Meeting Biology’s “Sputnik Moment”
Biology is becoming a defining technology of the modern era: the bioeconomy is expected to contribute nearly 1.1 million jobs to the United States by 2030. Preparing the skilled workforce that our nation will need to fill these jobs requires a fundamental shift in how the field of biology is viewed. Biology is not merely a collection of facts to be memorized in school. Rather, it is a dynamic economic sector that provides opportunities for Americans of all skillsets, and that can generate creatively engineered solutions to persistent global challenges.
The Biden-Harris Administration can position the United States as a world leader in the emerging bioeconomy by funding modernized biology education, establishing world-class entrepreneurial hubs for biotechnology in non-traditional regions of the country, and supporting equitable access to industry-recognized certificates and work-based training. Through this comprehensive Built with Biology Plan, the federal government can prepare and invite more Americans into skilled jobs that support the bioeconomy. The social imperative for investing in the bioeconomy is at least as great as the economic one. We will build a better future for all Americans—including people of color, people with disabilities, and people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds—only by harnessing regional talent and growing robust bioeconomies in all 50 states.
Challenge and Opportunity
Scientific and engineering advances have positioned biology to become a core technology of the modern era. Sequencing the human genome is 10 million times cheaper than it was twenty years ago. Genome editing, which includes technology to read and write genetic codes, has redefined DNA as a programming language for cells: one that engineerable and available for updates in the same way that a computer’s code can be. Companies, universities, and government agencies are applying genome-editing tools to meet global needs in healthcare, agriculture, sustainable energy production, and environmental remediation. The economic impact of these efforts is already valued at nearly $1 trillion and is projected to increase for at least a decade.
The COVID-19 pandemic has placed the importance of the bioeconomy into stark relief. The pandemic proved without a doubt that biological threats can send the world into turmoil. But the development of multiple astonishingly effective COVID vaccines in record time—and the associated ramp-up of biomanufacturing plants to mass-produce vaccine doses on a global scale—also proved that bioeconomic innovations can solve society’s most pressing challenges. The unprecedented impacts of COVID-19 make today biology’s “Sputnik Moment.” 70 years ago, the manned moon landing elevated the status of math and physics, triggering lasting change in public education and motivating young people across the country to become scientists and engineers. So too has the pandemic emphasized the pressing need to modernize biology education, training, and investment.
Indeed, as the bioeconomy has grown, so too have its difficulties hiring appropriately trained workers. A recent survey, for instance, found that nearly 80% of industry leaders in the biopharmaceutical sector struggle to find workers with science, engineering, and technical skills. Other countries are rushing to fill this talent vacuum. China’s investment into the bioeconomy is especially noteworthy. An April 2020 report from the Brookings Institution noted that China “intends to own the biorevolution…and they are building the infrastructure, the talent pipeline, the regulatory system, and the financial system they need to do that.” In the United States, conversely, most high schoolers and college students are still performing the same rote biology experiments that they did decades ago.
We as a nation must rethink how we teach and talk about biology in order to remain competitive. We need new curricula that integrate digital technologies and computational thinking alongside core biology concepts. We need to invest in regional infrastructure—including labs, startup space, product accelerators, and more—that will support robust and inclusive bioeconomies to flourish in all 50 states. And we need to create career pathways that enable all Americans to participate in the industry that has anchored the battle against one of the greatest challenges of our time. Concerted federal investment in the bioeconomy will simultaneously advance U.S. scientific capacity, modernize U.S. education, bring good jobs to more people, cement U.S. leadership in key industries, and improve our nation and our world.
Plan of Action
The Biden-Harris Administration should support a four-part Built with Biology Plan. Modeled on Obama-Biden Administration initiatives related to computer science (CS4All), technical education, and entrepreneurship, the plan will accelerate the U.S. bioeconomy through investment in “M.O.R.E.” educational and workforce programs that build lasting knowledge, skills, and professional competencies in bioengineering, biotechnology, biopharmaceuticals, and related fields. The plan will also help advance many of the Biden-Harris Administration’s top priorities, from mitigating climate change to implementing lasting economic relief. M.O.R.E is an acronym for changes in:
- Mindset. From middle school through college, biology must be taught not merely as a collection of facts, but as a technical foundation for creatively engineering solutions to the world’s most pressing problems.
- Opportunities. American companies must be incentivized to recruit and retain local talent so that world-class bioeconomies can grow in all 50 states.
- Recognition. A coherent set of certificates and credentials must be developed to facilitate professional advancement in the biotechnology industry and in academic settings.
- Entrepreneurship. Bioeconomy hubs must flourish in places and for people traditionally underrepresented in science and engineering.
The sections below present recommended actions to catalyze change in each of these categories.
Part 1: Mindset
The federal government should move to establish biotechnology training as a core competency. In particular, the federal government should allocate persistent funding for relevant teacher training and high-quality instructional materials at the high-school level. A good goal would be introduce at least one million high school students each year to a modern mindset in life science by the year 2025.
Approaches to teaching high-school biology are remarkably similar around the country, and have remained relatively unchanged for the past 30 years. This temporal and spatial consistency both helps and hinders needed progress. Standardized education means that modernized approaches that succeed in one classroom are likely to succeed in another. But schools and educators alike may be resistant to depart from established curricula—especially when limited resources are available to help them make a shift.
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), for instance, were intended to improve K–12 science education for all students. But only 20 states have adopted these standards since they were introduced by the National Research Council in 2013. States forgoing adoption cite limited resources, underprepared teachers, and insufficient classroom time to implement new ways of teaching. Most enrichment programs that provide teacher training are expensive and require updated classroom and lab equipment, adding thousands of dollars to school budgets unless the programs are underwritten by private foundations.
A modern mindset in life science education—in which biology is perceived as both fascinating and engineerable—requires a pedagogical change beyond the NGSS. Simply updating standards is not enough. The challenge is to use existing, free, and/or low-cost resources to creatively reimagine how biology is taught, while respecting the constraints of overburdened educators and overstretched science programs.
The BioBuilder Educational Foundation serves as an excellent example of how this can be done. BioBuilder is a 501c3 organization that provides open-source curricular materials for teaching engineering biology at the secondary and post-secondary school level. BioBuilder trains teachers, provides online biodesign lessons for students, and develops investigative laboratory activities and simulations. Its open-access textbook has been translated by the publisher into Japanese and Russian and translated by local educators into Mandarin and Spanish. BioBuilder’s approach is a proven way to increase student engagement and open new opportunities in the bioeconomy for students who would otherwise face limited access.
To introduce a BioBuilder-like curriculum into every public school in America, the federal government should enhance the Department of Education budget with an additional $500 million to cover expanded investment in biotechnology education. This funding would supplement the Career and Technical Education (CTE) State Grant and the Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged (ESED) Block Grant programs for teaching engineering biology in vocational and comprehensive public schools. The federal government can also move to establish a national initiative for DNA coding modeled on the Obama Administration’s “CS4All” initiative. CS4All aimed to provide computer-coding experiences to all students by activating funds in the Department of Education and at the National Science Foundation, as well as by directly funding states to support computer-science education.
Part 2: Opportunities
The federal government should launch an interagency Biology Career Pathways initiative that helps connect biology learning to real-world opportunities. Coordinated by Department of Labor, Department of Education and the NSF, this initiative would support paid high-school internships, technical training pathways, and first jobs in the bioeconomy.
In 2012, the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services issued a joint letter to promote the use of Career Pathways, which they defined as “well-executed alignment of education, training, and employment” in ways that help students gain marketable skills. A substantial body of research indicates that meaningful work helps students explore careers, put classroom learning into context, and build professional capacities needed for future jobs.
Unfortunately, many career-training programs are developed without partnership from future employers. Inefficiencies and mismatches frequently result. For example, the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center, an economic-development and investment agency funded through public-private partnerships, connects high school and college students with prospective employers through an online platform and subsidizes up to 12 weeks of summer wages. But company policies often limit appetite and ability to hire summer interns. Similarly, dual-enrollment and career-pathway programs, along with more traditional types of career and technical education, enable high-school students to earn class credit while training in high-demand technical fields. However, job-placement options for students during these programs and upon graduation depend on the abundance and strength of local industry. This presents a “chicken-and-egg” issue for the emerging bioeconomy and limits options for students in rural or economically struggling areas where bioeconomy-employment opportunities tend to be scarce
The Biden-Harris Administration should inventory, improve, and expand funding for programs that offer industry-informed work experiences in the bioeconomy as a way to recruit and retain regional talent. Lessons can be learned from successful models such as the NSF’s Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program and the Department of Labor’s Youth Apprenticeship. Both programs emphasize collaboration among academia, industry, nonprofits, and government. Industry partners co-develop and co-deliver technical training offered through the programs, and then commit to hiring program graduates. This collaborative model has enabled community-college students to perform industry-relevant product development for credit at school, while incentivizing employers in high-growth sectors to offer work-based learning experiences for high-school, out-of-school, and working youth.
Coordination and partnership do not happen by chance. Federal support is needed to provide organizational solutions, convene stakeholders, build consensus, manage and evaluate programmatic efforts, and accelerate the adoption of successful models. The Biden-Harris Administration should therefore increase funding for key bio-focused federal programs. We recommend allocating an additional $50 million to the Department of Education budget for Biotech Innovation and Modernization, an additional $25 million to the Department of Labor’s Apprenticeship Program for paid bioeconomy internships, and an additional $35 million to the NSF to support bioeconomy education and workforce development.
Part 3: Recognition
The federal government should establish a new competitive grants program to create bioeconomy-specific certificates and credentials that validate the quality and experience of their holders. This effort should be administered by the NSF, with guidance from the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Individual advancement in the bioeconomy currently relies heavily on previously established professional networks and “pay-to-play” experiences, putting students who are traditionally underrepresented in science at a disadvantage. An accessible, industry-recognized credential is needed to level the playing field. An international competition in biotechnology called iGEM provides an example of what a bioeconomy credential might look like. The stated mission of iGEM is to educate students in modern biotechnology and to train them as independent researchers. But the value of participating in iGEM has grown beyond that. Past participation in iGEM is often used as a marker of commitment to biological engineering by undergraduate and graduate university admissions committees, and as a filter to narrow the field of applicants for internships and jobs at biotechnology companies.
But the cost for iGEM participation (estimated in 2015 to be $50,000 per team), as well as the technical sophistication required to be competitive, makes iGEM inaccessible to students from most high schools and colleges. Inequities are hence exacerbated by widespread use of iGEM participation as a de facto qualifying credential for academic programs and jobs in the bioeconomy.
A more inclusive alternative is needed. The federal government should work with industry leaders in the U.S. bioeconomy to define a recognizable credential, akin to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) certification and modeled on the Biotechnician Assistant Credentialing Exam (BACE) certificate, that is accessible to all U.S. students. With a modest allocation of $5 million (the same amount of funding it would take to support two iGEM teams per state for one year), federal agencies can create such a credential18 and develop a digital platform that connects (i) certificate-seekers to training providers, and (ii) certificate-holders to companies. In addition, open-access publications such as BioTreks, a peer-reviewed journal for high-school biological engineers, could be cultivated as an academic credential. Federal funding to index BioTrek issues and to provide small research grants that support high schoolers in carrying out scientific experiments will make it possible for all interested students to explore and publish their ideas.
Part 4. Entrepreneurship
The federal government should increase funding for the Department of Commerce Economic Development Association (EDA) to support regional programs and infrastructure needed to grow bioeconomy hubs. When combined with non-federal cost-sharing from states, companies, universities, nonprofits, and venture-capital groups, allocating $25 million per year for 3–5 years should be enough to kick-start bioeconomy hubs in a dozen new regions across the United States.
Successful precedent for this type of investment exists. A public-private investment of $10 million in 2013 established LabCentral as a shared lab and office facility for startup life-science companies in Cambridge, MA. Since then, LabCentral-incubated startups have raised $5.9 billion in private financing and created more than 2,000 jobs in Massachusetts. Other move-in-ready laboratory facilities for life-science startups have been built around the country, albeit mostly in locations with existing biotechnology clusters (e.g., North Carolina, California, and New York).
To encourage nationwide entrepreneurship19 and establish bioeconomy hubs in more rural communities and communities of color, additional funding should be allocated to a Department of Commerce grant program for regional alliances of academic, philanthropic, and business entities that aim to establish world-class biotechnology launchpads. This funding could, for instance, fund entrepreneurship workshops and grants, subsidize construction of shared lab space for startups, or provide incentives for faculty at local academic institutions to further develop their research discoveries into pilot programs, patents, and products. Over time, flourishing regional bioeconomy hubs will enable local students to pursue technical careers close to home wherever home may be, thereby distributing the benefits of the growing bioeconomy throughout the country.
Conclusion
The Biden-Harris Administration can position the United States as a world leader in the bioeconomy through a four-part Built with Biology Plan that (1) revises legacy approaches to biology education, (2) promotes work-based learning, (3) develops accessible and meaningful credentials, and (4) invests in regional bioeconomy hubs. As the editors of Nature Biotechnology wrote in a March 2021 letter,21 U.S. investment in the bioeconomy must “not only promote technical excellence, but also foster equity, ethics, dialogue and social responsibility in how the fruits of…research are deployed.” Changes to biology education and investments in career pathways and entrepreneurship, as outlined in this memo, are central to achieving those goals.
The incoming administration must act to address bias in medical technology at the development, testing and regulation, and market-deployment and evaluation phases.
The incoming administration should work towards encouraging state health departments to develop clear and well-communicated data storage standards for newborn screening samples.
Proposed bills advance research ecosystems, economic development, and education access and move now to the U.S. House of Representatives for a vote
NIST’s guidance on “Managing Misuse Risk for Dual-Use Foundation Models” represents a significant step forward in establishing robust practices for mitigating catastrophic risks associated with advanced AI systems.