The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, or “the stimulus”) totaled approximately $787 billion. Of this, approximately $21.5 billion (2.7 percent) was for the support of R&D—$18 billion for the conduct of research and $3.5 billion for facilities and equipment.

Why R&D as part of the stimulus? Because it employs people (that’s what we do with federal research grant funding), but more importantly, because it lays the foundation for America’s world leadership. Consider my own field, computer science: just about every sector of the information technology industry can trace its roots to innovations arising from federally-sponsored research. The challenges that our nation faces today—in information technology, energy, health care, transportation, and other fields – will only be surmounted with a vigorous program of R&D.

ARRA R&D funding was distributed across the full spectrum of federal science agencies. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) received the lion’s share: $10.4 billion. The National Science Foundation (NSF) was next, at $2.9 billion, followed by the Department of Energy (DoE), at $2.4 billion, and others. Awards are only just beginning to be made—quality is ensured through a highly competitive peer-reviewed proposal process that inserts some unavoidable delay in the loop.

So, how’s it going? NIH is the only agency with an easily accessible database of ARRA R&D awards. As The Seattle Times recently reported, the University of Washington currently is tied with the University of Michigan for the largest dollar value of first-year ARRA R&D awards from NIH: $99 million. (Most research awards extend over multiple years, but the NIH database reports only the first year of funding.)

It’s worth reflecting on how remarkable this is. Here are the numbers for a dozen top-ranked institutions nationally:

First-Year NIH ARRA Research Funding for
12 Universities With Top Research Medical Schools
As of 10/5/2009

Annually for several decades, the University of Washington has ranked among the top few institutions in the nation in federal research obligations—research at UW brings $1 billion to the state annually, employing thousands and enriching the education of thousands more. This NIH ARRA research award performance is consistent. However, despite this extraordinary performance, lack of institutional diversity hurts Washington State overall. Our state has 385 NIH ARRA research awards: 241 to UW, 48 to the Hutch, 21 to Seattle Childrens, and a total of 75 to all other organizations. California, by contrast, has received 1,708 awards; Massachusetts 1,226; New York 1,136; Pennsylvania 807; Texas 668; North Carolina 556; Illinois 502; Maryland 476; Ohio 449; Michigan 395.

What’s the bottom line? America’s competitiveness, and Washington State’s competitiveness, will be dramatically enhanced by R&D funds awarded as part of the stimulus. Our ability to tackle society’s grand challenges depends on it.

Comments | Reprints | Share:        

I’d like to throw out a few factoids for your consideration:

1. Washington is a high-tech state. For example, we rank 4th among the 50 states in the number of individuals in science and engineering occupations, as a proportion of our workforce.

2. However, most of these high-tech workers are imported from other states. We rank 36th among the 50 states in bachelors degrees granted as a percentage of the 18-24 year-old population, and 27th among the states in Ph.D’s awarded as a percentage of the 25-34 year-old population.

3. This under-investment in higher education disadvantages kids who grow up here (who are denied the opportunity to prepare for high-tech jobs) and smaller companies (which must recruit from the local workforce).

4. All states are facing severe budget problems this year. But different states are dealing with them in different ways.

5. In Washington, higher education is slated for far deeper cuts than in any other high-tech state. In other words, a system that already disadvantages smaller companies and kids who grow up here is going to get far worse. See the chart below, and more information on how Washington’s budget proposal compares with peer states by clicking here.

6. This craziness could be addressed by making different budgetary choices (as all other high-tech states seem to be doing), and/or by allowing tuition to rise in order to avoid reducing capacity (UW tuition, even with an increase double what the Governor and the State Senate have proposed to allow, would still be the lowest among Global Challenge State peer institutions – less than $8,000 per year for a top-tier education; federal and institutional financial aid increases would maintain affordability).

7. You’ve got to decide what sort of future you want for your kids and your state. And then tell your legislators – you can find them here.

Comments (1) | Reprints | Share:        

Washington’s economy is one of the most technology-intensive in the nation. Software. Precision agriculture. Aerospace. Biomedicine. E-tailing. New media. Alternative energy. Public and private research institutions. Even narrowly defined, the technology sector is responsible, directly or indirectly, for nearly 50 percent of the jobs in Washington. East to west, north to south, we are driven by innovation. It benefits all of our citizens. It defines our future.

That’s why this year’s Presidential election, and tonight’s debate, are so important to Washington. There are stark differences between how John McCain and Barack Obama would steer our nation’s science and technology enterprise and how those differences will affect our economy.

