Bridging the Sciences: Research and Innovation Research Partners Forum
February 1, 2007

Thank you, Alan, and thank you all for the warm welcome. I particularly want to thank Mary (Woolley, Research!America president), Bill (Leinweber, Research!America executive vice president) and Research!America for inviting me to speak today. One of the most rewarding aspects of my job is being able to engage in dialogue with creative and passionate advocates for science and technology.

When I thought about my remarks for today, I realized that I would follow what was certain to be a very lively discussion on research and innovation—and a very hungry crew. And sure enough, I was right! I see you are well on your way to satisfying your hunger, so I’ll turn my full attention to the issues.
I thought that I would venture further afield and speak briefly today about the larger context for bridging the sciences. Then I hope we can have a lively interchange.

As Director of the National Science Foundation, I have a big stake in this discussion. You might say we are a small agency with a big mission. Although our budget constitutes only about 4 percent of total Federal spending on research and development, NSF funds nearly 20 percent of all research conducted in colleges and universities in the physical and computer sciences, engineering, social sciences, earth science and the non-medical life sciences.

In fact, the National Science Foundation is the only Federal agency with an overarching mandate and horizon. Part of our job is to keep all fields and disciplines of science and engineering research healthy and strong. But strong is not enough because the flip side of what we know in science and engineering is everything we don’t know. So NSF must continually focus on the frontier. Above all, we must generate ideas, mark out the creative path, or solve a fundamental research question.

If we let our focus shift away from the frontier, we would leave a vacuum in America’s research future because there is no other Federal agency that has an across-the-board research mandate.

In a science and technology based world, to retreat from the frontier is to put the nation at peril. In order to emphasize our quest to basic, transformative research at the frontier, the National Science Board will be issuing a report, now in draft form, on transformative research that further clarifies our direction and determination.

There is an Einstein story that captures this pursuit of transformative research better than any definition. Dr. Einstein and another professor are listening to a research proposal from a student. The student leaves. The professor says, “You know, that’s the craziest idea I’ve ever heard.” Einstein says, “You know, it may not be crazy enough.”

The nation needs bold efforts, at the most demanding levels of creative enterprise, to sustain a leadership role in the global economy. We have always been remarkably adept at this in America. And now is not the time to be complacent. Research and innovation are key to this endeavor.

We know that research is the most powerful force driving innovation and productivity in America and around the globe. Economic returns to R&D investment are significant, and growing. Only recently the Bureau of Economic Analysis used NSF data to determine the impact of R&D on the U.S. economy. The Bureau concluded that R&D contributed 6.5 percent to economic growth between 1995 and 2002. Our nation’s science and engineering talent and research investments—both private and public—are clearly America’s hidden savings.

America faces new challenges in this era of global transformation and integration. Discovery and innovation, the forces driving U.S. economic growth, take place in a dynamic, complex, and competitive international environment. Other nations are raising the ante with heavy investments in research and education. In this climate of red-hot competition, “business as usual” is simply not good enough.

Maintaining U.S. leadership in science, engineering, and technology is critical for our future prosperity and quality of life. And fundamental research, across all disciplines, is vital to that leadership.

At NSF, we often talk about the contributions to medical progress made by fundamental discoveries in the physical sciences and engineering.

Such fundamental research laid the foundations for the development of MRI and precision laser eye surgery, for example. To cite a more recent case, the pace at which scientists were able to map the human genome depended directly on the pace at which computer scientists were able to advance the speed of computation. The contribution of mathematical research, especially network theory, to the field of bioinformatics is another case in point. This pathway between fundamental research and sometimes surprising and unexpected applications in other fields of research is still alive and well.

But a sea change has occurred in the conduct of science and engineering that is not only shortening the time between fundamental research and its application, but blurring the boundaries between the two.

More and more, fundamental research at the interface among disciplines is proving to be the most fertile territory for discovery. Due in part to the power of our newest information and communications technologies, interdisciplinary research and collaboration are becoming the norm, rather than the exception in many research endeavors.

A significant number of new, hybrid, interdisciplinary fields emerged during the latter part of the 20 th Century. In the biosciences they include bio-physics, bio-chemistry, bio-materials, bio-informatics, mathematical biology, computational biology and bio-geo-chemistry. Similar counterparts are found in the neutral sciences, such as neuron-physics, neuron-chemistry and neuron-economics.

There are now emerging several new entrants in the 21 st Century, such as neuromorphic engineering, social cognitive neuroscience and nano-eco-toxicology.

Likewise, one now finds mathematics originating from the physical and social sciences, especially economics being applied to a wide range of enquiries in the biosciences, from the molecular to the organismic scales. These include: statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, information theory, game theory to include Nash equilibria, graph theory, network theory, and advanced algorithms for computer modeling, simulation and visualization.

Such fields not only span disciplines, but also cross sectors and national borders. Overarching IT technologies have increased the pace of discovery by orders of magnitude and more importantly have increased the level of complexity we are able to investigate and understand.

One example is the ecology of infectious diseases program jointly sponsored by NSF and NIH. The program funds interdisciplinary projects to study how large-scale environmental events--such as habitat destruction, biological invasion, and pollution—alter the risks of viral, parasitic and bacterial diseases emerging in humans and animals. The studies help public-health officers, wildlife managers, and farmers to control the spread of diseases among humans, domestic and wild animals, and crops. This fundamental research is producing new knowledge in the fields of ecology and biological diversity as well as in epidemiology and medical science.

Just this past March, for the first time, researchers visualized the changing atomic structure of a virus by calculating how each of the virus' one million atoms interacted with one another every femtosecond—that is, one-millionth-of-a-billionth of a second. The work involved collaboration between researchers at the NSF-funded National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) and researchers at the University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana supported by NIH. Advanced techniques such as this require the expertise of computer scientists, biologists, engineers, and mathematicians.

I should also mention the program on health and environmental implications of nanotechnology. This is a collaboration among NSF, EPA, NIST, NIH, and USDA.

The Biomedical Informatics Research Network or, BIRN— funded by NIH—is an innovative, geographically distributed virtual community of shared computing, networking and cyberinfrastructure resources. BIRN offers tremendous potential to advance the diagnosis and treatment of disease. In one project, researchers at BIRN are using the resources of two NSF-supported supercomputing centers, and the TeraGrid network supported by NSF, to identify brain disorders. NSF is now developing a national strategy for petascale computing to give scientists and engineers the resources needed to tackle their most computationally intensive research problems.

The point is straightforward: In today’s research environment, we can’t afford to neglect any avenue of discovery.

I could provide many other examples. But I want to venture much further afield; in fact, all the way to Polar Regions.

Only days ago I was “on the ice.” That’s how old hands refer to being on the continent of Antarctica. I was there with Sir Edmund Hillary and Prime Minister Helen Clark of New Zealand, among others, to celebrate the 50 th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year. As part of IGY activities in 1958, Sir Edmund led the expedition that successfully completed the first overland crossing of Antarctica first attempted by Shackleton by way of the South Pole. The IGY also marked the founding of New Zealand’s Scott Base and the U.S. McMurdo Station—two of many such stations dedicated to international cooperation in scientific research.

IGY entranced America's youth and galvanized America's innovative powers in ways that created a legacy that lives on today. That legacy ranges from scientific earth satellites to the development of a generation of world-class scientists and engineers who drove our knowledge-based economy forward for the next half-century. As importantly, perhaps, IGY established the notion of scientific diplomacy—the idea that scientists and engineers, working in international partnership could solve problems of mutual concern and could further the interests of peace and cooperation among nations.

In February, the U.S. will launch International Polar Year (IPY)—actually two years, from March 2007 to March 2009. As the lead agency supporting Polar research, NSF will provide U.S. leadership for IPY activities through support for an intense research and public education effort.

You may be wondering how polar research relates to the topics we’re exploring today. Let me explain.

One focus for NSF research during the IPY will be “Life in the Cold and Dark.” The title refers to research on the microbial and other life that thrives in polar climates. Understanding the mechanisms that permit this adaptability could have far-reaching implications for medical science and industry. It was one such “extremophile,” discovered in the hot springs at Yellowstone National Park, that made possible the use of the polemerase chain reaction for replicating DNA—a major contribution to the biotechnology industry.

But there are other more immediate—and broader—reasons for our interest. In the Polar Regions, we are discerning the outlines of environmental change, from sea ice extent, retreating glaciers, shifting patterns in flora and fauna, to environmental observations by Arctic natives.

What is more, such change--whether environmental, biological or social—has implications for the rest of the globe. Polar change ripples across the planet on a spectrum of time-scales, through the atmosphere, oceans, and living systems—including humans.

We do not yet fully understand the causes of what we are observing. Now is the time to change this. New tools make possible the needed observations and synthesis of knowledge.

They range from satellites to ships to sensors, and from genomics to nanotechnology, information technology, and advances in robotic technologies.

For these reasons, climate change research and environmental observations will be a major focus for NSF IPY activities. In most cases, U.S. scientists will collaborate with scientists from other nations.

We are only beginning to understand the full extent of the impacts that climate change may have on human health, the spread of infectious diseases, and the economy. Some recent studies also show that cyclical events can also play an important role in extreme weather frequency and intensity.

Just recently, NSF-funded scientists have presented substantial evidence that rising sea surface temperatures can increase the intensity and frequency of hurricanes. Clearly, the bridges between climate research on the one hand, and human health and the economy on the other are well worth fortifying.
I’ll conclude with one further thought. The Research!America report released today adds weight to the notion that the public is increasingly savvy about the importance of a strong science and technology enterprise to our nation’s future. This recognition of the benefits that research and innovation deliver to Americans is very encouraging, and I applaud Research!America for its efforts.

But a troubling dilemma remains. Despite this recognition, American children are performing below international averages in science and mathematics proficiency. Furthermore, fewer students are opting to pursue degrees in science—particularly in the physical sciences and engineering. Meanwhile, science and math skills needed in the contemporary workplace are rising rapidly, while at the same time, young people are adopting the newest information and communications technologies at an astonishing rate. There is a profound disconnect here; namely embracing the benefits of science and technological innovation, without understanding and valuing what is required to produce them—and more importantly, not participating in their discovery, development, and production.

Science and engineering education have always been part of NSF’s mission as an equal partner to research. The challenges ahead are very steep, and we will need the resources and expertise of the public at large to meet them. As we all consider how to increase innovation, we should also address the need for innovation in education. This may take us out of our comfort zones, but that, after all, is what innovation is about.

Thank you. I am eager to hear your questions.

Published on 2/12/2007