The Untold Story of the CHIPS and Science Act
Daniel Goetzel is currently a Practitioner-in-Residence at Harvard Kennedy School’s Reimagining the Economy project. Prior to his work at Harvard, he was Program Director of the National Science Foundation’s Technology, Innovation and Partnerships Directorate. He also authored a Day One policy memo focused on fostering the next generation of small business leaders. The piece that follows is an oral history of the establishment of the NSF’s Regional Innovation Engines Program – a key part of the historic CHIPS and Science Act.
The CHIPS and Science Act was signed into law on August 9, 2022. It was the largest technology and industrial policy program in modern history, investing hundreds of billions of dollars into research, manufacturing, and American competitiveness.
When the government announces flagship programs like this, a bill signing or a ribbon cutting is often all the public sees. They rarely see the quiet, often messy work that goes into creating, passing, and implementing a major piece of legislation. This piece is an attempt to change that by digging into the CHIPS and Science Act and the NSF Regional Innovation Engines (NSF Engines) program.
While much of the media coverage and debate around the bill has focused on the multi-billion dollar incentives to large corporations like TSMC, Samsung, and Intel, the CHIPS and Science Act had a complementary focus and multi-billion dollar investment in R&D and economic development, spanning everything from chips and AIto battery storage and biotech. One investment vehicle that came out of the bill was the National Science Foundation’s Regional Innovation Engines, an up to $1.6B program aiming to create the industries of the future in communities that were historically ignored in past tech booms.
Contribute your own story about Regional Innovation Engines here.
Americans trade stocks instantly, but spend 13 hours on tax forms. They send cash by text, but wait weeks for IRS responses. The nation’s revenue collector ranks dead last in citizen satisfaction. The problem isn’t just paperwork — it’s how the government builds.
While it seems that the current political climate may not incentivize the use of evidence-based data sources for decision making, those of us who are passionate about ensuring results for the American people will continue to firmly stand on the belief that learning agendas are a crucial component to successfully navigate a changing future.
In recent months, we’ve seen much of these decades’ worth of progress erased. Contracts for evaluations of government programs were canceled, FFRDCs have been forced to lay off staff, and federal advisory committees have been disbanded.
At a recent workshop, we explored the nature of trust in specific government functions, the risk and implications of breaking trust in those systems, and how we’d known we were getting close to specific trust breaking points.