden-executive-orders/index.html

5

Biden Infrastructure Proposal: President Biden’s $2 trillion American Jobs Plan includes more than $500 billion for research and development and manufacturing initiatives.13 He proposes Congress distribute the spending over eight years and cover the costs over 15 years by increasing corporate taxes. In releasing the plan, President Biden lamented how federal spending on R&D as a share of U.S. gross domestic product has fallen to about 0.7% from its peak of about 2% during the Apollo era. He said the plan aims to “boost America’s innovative edge in markets where global leadership is up for grabs, markets like battery technology, biotechnology, computer chips, clean energy.”14

Science: The plan includes $180 billion in additional Research and Development (R&D) to compete with China. • $50 billion for the NSF, including creating a new Technology Directorate along the lines of the Schumer/Young Endless Frontier Act • $30 billion in additional R&D funding across all federal agencies, including for rural areas • $40 billion in upgrading research infrastructure across all federal agencies (half reserved for minority institutions) • $35 billion for climate science R&D • $10 billion in R&D at HBCUs and Minority Serving Institutions to address racial and gender inequities • $15 billion in 200 centers of excellence at HBCUs and MSIs

Manufacturing/Supply Chain: The plan includes $300 billion for revitalizing manufacturing and small businesses. • $50 billion in a new office at the Department of Commerce for funding investments in supply chains, along the lines of the Endless Frontier Act • $50 billion for CHIPS Act/semiconductor funding • $20 billion in regional innovation hubs, along the lines of the Endless Frontier Act • $14 billion for NIST, including support for manufacturing extension partnership program • $31 billion in venture capital funding programs for small businesses

Broadband: The plan includes $100 billion for the deployment of high-speed broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved areas.

President’s Budget Proposal: In the preliminary budget request President Biden sent to Congress on April 9, he proposes significantly increasing spending on research and development programs across non-defense agencies for fiscal year 2022.15 These levels are mostly separate from the R&D spending the president proposed in his infrastructure initiative. As the Budget Control Act

13 White House, Fact Sheet: The American Jobs Plan, accessed April 5, 2021, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ 14 President Joseph R. Biden, Remarks by President Biden on the American Jobs Plan, accessed April 5, 2021, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/03/31/remarks-by-president-biden- on-the-american-jobs-plan/ 15 Shalanda Young, Summary of the President’s Discretionary Funding Request, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FY2022-Discretionary-Request.pdf

6

of 2011 expires with the current fiscal year, President Biden’s request is the first in a decade that does not have to contend with statutory caps on federal spending. A few science highlights include: • NSF’s budget would increase from $8.5 billion to $10.2 billion. An unspecified amount would go to a new NSF research directorate designed to “translate research into practical applications.” • While the request does not specify a topline for NIST, it proposes to increase the agency’s main research account by $128 million to $916 million • NASA’s budget would increase from $23.3 billion to $24.7 billion. • NOAA’s topline budget would increase $1.4 billion to $6.9 billion. • NIH’s budget would grow roughly 20% to $51 billion. Of the increase, $6.5 billion would go toward establishing an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA–H) • The Department of Energy’s budget would increase 10% to $46 billion under the request. Of the total, the administration states it seeks “more than $8 billion, an increase of at least 27% over 2021 funding, in technology”

U.S. Senate Republican Leader McConnell (R-KY), Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Inhofe (R-OK), Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Vice Chairman Rubio (R-FL), Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Graham (R-SC), and Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Shelby (R-AL) issued a joint statement expressing concern that the proposal would raise defense spending by less than 2 percent, or less than inflation.16 Citing competition with China, the Members stated that over the past decade, China’s defense spending has increased by $200 billion, while America’s has decreased by $400 billion.

Trump Science Accomplishments

In October 2020, OSTP published a memo highlighting the Trump administration’s accomplishments in science and technology. These accomplishments include: global competitiveness in the industries of the future (artificial intelligence, quantum science, 5G), health and the COVID-19 response, American security, ocean science, space leadership, research security, and the workforce of the future.17

The Role of U.S. Research and Development and Innovation

Science and technology (S&T) have a pervasive influence over a wide range of issues confronting the nation. Public and private R&D spur scientific and technological advancement. Such advances can drive economic growth, help address national priorities, and improve health and quality of life. More than half of the economic GDP growth in the United States during the

16 McConnell, Inhofe, Rubio, Garaham, and Shelby Statement on Biden’s Disappointing Defense Budget, accessed April 12, 2021, available at https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=287AC060- E602-4D3E-B9AD-08349B66758C 17 OSTP, Advancing America’s Global Leadership in Science and Technology: Trump Administration Highlights: 2017-2020, October 2020, available at https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Trump- Administration-ST-Highlights-2017-2020.pdf

7

first half of the twentieth century has been due to scientific and technological advancements.18 A primary driver of future economic growth and job creation will be innovation that is made possible through advances in science and engineering.19 Scientific discovery has also allowed the U.S. to maintain strategic military advantages.20 The U.S. investment in research and innovation allowed the U.S. to become the strongest economy in the world.21 The federal government supports scientific and technological advancement directly by funding and performing R&D and indirectly by creating and maintaining policies that encourage private sector efforts.

According to the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), the U.S. annual total of R&D spending has expanded steadily since 2010 (reaching $548 billion in 2017), due particularly to increases in business R&D.22 The business sector continues to perform and fund most of the overall R&D in the United States (representing 73% of R&D performance and 70% of R&D funding), as well as most of the applied research and experimental development.

According to NCSES, the federal government funded $130 billion in R&D in FY 2018, or approximately twenty percent of U.S. total R&D.23 Federal R&D funding has enabled America to build a successful research enterprise that fosters a free exchange of ideas, ensures research is rigorous and productive, and provides researchers assurances for receiving benefits for their intellectual capital. The federal government remains the largest source of support for the nation’s basic research (although the share has dropped below half since 2012) and is a sizable supporter of the nation’s applied research.24

Fifteen federal departments and 17 other agencies perform or provide funding for R&D in the United States. The majority of the federal R&D is funded by: the Department of Defense ($53 billion in FY 2018), Department of Health and Human Services ($37 billion in FY 2018), including the National Institutes of Health), Department of Energy ($15 billion in FY 2018), National Aeronautics and Space Administration ($11 billion in 2018), NSF ($6 billion in 2018), Department of Agriculture ($2 billion in 2018), Department of Commerce ($2 billion in 2018), and Department of Transportation ($1 billion in 2018).25

18 R.M. Solow, Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39: 312-320, 1957. 19 Vest, C.M., 2010, Rising Above the Gathering Storm Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5, National Academy of Sciences at https://www.nap.edu/read/12999/chapter/2 20 Tripp, Simon, 2013, The Impact of Genomics on the U.S. Economy, Batelle Memorial Institute, at https://www.unitedformedicalresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Impact-of-Genomics-on-the-US- Economy.pdf 21 Id. 22 Tripp, Simon, supra note 20. 23 Table 5. Federal obligations for research and Experimental development, by agency and type of R&D: FY 2018. (n.d.). Retrieved April 05, 2021, from https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/fedfunds/2018/html/ffs18-dt-tab005.html 24 Tripp, Simon, supra note 20. 25 Boroush, Mark, 2020, Research and Development: U.S. Trends and International Comparisons, National Science Foundation, at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20203/recent-trends-in-federal-support-for-u-s-r-d

