Safeguarding the Bioeconomy (2020) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
8 Overall Conclusions and Recommendations
8 Overall Conclusions and Recommendations
Pages 339-360
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 339... ...
Lastly, the committee has identified associated economic and national security risks and policy gaps. This chapter provides the committee's overall conclusions and recommendations, integrating at a higher level the various topics covered in the report, and offers a path for safeguarding the U.S.
|
From page 340... ...
In addition to exploring the landscape of disciplines and activities associated with the life sciences, the committee holistically examined the ecosystem that translates basic biological research into products and services. Basic life sciences research often begins with public investment in research and training of scientists working in academic and federal research settings or within the research and development (R&D)
|
From page 341... ...
Having a standard and consistent definition could also enable the U.S. government to better assess the current state of the bioeconomy, develop strategies for supporting and safeguarding its continued growth, devise metrics and data collection efforts to track its growth and conduct economic assessments, and allow policy makers to keep abreast of advances that have the potential to pose new national or economic security challenges.
|
From page 342... ...
Thus, the committee identified six segments within the broad category of goods and services, which includes materials, business services, and consumer products. At this level, the following six segments are taken as an approximation of the bioeconomy, as best as can be determined from the available data, and recognizing that they incompletely capture the bioeconomy as the committee has defined it: genetically engineered crops/products; biobased industrial materials (which include the agricultural feedstocks used for fermentation and other downstream processes)
|
From page 343... ...
that this figure is an underestimation. And over the course of its analysis, the committee determined that significant data gaps were created by current classification and reporting mechanisms, which is sure to have an impact on the outcome of future valuations of the U.S.
|
From page 344... ...
The committee developed a subset of recommendations that would be most likely to expand and enhance data collection efforts to facilitate future valuations of the bioeconomy. Recommendation 2-1: The U.S.
|
From page 345... ...
bioeconomy, such as synthetic biology, are worth tracking because of the apparent growth and sense of expansion within the scientific community, but are not currently captured in any single code or set of codes to enable an accurate economic assessment. Given the importance of this classification system for tracking the economic data associated with various activities, one can imagine the usefulness of codes that would specifically track developments in synthetic biology, such as Synthetic Biology R&D Services, Consumer Biotech, Synthetic Biology Devices, and Biotechnology Automation.
|
From page 346... ...
bioeconomy, particularly given that it could be used to explore new data collection and reporting methods and develop new accounting procedures that, once accepted, could become part of standard national income accounting procedures. Recommendation 2-4: The U.S.
|
From page 347... ...
Therefore, a U.S. government coordinating body informed by nongovernmental bioeconomy stakeholders is needed to create and implement a national strategy that will sustain and grow the bioeconomy.
|
From page 348... ...
Furthermore, the committee identified the importance of engaging with nongovernmental stakeholders to inform this process. Examples of potential engagement strategies include the establishment of formal federal advisory committees, regular public convening activities, targeted outreach to different scientific communities and societies, and the use of public–private partnership agreements.
|
From page 349... ...
Setting a unified strategy for the bioeconomy informed by relevant governmental and nongovernmental bioeconomy stakeholders will enable meaningful coordination and alignment of individual agency efforts toward pursuing a common goal: sustaining, growing, and safeguarding the U.S. bioeconomy.
|
From page 350... ...
. These agencies would report out to the larger government-wide coordinating body called for in Recommendation 3 every 2 years, thereby enabling a comprehensive scan across the full scope of the bioeconomy.
|
From page 351... ...
Although the Farm Bill mandates that federal agencies and contractors purchase biobased products when doing so does not impose cost or performance penalties, no regular report is available through which to understand the progress or scale of biobased procurement. Updating the reporting mechanisms involved in the federal procurement of biobased products, setting procurement targets, and increasing funding for the program to enable increased awareness and standardized reporting -- such as a realtime public-facing dashboard to report federal progress in biobased procurement -- would go a long way toward stimulating the bioeconomy and supporting jobs in rural areas where many source materials are concentrated.
|
From page 352... ...
bioeconomy relies on a robust and well funded research enterprise that seeds innovation and supports a technically skilled and diverse workforce. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 explore the foundational role played by public investments in science and engineering research in driving America's research enterprise, investments that have built the university research and education system that continually produces more doctoral graduates than does any other country.
|
From page 353... ...
government should prioritize investment in basic biological science, engineering, and computing and information sciences. In addition, talent development, at all levels, to support these research areas should be a high priority for future public investment.
|
From page 354... ...
scien tific and technological enterprise, even as it inherently offers poten tial benefits to other countries as well. Policies intended to mitigate any economic and security risks posed by foreign researchers in U.S.
|
From page 355... ...
Both scientists and policy makers should thereby have some assurance that experts from both communities were able to evaluate the evidence underlying proposed security policies and to have an informed discussion of the potential consequences of those policies. Securing Value Chains and Examining Foreign Investments Conclusion: Securing value chains vital to the U.S.
|
From page 356... ...
government should convene representatives from its science and economic agencies who can access relevant classified information to provide security agencies with subject-matter expertise so as to (1) identify aspects of bioeconomy global value chains that are vital to U.S.
|
From page 357... ...
from digital intrusion, exfiltration, or manipulation. While large companies tend to be aware of traditional cyber concerns and have information technology infrastructures that provide protection, smaller companies and academic institutions may not always be aware that they, too, are targets for cyber intrusions.
|
From page 358... ...
Recommendation 8: Bioeconomy stakeholders should pursue membership in one or more relevant Information Sharing and Analysis Centers or Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations, or consider creating a new sector-based information sharing organization for members of the bioeconomy. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency within the U.S.
|
From page 359... ...
Although no entity currently performs this role for this sector, an information-sharing and analysis group, or perhaps a special-purpose consortium, could potentially serve as such an entity. Participation in an information-sharing group could additionally enable bioeconomy stakeholders to share experiences in detecting, mitigating, and preventing cyber intrusions, as has been done in many infrastructure sectors.
|
From page 360... ...
government should work with other countries that are part of the global bioeconomy to foster communication and collaboration. The goals of such international cooperation would be to (1)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.