The passage of the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act of 2022

From: "Wagner, Caroline"

Date: August 1, 2022 at 1:13:54 PM EDT

To: scientists@sciencelistserv.org

Subject: Message: Latest S&T policy developments thanks to Andy Reamer

Date: Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 5:02 PM

Subject: ISA Federal Industrial Policy Update -- July 31, 2022

To: Industry Studies Association listserv <industrystudiesassociation@lists.wsu.edu>

Happy Sunday, everyone. This week's headline, of course, is the passage of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. While the focus of media attention, understandably, was on the bill's CHIPS Division, focused specifically on expanding U.S. semiconductor manufacturing, the far larger Science part of the act (the Research and Innovation Division) provided a new, expansive, and ambitious framework for U.S. industrial competitiveness going forward. In particular, the bill:

Substantially reshaped four key federal R&D agencies -- DOE Office of Science, NIST, NSF, and NASA.
Authorized a new NSF Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP)"to advance research and development, technology development, and related solutions to address United States societal, national, and geostrategic challenges, for the benefit of all Americans."
Authorized a new National Engineering Biology Research and Development Initiative.
Sought to boost federally-funded technology transfer.
Sought to broaden participation in science among underrepresented populations.
Laid out a framework for crafting and implementing a national science and technology strategy.

Connecting dots across the 1,054-page bill, the newly mandated approach to a national S&T strategy works as follows:

By December 31, 2023, and every four years thereafter, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) shall conduct a Quadrennial Science and Technology Review, "a comprehensive examination of the science and technology strategy of the United States, including recommendations for maintaining global leadership in science and technology and advancing science and technology to address the societal and national challenges and guidance regarding the coordination of programs, assets, capabilities, budget, policies, and authorities across all Federal research and development programs." (Section 10613)
By December 31, 2024, OSTP shall submit to Congress a comprehensive National Science and Technology Strategy "to meet national research and development objectives for the following 4-year period." The strategy shall "include a description of strategic objectives and research priorities necessary to maintain and advance the leadership of the United States in science and technology, including in key technology focus areas, . . . [and] in technologies required to address societal and national challenges . . . ." (Section 10611)
The NSF Director--in consultation with the National Science Board, the head of the new TIP Directorate, and an OSTP-hosted interagency working group (to be described in a moment)--shall annually review and update the list of societal, national, and geostrategic challenges and the list of key technology focus areas that guide the national S&T strategy. In identifying key technology focus areas, the NSF Director is also to consult the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI Director. (Section 10387)
To move things along, Congress set the initial lists:
- Societal, National, and Geostrategic Challenges
  - National security
  - Manufacturing and industrial productivity
  - Workforce development and skills gaps
  - Climate change and environmental sustainability
  - Inequitable access to education, opportunity, or other services
- Key Technology Focus Areas
  - Artificial intelligence, machine learning, autonomy, and related advances
  - High performance computing, semiconductors, and advanced computer hardware and software
  - Quantum information science and technology
  - Robotics, automation, and advanced manufacturing
  - Natural and anthropogenic disaster prevention or mitigation
  - Advanced communications technology and immersive technology
  - Biotechnology, medical technology, genomics, and synthetic biology
  - Data storage, data management, distributed ledger technologies, and cybersecurity, including biometrics
  - Advanced energy and industrial efficiency technologies, such as batteries and advanced nuclear technologies, including but not limited to for the purposes of electric generation
  - Advanced materials science, including composites 2D materials, other next-generation materials, and related manufacturing technologies
The OSTP Director shall establish an interagency working group to "ensure that the activities of different Federal agencies"--specifically, the TIP Directorate, the Department of Commerce (particularly regional technology hubs, Manufacturing USA, and the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership), the Department of Energy (particularly national laboratories), and "[a]ny other program that . . . involves research development with respect to key technology focus areas"--"enhance and complement, but, as appropriate, do not duplicate, efforts being carried out by another Federal agency . . . ."

It all seems quite logical on paper. One might ask: Does the government have the capability to pull it off? Unlike traditional macroeconomic policy's reliance on a small group of highly credentialed experts, experience suggests that effective industrial policy design and implementation is a widely collaborative and ongoing public-private effort that incorporates contributions from those--at all levels--in federal agencies, trade associations, individual businesses, chambers of commerce, state and local governments, academic institutions, think tanks, and labor organizations. In a way, then, the success of this structured approach to a national competitiveness strategy is on all of us. Which should give readers additional reasons to respond to federal requests for public comments in their respective areas of expertise. That said, the government needs to develop its skills and reflexes in the realms of information gathering and analysis and relationship- and consensus-building. And it needs to learn when and how to let go of the long-standing prescriptive and procedures-based Great Society approach to public policy.

While Congress was codifying a new paradigm into law, other entities released additional pieces of the national competitiveness puzzle:

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on U.S. National Security And Economic Statecraft: Ensuring U.S. Global Leadership For The Twenty-First Century.
The State Department signed a Supply Chain Memorandum of Understanding With “Alliance for Development in Democracy” Countries: U.S., Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Panama.
The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security invited comments on National Security and Critical Technology Assessments of the U.S. Industrial Base.
GAO issued reports on:
- Semiconductor Supply Chain
- Reliability and Replicability of Federally-funded Research
CRS published a report on Federal Research Tax Credit: Current Law and Policy Issues.
BEA released U.S. Direct Investment Abroad/Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S., by Country and Industry, 2021.
The Census Bureau has a new experimental dataset, Business Dynamics Statistics of U.S. Goods Traders.

For those studying the healthcare industry, CMS invited input regarding the operation of Medicare Advantage Program (Medicare Part C).

Much more happened in individual sectors this week, but for those items you'll have to look below. ...

https://sciencelistserv.org/hyperkitty/list/scientists@sciencelistserv.org/thread/GRSDDEVX4KFJKRTJJVXABVMB35P6VBG5/

Forums