US Congress proposes alternative to COMPETES Act
- PDF / 383,048 Bytes
- 2 Pages / 585 x 783 pts Page_size
- 55 Downloads / 179 Views
oses alternative to COMPETES Act
T
he protocols for federal research funding in the United States are currently a topic of significant debate in the U.S. Congress. In November, Republicans in the House of Representatives released a discussion draft of the FIRST Act, which stands for Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology— their proposed alternative to the expired COMPETES (America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science) Act. The FIRST Act addresses federal research and education priorities of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and interagency science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs—all of which provide significant support for materials research. COMPETES was first passed in 2007 and reauthorized in 2010 with broad bipartisan support. The law authorized increased government investment in basic sciences with a goal of doubling the basic sciences research budget over the course of a decade. While appropriations for COMPETES never met authorized amounts, the law nevertheless established the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) to fund high-risk/ high-reward science, created programs to develop STEM education, and boosted the budgets of the institutions conducting basic sciences research—namely the NSF, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, and NIST. Although COMPETES is broadly credited with keeping U.S. basic sciences research globally competitive, it was allowed to expire in September 2013 amid government turmoil just before the October 2013 U.S. government shutdown. The expiration of the law left the door open for
proposed alternatives and in a November 13, 2013 hearing, the Research Subcommittee of the House Science Committee examined the FIRST Act discussion draft as an alternative to COMPETES. The hearing largely focused on the “national interest” requirement for NSF grants outlined in the discussion draft of the FIRST Act. Prior to awarding research funds, the NSF would be required to publish a written justification of how each grant is in the national interest, is worthy of federal funding, and achieves one of the six strategic goals outlined in the FIRST Act. These goals include increased economic competitiveness, advancement of health and welfare, development of a STEM workforce and increased public scientific literacy, increased partnerships between academia and industry, promotion of the progress of science, and support for national defense. Research and Technology Subcommittee Chair Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.) supported the changes to the NSF review process in his opening statement saying that the proposed legislation “improves transparency of taxpayer-funded research by making more information available
MRS BULLETIN
•
VOLUME 39 • MARCH 2014
•
www.mrs.org/bulletin
209
NEWS & ANALYSIS SCIENCE POLICY integrity, Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), Ranking Me
Data Loading...