8

Global Leadership

According to the NCSES, as of 2017, the United States performed the largest share of R&D (including federal and private sector investment), generated the largest share of R&D-intensive industry output globally, and awarded the largest number of S&E doctoral degrees in the world.26 However, other nations, particularly China, are rapidly increasing their investments in science and technology. Therefore, despite rising total R&D expenditures in America, concerted increases in foreign nations’ R&D efforts are beginning to challenge America’s long-standing leadership. In 1960, the U.S. alone represented 69% of global investment in R&D. Yet, by 2018 that share has dropped to 28%. From 2000 to 2018, China’s global share of R&D investment rose from 5% to just over 26%.27 A recent American Academy of Arts and Sciences report concluded that America is at a “tipping point” in R&D, and to fall behind even a few years in science and technology R&D would have significant consequences for our country’s economy, job creation, and national security.28 The report recommends significant growth in federal funding for R&D, especially fundamental research; changes in the R&D budget process to allow for long-term planning; streamlining burdensome regulations to increase research productivity; significant growth of a diverse, inclusive STEM workforce; transformation of pre-K-12 education; and a stronger partnership among federal agencies, universities, and industries.

Congress has taken several steps to maintain U.S. leadership in science and technology. Last Congress, Senators Wicker, Gardner, Baldwin, Peters, and Hassan sponsored the “Industries of the Future Act,” which became law in the FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).29 It requires OSTP to develop a plan to continue U.S. leadership in industries of the future, such as artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, quantum information science, synthetic biology, and next generation wireless networks and infrastructure. The 2021 NDAA also includes the National Artificial Intelligence (AI) Initiative, which among other things, directs OSTP to oversee the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Office to oversee the national AI strategy and coordinate federal agencies’ activities on AI across the government.30 The 2021 NDAA also includes the sustainable Chemistry R&D Act to establish an interagency R&D initiative co-chaired by OSTP to reduce the environmental impacts of chemical processes and products. It also directs NIST to commission a study of China’s growing influence over the development of international standards for emerging technologies.

Leader Schumer introduced the Endless Frontier Act with Senator Young and others to maintain global competitiveness in technology and manufacturing. The bill would authorize $100 billion

26 Beethika Khan, B. (n.d.). SCIENCE & engineering indicators. Retrieved April 05, 2021, from https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/executive-summary 27 John Sargent, Jr., Global Research and Development Expenditures: Fact Sheet at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44283?source=search&guid=039e599a592243d8b0e246b7d215b4eb&index=2

28 The Perils of Complacency. (2020, September 01). Retrieved April 05, 2021, from https://www.amacad.org/publication/perils-of-complacency 29 P.L. 116-283 30 OSTP, The White House Launches the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Office, January 2021, available at https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/white-house-launches-national-artificial-intelligence- initiative-office/.

9

over five years for technology research at the National Science Foundation and $10 billion over five years for regional technology hubs at the Department of Commerce.

However, there are also growing threats to the security of research efforts. In November 2019, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs released a bipartisan report highlighting threats to U.S. R&D, finding China’s use of talent recruitment programs abuses American research and expertise unfairly for its own economic and military gain.31 In May 2019, OSTP established the Joint Committee on Research Environment (JCORE) to coordinate federal efforts to mitigate foreign exploitation of U.S. R&D and develop a strategy for balancing engagement without restricting innovation.32 Under the Trump administration, the JCORE emphasized transparency through the sharing of data and methodology, integrity and ethical conduct, balanced workload, and effective coordination across the research enterprise.33 The 2021 NDAA included a section requiring disclosure of all funding sources in applications for federal research and development awards.34

Disparity in Science Funding

The federal government funds approximately $130 billion in R&D each year.35 According to data from the NCSES, just under one third (approximately 27%) of total federal R&D funding in 2018 went to two states – Maryland and California. More than half of federal research funding is received by just six states and D.C., while the bottom ten states combined had only one percent of public research spending.36 The uneven dissemination of federal funds for R&D has changed little over the decades. A similar disparity exists for NSF funding. In FY 2018, the top seven states received half the funding, while the bottom ten states received approximately 3 percent of the funding.37 California, for instance, received more than $17 billion from all R&D agencies and $774 million from NSF in FY 2018, while Wyoming received approximately $49 million overall and $15 million from NSF. In other words, California, alone, receives about as much money from NSF as 25 states combined. 38

31 US Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Investigations, Threats to the US Research Enterprise: China’s Talent Recruitment Plans, Staff Report, pp. 1-4, available at https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2019-11-18%20PSI%20Staff%20Report%20- %20China's%20Talent%20Recruitment%20Plans%20Updated2.pdf 32 IEEE-USA Staff, InSight, OSTP Establishes Joint Committee on the Research Environment, October 2, 2019, available at, https://insight.ieeeusa.org/articles/ostp-establishes-joint-committee-on-the-research-environment-jcore/ 33 Executive Office of the President of the United States, National Science & Technology Council, Joint Committee on the Research Environment, Summary of the 2019 White House Summit of the Joint Committee on the Research Environment (JCORE), November 2019, available at, https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key- Issues/Science-Security/Summary-of-JCORE-Summit-November-2019.pdf 34 P.L. 116-283 § 223 35 https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20203/recent-trends-in-federal-support-for-u-s-r-d. 36 NCSES, Federal obligations for research and development, by state or location and selected agency: FY 2018, https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/fedfunds/2018/html/ffs18-dt-tab091.html. 37 NCSES, Federal obligations for research and development, by state or location and selected agency: FY 2018, https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/fedfunds/2018/html/ffs18-dt-tab091.html. 38 NCSES, Federal obligations for research and development, by state or location and selected agency: FY 2018, https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/fedfunds/2018/html/ffs18-dt-tab091.html.

10

This funding gap between higher education institutions is, in part, driven by the disadvantages that smaller universities face when competing for grants with major institutions. Large universities have staff members who both help researchers navigate the grant application process and assist with technical grant writing.39 Additionally, because smaller universities generally prioritize teaching, lack of administrative support in grant writing causes even greater challenges, with professors struggling to maintain both excellence in the classroom and the production of competitive grant applications.40

Last Congress, Senators Wicker and Cantwell, amongst others, introduced S. 3704, the Advanced Technological Manufacturing Act, which would, among other things, direct the National Science Foundation (NSF) to establish a series of pilot programs to expand the number of institutions that can successfully compete for NSF grants.

STEM Education

The National Science Board, in its Vision 2030 report, has concluded that to maintain its global leadership in science and technology research and development, the United States must continue to cultivate a diverse workforce by expanding domestic talent and continuing to attract and retain global talent. The number of underrepresented groups in the American STEM workforce has increased in the last decade; however, this growth has not kept pace with the changing demographics of the nation.41

A list of the hundreds of STEM education programs and investments across the federal government, including the dozens of NSF programs, is collected by OSTP.42

Coronavirus

Under the Trump administration, OSTP coordinated R&D efforts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including funding related to understanding the spread of the disease and vaccine development. OSTP also held regular engagements with science ministers and chief science advisors of other countries to share information on the COVID-19 response. OSTP also led an interagency effort on data modeling to improve decision-making in response to the pandemic.43 On January 21, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order on ensuring a data-driven response to the COVID-19 pandemic.44 The order directs OSTP, amongst other agencies, to

39 The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Big Research Small College”, Feb, 19, 2008, at https://www.chronicle.com/article/Big-Research-Small-College/45957. 40 American Association for the Advancement of Science, Big thinking at Small Universities, Sep. 10, 2010, at https://www.sciencemag.org/features/2010/09/big-thinking-small-universities. 41 National Science Board, Vision 2030 Report # NSB-2020-15 at https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2020/nsb202015.pdf.

42 Progress Report on the Implementation of the Federal STEM Education Strategic Plan. (December 2020). 2020 Progress Report on the Implementation of the Federal STEM Education Strategic Plan (archives.gov). 43 OSTP, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Responds to COVID-19 Outbreak, available at https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/aipcorp/images/fyi/pdf/ostp-coronavirus-response.pdf 44 EO 13994 (January 2021).

11

designate a senior official to serve as their agency’s lead to work on COVID-19- and pandemic- related data issues.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act45 included over $6 billion in funding dedicated to R&D activities, including $16 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation and general COVID response and prevention measures and $75 million for the National Science Foundation (NSF) for Rapid Response Research Grants to fund near real-time cellular, physiological, and ecological research on the COVID-19 virus.46 The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 includes $150 million for NIST and $600 million for NSF for COVID research activities.

Cybersecurity

OSTP oversees the federal cybersecurity R&D strategic planning through the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program. The NITRD Program, originally created by the High Performance Computing Act of 1991,47 is an interagency coordinating program made up of 23 federal agencies totaling more than $6 billion in information technology (IT) R&D budgets.48 The 2021 NDAA (P.L. 116-283) included two Commerce Committee cybersecurity bills. S. 2775, the HACKED Act, sponsored by Senators Wicker, Cantwell, Thune, and Rosen, enhanced the Commerce Department’s role on advancing the cybersecurity workforce of the private and public sectors. S. 3712, the CYBER LEAP Act, sponsored by Senators Wicker, Rosen, and Gardner, directed the Commerce Secretary to carry out prize competitions to tackle cybersecurity challenges.

Oceans

In July of 2010, President Obama signed the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes Executive Order, also known as the National Ocean Policy (NOP).49 The NOP intends for federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and stakeholders to manage the ocean just as forests, grasslands, and other shared resources are managed on land, through a process called Marine Spatial Planning.50 President Obama’s Executive Order called for the formation of nine regionally focused Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) to better manage the

45 P.L. 116-136. 46 Tony Samp, Steven Phillips, and Nathaniel Bell, “US $2T COVID-19 package includes significant R&D funding,” April 10, 2020, available at https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/insights/publications/2020/04/us-2t-stimulus- covid-19-package-includes-significant-randd- funding/#:~:text=The%20massive%20US%20stimulus%20package,and%20development%20(R%26D)%20activitie s 47 P.L. 102-194 48 Networking Information Technology Research and Development Program, available at https://www.nitrd.gov/about/ 49 Office of the President, Obama Administration, Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, Executive Order, July 19, 2010, available at, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/files/documents/2010stewardship-eo.pdf 50 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. Available at: https://cmsp.noaa.gov/ (Accessed Nov. 30, 2017).

12

nation’s oceans and coasts. Of the nine regions highlighted in the NOP, five created regional data portals, including Alaska, the West Coast, South Atlantic, Mid Atlantic, and Northeast.51

While marine planning is a tool that can be used to promote offshore energy and industry, many marine industries quickly became concerned that RPB-led marine planning would lead to ocean zoning too heavily favoring conservation. Additionally, there were concerns that the strict focus on environmental and water quality could impact upstream sources of pollution such as urban development and agriculture, including forestry and animal feedlots.52 Finally, the lack of process outlined in how RPBs would make determinations gave rise to worry that industry concerns would be ignored.

During the Obama administration, there were multiple Congressional efforts to prohibit funding to implement the NOP, or otherwise prohibit agencies from taking any action as a result of the marine spatial planning component of the NOP.53 None of these efforts became law. Even if implemented, bills to prohibit funding for implementing the NOP would be difficult to enforce because the NOP was seen as merely an organizing document for activities that the agencies would have already done.54

Regional Ocean Partnerships (ROPs) are formed through Governor’s agreements with varying levels of federal participation. They existed in five regions before the Obama NOP was signed and enjoyed broad support as regional bodies that helped to coordinate ocean activities.55 The NOP recommended the establishment of RPBs to implement Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, but was silent on how the RPBs should interact with the existing Regional Ocean Partnerships and other programs. Because of the similar sounding name, the Regional Ocean Partnerships were defunded in an effort to stop the NOP and marine planning.56 After Regional Ocean Partnerships were defunded, there have been bipartisan efforts to codify the partnerships in recognition of their importance.57

In June 2018, President Trump signed an Executive Order to advance the economic, security, and environmental interests of the United States through improved public access to marine data and information, efficient federal agency coordination on ocean related matters, and engagement with marine industries, the science and technology community, and other ocean stakeholders,