More than 60 American Nobel Laureates released a letter on Sept. 25 urging support for Senator Barack Obama. Here is part of what they said:

“This year’s presidential election is among the most significant in our nation’s history. The country urgently needs a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness. We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”

These Nobel Laureates support Senator Obama with good reason. We need strong leadership to implement the kinds of changes that will drive the science and technology industries of our nation and our state. To that end, Senator Obama has promised to appoint a highly qualified science advisor who will report directly to him. That position was abolished under George W. Bush. Senator Obama has also pledged to appoint the nation’s first chief technology officer. Senator McCain, on the other hand, has made no such commitment to ensuring that he will seek the best science advice available.

When Senator Obama was looking for science advice to guide his campaign, he called upon the experts. It was recently revealed that three of his top science advisors have Nobel prizes: Peter Agre in chemistry, Robert Horvitz in medicine, and Harold Varmus, the former head of the National Institutes of Health, in medicine. The McCain campaign, despite being asked many times by the press, has declined to identify its science advisors.

Our nation’s economic future depends upon continuing to be the best place to develop innovative products and services and the best place to build new businesses and jobs around innovation. Senator Obama has laid out detailed plans to ensure continued leadership in research and for giving American producers the incentives they need to get ideas into the market.

Consider, for example, energy. Senator McCain claims to have a plan for getting the nation off of fossil fuels, but a close look reveals that he is banking on more oil drilling, developing new nuclear plants, offering a prize for developing more advanced batteries – and he chose a running mate who doubts the contribution of fossil fuels to global warming. Senator Obama, on the other hand, has offered a detailed set of programs including increases in research, a balanced set of energy options, and strong incentives for implementation of new energy ideas.

Never has it been so critical that we have a President who understands science, technology, and innovation – critical to America, critical to the State of Washington, and critical to you and your children. I urge you to become informed on these issues, and to give them appropriate weight in your decision on November 4.

Comments (6) | Comments (1) | Reprints | Share:        

By now you’ve seen the 2008 Milken Institute “State Technology and Science Index.” Washington ranks fifth, behind Massachusetts, Maryland, Colorado, and California. Not too shabby? Let’s take a look under the covers.

At the outset, it’s important to acknowledge that all such rankings have a huge bogosity quotient—they’re highly sensitive to the precise criteria that are evaluated, and they’re subject to gaming. Still, there are probably some things to be learned.

The Milken index has five components:

—Risk Capital and Entrepreneurial Infrastructure, where Washington ranks 4th.

—Technology and Science Work Force, where Washington ranks 4th.

—Research and Development Inputs, where Washington ranks 8th.

—Technology Concentration and Dynamism, where Washington ranks 8th.

—Human Capital Investment, where Washington ranks 16th.

Each of these, in turn, has between 10 and 21 sub-components, listed at the bottom of the Web pages. There’s a huge wealth of detail available—I urge you to take a detailed look.

For now, though, let’s not spend any time on the first and second components, where Washington ranks 4th among the states (in both cases, up several notches from the most recent previous ranking, carried out in 2004). Or even on the third and fourth, where we rank 8th.

Instead, let’s focus at the other end—”Human Capital Investment”—where we rank 16th, by far our worst performance.

Don’t take solace in the fact that we’re in the top third of the states. Yes, we beat out North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, Idaho, West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Arkansas. But that’s not the competition. Every state that you’d think of as a tech competitor—and many that you wouldn’t—dominated us.

Here is our ranking on a few of the sub-components:

—Average Math SAT Scores: 25th among the states
—Average Verbal SAT Scores: 25th among the states
—Recent degrees awarded in science and engineering per 1,000 civilian workers: 35th among the states

Here’s the message, in a nutshell: Our state is doing an outstanding job at competing nationally and globally in the 21st century economy. But we’re doing it by importing talent from elsewhere. This includes me, and it probably includes you.

Our K-12 system is failing our kids—it’s not preparing them for, or teaching them to aspire to, 21st century careers. And our higher education system also is failing our kids—there is insufficient investment in bachelors-level education, and even within that, insufficient investment in science and engineering.

In other words, we’re failing our kids. We’re creating 21st century jobs, and they’re going to other people’s kids.

Ask your state legislator what he or she is planning to do about this. If you don’t, who will?

Comments (1) | Reprints | Share:        

…is coming soon.

Comments | Reprints | Share: