2
NSF and Its Role in Fostering Extraordinary Engineering Impacts on Society
Since it was created in 1950, NSF’s support for science and engineering research has contributed to the development of everything from barcodes to Doppler radar to CAD/CAM devices to web browsers to land- and space-based telescopes, said Jeffrey Yost, research professor in the history of science, technology, and medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. “Many of the most impressive advances have come out of the Directorate for Engineering,” he observed, and major NSF initiatives originated with this directorate. Furthermore, NSF funding has supported the research of many of the nation’s leading scientists and engineering, including many women and members of minorities underrepresented in science and technology, and many of these individuals have served in top leadership positions. “To truly reach potential in science and technology requires diversity and inclusion,” Yost said. “Diversity promotes richer perspectives and better science.”
NSF’s role in engineering research will be even more important in the future. Major laboratories funded by companies like General Electric, Bell Labs, and IBM have shrunk or ceased to exist or are doing less basic research, and newer companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft have likewise emphasized applied research. In addition, the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act (Public Law 117-167) passed by the US Congress and signed by President Joe Biden authorizes billions of dollars in federal funding for “creating helpful incentives to produce semiconductors” and for boosting America’s leadership in science, technology, and innovation. Earlier in 2022, NSF created a new Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships, aimed at increasing the nation’s competitiveness by guiding the findings of basic research toward innovation. The new directorate further emphasizes the value of engi-
neering research and education and of the synergy between science and engineering to the benefit of society, Yost said.
The first session of the symposium, which Yost moderated, featured two speakers who discussed background on NSF’s history of funding engineering research, the establishment of the Directorate for Engineering as the home for this support, and how NSF engineering research and education funding affect not just technological innovation but society and culture.
THE APPLIED INNOVATION CHALLENGES FACING NSF
In his report Science, the Endless Frontier (Bush, 1945), released just a few weeks before the end of World War II, Vannevar Bush defined scientific research as America’s new frontier, observed William B. Bonvillian, lecturer in the Departments of Science, Technology, and Society and Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Bush’s essential proposal was that government increase scientific capital, which had played a decisive role in winning the war, by supporting academic research. Science would no longer have to provide immediate, tangible results, as it did during wartime. Bush put science “back into the ivory tower,” said Bonvillian, to produce the knowledge and insights that would drive, in theory, technological innovation.
Science, the Endless Frontier adopted a linear model of technological development in which investments in basic science lead to technological advances that meet a broad spectrum of national needs. But many analysts have pointed out that the ties between science and technology are much more complex and multidirectional, Bonvillian observed. “They are interactive and dynamic,” he said. “Bush’s model institutionalizes the valley of death between research and later-stage development. We have basic research on one side of the valley and applied research and innovation on the other side, with the valley of death in between, and very few bridging mechanisms across that gap.”
The formation of NSF was delayed until 1950 over disputes about its scope and autonomy. During this period, other federal agencies built research programs based on models that differed from the one initially adopted by NSF. The Department of Defense, for example, funds basic scientific and engineering research but also early-stage development, prototyping, demonstration testbeds, and even initial market creation. Defense Department funding “stretches down the entire pipeline,” said Bonvillian. Similarly, other federal agencies focused research on the goals
of their specific missions, which has produced a decentralized R&D system in the United States that provides opportunities for researchers to fit their research into different agencies and funding opportunities. On the other hand, there are few collaborative connections between agencies, a weakness in the US system.
Since the creation of NSF, a large number of policy innovations, both at NSF and elsewhere, have sought to connect research more closely to the nation’s innovation system, Bonvillian observed. These include the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, the Bayh-Dole Act, the Advanced Technology Program, the R&D tax credit, the advanced research projects agency model, energy innovation hubs, the advanced manufacturing institutes at the Departments of Energy (DOE), Commerce, and Defense, DOE’s technology transfer offices, and technology development loan programs. These and many other innovations have sought to foster use-inspired research that is more closely connected to technological applications.
As an example, Bonvillian cited the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), an attempt to build cross-agency coordination in the decentralized US system. For the NNI, a central office was created and different federal agencies contributed to the overall effort. Though congressional appropriations committees took different approaches over time, this model is a “promising approach” for tackling multidisciplinary problems beyond the purview of any one agency, Bonvillian said. Similarly, several programs in the life sciences launched during the Obama administration, such as the BRAIN (Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) Initiative, brought together agencies in collaborative efforts, and “the directors of the 16 advanced manufacturing institutes are on the phone together at least every other week, trying to figure out common strategies and success models together.”
The United States has long had industrial economic policy in such areas as agriculture, energy, transport, aeronautics, and biomedicine, but three drivers are now moving NSF toward its own emerging industrial innovation policy: the rise of China as an economic and military competitor, the need to decarbonize the economy, and the COVID-19 pandemic. “All of these have been driving a more connected system,” said Bonvillian. For example, the federal effort to develop a COVID-19 vaccine—Operation Warp Speed—involved guaranteed production contracts to industry, a portfolio approach where government picked key vaccine technologies, a technology certification program, integra-
tion of federal officials into companies to speed development, and governmental control of distribution systems—“dramatic interventionist activity at later stages in the pipeline.” Similarly, the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act authorized $52 billion in new fabrication facilities for semiconductors and advanced semiconductor R&D, while other contemporaneous bills have included authorizations for new energy technology development and demonstration projects, the securing of supply chains in critical technology areas, and tax and consumer incentives for the implementation of energy-efficient technologies.
These policy innovations have had a significant effect on NSF. For example, the establishment of the Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnership in 2022 and the science portions of the CHIPS and Science Act opened “a whole series of new avenues for NSF,” said Bonvillian. “Many argued that this would create a culture clash with NSF, but we do have a long history of running basic and applied programs within some agencies. They can complement each other.” Still, major questions remain. How can NSF best transition away from its basic science peer review culture in the new directorate? How can it support underperforming regions and regional innovation centers? How can NSF work best with the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department on the 10 regional innovation hubs called for in the CHIPS and Science Act? The United States has had only limited success in creating regional innovation clusters, which means that new approaches will be needed. Also, the bill is lacking in certain provisions, such as educating a technically skilled workforce, support for manufacturing, protection of supply chains, and financing provisions.
“Can a technology development effort be created in a basic science agency?” asked Bonvillian. “We’re going to find out.” Today the United States faces a major challenge in the rise of China, and “the national security effect of that competition is not going to be lessened by the US falling behind…. We’re going to have to find a way to keep up.” But circumstances are different than in the past. At the end of World War II, the United States was a dominant manufacturer, which is not the case today, China is. “We’re going to have to start thinking about… strengthening a science-based innovation system while also adding to that a manufacturing innovation system focus.”
Scientists and engineers will have to master new skills and act as change agents connecting across societal systems, he said. They will need to learn how to connect research foundations with subsequent
stages, including production; they will have to map supply chains and fill in gaps; they will need to do a better job of technology certification and validation to speed technologies into place; and they will need to use the flexible contracting mechanisms now used in defense R&D and financial mechanisms for scaling up new technologies.
Bonvillian made the case that “We’re going to need to look at innovation in a dynamic way and at the barriers and bottlenecks to the needed information flows and innovation flows. A scattered agency approach is not going to work. We’re going to need to tackle this scale-up problem and the financing behind it. And we’re going to need a whole new infrastructure for implementation that operates across agencies and uses a range of governmental assets. [There are] big tasks ahead, and NSF is going to need to be at the center of these.”
THE BROADER IMPACTS OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH
The world faces major global challenges, said Thomas Woodson, associate professor of Technology and Society at Stony Brook University, including climate change, inequality, war, population challenges, pollution, and privacy issues. “Engineering is a major part of the solution” to these problems, he said. “Not the whole solution or all solutions, but definitely engineering will play a major role in solving all these different challenges.”
However, to solve problems that matter to people, engineering needs to be inclusive. “You cannot solve global challenges with solutions created in wealthy countries, by wealthy scientists, for wealthy people. We need people from all over the world from diverse backgrounds solving these problems.”
Inclusive innovation can mean different things. Woodson studies inclusive innovation in countries around the world, inequality created by big data and algorithms, and STEM diversity—how to increase the number of people and types of people involved in STEM fields. “Some people are naturally talented in math and science and say, ‘Oh, yes, I want to be an engineer.’ But many people discover that it may not be their natural talent to be in science and engineering, but they have some of the skill sets and talents and tools to be great engineers as well. How do you get those people involved?”
As one way to gauge the inclusivity of engineering, Woodson has studied ways to categorize the broader impacts of research. One framework classifies broader impacts along an axis of immediacy—-
ranging from intrinsic to direct to extrinsic—and along another axis of inclusivity—ranging from universal to advantaged/status quo to inclusive (Woodson and Boutilier, 2022). On the latter axis, innovations can affect people locally or globally. Solutions to climate change help people regardless of whether they are rich or poor. Some innovations benefit the advantaged or act to maintain the status quo. Others may be geared toward marginalized communities, thereby including communities that had previously been excluded.
In terms of immediacy, some innovations are closely related to the research itself, while other impacts occur while conducting research. For example, a student training project that uses nature-based solutions to restore rivers and streams can have tangible benefits that are immediately apparent while also preparing students for a lifetime of contributions.
Broader impacts can occur at more immediate levels. Support for research typically also supports teaching, which means that teaching can improve through better courses and better understanding of how to teach students. Broader impacts can also take the form of collaborations within an institution, across institutions, or across countries. And the creation and maintenance of infrastructure, from large facilities to single instruments or datasets, “are so important to the development of science and scientists from around the world, [who] can use this infrastructure to do their own science.”
It is important for scientists and engineers to assess broader impacts. “What are the broader impacts of a symphony?” Woodson asked. “Well, its beauty, its creation, it’s something new and exciting. I think science and engineering can have [those kinds of impacts] as well.”
But engineers also need to be cautious, Woodson warned. He cited three examples of engineering problems—the sinking of the Titanic, the misidentification of dark-skinned faces by facial recognition software, and misinformation about why women and minorities pursue STEM careers in small numbers. “It’s easy to think that our solutions can solve all problems. It’s easy to be lulled into a false sense of security by our technology. So really thinking about the safety and some of the other challenges with technology is very important for engineers to do.”
Not everyone can spend four years in college to get an engineering degree. But people still need to understand how engineering works, including the use of systems thinking. “The world is complex. You pull on one thing, something else will move…. Engineering is all around us, so if you want to be able to function in this world, you need to understand how engineers think.”
FOSTERING MULTIDISCIPLINARY WORK
In response to a question from the moderator about how NSF can encourage partnerships between social scientists, engineers, and natural scientists, Bonvillian pointed to NSF’s funding of research on science policy, which, though modest, is unique among federal agencies and has provided “a spur to integration between the social sciences and science and engineering fields. Such studies will be especially important as NSF grapples with new industrial policy approaches, since the need to understand the societal impacts of new technologies will become even more important.”
Woodson agreed that partnerships between engineers and social scientists are critical—“engineering is too important to be left to the engineers.” The challenge is that engineers and social scientist work in different ways and use different languages. “It’s not about how smart you are. It’s a matter of how you describe things and understand the world.” This is not a new issue—C.P. Snow wrote about it in the 1950s (Snow, 1959)—but it has become even more pressing. “You don’t just want to have the same people in the room.”
He observed that face-to-face rather than online interactions can be particularly fruitful when people in different disciplines work together, although he added that engineers sometimes tend to not listen to other people or to outside perspectives. “One thing engineers need to do better is engage with the people engaging with decision makers. … They need to talk with people about how innovations will affect their lives, and people need to be involved in the research and decision-making stages.”
As Woodson said, companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Apple have different motivations than do NSF and other federal agencies. Instead of focusing on profits, NSF can ask whether technologies are safe and socially beneficial. At the same time, public-private partnerships can yield benefits that neither sector can do alone. For example, technology companies have lots of data, much more than individual scholars or laboratories can gather. Large collaborations of publicly funded scientists could compete with companies in these areas.
ADDRESSING GLOBAL PROBLEMS
As moderator Yost brought up the tension between NSF as a national agency and the global scope of many of the problems science and engi-
neering must address. Woodson agreed that the tension is real, because NSF needs to focus on problems that affect this country and “that impact our whole population, because the USA is a very diverse place. Something that impacts Nebraska and California and Texas and New York [can pose] very different problems.” Nevertheless, NSF also needs to look internationally, he said. For example, the United States cannot solve climate change or many other global problems by itself.
Bonvillian noted that NSF has long had an office focused on international collaborations, but the political reality is that Congress is inevitably going to focus on national problems. “It’s not bad to have a national focus, but given the level of problems and challenges we have, we’ve got to be able to reach outside and open that window in a variety of ways.” One area where the United States could improve is in tracking and analyzing advances made elsewhere. “In a period of increasing technological competition, that’s going to be increasingly important.” Recent history has also demonstrated the crucial importance of remaining connected to other innovation systems, as with the development of COVID-19 vaccines and therapies.
Woodson added that people from other countries continue to want to come to the United States to study and work and that “it is very critical to keep those channels open.” Being at the forefront in efforts to global challenges maintains America’s attractiveness as a destination for international researchers. International collaborations can also help instill a sense of humility in US researchers when they go to other countries, encouraging them to listen to others about the problems they face. An advantage for the United States is that it has “lots of friends,” Woodson said. Many countries around the world want to partner with America in innovation and manufacturing to make new technologies. “That’s a positive thing we have that we don’t want to lose as the world globalizes.”
OBSERVATIONS ON ENGINEERING’S IMPACTS
When asked about the most extraordinary impacts engineering has had on society over the past 50 years, Woodson observed that the internet has been transformative, in the same way that steam engines, electricity, and the automobile were transformative. Bonvillian broadened that observation to the entire wave of information technology in recent decades. And breakthroughs in the life sciences—from mRNA vaccines to synthetic biology to new cancer cures—signal a new wave of innovation. More generally, better integration of engineering, the physical sci-
ences, and the life sciences—a goal that NSF identified as one its “10 Big Ideas”1—could lead to the next big wave of technology innovation.
Bonvillian pointed out that engineering provides a huge opportunity space for NSF in today’s environment “because inherently engineering is going to be more connected to the applied side, not only the basic side.” At the same time, he emphasized the continued importance of basic research, even as a use-based innovation model is being added to a basic research model. “Our ability to do revolutionary breakthroughs is dependent to a very significant extent on our basic science capability and our ability to then transfer those revolutions into implementation. Obviously, we need to get better at that second stage, but remaining strong at that basic research revolutionary possibility area is key.” As an example of synergy, he mentioned that NSF was the funder of the research on which Google’s original search engine was built. “We always need to keep in mind the importance of that basic side and keep that strong as we work on making better connections.”
ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS OF DIVERSITY
The discussion considered several other forms of diversity. Bonvillian expressed a particular concern about the technical workforce. “It’s not just the engineering world that we need to worry about. We need to worry about the technical skills of a whole range of our population. That’s another dimension for diversity.” People need technical skills that will enable them to thrive as new technologies continue to transform the economy. “That’s a major project because we don’t have a workforce education system in the country…. We focused on college education, and for a while we assumed that we would reform everything by sending everybody to college. [In the process], we dismantled much of our vocational education system. We’re going to have to address this skilled technical workforce issue in ways that we haven’t before if we’re going to get to the kind of diversity and accompanying economic well-being that we really need.”
Woodson observed that increasing diversity is a “wicked problem” that requires a multifaceted approach. The solution goes beyond what NSF can do, to the entire educational system and more, even to such issues as housing. Steps have been taken, but they are “too slow.”
___________________
1 under “Growing Convergence Research,” https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/big_ideas/index.jsp
Diversity also relates to the locations where research is done in the United States. A bicoastal innovation system with a few stops in between “is not working for our country,” said Bonvillian. The CHIPS and Science Act calls for the Commerce Department to establish 10 regional innovation hubs organized around critical technologies. “It’s going to be a big challenge. We don’t really know how to do this well.” The Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) at NSF has pioneered in the distribution of research funds to universities in states that traditionally have not received much research support. Programs targeted to historically Black colleges and universities and other minority-serving institutions are also ways to get research dollars to professors who can influence large numbers of students who are underrepresented in science and engineering.