51 Data.gov, Ocean – Regional Planning Efforts. Available at: https://www.data.gov/ocean/ocean-regional-planning- efforts (Accessed Dec. 1, 2017) 52 House Committee on Natural Resources, President Obama’s National Ocean Policy. Available at: https://naturalresources.house.gov/oceanzoning/ (Accessed Dec. 1, 2017). 53 112th Cong.: H. Amdt. 1079 to HR 5326; H.R. 6091; 113th Congress: H Amdt. 237 to H.R. 2231; H. Amdt. 315 to H.R. 2609; H.R. 2642; H. Amdt. 483 to H.R. 3080; H.R. 3895; H.R. 4304; H. Amdt. 751 to H.R. 4660; H.R. 4899, etc. 54 Congressional Research Service, “Chronology of National Ocean Policy Activities 2000-2016.” Harold F. Upton, May 13, 2016. 55 The Nature Conservancy, “Marine Planning: Practical approaches to ocean and coastal decision-making.” Available at: http://www.marineplanning.org/Policy/USA_Regions.html (accessed Dec. 12, 2017). 56 H. Amdt 6 to H.R. 152, 113th Cong. (2013). 57 S. 2166, 116ht Cong. (2019).

13

including Regional Ocean Partnerships.58 This EO rescinded the Obama-era National Ocean Policy and created an Ocean Policy Committee at OSTP. The Trump Ocean Policy Committee was codified in the NDAA for FY 2021.59

National Oceanographic Partnership Programs (NOPP): Established in 1997, the NOPP facilitates partnerships between federal and non-federal entities to address ocean science and technology priorities. The NOPP allows for collaboration on issues that span agency jurisdiction and allows entities to pool funds for large projects.60 Over the last 20 years, the NOPP has invested more than $480 million via competitive grants to support over 200 research and education projects spanning a broad range of topics in ocean research, including the development of ocean observation systems, ocean exploration, earth systems modeling, and marine resource management.61 The 2021 NDAA62 made targeted improvements to the NOPP, which, once implemented, will elevate NOPP oversight to the White House’s Ocean Policy Committee and improve partnerships with non-governmental entities to further advance large-scale collaborations in ocean research.

Ocean Mapping, Exploration and Characterization: The ocean covers 71% of the Earth’s surface,63 facilitating commerce and sustaining diversity of life, food, energy, medicine and other services essential to global prosperity. Despite these benefits, our understanding of the ocean and the natural processes occurring at the seafloor have been limited due to difficulties operating in the deep sea. Over the past few decades, advancements in technologies, such as artificial intelligence and robotics, have made it possible to explore the oceans at deeper depths, at higher resolutions, and at a faster pace.64,65,66 As of January 2020, 54% of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone remains unmapped.67 OSTP can serve in a coordinating role to enhance ocean mapping.

58 Executive Office of the President, Trump Administration, Ocean Policy to Advance the Economic, Security, and Environmental Interests of the United States, Executive Order 13840, June 19, 2018, available at, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13640/ocean-policy-to-advance-the-economic- security-and-environmental-interests-of-the-united-states 59 P.L. 116-283 60 National Ocean Partnership Program, “Promoting Partnerships in Oceanographic Research”, at https://www.nopp.org/ (accessed February 14, 2020). 61 Ibid. 62 P.L. 116-283 63 Pauline Weatherall et al., “A new digital bathymetric model of the world’s oceans,” Earth Space Science, vol. 2, no. 8 (June 2015), p. 331–345, at https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015EA000107. 64 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “Exploration Tools,” at https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/technology/technology.html (last visited 10/29/2020). 65 National Research Council, “Ocean Science Series,” 2009, at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13353/ocean-science- series. 66 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “The Roles of Research and Technology in the Changing Ocean Economy: Proceedings of a Workshop-in Brief,” 2020, at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25810/the- role-of-research-and-technology-in-the-changing-ocean-economy 67 NOAA, “NOAA announces new progress report on mapping U.S. ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes waters,” press release, March 17, 2020, at https://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/updates/noaa-announces-new-progress-report-on- mapping-u-s-ocean-coastal-and-great-lakes-waters/.

14

Environment

OSTP oversees the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment, which includes the U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP).68 GCRP coordinates research amongst 13 federal agencies that conduct or use research on global change. U.S. GCRP conducts the National Climate Assessment (NCA), a review of the science and impacts of climate change across the United States. In 2013, the Obama administration introduced several OSTP initiatives focused on environmental initiatives. On June 25, 2013, President Obama unveiled his comprehensive Climate Action Plan. As part of this plan, OSTP was tasked with ensuring that the best science, technologies, research, data, and tools were used to implement the Climate Action Plan.69

On January 27, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order on climate change, which directed OSTP with the responsibility for ensuring scientific integrity across federal agencies. The OSTP Director is directed to review the effectiveness of agency scientific-integrity policies and assess agency scientific-integrity policies and practices going forward.

Space

Prior to the revival of the National Space Council under President Trump in 2017, OSTP served as the primary driver of space policy for the White House. Under President George W. Bush, this primarily focused on the response to the Shuttle Columbia accident and the Vision for Space Exploration, and the 2006 National Space Policy.70 The renewed push for beyond-low-Earth- orbit human exploration led to the creation of the Constellation Program, and what eventually became the Orion Crew Vehicle and Space Launch System. During President Obama’s terms, this included the 2010 National Space Strategy and the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee (“Augustine Commission”) that led to the cancellation of the Constellation Program for human deep space exploration.71 The role of OSTP regarding space policy under the Biden administration remains unclear, although a memo detailing plans for the National Security Council stated that national security memoranda will replace space policy directives.72

Telecommunications

OSTP plays a role in the federal government’s interagency work promoting connectivity and advance communications networks. In October 2018, President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum directing several agencies, led by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), to develop a national strategy for spectrum policy that

68 Global Change Research Program, available at https://www.globalchange.gov/. 69 OSTP Initiatives, available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ostp/initiatives#Climate 70 White House, Bush Administration, Executive Order, A Renewed Spirit of Discovery, January 14, 2004, available at: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/space/index.html . 71 White House, Obama Administration, OSTP Initiaitives, available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ostp/initiatives; Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, NASA Archived (2009). Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee - Final Report (nasa.gov) 72 Memorandum on Renewing the National Security Council System, The White House (February 4, 2021). Memorandum on Renewing the National Security Council System | The White House

15

accelerates America’s deployment of 5G.73 In May 2019, in response to the Presidential Memorandum, OSTP along with the Wireless Spectrum R&D (WSRD) Interagency Working Group, released a report on Research and Development Priorities for American Leadership in Wireless Communications. In addition, OSTP simultaneously released a report on Emerging Technologies and their Expected Impact on Non-Federal Spectrum Demand. In 2020, the White House and the Department of Defense collaborated to identify and make available federally held spectrum suitable for repurposing for commercial 5G use.74

OSTP has also participated in federal efforts to expand broadband connectivity. Through the Broadband Opportunity Council75 and the American Broadband Initiative,76 agencies have sought to coordinate resources, including funding opportunities, and expand access to federal assets.

73 Presidential Memorandum on Developing a Sustainable Spectrum Strategy for America’s Future, October 25, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-developing-sustainable- spectrum-strategy-americas-future/. 74 White House and DOD Announce Additional Mid-Band Spectrum Available for 5G by the end of the Summer, Department of Defense, August 10, 2020, https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2307275/white-house-and-dod-announce-additional- mid-band-spectrum-available-for-5g-by-t/. 75 Broadband Opportunity Council Report and Recommendations, August 20, 2015, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/broadband_opportunity_council_report_final.pdf 76 Milestones Report, American Broadband Initiative, February 2019, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-developing-sustainable- spectrum-strategy-americas-future/.

16